What does any of this have to do with anything we are talking about.

If I was trying to argue with you I'd simply say "No taxation without representation" (just about) everyone would know what I was referring to and you'd (have to...?)see how simple the point I was making was.

I fully acknowledged the poor presentation of my previous post to specifically avoid this response from you.

I'm not going to debate or discuss with you if your goal is simply to win an argument by changing the subject multiple times based on wild interpretations of otherwise rational statements or exhausting your combatant with your stubborn will and foolish teenage angst.

Have you been well?

No i'm not talking about that.. I'm talking about that little refund check that you get every year. People seem to forget about that.

&

People are taxed without being represented every day! I think it's obvious that congress does a poor job of representing the American people. I don't think that statement makes the point as blatantly obvious as you make it out to be. You can present your argument without being rude to jack and resorting to insults. Your behaviour shows you are more immature despite your age.

That was me pointing out how every time I get into a discussion with you, despite me not saying anything remotely personal, you turn around and turn it into a personal diatribe against me. It gets old.

This has nothing to do with you, you are completely ignorant to the context of my responses to Ethan.

On the topic, my point was that the fault is not because money was spent on any of your items but because it was taken from social security in the first place.

I can read just as well as anyone else, so unless you're communicating by pheromones I'm not completely ignorant, thanks.

For the record I meant all those things I listed to be things that suffered because of vigorous "defense" spending, not things money was spent on. God knows the money spent on education has not nearly been enough or allocated well enough, not to mention everything else. The budget is supposed to be a limited system, so in order to spend more on war (without asking for the public's help like they used to) the government has to cut things at home. I don't understand how we disagree.

I don't think we do, who said we did, again I was just saying that even simpler then arguing about why the money isn't there, why was it taken in the first place. Sort of a "Yes and" response.

As for Sleepy Jack, I'm sorry if I came off insulting, but I just mean that my frustration goes back a lot of discussions with him not just the few tonight.

Good reading: A System From Hell

It's not against you it's against the way the debate and discuss. You never want to talk about ideas, you or why you feel like you do, you continuously divert from the topic to argue minor points usually because of misinterpretation. And if it's getting old just don't respond and it'll go away.