Dedicated to Harry...
 

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:51:08 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:01:51 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:


"Lu Powell" wrote in message
...

First, most excellent post. But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the right and
obligation to look for a job. You do not have the right to be a
paracite.
We will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take
advantage of the opportunities of education and betterment of yourself
while
not whining and making excuses for your deficiencies at every turn.


I'd guess that gives folks the right to take responsibility for their
person.
--

Sometimes makes me wonder why people are so quick to let the government
control their lives. Too bad we couldn't segregate the country into too
parts and the pro-government statism types get to pay for government
managing their lives while leaving the other part to their liberty and
fiscal freedoms.

But that repect for others rights doesn't exist in the hearts of lib-dims.


Individual liberties are an impediment to good government.

You have twisted that.

Good government fosters a good environment for people to excel, and that
includes the ability to earn and retain the majority of their income.

Good government does not tax hard working successful people to bailout
corrupt and dysfunctional private companies like GM and the banks. Nor do
good governments rack up debt and print/create money so fast no one even
knows what it will do to the economy, other than the results will not be
good.

Japan tried it, recovery took over 10 years. Reagan took less from the
middle class and recovery began in a year. Go figure.


Sorry. I had gotten my tongue stuck in my cheek. Won't happen again.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Dedicated to Harry...
 

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:04:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:


"Lu Powell" wrote in message
...

First, most excellent post. But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the right and
obligation to look for a job.

I believe it's the case in the parallel world of progressivism that
it's the citizen's obligation and "duty" to pay taxes, and it's the
government's task to provide the jobs, health care, transportation,
social indoctrination, and the general security of the individual. I
think the charter that stands as the document that defines those
rights and obligations of government in that bizarro world is called
the "Manifesto." It's the evil alter-document to the Constitution.


I think you're talking about a rather extreme perspective. Certainly,
extreme perspectives exist on both ends of the political scale. In the US,
the mainstream political scale is quite narrow compared to the European
scale. We tend to forget this and try to lump people into groups on the
polar opposites. Most people are middle of the road in their politics. If
you want to get elected in this country to a national position, you mostly
have to appeal to the middle. That's a fact of political life.

You're right, Miss Woodhouse. It is an extreme perspective. I think
much of the difficulty in conducting a reasonable discussion on this
is that the moderate position may not track on the political spectrum
as it did mid century. Naturally, I may well be an extremist myself.
I've given considerable time measuring Mrs. Rands Objectivism, and
some of her political philosophy is intriguing.

Just for goodwill, here's a link to the first segment of an interview
with a young Mike Wallace:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ukJiBZ8_4k

The remaining four segments are easy enough to find.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Dedicated to Harry...
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:00:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:01:51 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
news:12jvb598rahufdupok3bhp0nbave52kgge@4ax. com...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:


"Lu Powell" wrote in message
.. .

First, most excellent post. But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the right
and
obligation to look for a job. You do not have the right to be a
paracite.
We will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to
take
advantage of the opportunities of education and betterment of
yourself
while
not whining and making excuses for your deficiencies at every turn.


I'd guess that gives folks the right to take responsibility for
their
person.
--

Sometimes makes me wonder why people are so quick to let the
government
control their lives. Too bad we couldn't segregate the country into
too
parts and the pro-government statism types get to pay for government
managing their lives while leaving the other part to their liberty and
fiscal freedoms.

But that repect for others rights doesn't exist in the hearts of
lib-dims.


Individual liberties are an impediment to good government.


True to some extent. There always has to be a balance, for example,
between
security and individuals' freedom or between exploitive capitalism and
social responsibility. There also needs to be a balance between a nanny
state and individual responsibility. But, truly good government is not
an
impediment to individual liberties.

That last sentence is true only if the 'truly good government' doesn't
tax. Once it takes your money, you've lost the freedom to spend it as
you wish.
--

John H


So, no national defense is ok with you? We don't need anything gov't
provides? Why do we have it then?

National defense is good, but why not talk of banks and corporations like
GM that now cost taxpayers thousands in future debt! Why not talk about
the billions going to Afganistan, a war the politicians don't have the
balls to win.

Why not talk about the government waste. Pork spending? Corruption?
Massive government debt for stuff people will never see the benefit of?

Its an Lib-Dim Obamanation....

?? We've been doing little else. Have you been asleep for the last year?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Dedicated to Harry...
 

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:04:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:


"Lu Powell" wrote in message
...

First, most excellent post. But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the right and
obligation to look for a job.

I believe it's the case in the parallel world of progressivism that
it's the citizen's obligation and "duty" to pay taxes, and it's the
government's task to provide the jobs, health care, transportation,
social indoctrination, and the general security of the individual. I
think the charter that stands as the document that defines those
rights and obligations of government in that bizarro world is called
the "Manifesto." It's the evil alter-document to the Constitution.


I think you're talking about a rather extreme perspective. Certainly,
extreme perspectives exist on both ends of the political scale. In the US,
the mainstream political scale is quite narrow compared to the European
scale. We tend to forget this and try to lump people into groups on the
polar opposites. Most people are middle of the road in their politics. If
you want to get elected in this country to a national position, you mostly
have to appeal to the middle. That's a fact of political life.

You're right, Miss Woodhouse. It is an extreme perspective. I think
much of the difficulty in conducting a reasonable discussion on this
is that the moderate position may not track on the political spectrum
as it did mid century. Naturally, I may well be an extremist myself.
I've given considerable time measuring Mrs. Rands Objectivism, and
some of her political philosophy is intriguing.

I'm not a fan of Rand's philosophy. It sounds so independent, but when it
comes down to implementation it's a total failure (evidence being
Greenspan's admisson of error). It's also a rather cold philosophy in my
opinion... it has no heart, so what's the point. I missed the reference to
Woodhouse... sorry.


Just for goodwill, here's a link to the first segment of an interview
with a young Mike Wallace:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ukJiBZ8_4k

The remaining four segments are easy enough to find.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access



--
Nom=de=Plume

Dedicated to Harry...
 

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 22:05:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:04:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:


"Lu Powell" wrote in message
...

First, most excellent post. But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the right and
obligation to look for a job.

