You have absolutely, positively, got to be kidding me. That is the most inventive phrase I have ever heard for "taxes."

:lol: :thumb:

But in conservative states those government programs are not supported like they are in liberal states.

 

It obviously comes down to the role government plays in the two ideaologies. I don't think anyone wants to see people in need left out so I take exception when that tag is put on conservatives.

I know exactly what you meant by it, so stop trying to spin it.

 

 

As to the rest, I can only say....:lol: :lol: :lol:

Come on, HB, like Arthur Brooks didn't make good points? The reason you believe "Stephen" might be because he reflects your views, but you can't just dismiss Brooks. Brooks actually put effort into it, "Stephen", not so much.

 

Give me proof that "Stephen" isn't a liberal and I'll retract my comment. :thumb:

 

There is no spin here. You are making a weak attempt to get me in trouble and it isn't working. This is the last time I will respond to anything involving that sentence. Post again if you must have the last word, that is fine. I'm old enough to know when to move on.

 

Arthur Brooks did a good job. I am not denying that. I'm sure he is a very smart man. Arthur Brooks has data. I am not denying that. "Stephen" looks at his research from a different view and points out some things that Brooks didn't do or didn't consider in his research. I don't know who is right or wrong. Actually, I'd say that it would be too hard to tell if a "conservative" or "liberal" actually gave more. It all depends on how you look at it IMO.

 

You made the claim that "Stephen" is a liberal, not the other way around. The burden of proof is on you. If you make that claim, you have to be able to back it up not me.

There is no spin here. You are making a weak attempt to get me in trouble and it isn't working. This is the last time I will respond to anything involving that sentence. Post again if you must have the last word, that is fine. I'm old enough to know when to move on.

 

Arthur Brooks did a good job. I am not denying that. I'm sure he is a very smart man. Arthur Brooks has data. I am not denying that. "Stephen" looks at his research from a different view and points out some things that Brooks didn't do or didn't consider in his research. I don't know who is right or wrong. Actually, I'd say that it would be too hard to tell if a "conservative" or "liberal" actually gave more. It all depends on how you look at it IMO.

 

You made the claim that "Stephen" is a liberal, not the other way around. The burden of proof is on you. If you make that claim, you have to be able to back it up not me.

So HB, when you call someone out on "personal attacks" it's OK, when someone calls you out it's a "weak attempt" to get you in trouble.

 

I think the data speaks for itself and Arthur Brooks did an excellent job of pointing out the discrepancies. It sure paints Conservatives in a different light than what you usually hear about them.