Because if you're going to hitch your wagon to someone else's thinking, you'd better be able to defend it. If you choose a champion, that champion fights for you. And if you're going to pick 600 carefully-crafted words that attempt to diffuse an off-the-cuff 100-word statement, they better be the most incontrovertible 600 words in the history of the English language - not "rich people have kids, therefore they shouldn't pay taxes." >Besides that, artifex went on to defend his stance throughout the rest of the discussion without referring to any other texts; it is clear that he has an understanding of the topic he is debating. Artifex went on to play fisticuffs with other people who don't understand either. I've seen better debate at Free Republic. >That is completely your subjective response. As is his notion that he deserves "an apology" from me. Personally, you found him to be just hunky-dory and me to be offensive. That's subjective, too. >In which case you are completely out of line. Your response to the article in question is so weakly constructed and your manner so abrasive that I did not think it worthy of any serious critical response when I first read it earlier today. Typical Conservative response - "you're not being civil, therefore your argument is invalid." > I was seriously disappointed because I thought hubski was better than that. Hubski is Reddit without the crowds. You come in here trashing progressive tax and you will find my boot up your ass. I do not suffer libertarians, butt-hurt or not.