All Hank, all the time.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The government has been spending more and collecting less in taxes. Sebby wanted to talk about the tax side, so I was trying to point out that notwithstanding his thought that the rich just shelter their income, taxes on the rich have been cut quite considerably, which tends to indicate that in the not-too-distant past it was possible to tax the rich.

My bad. I forgot. I'm rich.

I hereby retire. If I don't answer on the second ring, I'm smoking opium and jacking off. Call back later. I don't do messages.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
[img]http://www.alansmind.com/feces.jpg

Wow, can you go one post without politiking my personal destruction?!? Are you stalking me?

I am just calling Spanky's post as I saw it and at the same time trying to offer a psychological explanation, based on my understanding of the soft science of psychology so loved by the liberals to justify their social agenda. My udnerstanding of modern psychology is that inappropriate fondling can fuck up a kid's mind all the way into adult hood, and cause trust issues. So I was extrapolating that maybe some of these haters had uncles or other like trusted adults named Sam, in their lives as kids who inappropriatelly fondled them, and left them feeling distrustful and angry at Uncle Sam, and that as adults they mistakenly projected that anger onto another Uncle Sam, America's mascot, and by extension, America.

do you have an alternative interpration of S-pank's data?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
That's funny. The Journal wrote an article last month citing stats showing the rich paying more taxes than ever.

How can I argue with a second-hand description of an article in the Wall Street Journal protesting that taxes on the rich are too high? Sir, your evidence is too formidable for me. Clearly, you win this round.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
My bad. I forgot. I'm rich.

I assume you own a fractional share of a private jet then?

[Adder]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
No I won't, because your fiscal responsibility is built on taking my fucking money. The Democrats soak the fucking middle class, and you can't refute that point with a million years of research and endless bandwidth in which to reply.

1. You can't soak the rich because they shelter it.

2. You can't soak the poor because they don't have it.

3. You have to get your money from somewhere.

4. So who's left? Hmmm.

Who the fuck do you think pays all the fucking taxes in this country? Your party does a fine job running its mouth about the rich getting off easy. But it never offers a solution. Why? Because the solution is to tax the piss out of the upper middle class. Now that voters understand that, your party is running its mouth about fiscal responsibility. Sure, over time you are more fiscally "responsible." It's pretty fucking easy to come up with scads of cash when you're not shy about pandering to limousine liberals, the wretched "entitlement" class and a pack of union whores by jamming your hand into the middle classes' money.

Wealth redistribution from the upper middle to the hands of govt workers. Thaats Dem fiscal responsibility. Bush is a fuckup, no doubt. But he's not going to fuck me in the ass the way your party will, so thanks, but you can keep that fiscal responsibility of yours.

And don't tell me about how much the war is going to cost me down the road. It wo't be any more than what having a Dem in office would have cost me.

Do you read or think at all? or just rant?

Seriously, you sound like you have been hiding in a shack since 1984.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
How can I argue with a second-hand description of an article in the Wall Street Journal protesting that taxes on the rich are too high? Sir, your evidence is too formidable for me. Clearly, you win this round.

I read the article Sebby is noting, and frankly, I agree with him. For now you are outvoted 2-1 Ty.

Sorry.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
How can I argue with a second-hand description of an article in the Wall Street Journal protesting that taxes on the rich are too high? Sir, your evidence is too formidable for me. Clearly, you win this round.

Slap yourself acrosss the face with a glove for me.

And it had better not be silk.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
You state this as if your comment was an irrefutable fact as opposed to some allegations you have read somewhere (maybe on Kos?). And if what you say is true, how come there haven't been any deaths in this country caused by terrorism since 9/11.

For the same reason that there weren't any in this country for years before 9/11: they aren't that good at attacking us here.

Mind you, that is not to say that our counterterrorism efforts haven't helped on the margins. But the primary reason there have been deaths is the terrorist limited ability to act here.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
do you have an alternative interpration of S-pank's data?

I'm not looking into your cage on this one.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Adder
Do you read or think at all? or just rant?

