Lead by example...
- Thread starter Cancel 2016.2
- Start date
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
1. my analogy deals directly with asking someone do something and then not do it yourself.
2. your analogy has zero to do with asking someone to something, thus, there can be zero equivalence in your false analogy.
it is why you refuse to answer a simple question posed repeatedly to you:
did bush tell parents they had to send their kids to iraq?
you can't face truth onceler.
Stop flailing. I made pretty clear that my analogy was philisophical, and regarding place of origin as opposed to practial implications.
It's too tough for you & SF. I get that.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
lol...so you admit your analogy doesn't even work unless you spin it with this novel theory that it is philosophical. that is the most desperate and dishonest spin i've seen in a while. the analogy doesn't work, period. you are just too stupid to realize it.
that is why you're too scared to answer my simple
"Novel theory?" Yikes; guess you haven't done too much study in the analogy dept.
And lots of "stupid," "dumb" & "retarded" out of you today. You feelin' self-conscious?
LOL
His analogy is spot on. You libtards are idiots
You mean liberal news people ignored it? Say it ain't so!
Why should anyone pay more than legally required,SuperHack?
No doing so doesn't make one a hypocrite either. See post#35 above.
This is just another of your mindnumbing attempts to discredit the President.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
nah...just giving you a taste of your medicine...funny how you get pissy and insecure about it...
you're like dixie....1/3 doesn't exist...philosophically...you're right down there with dixie logic..
LOL
Nah - you're just too dopey to get it.
It's funny, too, because it's pretty simple. But it's too much for your linear, very basic way of thinking.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
your analogy and the current issue have zero in common. bush never asked parents to send their kids to iraq. i can't believe i have to once again explain such a simple concept to you. no wonder my analogy confuses you, you don't have the first clue what an analogy is.
philosophical is just a lame dishonest spin by a desperate left wing hack who has only admitted he is wrong one time. you are too insecure to admit you're wrong, it hurts deeply so you dig yourself deeper and deeper into mental insanity trying to defend something that a 5th grader would know is not an analogy.
No need to get frantic. You just don't get it. It's about the intent of the person who is criticizing, and the expectation of a symbolic personal gesture to support a policy decision or desire.
It's too much for you. You've always had a simple mind; you can't change the way you think, so I don't blame you.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
here we are again with onceler claiming i'm frantic for merely replying to you. you often accuse people of this, the reality is, you are the one who is frantic. there is nothing in my post to indicate i'm frantic. that is nonsense. you just get very defensive when you're proven wrong. you lash out because you're very insecure about your intelligence.
the analogy is not about the person making the claim. you are trying to compare the two and it just doesn't work. they are not the same. but i'm sure you will continue channeling dixie and stick with the philosophical defense.
my analogy is completely accurate. that you don't see, nor can you explain how it is not accurate, once again shows you're projecting about a "simple mind". i've explained fully why your analogy is inaccurate, all you can do in response to mine is claim - yurt is dumb, yurt doesn't get it. good job onceler, 5 year olds are capable of that.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
No, the issue is clearly too tough for you. They are not the same. Again, one is asking that a President lead by example on something that is within his power to do and is very very very easy for him to do. The other is asking that a President exert power over two other adults and force THEM into taking action to support his policies. That is something that is not within his power. He doesn't control the other two adults.
It would indeed be symbolic for Obama to voluntarily pay those higher taxes he himself claims he should be paying. That is the point.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Again dear little Dung... it is 'so low' relative to what Obama thinks he should be paying. It is not 'so low' according to the rate structure I proposed. I know you are easily confused, but I have already explained to you the context that the phrase 'so low' was used in. Now, by all means, we know you are itching to create a straw man... have at it.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
You know what's really hilarious... if you wanted to learn from where I took the story from, you might have simply checked the OP where I linked to the article.
But no... you instead want to resort to more 'Fox did it' bullshit that moronic liberals cling to whenever their master is criticized.
Fascinating. Like watching Bill O'Reily telling the world how the President should have responded to a certain circumstance. The rightwing ego is unreal to behold.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Why is it that you and so many other liberals cannot comprehend simple words? I stated in the OP, at the very beginning that I understand that he is not legally required to pay more.
What I stated is that no one, not one single person is stopping someone from voluntarily paying more. So I stated, if someone is campaigning to raise taxes on the rich... why not lead by example and do so voluntarily? Show that you mean what you say. That you believe in what you say you want.
But I know, this very simple concept of leadership is lost on democrats/liberals. You are so willing to 'lead from behind' just like your master that you fail to grasp what real leadership looks like.