Wait, what.

I suggest you re read the conversations. You are the one who could not respond to 80% of the issues with your policies at all, let alone well. I seriously suggest looking again, and also remember - just because you cannot understand a rebuttal does not mean one was not presented, or valid.


Proof of your lack of skill can again be found in the very post I am responding to , where you assert that I dismissed the data. I did no such thing. What was clearly dismissed was not the data - I made no attempt to countermand the data itself - but rather your assertion that there was a correlation between the data and the "Fat Cats" you pictured right above the graph.

Furthermore, a study of grammar would inform you that the comments regarding geography were supporting arguments for the statement " That is not rich in many areas". The concept that cost of living varies widely is considered common knowledge.

Honestly, I can understand a lack of comprehension when it comes to complex arguments. But if you can or will not even discern the difference between attacking the data, and attacking your conjecture/assertions regarding said data - I suggest finding a different hobby other than debating economics or logic.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)