|
Edited on Sun Dec-12-10 05:32 PM by RandomThoughts
To cover the multiple choices, like also the choice of a bill that had raises to higher brackets, while protecting lower brackets.
If you let someone set a two way decision, they always will try to set a win win for them.
That is how most of it is done.
Give someone a choice, and define two losing options, that is how much of manipulations of perceptions are done.
Also why in dune, he said the world was not a maze, but a wide open field with a few obsticals.
That is also why they got President Obama on the one side of the two side argument, and the concepts on the other.
To once again try to make you have to make a choice between the two, that is dividing the opponent.
Hence why you argue to get the bill in that is better.
It is easy to see, they wanted to split the democrats by setting up a two choice option, by only covering that bill, and not the bills before it that were more choices.
I say find a third choice.
Even 'take it or leave it' is setting up a two choice option. Get someone to make a Sophie's choice, that is why you don't let someone define your choices. Get a bill out that is what you support, or when they bring up the 'two choices' mention the other bill you support that tries to correct consolidations.
Don't let them make you choose between two bad choices they think they can give you.
And although though many of you only found bad in things, I find good in the song 'I chose me'. Do you get it now. And I could show the 'end timers' are messed up, but would have to do what they do that is messed up. But anyways, I am not worried.
|