[molson]

I'm just saying that every comparison is not a false equivalence. You're skipping a step. If someone makes a proposition, and then someone else applies that proposition to other facts, the first person can try to distinguish that application on some ground. Argue that the comparison doesn't hold up because the situations are fundamentally different in some way. But if someone applies reasoning to another set of facts, that's not automatically FALSE EQUIVALENCE! Hell, that type of thing - application of reasoning to different sets of facts - is the foundation of our entire common law system.

I don't see what the difference is here. You have an individual negotiating for a benefit that he did not want to provide to employees when HE was basically the employer. So are you arguing that employers should not seek benefits that they didn't offer to their own employees? Or is your position more narrow? If your position only covers Republicans that you disagree with anyway, it's not very strong. If it applies to everyone, it's very strong. I was just challenging you to see how strong your proposition was here, or if it was just an unfair attack on a Republican you don't like anyway that doesn't have any broader application.

And what is Ryan supposed to do at this point? As a guy in charge of a budget, he fought against certain benefits. That's pretty common for employers to do. So is he just morally and personally bound forever by his stances in those negotiations, even as they apply to him in completely different contexts? He's just not allowed to look for a "work life balance" anymore? He just has to live at the office? Is he allowed to retire?