There are 7.8 million U.S involuntary part-time workers and there

are 5.6 million U.S. workers who are discouraged or dropped out.

On the other side of the coin there are 7 million on the payroll

here in the country. I don't understand how this country aside

from the tax base loss , the cost of the handouts to maintain

these poor people who are destitute. Where is the congress

that the same citizens gave their vote for to put into office.

This is a most un-equitable situation.

I owe an apology…I've been warned, by a fellow Conservative writer (who is nationally known, but whom, out of concern for his privacy, etc, shall remain nameless in your case), not to try to reason with some people in such sites as this (quote) "They are not interested in reason, only in making points in their own eyes, and having the last word".

However, as you can see, I'm still trying to stop an old habit of trying to understand and be understood which has drawn me into trying to do so anyway, and has evidently done so again in your case.

Therefore, for trying anyway, I apologize, and so it is my intention to stop trying with you, except only to urge us both to not say another word about this, again in the interest of unity, or at least mutual fallibility as human beings, and hope that unity, or at least human fallibility, provides you with the intelligence and wisdom to finally let it go at this and not say another word about it.

Now it is indeed done through my effort of admitting a mistake and apologizing in the interest of unity, or at least human fallibility, which would evidently remain unseen and undone except by this effort.

One – I did not challenge your piece, you challenged mine. Two – you have not substantiated one ounce of the convoluted points you were trying to make, you simply display a "sense" of something. Nonsense.

And 3. "Now, there you go again" Mike, hoisting yourself on your own petard. You convict yourself with your own words and I think it simply amounts to you not realizing what you have said. Dime a dozen.

I think you meant to stay on topic – you just forgot the topic you started with me. I specifically broke them down for you, and, hypocite that you are, you bury your head in another pike of tripe.

Done and done

The truly wise and intelligent will let it go at that and stop now instead of both staying off subject and continuing yet again.

I thought you might be an astute enough reader to see the phallacey of your own point, and then you majestically dignify my point by reaching into an arsenal of "Ditto's", albeit classics.

What a clever way to portray yourself as "well read" also. Sadly, you syntax gives way your limitations. You want to take a man on – speak plainly.

You aren't the sharpest tool in the tool shed and I thought your first shot across my bow a tad off base but I like to be a friendly adversary.

I'll break some of your first answer down for you Basically, you strove to establish,

1. I did little or no research! You failed to prove your point.

2. That I myself am a ditto head. Pull out the "Dittos" from my piece.

3. That my "ditto head" analogy is "A FALSE PREMISE" followed by a convoluted run on sentence that smacks of sheer mental masturbation on your part.

4. And, your contortions "the misinformation and misconception upon which it relies, both factually and substantively indefensible, which of course drives the Left to desperation, including their resorting to personal attack, etc."

Never use etc. when you are on such a pontificating roll, would be my advice. And always place your main concern up front, which is your disdain of your fellow citizens on the left.

Much easier that way.

by the way, you bloviate quite like Rush)

There is much more but I'd rather stick to what I in fact really care about than follow your course of verbal diahrea!

So – if you are going to "Ditto head several times in your follow up, try to find a good one lik:

He who masters rhetoric,

serves ego to a fault.

He feeds on gullibility

and leads his prey about.

Beware of those who use their prose

in devious endeavor.

For if they knew of simple truths,

they’d need not wax so clever.1

—

Johnny Hart, Syndicated BC Cartoon Strip

I've got plenty more to point out if you wish to continue. But please be clear – I'm getting old and impatient.

I will let King Solomon, William Shakespeare, and Thomas Jefferson end this:

"All is vanity and vexation of spirit"…King Solomon (KJV)

"I will strive no more. I withdraw"…a line from one of William Shakespeare's plays, and

"Present a problem to a ploughman (plowman) and a professor; the former will solve it at least as well and often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules"…Thomas Jefferson.

Good point and in you're own words. We are not in disagreement in principal.

If you read many different sources, including HF, you'll realize things like "Death Tax" is Republican neocon code for "Estate Tax". This nuanced political ploy gets morfed into a misleading slogan that "Ditto Heads" regurgitate. It is also a good example of your "Rose by any other name" analogy.

Even more Ironically is the attached and cited (not to be confused with a Ditto Head) url that even Shakespeare's very literal intent may have indeed been a double entendre' of sorts. Could the rose in this case, really smell like crap as you imply. If you already knew this, my hat is off to you.

Meanwhile – count the # of places you see "Limbaugh ditto heads falsely regurgitating Obama is a Red Socialist. Like you say "Name Calling"

Enjoy

What's in a name? that which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet;

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/305250.html

What matters is what something is, not what it is called.

Origin

From Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, 1594:

JULIET:

'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;

Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.

What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,

Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part

Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!

What's in a name? that which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet;

So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,

Retain that dear perfection which he owes

Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,

And for that name which is no part of thee

Take all myself.

A story, much favoured by tour guides, and as such highly suspect, is that in this line Shakespeare was also making a joke at the expense of the Rose Theatre. The Rose was a local rival to his Globe Theatre and is reputed to have had less than effective sanitary arrangements. The story goes that this was a coy joke about the smell. This certainly has the whiff of folk etymology about it, but it might just be true.