BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
 

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 20:13:09 -0500, Bruce wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:56:49 -0500, wrote:


they're fine, upstanding conservative christian gentlemen who happen
to be nazi fascist thugs who hate blacks, catholics, jews, etc


OK. I know about the KKK. I'm not familiar with their political
affiliations , if they even have one. Until now, I didn't know they
were anti-Catholic. Are they even around anymore? I remember years ago
they were lobbying to rally in large cities and they were granted the
permits but the locals showed up and pushed them out.

yeah they're still around. have 'em here in PA as a matter of fact

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
 

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 20:18:43 -0500, Bruce wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:57:55 -0500, wrote:



When you are as far left as you are, you will never understand reality.

the right calls anyone who doesn't drink their kool aid 'far left'

You reinforced my point.

and you did mine

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
 

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:29:44 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...


nom=de=plume wrote:


wrote in message
...



nom=de=plume wrote:



wrote in message
...




nom=de=plume wrote:




"Bill wrote in message
m...





wrote in message
...





"Bill wrote in message
...





wrote in message
...





On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:40:09 -0500,

wrote:






The top brackets ought to be paying 49%, and there should be
no
cap
on
earnings subject to social security and medicare taxes.





As long as the top 1% controls 50% of the campaign
contributions
and
100% of the media you won't see that. They may pass that as
the
published top rate but there will be enough tax shelters and
loopholes
so they won't actually pay that.
The government has a long rich history of using the tax code
to
drive
social policy. If you do politically correct things you get
tax
breaks, big ones.





Is why there will never be a flat tax. Taxation is the
ultimate
control.






A flat tax is regressive.

--
Nom=de=Plume






Actually is neither Regressive or Progressive.






You're just wrong. I don't know how to say it politely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax







No, he's not. Regression means that the more you make, the less
you
pay -
hardly a flat tax. You have to remember that the theory behind the
flat
tax offers no deductions. It's a simple percentage of your
income.




Didn't say regression - said regressive... and punative for those
who
make
just a bit.

You earn $100. You get to keep $90. You earn $100,000. You get to
keep
$90,000. Which would you pick?





Dumb example. People who choose to ignore an education and/or are
lazy
don't have the option to choose a $100K income.



Talk about elitist! I thought that was the exclusive realm of the
left.




I said "dumb example". You read that, right?


You said "choose to ignore an education and/or are lazy." That sounds
elitist to me.



Elitist? Go visit your local college campus. Are all of those kids
elitists because the applied themselves and stayed out of trouble?


All of the kids in college have applied themselves and stayed out of
trouble? Really? All of them? Wow.


Enough to take the next step to better themselves. I know there are
dropouts, so I properly chose to add the word "all" in my last statement.
You chose to spin it and...it didn't work.


So, you're claiming that "all those kids" the ones who are in college are
there because they chose to better themselves. Not a single one is there
because of some other reason. Keep at it "bruce"

Dan Krueger wears lifestyle blinkers. The real world would scare the
**** out of him. I'm starting to suspect he was a preppy dweeb who
went straight to college and married a Stepford wife. They've got a
cul-de-sac life with two cars and a boat. He likes his food fast and
his women plump.

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
 

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:59:22 -0500, Bruce wrote:

nom=de=plume wrote:

It means exactly that. $9500 vs. $80K? Is that a difficult comparison
for
you? Which would you pick?





As a percentage. It's relative. The two individuals in your scenario
don't have the option to "pick".



No... really? Yes, as a percentage...

If you could chose your situation was the question. duhhh...




That's a pointless question - duhhh.


For a VP of a Fortune 1000 company perhaps?



How is a career choice an option if the individual chooses to be lazy?


Do you think all people who aren't VPs of Fortune 1000 companies lazy?


More doubletalk. You are too obvious!

Holy ****. You jumped on me for my back and forths with Loogy. Have
you thought about the same thing with regard to you and d'Plum?
--

"Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and in others." (Unknown)

John H

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
 

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:59:22 -0500, Bruce wrote:

nom=de=plume wrote:

It means exactly that. $9500 vs. $80K? Is that a difficult
comparison
for
you? Which would you pick?





