On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:23:45 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Aug 25, 11:13*am, wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 07:54:16 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:





On Aug 25, 10:27*am, Frogwatch wrote:
On Aug 25, 10:21*am, Frogwatch wrote:

Are you sure you want a bill with this provision to pass?http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57435888264288...

I do not think including this was an accident but was intentional. *If
this passes, ALL small businesses, the driver of our economy will be
forced to close because we all make mistakes and will be fined the
maximum amount. *I believe this inclusion was intentional to destroy
the US economy and force us into socialism.
Kinda seems to be a whiff of blood and gunpowder in the air but I
cannot find the source.

first of all, the WSJ is hardly an objective source. it's a cheering
section for the folks who got us into this mess in the first place

further, it's their goal to oppose ANY provisions which level the
playing field in favor of the middle class. one person has called the
"WSJ" 'quaintly reactionary'. and it is.

Ad hominem argument.


said the only man in america who doesn't know the political
orientation of the WSJ.

hint: it aint the 'pennysaver'.

The circumstantial ad hominem is an informal fallacy and does not
serve as a valid refutation of the argument.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

On Aug 25, 12:58*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:23:45 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:





On Aug 25, 11:13*am, wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 07:54:16 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Aug 25, 10:27*am, Frogwatch wrote:
On Aug 25, 10:21*am, Frogwatch wrote:

Are you sure you want a bill with this provision to pass?http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57435888264288...

I do not think including this was an accident but was intentional. *If
this passes, ALL small businesses, the driver of our economy will be
forced to close because we all make mistakes and will be fined the
maximum amount. *I believe this inclusion was intentional to destroy
the US economy and force us into socialism.
Kinda seems to be a whiff of blood and gunpowder in the air but I
cannot find the source.

first of all, the WSJ is hardly an objective source. it's a cheering
section for the folks who got us into this mess in the first place

further, it's their goal to oppose ANY provisions which level the
playing field in favor of the middle class. one person has called the
"WSJ" 'quaintly reactionary'. and it is.

Ad hominem argument.

said the only man in america who doesn't know the political
orientation of the WSJ.

hint: it aint the 'pennysaver'.

The circumstantial ad hominem is an informal fallacy and does not
serve as a valid refutation of the argument.


IOW he's never heard of the 'wall street journal', doesn't read it and
doesn't know its politcal orientation

sheesh. how much education do these guys NEED?

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:13:36 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Aug 25, 12:58*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:23:45 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:





On Aug 25, 11:13*am, wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 07:54:16 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Aug 25, 10:27*am, Frogwatch wrote:
On Aug 25, 10:21*am, Frogwatch wrote:

Are you sure you want a bill with this provision to pass?http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57435888264288...

I do not think including this was an accident but was intentional. *If
this passes, ALL small businesses, the driver of our economy will be
forced to close because we all make mistakes and will be fined the
maximum amount. *I believe this inclusion was intentional to destroy
the US economy and force us into socialism.
Kinda seems to be a whiff of blood and gunpowder in the air but I
cannot find the source.

first of all, the WSJ is hardly an objective source. it's a cheering
section for the folks who got us into this mess in the first place

further, it's their goal to oppose ANY provisions which level the
playing field in favor of the middle class. one person has called the
"WSJ" 'quaintly reactionary'. and it is.

Ad hominem argument.

said the only man in america who doesn't know the political
orientation of the WSJ.

hint: it aint the 'pennysaver'.

The circumstantial ad hominem is an informal fallacy and does not
serve as a valid refutation of the argument.


IOW he's never heard of the 'wall street journal', doesn't read it and
doesn't know its politcal orientation

sheesh. how much education do these guys NEED?

IOW, you're a poor thinker.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

On Aug 25, 1:20*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:13:36 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:





On Aug 25, 12:58*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:23:45 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Aug 25, 11:13*am, wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 07:54:16 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Aug 25, 10:27*am, Frogwatch wrote:
On Aug 25, 10:21*am, Frogwatch wrote:

Are you sure you want a bill with this provision to pass?http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57435888264288...

I do not think including this was an accident but was intentional. *If
this passes, ALL small businesses, the driver of our economy will be
forced to close because we all make mistakes and will be fined the
maximum amount. *I believe this inclusion was intentional to destroy
the US economy and force us into socialism.
Kinda seems to be a whiff of blood and gunpowder in the air but I
cannot find the source.

first of all, the WSJ is hardly an objective source. it's a cheering
section for the folks who got us into this mess in the first place

further, it's their goal to oppose ANY provisions which level the
playing field in favor of the middle class. one person has called the
"WSJ" 'quaintly reactionary'. and it is.

Ad hominem argument.

said the only man in america who doesn't know the political
orientation of the WSJ.

hint: it aint the 'pennysaver'.

The circumstantial ad hominem is an informal fallacy and does not
serve as a valid refutation of the argument.

IOW he's never heard of the 'wall street journal', doesn't read it and
doesn't know its politcal orientation

sheesh. how much education do these guys NEED?

IOW, you're a poor thinker.


IOW you're a non-reader