I believe it's the case in the parallel world of progressivism that
it's the citizen's obligation and "duty" to pay taxes, and it's the
government's task to provide the jobs, health care, transportation,
social indoctrination, and the general security of the individual. I
think the charter that stands as the document that defines those
rights and obligations of government in that bizarro world is called
the "Manifesto." It's the evil alter-document to the Constitution.


I think you're talking about a rather extreme perspective. Certainly,
extreme perspectives exist on both ends of the political scale. In the US,
the mainstream political scale is quite narrow compared to the European
scale. We tend to forget this and try to lump people into groups on the
polar opposites. Most people are middle of the road in their politics. If
you want to get elected in this country to a national position, you mostly
have to appeal to the middle. That's a fact of political life.

You're right, Miss Woodhouse. It is an extreme perspective. I think
much of the difficulty in conducting a reasonable discussion on this
is that the moderate position may not track on the political spectrum
as it did mid century. Naturally, I may well be an extremist myself.
I've given considerable time measuring Mrs. Rands Objectivism, and
some of her political philosophy is intriguing.

I'm not a fan of Rand's philosophy. It sounds so independent, but when it
comes down to implementation it's a total failure (evidence being
Greenspan's admisson of error). It's also a rather cold philosophy in my
opinion... it has no heart, so what's the point. I missed the reference to
Woodhouse... sorry.


I apologize for being obscure. The Woodhouse's were the family that
was at the center of Jane Austen's novel "Emma." Too, I don't know
that there has ever been a practical adaptation of objectivism in
modern history, at least not in the sense that it has ever been fully
adopted by any government of any industrialized nation. I agree that
objectivism is too stark. But, then, I'm of the opinion that true
benifence of heart, or altruism, can only come from the individual,
not government.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Dedicated to Harry...
 

"wf3h" wrote in message
...
On Sep 27, 4:35 pm, "Canuck57" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Sep 27, 11:29 am, wf3h wrote:



and you don't have a right to a tax rate of 15% if you're rich. if
you're rich you pay the same rate as the middle class

Another liberal fable. The rich pay a 35% tax rate on income. It's
the rich Demoncrats in DC that pay *no* taxes, as we've all seen over
the last few months, eh?

jesus...another bag of hammers

the tax rate on capital gains is 15%.

but you don't know that 'cuz rush keeps telling you how much he pays
in taxes
-------------
And adjust that for inflation!

For example if I bought a barrel of oil 50 years ago or a bar of gold, has
it increased in value or has the currency depreciated?

This is like which weighs more, a pound of lead or pound of feathers.

If you capital appreciates at 3% and inflation is at 3% you in fact pay 15%
tax on the gain and have less value. That is, lost money.

Part of why you buy stocks is that they will appreciate with inflation. But
you want more than inflation to cover taxes or you will loose value.

You will here more on "value" investing as the value of currency is becoming
less meaniingful.

Any earnings, are taxable at full rate.

Now I know, liberla low life can't understand this, but it is why most
liberal low lives don't have money or lose it pretty quick.

Dedicated to Harry...
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Canuck57" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:00:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
om...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:01:51 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
news:12jvb598rahufdupok3bhp0nbave52kgge@4ax .com...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:


"Lu Powell" wrote in message
. ..

First, most excellent post. But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the
right and
obligation to look for a job. You do not have the right to be a
paracite.
We will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to
take
advantage of the opportunities of education and betterment of
yourself
while
not whining and making excuses for your deficiencies at every turn.


I'd guess that gives folks the right to take responsibility for
their
person.
--

Sometimes makes me wonder why people are so quick to let the
government
control their lives. Too bad we couldn't segregate the country into
too
parts and the pro-government statism types get to pay for government
managing their lives while leaving the other part to their liberty
and
fiscal freedoms.

But that repect for others rights doesn't exist in the hearts of
lib-dims.


Individual liberties are an impediment to good government.


True to some extent. There always has to be a balance, for example,
between
security and individuals' freedom or between exploitive capitalism and
social responsibility. There also needs to be a balance between a nanny
state and individual responsibility. But, truly good government is not
an
impediment to individual liberties.

That last sentence is true only if the 'truly good government' doesn't
tax. Once it takes your money, you've lost the freedom to spend it as
you wish.
--

John H


So, no national defense is ok with you? We don't need anything gov't
provides? Why do we have it then?

National defense is good, but why not talk of banks and corporations like
GM that now cost taxpayers thousands in future debt! Why not talk about
the billions going to Afganistan, a war the politicians don't have the
balls to win.

Why not talk about the government waste. Pork spending? Corruption?
Massive government debt for stuff people will never see the benefit of?

Its an Lib-Dim Obamanation....

?? We've been doing little else. Have you been asleep for the last year?

I don't disagree with that. Ever since Sept 2008 the US fed has
printed/created the US government shortfall. You know this is inflationary.
When a recovery occurs, it will come with an inflation bite.

Meanwhile we will just have to laugh as the lib-dims learn you can't borrow
your way out of debt.

Dedicated to Harry...
 

"H the K" wrote in message
...
On 9/27/09 9:39 PM, Don White wrote:
wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:00:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:01:51 -0600,
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600,
wrote:


"Lu wrote in message
...

First, most excellent post. But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the
right
and
obligation to look for a job. You do not have the right to be a
paracite.
We will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to
take
advantage of the opportunities of education and betterment of
yourself
while
not whining and making excuses for your deficiencies at every
turn.


I'd guess that gives folks the right to take responsibility for
their
person.
--

Sometimes makes me wonder why people are so quick to let the
government
control their lives. Too bad we couldn't segregate the country into
too
parts and the pro-government statism types get to pay for government
managing their lives while leaving the other part to their liberty
and
fiscal freedoms.

But that repect for others rights doesn't exist in the hearts of
lib-dims.


Individual liberties are an impediment to good government.


True to some extent. There always has to be a balance, for example,
between
security and individuals' freedom or between exploitive capitalism and
social responsibility. There also needs to be a balance between a
nanny
state and individual responsibility. But, truly good government is not
an
impediment to individual liberties.

That last sentence is true only if the 'truly good government' doesn't
tax. Once it takes your money, you've lost the freedom to spend it as
you wish.
--

John H


So, no national defense is ok with you? We don't need anything gov't
provides? Why do we have it then?


--
Nom=de=Plume

~ Snerk ~
Johnny made a career of getting big pay& benefits from Uncle Sam for
minimal output.
He's doing the same now for no output.



