How to argue like a liberal (and lose by default)
Maybe that should be the title of Ann Coulter's next book. Our visitor Cate left a somewhat incohesive comment at the end of my entry on Wal-Mart's attempt to open its own bank. And what was the most persuasive part of her babble?
"If you don't see a problem with that then something is wrong with you."
Wow! I don't know about the rest of you, but I was so thoroughly convinced by that one sentence alone. Is it any wonder that liberals always win arguments and always show the substance of their arguments? It's one thing to say "Q.E.D" after laying out a series of logical steps, but if you really want to get 'em, just say "something is wrong with you"!
Yeah. Right. (You have to say "Right" with the dryness of a really flinty, overly citric Pinot Grigio, like when Captain Kirk said it to General Chang.)
In any case, she complains that taxpayers would be subsidizing Wal-Mart because the FDIC had to insure the deposits. Notwithstanding that I oppose the existence of compulsory, centralized insurance for banks, she acts as if Wal-Mart would be the only recipient. What about everyone else today? By Cate's own standard, she's a hypocrite: the rest of us have every right to accuse her of being subsidized by our dollars, unless she uses a private bank that isn't FDIC-insured.
What about all the subsidies paid to all other industries? The billions given to ethanol producers in one year alone would far exceed any potential bailout for a Wal-Mart bank. Where is liberals' outrage about that?
Good lord. In what strange liberal world does Cate live? It's not reality, that's for certain. What's truly illustrative is that she doesn't understand that businesses, at least those that wants to grow, "invest in themselves" all the time. Yet Wal-Mart does not need a bank to "invest in themselves": it wants to open a bank to streamline its financial costs, which will allow it to pass the savings along in the form of lower prices for its customers.
The more I hear liberals criticize Wal-Mart, the more I am convinced it's because Wal-Mart provides goods at such low prices, not despite. Wal-Mart is helping people and making a profit doing so, helping reduce poor people's dependence on government's forcible redistributing wealth.
"If you don't see a problem with that then something is wrong with you."
Wow! I don't know about the rest of you, but I was so thoroughly convinced by that one sentence alone. Is it any wonder that liberals always win arguments and always show the substance of their arguments? It's one thing to say "Q.E.D" after laying out a series of logical steps, but if you really want to get 'em, just say "something is wrong with you"!
Yeah. Right. (You have to say "Right" with the dryness of a really flinty, overly citric Pinot Grigio, like when Captain Kirk said it to General Chang.)
In any case, she complains that taxpayers would be subsidizing Wal-Mart because the FDIC had to insure the deposits. Notwithstanding that I oppose the existence of compulsory, centralized insurance for banks, she acts as if Wal-Mart would be the only recipient. What about everyone else today? By Cate's own standard, she's a hypocrite: the rest of us have every right to accuse her of being subsidized by our dollars, unless she uses a private bank that isn't FDIC-insured.
What about all the subsidies paid to all other industries? The billions given to ethanol producers in one year alone would far exceed any potential bailout for a Wal-Mart bank. Where is liberals' outrage about that?
Good lord. In what strange liberal world does Cate live? It's not reality, that's for certain. What's truly illustrative is that she doesn't understand that businesses, at least those that wants to grow, "invest in themselves" all the time. Yet Wal-Mart does not need a bank to "invest in themselves": it wants to open a bank to streamline its financial costs, which will allow it to pass the savings along in the form of lower prices for its customers.
The more I hear liberals criticize Wal-Mart, the more I am convinced it's because Wal-Mart provides goods at such low prices, not despite. Wal-Mart is helping people and making a profit doing so, helping reduce poor people's dependence on government's forcible redistributing wealth.
posted by Perry Eidelbus at
8:26 PM
1 Comments:
I think Walmart should open Hospitals, and a few affordable Universities.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home