Quote:
Originally Posted by Muta
Ouch, that's some strong terminology. I didn't say that. I said I don't know how people could be against it, considering it is an innovative idea to fund public infrastructure. I do understand people could be against it for their own reasons though. Big difference between what I said and what you interpreted.
Maybe I should call you a blue-collared, anti-change conservative redneck in protest.  |
The implicit assumption is that we need more taxes and more public infrastructure, which is not everyone agrees with. Making that seem like a foregone conclusion isn't fair to the democratic process.
You could call me that, and the (collared) shirt I'm wearing is blue... But really I probably fit more the latte sipping elitist camp. I would be in favour of this, and think we do need more infrastructure. I just think it's reasonable to debate it, and understand that some people will be against it.