Don't forget that until recently he took money from one or more of the
counties of northern Virginia to pretend to be a substitute teacher and
while he was doing that he made a number of racial remarks about his
students and their families.



You'd think he'd have the common sense to be grateful to the various levels
of government for his high-flying lifestyle, instead of bad mouthing them at
every opportunity.

Dedicated to Harry...
 

On 9/28/09 9:15 AM, Don White wrote:
"H the wrote in message
...
On 9/27/09 9:39 PM, Don White wrote:
wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:00:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:01:51 -0600,
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600,
wrote:


"Lu wrote in message
...

First, most excellent post. But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the
right
and
obligation to look for a job. You do not have the right to be a
paracite.
We will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to
take
advantage of the opportunities of education and betterment of
yourself
while
not whining and making excuses for your deficiencies at every
turn.


I'd guess that gives folks the right to take responsibility for
their
person.
--

Sometimes makes me wonder why people are so quick to let the
government
control their lives. Too bad we couldn't segregate the country into
too
parts and the pro-government statism types get to pay for government
managing their lives while leaving the other part to their liberty
and
fiscal freedoms.

But that repect for others rights doesn't exist in the hearts of
lib-dims.


Individual liberties are an impediment to good government.


True to some extent. There always has to be a balance, for example,
between
security and individuals' freedom or between exploitive capitalism and
social responsibility. There also needs to be a balance between a
nanny
state and individual responsibility. But, truly good government is not
an
impediment to individual liberties.

That last sentence is true only if the 'truly good government' doesn't
tax. Once it takes your money, you've lost the freedom to spend it as
you wish.
--

John H


So, no national defense is ok with you? We don't need anything gov't
provides? Why do we have it then?


--
Nom=de=Plume

~ Snerk ~
Johnny made a career of getting big pay& benefits from Uncle Sam for
minimal output.
He's doing the same now for no output.



Don't forget that until recently he took money from one or more of the
counties of northern Virginia to pretend to be a substitute teacher and
while he was doing that he made a number of racial remarks about his
students and their families.



You'd think he'd have the common sense to be grateful to the various levels
of government for his high-flying lifestyle, instead of bad mouthing them at
every opportunity.



Apparently herring likes to bite the hand that fed and feeds him. For an
ex-government employee like herring to be knocking the government and
government employees as much as he does, well, it seems a bit odd.






--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

Dedicated to Harry...
 

On Sep 27, 11:48*am, Jack wrote:
On Sep 27, 11:29*am, wf3h wrote:



and you don't have a right to a tax rate of 15% if you're rich. if
you're rich you pay the same rate as the middle class

Another liberal fable. *The rich pay a 35% tax rate on income. *It's
the rich Demoncrats in DC that pay *no* taxes, as we've all seen over
the last few months, eh?

35% ? is that all ! They're getting off easy, with no room to whine.

Dedicated to Harry...
 

On Sep 27, 9:39*pm, "Don White" wrote:
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message

...



"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:00:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:01:51 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
om...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:

"Lu Powell" wrote in message
. ..

First, most excellent post. *But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the right
and
obligation to look for a job. *You do not have the right to be a
paracite.
We will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to
take
advantage of the opportunities of education and betterment of
yourself
while
not whining and making excuses for your deficiencies at every turn..

I'd guess that gives folks the right to take responsibility for their
person.
--

Sometimes makes me wonder why people are so quick to let the government
control their lives. *Too bad we couldn't segregate the country into
too
parts and the pro-government statism types get to pay for government
managing their lives while leaving the other part to their liberty and
fiscal freedoms.

But that repect for others rights doesn't exist in the hearts of
lib-dims.

Individual liberties are an impediment to good government.

True to some extent. There always has to be a balance, for example,
between
security and individuals' freedom or between exploitive capitalism and
social responsibility. There also needs to be a balance between a nanny
state and individual responsibility. But, truly good government is not an
impediment to individual liberties.

That last sentence is true only if the 'truly good government' doesn't
tax. Once it takes your money, you've lost the freedom to spend it as
you wish.
--

John H

So, no national defense is ok with you? We don't need anything gov't
provides? Why do we have it then?

--
Nom=de=Plume

~ Snerk ~
Johnny made a career of getting big pay & benefits from Uncle Sam for
minimal output.
He's doing the same now for no output.

And he's STILL no smarter than when He started.

Dedicated to Harry...
 

On Sep 28, 8:38*am, "Canuck57" wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message



the tax rate on capital gains is 15%.

but you don't know that 'cuz rush keeps telling you how much he pays
in taxes
-------------
And adjust that for inflation!

which, if you do that for the middle class, shows they haven't had a
pay increase in 30 years

since the time of reagan...

..

If you capital appreciates at 3% and inflation is at 3% you in fact pay 15%
tax on the gain and have less value. *That is, lost money.

and it hasn't worked out that way. the rich have had their income
almost triple in the last 10 years.

you socket puppets really don't like the middle class do you?

Now I know, liberla low life can't understand this, but it is why most
liberal low lives don't have money or lose it pretty quick.


here he wants us to weep for the rich...who've gotten richer...while
he tells us how lucky the middle class is since it's not had a pay
increase in 30 years...

Dedicated to Harry...
 

On Sep 27, 9:29*pm, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 27, 6:36*pm, Jack wrote:





On Sep 27, 1:05*pm, wf3h wrote:

On Sep 27, 11:48*am, Jack wrote:

On Sep 27, 11:29*am, wf3h wrote:

and you don't have a right to a tax rate of 15% if you're rich. if
you're rich you pay the same rate as the middle class

Another liberal fable. *The rich pay a 35% tax rate on income. *It's
the rich Demoncrats in DC that pay *no* taxes, as we've all seen over
the last few months, eh?

no, they don't. sorry.

Yes they do, sorry.

*the rich make their money on capital gains. and

the capital gains tax is 15%, minus deductions for losses.

Capital gains is a tax on investments. You *hope* you get to pay a
15% tax on a gain, because the alternative is that you lost some, or
all, of you initial investment. Meanwhile, you're still paying 35% on
your income, which is what you used when you gambled on the
investment.