Seriously, you sound like you have been hiding in a shack since 1984.

His post, even wading through the ranting and ducking to avoid the errant spittle, is 1000% more persuasive than anything you ever posted. Your posts (still and continue) to read as if you essentially have done nothing in your life but attend school. If they were some sort of intentional internet character study of a myopic student's perspective they would be great, but unfortunately, I think that they are sincere.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Adder
Do you read or think at all? or just rant?

Seriously, you sound like you have been hiding in a shack since 1984.

Oh, for fuck's sake... Think how? Like you?

Dude, listen... That your econ professor told you capitalism was flawed, and you read a few Atlantic articles on the deficit, doesn't mean you think. It means you read some shit, which is why you think you know something, which you do. But it ain't much.

I read tons of shit and process it all, and it all comes down to two things - 1. I want my money now, because no matter tha data I read, it never makes sense to bet on projections re the nation's fiscal fortunes; and 2. GOP makes my taxes go down, Dems make them go up.

I am a cynic, and a cynic takes what he can while he can grab it. I'll deal with the future then. For now, I want to keep my taxes from going up, and the best way to do it is keep the fucking Dems out of office.

Do I need to know much else?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Adder
For the same reason that there weren't any in this country for years before 9/11: they aren't that good at attacking us here.

Bzzzzzzztttt. WTC I (and OK City).

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Spank, my earelier posts notwithstanding, the problem here is, that overtime (although not so much in 1948), the UN has become an unbridled haven for anti-semitic commie and/or socialist haters. They hate us, they hate the Jews, they hate commerce and markets, although, oddly, they like having the UN HQ in New York as opposed to some shithole third world country, presumably so they can access all our freedom and markets have to offer.

Anyhoo, they have illegitimised themselves. These are the same people who support awarding genocidal babykillers with nobel peace prises. At this point, its the law ofthe gun, maybe the god fearing good guys win!!!

OK fine. But don't expect Muslims and Arabs to accept Israel just because it was created by a UN resolution and then say the UN is a ridiculous organization (which it is). UN resolutions do not equal international law nor are they by definition ethical.

And don't expect Muslims and Arabs to accept Israel based on some moral natural law argument. That doesn't cut the cake either.

Israel was created at the point of a gun, and people got screwed when it was created. It is the denial of this fact that has lead to the current screwed up situation of believing that if Israel is nice to its neighbors or if its neighbors "just get educated" they will change their minds. To expect the original inhabitants of what is now the state of Israel to ever want anything but its destruction, is naive, completely delusional and unrealistic.

If you are going to grab some land, expel the inhabitants and create a nation, if it is going to work, you need to have defensible borders for that nation. Israel grabbed some land, expelled the inhabitants, but then didn't grab a piece of land that was defensible and then they left the people they screwed in a position to wreck havoc on the state of Israel. .

Realizing that mistake, they are now under the delusion that if they grab the land that is necessary to make Israel defensible, they can leave the original inhabitants of that land in the place they have occupied, still hold onto the property and get the people that live there (and the rest of the world) to accept it as morally righteous and ethically defendable act. And maybe a monkey will fly out of my derriere.

Israel either needs to complete the job, expel the Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza, create a defensible state (by building a huge wall around the whole country), or just give it up and call it a day.

Am I wrong?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
His post, even wading through the ranting and ducking to avoid the errant spittle, is 1000% more persuasive than anything you ever posted. Your posts (still and continue) to read as if you essentially have done nothing in your life but attend school. If they were some sort of intentional internet character study of a myopic student's perspective they would be great, but unfortunately, I think that they are sincere.

This is true. I like Adder, but where Ty can actually crank me with sharpened stats, and appears maleable and understanding of certain points, Adder has this titanium naivete running through his posts. It's fucking frustrating because it reminds me of college, where I had to write gibberish I didn't believe in econ papers to satisfy the professor.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm not looking into your cage on this one.

Ty, if the esteemed mods of this board can't seek common ground in our highminded and genteel debate, then what example are we setting for the lesser people who post here? What Ty, what?