Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
We seem at this point to be passing in the night. Gatti and (supposedly) Sidd rightly say that progressive taxationis philosophically justifiable based on Rawls. (I'll note it's probably morally justified by the bible, but, then again, so is slavery purportedly). You're saying progressive taxation is generally unfair because it's too progressive.

Well, both can be right. In general, progressive taxes are philosophically supported by Rawls, but perhaps not to some degree.

And, I'll note, that the Reagan revolution appears to have benefitted everyone, which suggests that it meets the Rawlsian test of justice.

speaking of fairness...

[confidental to club]Google Robert Nozick for counters to Rawls[/confidential to club]

I can't believe I just did that.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Not Me
There were alot of flawed assumptions in that blog. And many bare conclusions.

Not enough detail? And here I thought you disliked long blogs.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
find a photo from any era where Hillary doesn't induce vomiting.

How about this one, no?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
speaking of fairness...

[small][confidental to club]Google Robert Nozick for counters to Rawls[/confidential to club][/small]

I can't believe I just did that.

Nor I, Brute. Nor I.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Not enough detail? And here I thought you disliked long blogs.

Not enough correct facts.

What I don't like is when things are unnecessarily long. You know, I am a busy person. Pointing the naked sole of my foot toward Mecca 5 times a day takes up alot of time.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Gattigap

• Unfortunately, this wouldn't abolish the IRS, it would just eliminate taxes on investment income. Now, there are some economists who think this is a good idea, and there are lots of wealthy Republican contributors who think this is a great idea, but you'd better check your wallet before you decide you like it too. Investment income is still mostly an artifact of wealth, and if we allow wealthy taxpayers off the hook for paying taxes on their investments we have to make up this revenue somewhere else. That means — surprise! — higher rates on everyone else.

Gattigap

The only problem with the R proposals is that they fail ever to tax the investment income once spent. If they did, it wold be hard to object on the ground that it's not a consumption tax. If you never spend it, it's never taxed. What's the problem? it's like one big IRA.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
for those of you who went to a bad hs, like me, Laocoön was a Trojan priest strangled by sea snakes, sent by the gods who favored the Greeks, while he was sacrificing at the altar of Neptune. Laocoön was killed because he had tried to warn the Trojan citizens of the danger of bringing in the wooden horse, he incurred the wrath of the gods.

That is, a traitor to what's right. As such, he's a bad analogy for W. Maybe you can waive the image to Penske for a Kerry/French reference

The reference to Laocoön was a parable about poor methodology, Hank. The Laocoön Group was discovered in Rome in 1506, sans right arm. Rafael was appointed judge of a contest sponsored by the Pope to build a replacement arm. Rafael was swayed by those, including Bandinelli, who argued that Laocoön's moment of death must have been depicted in a heroic gesture of defiance against the god who commanded his death. In counterpoint, Michelangelo argued (correctly) that the missing arm was bent back over Laocoön's shoulder. He based his surmise on his study of classical sculpture and anatomy: the muscle flexion of the chest and back indicated a bent arm.

They found the arm 393 years after Michelangelo died (2,117 years, give or take, after the arm was first lost). It was in a builder's yard in Rome. And it was bent, as Michelangelo had predicted. Based on sound methodology and clear thinking uncluttered by prejudice and anachronistic motives. To see the Group restored with the proper arm is to wonder how generations of sculptors were ever convinced that the straight arm was correct.

I still await a description of the methodology to support the argument that the ball was thrown in a "perfect spiral," other than that Bush is an R.

Wrong:


Right:


Regards!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
The reference to Laocoön was a parable about poor methodology, Hank. The Laocoön Group was discovered in Rome in 1506, sans right arm. Rafael was appointed judge of a contest sponsored by the Pope to build a replacement arm. Rafael was swayed by those, including Bandinelli, who argued that Laocoön's moment of death must have been depicted in a heroic gesture of defiance against the god who commanded his death. In counterpoint, Michelangelo argued (correctly) that the missing arm was bent back over Laocoön's shoulder. He based his surmise on his study of classical sculpture and anatomy: the muscle flexion of the chest and back indicated a bent arm.

They found the arm 393 years after Michelangelo died (2,117 years, give or take, after the arm was first lost). It was in a builder's yard in Rome. And it was bent, as Michelangelo had predicted. Based on sound methodology and clear thinking uncluttered by prejudice and anachronistic motives. To see the Group restored with the proper arm is to wonder how generations of sculptors were ever convinced that the straight arm was correct.

I still await a description of the methodology to support the argument that the ball was thrown in a "perfect spiral," other than that Bush is an R.

Wrong:


Right:


Regards!

Sea snakes?



Fuck. Who was covering for Penske while i was out?
Conf. to atticus: do you often spend your 5 pages in your reply briefs explaining what you intended in your main brief?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Wrong:


Right:


Regards!

I notice that John Ashcroft had input with the Wrong version. Typical.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I notice that John Ashcroft had input with the Wrong version. Typical.

Speaking of Ashcroft, what did John Kerry mean when he made the snide remark in his speech that he would not appoint an AG who did not follow the constitution? WTF? Cite please.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
The reference to Laocoön was a parable about poor methodology, Hank. The Laocoön Group was discovered in Rome in 1506, sans right arm. Rafael was appointed judge of a contest sponsored by the Pope to build a replacement arm. Rafael was swayed by those, including Bandinelli, who argued that Laocoön's moment of death must have been depicted in a heroic gesture of defiance against the god who commanded his death. In counterpoint, Michelangelo argued (correctly) that the missing arm was bent back over Laocoön's shoulder. He based his surmise on his study of classical sculpture and anatomy: the muscle flexion of the chest and back indicated a bent arm.

They found the arm 393 years after Michelangelo died (2,117 years, give or take, after the arm was first lost). It was in a builder's yard in Rome. And it was bent, as Michelangelo had predicted. Based on sound methodology and clear thinking uncluttered by prejudice and anachronistic motives. To see the Group restored with the proper arm is to wonder how generations of sculptors were ever convinced that the straight arm was correct.

And to think they said that art history major would never be any use to you!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Me
Speaking of Ashcroft, what did John Kerry mean when he made the snide remark in his speech that he would not appoint an AG who did not follow the constitution? WTF? Cite please.

I think that was a way of foreshadowing it wouldn't be "executive order" Gephardt.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I think that was a way of foreshadowing it wouldn't be "executive order" Gephardt.

Good point, but what did JA do that violated the constitution?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Conf. to atticus: do you often spend your 5 pages in your reply briefs explaining what you intended in your main brief?

Only when the opposition brief doesn't engage the relevant arguments, and there's a decent chance the panel will be drunk at oral argument.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Only when the opposition brief doesn't engage the relevant arguments, and there's a decent chance the panel will be drunk at oral argument.

panel?

Fuck nfh is a boy. I say you are a corporate guy. NTTAWWT.

Conf. to Club. Are there are any guys in your group who correct people when they islam-bash?