So take a working professional making $500k a year, with $200k in
adjusted capital gains. Since deductions have long been phased out at
this income level, we can apply some simple math and see this person
pays about $205k in taxes. That's not enough? Why do you want to
penalize people that worked hard and becaome successful?


The rate for Long Term Capital gains is 15% for the "rich", and 0% for
the poor. *Ooops.

that's because the poor work for a living and pay 28%.


You're terribly confused. The single income range for a 28% tax rate
is $78,851 – $164,550; married filing jointly is $131,451 –
$200,300... hardly "poor". Your irrational hatred of successful
people is blinding you.

Dedicated to Harry...
 

Jack wrote:
On Sep 27, 9:29 pm, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 27, 6:36 pm, Jack wrote:





On Sep 27, 1:05 pm, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 27, 11:48 am, Jack wrote:
On Sep 27, 11:29 am, wf3h wrote:
and you don't have a right to a tax rate of 15% if you're rich. if
you're rich you pay the same rate as the middle class
Another liberal fable. The rich pay a 35% tax rate on income. It's
the rich Demoncrats in DC that pay *no* taxes, as we've all seen over
the last few months, eh?
no, they don't. sorry.
Yes they do, sorry.
the rich make their money on capital gains. and
the capital gains tax is 15%, minus deductions for losses.

Capital gains is a tax on investments. You *hope* you get to pay a
15% tax on a gain, because the alternative is that you lost some, or
all, of you initial investment. Meanwhile, you're still paying 35% on
your income, which is what you used when you gambled on the
investment.

So take a working professional making $500k a year, with $200k in
adjusted capital gains. Since deductions have long been phased out at
this income level, we can apply some simple math and see this person
pays about $205k in taxes. That's not enough? Why do you want to
penalize people that worked hard and becaome successful?

The rate for Long Term Capital gains is 15% for the "rich", and 0% for
the poor. Ooops.
that's because the poor work for a living and pay 28%.


You're terribly confused. The single income range for a 28% tax rate
is $78,851 – $164,550; married filing jointly is $131,451 –
$200,300... hardly "poor". Your irrational hatred of successful
people is blinding you.


Perhaps he'd feel better if we took up a collection to help him get back
on his feet.

Dedicated to Harry...
 

On Sep 28, 9:41*am, Jim wrote:
Jack wrote:
On Sep 27, 9:29 pm, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 27, 6:36 pm, Jack wrote:

On Sep 27, 1:05 pm, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 27, 11:48 am, Jack wrote:
On Sep 27, 11:29 am, wf3h wrote:
and you don't have a right to a tax rate of 15% if you're rich. if
you're rich you pay the same rate as the middle class
Another liberal fable. *The rich pay a 35% tax rate on income. *It's
the rich Demoncrats in DC that pay *no* taxes, as we've all seen over
the last few months, eh?
no, they don't. sorry.
Yes they do, sorry.
*the rich make their money on capital gains. and
the capital gains tax is 15%, minus deductions for losses.

Capital gains is a tax on investments. *You *hope* you get to pay a
15% tax on a gain, because the alternative is that you lost some, or
all, of you initial investment. *Meanwhile, you're still paying 35% on
your income, which is what you used when you gambled on the
investment.

So take a working professional making $500k a year, with $200k in
adjusted capital gains. *Since deductions have long been phased out at
this income level, we can apply some simple math and see this person
pays about $205k in taxes. *That's not enough? *Why do you want to
penalize people that worked hard and becaome successful?

The rate for Long Term Capital gains is 15% for the "rich", and 0% for
the poor. *Ooops.
that's because the poor work for a living and pay 28%.

You're terribly confused. *The single income range for a 28% tax rate
is $78,851 – $164,550; married filing jointly is $131,451 –
$200,300... hardly "poor". *Your irrational hatred of successful
people is blinding you.

Perhaps he'd feel better if we took up a collection to help him get back
on his feet.

A family member is a CPA, and always laughs when they hear someone
talking about how the rich don't pay any taxes. The so-called tax
shelters are long gone, US citizens have to pay taxes on income *world-
wide*, they are taxed at the highest rate, and the deduction are
phased out at the higher income levels. A higher percentage of their
income is taken for taxes, as it should be. But to say that they pay
no taxes, or are getting some sweetheart deal when it comes to taxes,
is just wrong.

Taxes
 

On 9/28/09 10:41 AM, Jack wrote:
On Sep 28, 9:41 am, wrote:
Jack wrote:
On Sep 27, 9:29 pm, wrote:
On Sep 27, 6:36 pm, wrote:

On Sep 27, 1:05 pm, wrote:
On Sep 27, 11:48 am, wrote:
On Sep 27, 11:29 am, wrote:
and you don't have a right to a tax rate of 15% if you're rich. if
you're rich you pay the same rate as the middle class
Another liberal fable. The rich pay a 35% tax rate on income. It's
the rich Demoncrats in DC that pay *no* taxes, as we've all seen over
the last few months, eh?
no, they don't. sorry.
Yes they do, sorry.
the rich make their money on capital gains. and
the capital gains tax is 15%, minus deductions for losses.

Capital gains is a tax on investments. You *hope* you get to pay a
15% tax on a gain, because the alternative is that you lost some, or
all, of you initial investment. Meanwhile, you're still paying 35% on
your income, which is what you used when you gambled on the
investment.

So take a working professional making $500k a year, with $200k in
adjusted capital gains. Since deductions have long been phased out at
this income level, we can apply some simple math and see this person
pays about $205k in taxes. That's not enough? Why do you want to
penalize people that worked hard and becaome successful?

The rate for Long Term Capital gains is 15% for the "rich", and 0% for
the poor. Ooops.
that's because the poor work for a living and pay 28%.

You're terribly confused. The single income range for a 28% tax rate
is $78,851 – $164,550; married filing jointly is $131,451 –
$200,300... hardly "poor". Your irrational hatred of successful
people is blinding you.

Perhaps he'd feel better if we took up a collection to help him get back
on his feet.

A family member is a CPA, and always laughs when they hear someone
talking about how the rich don't pay any taxes. The so-called tax
shelters are long gone, US citizens have to pay taxes on income *world-
wide*, they are taxed at the highest rate, and the deduction are
phased out at the higher income levels. A higher percentage of their
income is taken for taxes, as it should be. But to say that they pay
no taxes, or are getting some sweetheart deal when it comes to taxes,
is just wrong.

