Trending
Understanding
an illogical argument
In his latest post, I was taken aback by the fabrications and outright non-facts in the writer's retort.
In Mr. Fisher's second paragraph, I attempted to fathom his connective reasoning but, as usual, was faced with typical incoherent thoughts.
Is it the fact that the money given to every American is comparable to the tax relief given to businesses, small and large? Businesses create jobs, unlike the government that seems intent on creating methods for further tax robbery. Yes, companies do use tax incentives to further their means of expanding which benefits its workforce and stockholders. Overbearing regulations and unbearable taxes diminish the benefits and hinder further development.
I know liberals hate conservatives who work in the private sector and love liberals' in the public sector. The former take the risk of building a company, the latter often get rich while on the public payroll. The Trump family operated their business interests long before President Trump was elected to office. The same cannot be said about Hunter Biden and the 'big guy'; men who attained their riches through the connections made through public offices. Trump himself actually lost money during his term in office. He even refused to accept a salary. Biden, on the other hand, has done everything in his power since attaining public office decades ago to enrich his family by using his backdoor threats upon others. The overall question needs to be addressed: how does a public servant become a multi-millionaire on a government salary?
Where is the example of conservatives taking from the needy? That argument is totally illogical. The needy take from the taxpayer, not the other way around. In many studies it can be found that conservatives actually donate more to charities than do liberals.
How misinformed can a liberal be? I disagree with the suggestion that the blue states send a bill to the red states that ship illegals to their locale. The blue states did create welcome zones, did they not by their status as sanctuary cities? That to me is an offer of welcome. I do agree the blue states could demand compensation for the benefits they offer to illegals but that compensation should be coming from those nations from which the illegals came from, not American states that did not welcome them in the first place.
When my grandparents and many other legal immigrants came to this county they did so in accordance with the laws that were presented to them by our immigration system. They did not jump off a boat or sneak in over or under fences. They obeyed our immigration laws. To compare them to illegals is an insult. They in fact had to prove they would not be a burden on the taxpayer. That is not the case with the illegals who continually place an unwelcome financial burden on the taxpayer.
To make an argument attaching the American Indian to legal immigration and to carry that to treaty obligations is an exact example of the far flung grab bag of socialist mind sets.
It has become the mantra to attack all gun owners but ignore the mental deviants who, in most cases, are illegal gun holders that are responsible for the attacks on schools and businesses. If liberals could show that legal gun owners are committing the devastating mayhem I might be willing to study their argument for any measure of validity but that is not attainable for such a statistic does not exist.
I will not get into the other insane arguments often tendered by the misstatements by the liberal writer. I do not lower myself into such an abyss.
Diane L. Logan
Mifflintown