Or, and hear me out here, we could use a real-world example from not too far away
Person 1) An attempt to tax these companies more is doomed to fail as every previous attempt has failed.
Person 2) You sound like you're saying I don't think we should tax them because something irrelevant about billionaires
Person 1) No, I'm saying these companies should be paying tax, but aren't, and they have ways of avoiding it.
Person 2) Something irrelevant about the 1970s.
Person 1) Huh?
Person 2) You used the wrong pronoun you big meanie. For some reason the example I'm going to use involves fucking a dog.
Anyway, it's clear you don't want to engage on any of my points, so I'll leave you with a quote from www.theregister.co.uk/2019/11/15/labour_pledges_free_broadband_via_partnationalisation_of_bt/
"This is a spectacularly bad take by the Labour Party. The almost cut throat competition between broadband rivals has meant faster speeds, improved coverage and lower prices for consumers up and down the country.
"The current government, and independent regulator Ofcom, have spent the last three years incentivising alternative operators to BT to deploy faster fibre technologies. Companies such as Virgin, CityFibre and others have committed billions to rival Openreach. Those plans risk being shelved overnight.
"Only one other country in the world has come close to going down this route, and for a good reason – it’s hard, expensive and fraught with difficulty. Australia’s NBN is years late, massively over budget and offering speeds and technology a fraction of the original political intention."
(
evil_andy Stick stick stick stick sticky sticky stick stick, Sat 16 Nov 2019, 14:52,
Reply)
unfortunately, the argument in your head is contradicted by the text that is there for all to see. Perhaps you have dyslexia, and in that case I apologise for bringing that to peoples' attention
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Sat 16 Nov 2019, 21:33,
Reply)