The maximum rate on income should be 49% *and* except for long term
capital gains/investments , and I mean long term, every dollar coming in
should be taxed at that rate while you are of working age.



--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

Dedicated to Harry...
 

On Sep 28, 9:35*am, Jack wrote:
On Sep 27, 9:29*pm, wf3h wrote:


the capital gains tax is 15%, minus deductions for losses.

Capital gains is a tax on investments. *You *hope* you get to pay a
15% tax on a gain, because the alternative is that you lost some, or
all, of you initial investment. *Meanwhile, you're still paying 35% on
your income, which is what you used when you gambled on the
investment.

it's a tax on investment INCOME. you pay it when you SELL the
investment otherwise you don't pay taxes on equities.

not too sharp at this are you?



So take a working professional making $500k a year, with $200k in
adjusted capital gains. *Since deductions have long been phased out at
this income level, we can apply some simple math and see this person
pays about $205k in taxes. *That's not enough? *Why do you want to
penalize people that worked hard and becaome successful?

?? gee you want to tax and penalize the middle class which works
hard...harder than the rich.

the hedgefund managers in your mind are worth more than firefighters,
nurses, police officers, etc. after all the hedgefund manager made
$100M by gambling, and he only pays 15% tax rate. so in your mind, the
firefighter SHOULD pay a 28% rate because he's committed the sin of
'not being successful'

yeah you're a sock puppet for the rich, all right.





The rate for Long Term Capital gains is 15% for the "rich", and 0% for
the poor. *Ooops.

that's because the poor work for a living and pay 28%.

You're terribly confused. *The single income range for a 28% tax rate
is $78,851 – $164,550; married filing jointly is $131,451 –
$200,300... hardly "poor". *Your irrational hatred of successful
people is blinding you

ROFLMAO!!! that's a middle class income, as opposed to your view of
the rich who only pay 15%

of course you're kind of dumb so don't know the difference between
investments and investment INCOME...

Dedicated to Harry...
 

On Sep 28, 10:41*am, Jack wrote:


A family member is a CPA, and always laughs when they hear someone
talking about how the rich don't pay any taxes.

yeah, it breaks my heart to see the rich have to pay a whole 15% on
their income. truly tragic.

*The so-called tax
shelters are long gone, US citizens have to pay taxes on income *world-
wide*, they are taxed at the highest rate, and the deduction are
phased out at the higher income levels. *A higher percentage of their
income is taken for taxes, as it should be. *But to say that they pay
no taxes, or are getting some sweetheart deal when it comes to taxes,
is just wrong.-

unfortunately the rich have gamed the system so they pay less in taxex
than normal folks, get to write off their losses, and get a BAILOUT
when they **** up.

anything else you want to tell us about how truly tragic it is to be
rich?

Taxes
 

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 10:49:00 -0400, H the K
wrote:

On 9/28/09 10:41 AM, Jack wrote:
On Sep 28, 9:41 am, wrote:
Jack wrote:
On Sep 27, 9:29 pm, wrote:
On Sep 27, 6:36 pm, wrote:

On Sep 27, 1:05 pm, wrote:
On Sep 27, 11:48 am, wrote:
On Sep 27, 11:29 am, wrote:
and you don't have a right to a tax rate of 15% if you're rich. if
you're rich you pay the same rate as the middle class
Another liberal fable. The rich pay a 35% tax rate on income. It's
the rich Demoncrats in DC that pay *no* taxes, as we've all seen over
the last few months, eh?
no, they don't. sorry.
Yes they do, sorry.
the rich make their money on capital gains. and
the capital gains tax is 15%, minus deductions for losses.

Capital gains is a tax on investments. You *hope* you get to pay a
15% tax on a gain, because the alternative is that you lost some, or
all, of you initial investment. Meanwhile, you're still paying 35% on
your income, which is what you used when you gambled on the
investment.

So take a working professional making $500k a year, with $200k in
adjusted capital gains. Since deductions have long been phased out at
this income level, we can apply some simple math and see this person
pays about $205k in taxes. That's not enough? Why do you want to
penalize people that worked hard and becaome successful?

The rate for Long Term Capital gains is 15% for the "rich", and 0% for
the poor. Ooops.
that's because the poor work for a living and pay 28%.

You're terribly confused. The single income range for a 28% tax rate
is $78,851 – $164,550; married filing jointly is $131,451 –
$200,300... hardly "poor". Your irrational hatred of successful
people is blinding you.

Perhaps he'd feel better if we took up a collection to help him get back
on his feet.

A family member is a CPA, and always laughs when they hear someone
talking about how the rich don't pay any taxes. The so-called tax
shelters are long gone, US citizens have to pay taxes on income *world-
wide*, they are taxed at the highest rate, and the deduction are
phased out at the higher income levels. A higher percentage of their
income is taken for taxes, as it should be. But to say that they pay
no taxes, or are getting some sweetheart deal when it comes to taxes,
is just wrong.

The maximum rate on income should be 49% *and* except for long term
capital gains/investments , and I mean long term, every dollar coming in
should be taxed at that rate while you are of working age.

You do Chuckie Schumer proud, Papa-san.
To take half a cookie from an unwilling school child to give to
another school child is to commit larceny. To take half a citizen's
income to give to others is a civic duty. How Orwellian.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Taxes
 

On Sep 28, 10:49*am, H the K wrote:


The maximum rate on income should be 49% *and* except for long term
capital gains/investments , and I mean long term, every dollar coming in
should be taxed at that rate while you are of working age.

--


to hear jack tell it, the rich are standing on street corners selling
apples after the middle class screwed them in the last year or so...

Taxes
 

On 9/28/09 11:18 AM, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 28, 10:49 am, H the wrote:


The maximum rate on income should be 49% *and* except for long term
capital gains/investments , and I mean long term, every dollar coming in
should be taxed at that rate while you are of working age.

--


to hear jack tell it, the rich are standing on street corners selling
apples after the middle class screwed them in the last year or so...


Jack Goff is an asshole. Thanks mainly to the greed of the rich, tens of
millions of Americans are suffering. It is a sick society that decides
that wealth is what is worth pursuing.

