A prime example of the dangers of getting into a political argument without thoroughly analyzing the issues, from James Lileks on The Bleat. He describes an encounter with a young political activist, canvassing door to door for Kerry. She proposes he vote for Kerry because he'll roll back the tax cuts that Bush enacted last year. He responds by pointing out that he used the tax cut to build the stairs she's standing on, profiting the masons who built the steps, the people who sold the stone, etc.



"'Well, it’s a philosophical difference,' she sniffed. She had pegged me as a form of life last seen clilcking the leash off a dog at Abu Ghraib. 'I think the money should have gone straight to those people instead of trickling down.' Those last two words were said with an edge.



'But then I wouldn’t have hired them,' I said. 'I wouldn’t have new steps. And they wouldn’t have done anything to get the money.'



'Well, what did you do?' she snapped.



'What do you mean?'



'Why should the government have given you the money in the first place?'



'They didn’t give it to me. They just took less of my money.'



That was the last straw. Now she was angry. And the truth came out:



'Well, why is it your money? I think it should be their money.'



Then she left."