Quote:
Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan
With respect, it is you who fails the word honesty test when you refuse to admit that some of the corporate-types you protect can be called greedy because (you believe) there is not an adequate definition.  |
I'm well aware ofthe term and what it means, and how you mis-apply it to other by inserting your own morality onto them, as if they are expected to simply accept that. The purpose of a corporation is to provide a return to it's investors. Thats why it exists. Calling them greedy for doing a good job (within the law) at what they exist to do it exactly the kind of political dishonesty I'm speaking of.
I do not defend lawbreakers. If you wish to call lawbreakers greedy, by all means, have at it. My defense is only for those who follow the law.
It all mirrors what I said in the posts above. You use words, you define them, and define who you say they should apply to and how they should apply (regardless of their actual meaning), then expect me to simply accept it as the word of God.
Again, define Needy in
real world, social policy terms. Give me SPECIFIC income levels, and specific policies of aid, who qualifies, how, why, the rules, etc, and we have a starting point for a legitimate debate on policy.
Continue to use empty talking-point phrases such as "needy", "poor" or "fairness", which provide no basis for a debate, as they mean only what you want them to mean at that moment to suit your politics, and we have no where to go and nothing of any substance to discuss.
Far FAR too much of politics is a Hollywood Show, and far too little an actual, specificly and narrowly defined discussion of policy, and who/why/how policy functions.