As a percentage. It's relative. The two individuals in your
scenario
don't have the option to "pick".



No... really? Yes, as a percentage...

If you could chose your situation was the question. duhhh...




That's a pointless question - duhhh.


For a VP of a Fortune 1000 company perhaps?



How is a career choice an option if the individual chooses to be lazy?


Do you think all people who aren't VPs of Fortune 1000 companies lazy?


More doubletalk. You are too obvious!

Holy ****. You jumped on me for my back and forths with Loogy. Have
you thought about the same thing with regard to you and d'Plum?
--

"Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and in
others." (Unknown)

John H

Bruce/Diaper Dan/Dk/Kruger doesn't think. His mom does that for him. That's
why the only employment he can get is at his mothers company... Elite Contr.
Supply

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
 

"Don White" wrote in message
...

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:59:22 -0500, Bruce wrote:

nom=de=plume wrote:

It means exactly that. $9500 vs. $80K? Is that a difficult
comparison
for
you? Which would you pick?





As a percentage. It's relative. The two individuals in your
scenario
don't have the option to "pick".



No... really? Yes, as a percentage...

If you could chose your situation was the question. duhhh...




That's a pointless question - duhhh.


For a VP of a Fortune 1000 company perhaps?



How is a career choice an option if the individual chooses to be lazy?


Do you think all people who aren't VPs of Fortune 1000 companies lazy?


More doubletalk. You are too obvious!

Holy ****. You jumped on me for my back and forths with Loogy. Have
you thought about the same thing with regard to you and d'Plum?
--

"Your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it, in yourself and in
others." (Unknown)

John H

Bruce/Diaper Dan/Dk/Kruger doesn't think. His mom does that for him.
That's why the only employment he can get is at his mothers company...
Elite Contr. Supply



I knew John couldn't help it but read my posts...


--
Nom=de=Plume

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
 

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

nom=de=plume wrote:

It means exactly that. $9500 vs. $80K? Is that a difficult
comparison
for
you? Which would you pick?






As a percentage. It's relative. The two individuals in your
scenario
don't have the option to "pick".




No... really? Yes, as a percentage...

If you could chose your situation was the question. duhhh...





That's a pointless question - duhhh.



For a VP of a Fortune 1000 company perhaps?




How is a career choice an option if the individual chooses to be lazy?


Do you think all people who aren't VPs of Fortune 1000 companies lazy?



More doubletalk. You are too obvious!


I notice that you still haven't addressed the issue. Keep flailing. Talk
about being obvious!!


Which issue is it now?

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
 

nom=de=plume wrote:

I? You're the one claiming everyone is lazy if they don't make
$100K/year.



I never said that and you know it. You would make a lousy politician.
The press would eat you alive.


Actually, you pretty much did.


"pretty much"? I never came close. You came up with the number, not me.

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
 

nom=de=plume wrote:





Dumb example. People who choose to ignore an education and/or are
lazy
don't have the option to choose a $100K income.




Talk about elitist! I thought that was the exclusive realm of the
left.





I said "dumb example". You read that, right?



You said "choose to ignore an education and/or are lazy." That sounds
elitist to me.




Elitist? Go visit your local college campus. Are all of those kids
elitists because they applied themselves and stayed out of trouble?


All of the kids in college have applied themselves and stayed out of
trouble? Really? All of them? Wow.



Enough to take the next step to better themselves. I know there are
dropouts, so I properly chose to add the word "all" in my last statement.
You chose to spin it and...it didn't work.


So, you're claiming that "all those kids" the ones who are in college are
there because they chose to better themselves. Not a single one is there
because of some other reason. Keep at it "bruce"


I said "Are all of those kids elitists because they applied themselves
and stayed out of trouble?" and you sent it into another direction - as
usual.

BREAKING: Brown Wins in Mass. Race
 

nom=de=plume wrote:

Some other thread... in some other universe?


Evidently.