--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

Taxes
 

On Sep 28, 11:18*am, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 10:49:00 -0400, H the K




The maximum rate on income should be 49% *and* except for long term
capital gains/investments , and I mean long term, every dollar coming in
should be taxed at that rate while you are of working age.

You do Chuckie Schumer proud, Papa-san.
To take half a cookie from an unwilling school child to give to
another school child is to commit larceny. *To take half a citizen's
income to give to others is a civic duty. *How Orwellian.


and to take the same citizen's income and give it to the weatlhy in
the form of a 'bailout' is right wing.

how limbaughian...

Taxes
 

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 08:42:03 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Sep 28, 11:18*am, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 10:49:00 -0400, H the K




The maximum rate on income should be 49% *and* except for long term
capital gains/investments , and I mean long term, every dollar coming in
should be taxed at that rate while you are of working age.

You do Chuckie Schumer proud, Papa-san.
To take half a cookie from an unwilling school child to give to
another school child is to commit larceny. *To take half a citizen's
income to give to others is a civic duty. *How Orwellian.


and to take the same citizen's income and give it to the weatlhy in
the form of a 'bailout' is right wing.

how limbaughian...

Who are you debating? Private Dowding?

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Dedicated to Harry...
 

On Sep 28, 11:16*am, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 28, 9:35*am, Jack wrote:

On Sep 27, 9:29*pm, wf3h wrote:

the capital gains tax is 15%, minus deductions for losses.

Capital gains is a tax on investments. *You *hope* you get to pay a
15% tax on a gain, because the alternative is that you lost some, or
all, of you initial investment. *Meanwhile, you're still paying 35% on
your income, which is what you used when you gambled on the
investment.

it's a tax on investment INCOME. you pay it when you SELL the
investment otherwise *you don't pay taxes on equities.

not too sharp at this are you?

I know exactly what capital gains are, when they're realized, and how
they're taxed. The term is self-defining, at least to most. You're
the one that started offering mis-information about them. I should
have known that I'd have to spell everything out, since you like to
twist everthing into something it's not. That's your MO.




So take a working professional making $500k a year, with $200k in
adjusted capital gains. *Since deductions have long been phased out at
this income level, we can apply some simple math and see this person
pays about $205k in taxes. *That's not enough? *Why do you want to
penalize people that worked hard and becaome successful?

?? gee you want to tax and penalize the middle class which works
hard...harder than the rich.

I never said that, and you have no basis to say "rich" people don't
work hard. How could you know?


the hedgefund managers in your mind are worth more than firefighters,
nurses, police officers, etc. after all the hedgefund *manager made
$100M by gambling, and he only pays 15% tax rate. so in your mind, the
firefighter SHOULD pay a 28% rate because he's committed the sin of
'not being successful'


The hedgefund manager is a single exception, and that loophole needs
to be closed. However, while a significant portion of their salary
falls uinder the 15% rate, and that needs to be changed, another
portion is taxed at 35%, so your statement is misleading at best, and
an outright lie at worst.

Of course, the vast majority of the "rich" are not hedgefund managers,
have the vast majority of their earnings taxed at 35%, and work hard
for their money.

There are poor people who work hard, and there are poor people that
are worthless human beings. There are rich people that work hard, and
there are rich people that are worthless humans as well. The
difference is that I can see boths sides of the coin, while your
hatred only allows you to see one.




The rate for Long Term Capital gains is 15% for the "rich", and 0% for
the poor. *Ooops.

that's because the poor work for a living and pay 28%.

You're terribly confused. *The single income range for a 28% tax rate
is $78,851 – $164,550; married filing jointly is $131,451 –
$200,300... hardly "poor". *Your irrational hatred of successful
people is blinding you

ROFLMAO!!! that's a middle class income, as opposed to your view of
the rich who only pay 15%

That's right, it *is* a middle class income, so why did you write "the
poor work for a living and pay 28%"? That's a LIE.


of course you're kind of dumb so don't know the difference between
investments and investment INCOME...

You think the "poor" pay 28% income tax. News flash... the poor pay
little to NO income tax. Re-read your sentence above and tell us
about dumb. cya

Dedicated to Harry...
 

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:28:07 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:

On Sep 28, 12:49*pm, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 28, 12:39*pm, Jack wrote:

I never said that, and you have no basis to say "rich" people don't
work hard. *How could you know?

and you have no basis on which to say middle class people don't work
hard. how would you know?

Another thing I never said or wrote. You just keep on making it up as
you go, don't you?


It's called a "red herring" argument, an informal fallacy, and he uses
it consistently without scruple. I don't think progressives ever
really study these informal fallacies (or formal) that they are so
fond of using. And that's odd, because they use them so meticuously.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Dedicated to Harry...
 

On Sep 28, 2:57*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:28:07 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:

On Sep 28, 12:49*pm, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 28, 12:39*pm, Jack wrote:

I never said that, and you have no basis to say "rich" people don't
work hard. *How could you know?

and you have no basis on which to say middle class people don't work
hard. how would you know?

Another thing I never said or wrote. *You just keep on making it up as
you go, don't you?

It's called a "red herring" argument, an informal fallacy, and he uses
it consistently without scruple. * I don't think progressives ever
really study these informal fallacies (or formal) that they are so
fond of using. * And that's odd, because they use them so meticuously.

I can understand using this type of argument if your position can't
stand on it's own merits.

But that begs the question: Why would you take a position that doesn't
stand on it's own merits? That's illogical.

Dedicated to Harry...
 

On Sep 28, 2:57*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:28:07 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:

On Sep 28, 12:49*pm, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 28, 12:39*pm, Jack wrote:

I never said that, and you have no basis to say "rich" people don't
work hard. *How could you know?

and you have no basis on which to say middle class people don't work
hard. how would you know?

Another thing I never said or wrote. *You just keep on making it up as
you go, don't you?

It's called a "red herring" argument, an informal fallacy, and he uses
it consistently without scruple. * I don't think progressives ever
really study these informal fallacies (or formal) that they are so
fond of using. * And that's odd, because they use them so meticuously.


what's funny is that the idiots blame the middle class for getting
ripped off by the rich and wanting to do something about it!! they
have their little myths that say the rich always do the right thing
and the middle class should just pay up and shut up.

Dedicated to Harry...
 

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:08:25 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:

On Sep 28, 2:57*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:28:07 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:

On Sep 28, 12:49*pm, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 28, 12:39*pm, Jack wrote:

I never said that, and you have no basis to say "rich" people don't
work hard. *How could you know?

and you have no basis on which to say middle class people don't work
hard. how would you know?

Another thing I never said or wrote. *You just keep on making it up as
you go, don't you?

It's called a "red herring" argument, an informal fallacy, and he uses
it consistently without scruple. * I don't think progressives ever
really study these informal fallacies (or formal) that they are so
fond of using. * And that's odd, because they use them so meticuously.

I can understand using this type of argument if your position can't
stand on it's own merits.

But that begs the question: Why would you take a position that doesn't
stand on it's own merits? That's illogical.

Propaganda doesn't have to be logical. It just has to be effective.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Dedicated to right-wing racists
 

On 9/28/09 2:57 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:28:07 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Sep 28, 12:49 pm, wrote:
On Sep 28, 12:39 pm, wrote:

I never said that, and you have no basis to say "rich" people don't
work hard. How could you know?

and you have no basis on which to say middle class people don't work
hard. how would you know?

Another thing I never said or wrote. You just keep on making it up as
you go, don't you?


It's called a "red herring" argument, an informal fallacy, and he uses
it consistently without scruple. I don't think progressives ever
really study these informal fallacies (or formal) that they are so
fond of using. And that's odd, because they use them so meticuously.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access


--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

Dedicated to right-wing racists
 

On 9/28/09 3:08 PM, Jack wrote:
On Sep 28, 2:57 pm, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:28:07 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Sep 28, 12:49 pm, wrote:
On Sep 28, 12:39 pm, wrote:

I never said that, and you have no basis to say "rich" people don't
work hard. How could you know?

and you have no basis on which to say middle class people don't work
hard. how would you know?

Another thing I never said or wrote. You just keep on making it up as
you go, don't you?

It's called a "red herring" argument, an informal fallacy, and he uses
it consistently without scruple. I don't think progressives ever
really study these informal fallacies (or formal) that they are so
fond of using. And that's odd, because they use them so meticuously.

I can understand using this type of argument if your position can't
stand on it's own merits.

But that begs the question: Why would you take a position that doesn't
stand on it's own merits? That's illogical.


--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

Dedicated to right-wing racists
 

On 9/28/09 3:14 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 28, 2:57 pm, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:28:07 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Sep 28, 12:49 pm, wrote:
On Sep 28, 12:39 pm, wrote:

I never said that, and you have no basis to say "rich" people don't
work hard. How could you know?

and you have no basis on which to say middle class people don't work
hard. how would you know?

Another thing I never said or wrote. You just keep on making it up as
you go, don't you?

It's called a "red herring" argument, an informal fallacy, and he uses
it consistently without scruple. I don't think progressives ever
really study these informal fallacies (or formal) that they are so
fond of using. And that's odd, because they use them so meticuously.


what's funny is that the idiots blame the middle class for getting
ripped off by the rich and wanting to do something about it!! they
have their little myths that say the rich always do the right thing
and the middle class should just pay up and shut up.


--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

Dedicated to right-wing racists
 

On 9/28/09 3:26 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:08:25 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Sep 28, 2:57 pm, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:28:07 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Sep 28, 12:49 pm, wrote:
On Sep 28, 12:39 pm, wrote:

I never said that, and you have no basis to say "rich" people don't
work hard. How could you know?

and you have no basis on which to say middle class people don't work
hard. how would you know?

Another thing I never said or wrote. You just keep on making it up as
you go, don't you?

It's called a "red herring" argument, an informal fallacy, and he uses
it consistently without scruple. I don't think progressives ever
really study these informal fallacies (or formal) that they are so
fond of using. And that's odd, because they use them so meticuously.

I can understand using this type of argument if your position can't
stand on it's own merits.

But that begs the question: Why would you take a position that doesn't
stand on it's own merits? That's illogical.

Propaganda doesn't have to be logical. It just has to be effective.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access


--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

Dedicated to Harry...
 

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 17:04:00 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:00:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:01:51 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
om...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:


"Lu Powell" wrote in message
. ..

First, most excellent post. But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the right
and
obligation to look for a job. You do not have the right to be a
paracite.
We will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take
advantage of the opportunities of education and betterment of yourself
while
not whining and making excuses for your deficiencies at every turn.


I'd guess that gives folks the right to take responsibility for their
person.
--

Sometimes makes me wonder why people are so quick to let the government
control their lives. Too bad we couldn't segregate the country into too
parts and the pro-government statism types get to pay for government
managing their lives while leaving the other part to their liberty and
fiscal freedoms.

But that repect for others rights doesn't exist in the hearts of
lib-dims.


Individual liberties are an impediment to good government.


True to some extent. There always has to be a balance, for example,
between
security and individuals' freedom or between exploitive capitalism and
social responsibility. There also needs to be a balance between a nanny
state and individual responsibility. But, truly good government is not an
impediment to individual liberties.

That last sentence is true only if the 'truly good government' doesn't
tax. Once it takes your money, you've lost the freedom to spend it as
you wish.
--

John H


So, no national defense is ok with you? We don't need anything gov't
provides? Why do we have it then?

I am willing to live with an impediment to my liberty so the
government can provide for the national defense. But let's realize
that taking my money *is* an impediment to my liberty.
--

John H

Dedicated to Harry...
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 17:04:00 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:00:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:01:51 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
news:12jvb598rahufdupok3bhp0nbave52kgge@4ax. com...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:


"Lu Powell" wrote in message
.. .

First, most excellent post. But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the right
and
obligation to look for a job. You do not have the right to be a
paracite.
We will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to
take
advantage of the opportunities of education and betterment of
yourself
while
not whining and making excuses for your deficiencies at every turn.


I'd guess that gives folks the right to take responsibility for
their
person.
--

Sometimes makes me wonder why people are so quick to let the
government
control their lives. Too bad we couldn't segregate the country into
too
parts and the pro-government statism types get to pay for government
managing their lives while leaving the other part to their liberty and
fiscal freedoms.

But that repect for others rights doesn't exist in the hearts of
lib-dims.


Individual liberties are an impediment to good government.


True to some extent. There always has to be a balance, for example,
between
security and individuals' freedom or between exploitive capitalism and
social responsibility. There also needs to be a balance between a nanny
state and individual responsibility. But, truly good government is not
an
impediment to individual liberties.

That last sentence is true only if the 'truly good government' doesn't
tax. Once it takes your money, you've lost the freedom to spend it as
you wish.
--

John H


So, no national defense is ok with you? We don't need anything gov't
provides? Why do we have it then?

I am willing to live with an impediment to my liberty so the
government can provide for the national defense. But let's realize
that taking my money *is* an impediment to my liberty.
--

John H

Hee hee! How selective & self serving you are.
Of course you'd be willing to pay taxes for self defence...that's your sugar
daddy.
Carried you all through your 'loafing years' and still carries you in your
retirement.

Dedicated to Harry...
 

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:57:35 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:28:07 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:

On Sep 28, 12:49*pm, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 28, 12:39*pm, Jack wrote:

I never said that, and you have no basis to say "rich" people don't
work hard. *How could you know?

and you have no basis on which to say middle class people don't work
hard. how would you know?

Another thing I never said or wrote. You just keep on making it up as
you go, don't you?


It's called a "red herring" argument, an informal fallacy, and he uses
it consistently without scruple. I don't think progressives ever
really study these informal fallacies (or formal) that they are so
fond of using. And that's odd, because they use them so meticuously.

Please try not to take my name in vain any more than necessary.
--

John H

Dedicated to Harry...
 

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:59:47 -0400, JohnH
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:57:35 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:28:07 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:

On Sep 28, 12:49*pm, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 28, 12:39*pm, Jack wrote:

I never said that, and you have no basis to say "rich" people don't
work hard. *How could you know?

and you have no basis on which to say middle class people don't work
hard. how would you know?

Another thing I never said or wrote. You just keep on making it up as
you go, don't you?


It's called a "red herring" argument, an informal fallacy, and he uses
it consistently without scruple. I don't think progressives ever
really study these informal fallacies (or formal) that they are so
fond of using. And that's odd, because they use them so meticuously.

Please try not to take my name in vain any more than necessary.

Oh! Uh...It's not like I was calling you a communist, John, or any
thing like that. (I shout to the rear as I artfully slip out the
back...)

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Dedicated to Harry...
 

Don White wrote:
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:00:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:01:51 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:

"Lu Powell" wrote in message
...

First, most excellent post. But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the right
and
obligation to look for a job. You do not have the right to be a
paracite.
We will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to
take
advantage of the opportunities of education and betterment of
yourself
while
not whining and making excuses for your deficiencies at every turn.


I'd guess that gives folks the right to take responsibility for their
person.
--
Sometimes makes me wonder why people are so quick to let the government
control their lives. Too bad we couldn't segregate the country into
too
parts and the pro-government statism types get to pay for government
managing their lives while leaving the other part to their liberty and
fiscal freedoms.

But that repect for others rights doesn't exist in the hearts of
lib-dims.

Individual liberties are an impediment to good government.

True to some extent. There always has to be a balance, for example,
between
security and individuals' freedom or between exploitive capitalism and
social responsibility. There also needs to be a balance between a nanny
state and individual responsibility. But, truly good government is not an
impediment to individual liberties.
That last sentence is true only if the 'truly good government' doesn't
tax. Once it takes your money, you've lost the freedom to spend it as
you wish.
--

John H

So, no national defense is ok with you? We don't need anything gov't
provides? Why do we have it then?


--
Nom=de=Plume

~ Snerk ~
Johnny made a career of getting big pay & benefits from Uncle Sam for
minimal output.
He's doing the same now for no output.



And as a member of our military, he earned every penny, dummy.

Are you saying that you are reporting for work every day, and earning
your own income, or are you getting some Canadian subsidized money that
you deserve more than John?

Dedicated to Harry...
 

H the K wrote:
On 9/27/09 9:39 PM, Don White wrote:
wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:00:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:01:51 -0600,
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600,
wrote:


"Lu wrote in message
...

First, most excellent post. But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the
right
and
obligation to look for a job. You do not have the right to be a
paracite.
We will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to
take
advantage of the opportunities of education and betterment of
yourself
while
not whining and making excuses for your deficiencies at every
turn.


I'd guess that gives folks the right to take responsibility for
their
person.
--

Sometimes makes me wonder why people are so quick to let the
government
control their lives. Too bad we couldn't segregate the country into
too
parts and the pro-government statism types get to pay for government
managing their lives while leaving the other part to their
liberty and
fiscal freedoms.

But that repect for others rights doesn't exist in the hearts of
lib-dims.


Individual liberties are an impediment to good government.


True to some extent. There always has to be a balance, for example,
between
security and individuals' freedom or between exploitive capitalism and
social responsibility. There also needs to be a balance between a
nanny
state and individual responsibility. But, truly good government is
not an
impediment to individual liberties.

That last sentence is true only if the 'truly good government' doesn't
tax. Once it takes your money, you've lost the freedom to spend it as
you wish.
--

John H


So, no national defense is ok with you? We don't need anything gov't
provides? Why do we have it then?


--
Nom=de=Plume

~ Snerk ~
Johnny made a career of getting big pay& benefits from Uncle Sam for
minimal output.
He's doing the same now for no output.



Don't forget that until recently he took money from one or more of the
counties of northern Virginia to pretend to be a substitute teacher and
while he was doing that he made a number of racial remarks about his
students and their families.



If you tell Donnie to not forget it he will probably write it down, but
shouldn't you present him with facts, rather than bull****, before you
make those demands on him?

Dedicated to Harry...
 

Don White wrote:

You'd think he'd have the common sense to be grateful to the various levels
of government for his high-flying lifestyle, instead of bad mouthing them at
every opportunity.



You'd think? Try again, dummy.

Dedicated to Harry...
 

On Sep 28, 5:12*pm, "Don White" wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message

...





On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 17:04:00 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:00:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:01:51 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
news:12jvb598rahufdupok3bhp0nbave52kgge@4ax. com...
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:15:11 -0600, "Canuck57"
wrote:

"Lu Powell" wrote in message
.. .

First, most excellent post. *But one I might change.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job, you have the right
and
obligation to look for a job. *You do not have the right to be a
paracite.
We will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to
take
advantage of the opportunities of education and betterment of
yourself
while
not whining and making excuses for your deficiencies at every turn.