|
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likesthis
|
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
|
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likesthis
On 3/30/2013 10:58 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/30/13 10:51 AM, Eisboch wrote: "BAR" wrote in message . .. In article , says... "J Herring" wrote in message ... BTW, has your wife taken the course which teaches all the items you covered? =============================================== My wife has no desire to even hold or look at a gun, let alone shoot one. If she did, and wanted to get a permit to own one, I'd recommend she take the course that my son and his wife took that was far more extensive. In anticipation of your next question, all my guns are kept in a safe in my house and the only other person other than me who has the combination is my son in South Carolina (in case something should happen to us.) My point in my original post was that I found the simple, 5 hour course required to get a LTC in MA is marginally worthwhile, especially for people who are not familiar with firearms or have little or no experience with using them. I think that is a little ironic for a state that otherwise has some very strict gun ownership laws. Your wife does own a gun or did you get divorced? -------------------------------------------------- If your question was directed at me, I am not divorced. Married happily for 43 years. My wife has absolutely no interest in firearms. She's shot my .22LR pistol a couple of times out at the informal range, and I showed her how to fire our "Anti Home Invader 12 Gauge," in case PsychoSnotty breaks in for an illegal home invasion and I'm outa town. Told her to aim lower than usual if it is PsychoSnotty. Our first line of defense, though, is the alarm system. It's loud enough to wake brain dead zombies. You took mama out to man camp? Did you introduce her to Stumpy |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:23:16 -0400, BAR wrote:
In article , says... "Urin Asshole" wrote in message ... On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 00:57:48 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 10:20:41 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: Well you come across as a ****ing stupid ****, but I try not to bring it up. I own four. No, I'm not going to list them. One's a handgun, one's a 20 gauge. Figure it out from there. Hmmm, I seem to remember Plume bragging about a 20 ga. Are you thinking about buying a sail boat too? Who the **** is Plume? A fantasy woman of yours? ------------------------------------- Hmmmmmm. How did you know "Plume" is a woman? How easily they give themselves away. Like that you're a mental case. Yeah I agree. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 01:55:00 -0400, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 22:08:41 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 21:45:44 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 17:24:07 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: The 14th amendment has NOTHING to do with federal laws. Try to keep up. Holy Christ! It has everything to do with federal AND state laws. Try not to be particularly stupid. You cited it All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Where does it say anything about federal laws. It says "No State..." The FEDERAL law says "no state". Did you get through fourth grade? Cause it's not obvious. DOMA is not a state law. it is a federal law. No state wrote DOMA Nice try. That's not the subject of your recent bull****. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:23:18 -0400, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:53:59 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: Many good reasons there for finally getting rid of "state's rights," and having a uniform, national code, eh? ===== So you would like to overturn the constitution and Bill of Rights?? It's important to remember that there is a reason for the way things are. The liberals and progressives have shown thier true goal. They are all control freaks and they can't stand individualism or liberty. Stupid ****s like you have shown their true goal. Being stupid ****s. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 01:54:03 -0400, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 22:07:36 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 21:42:39 -0400, wrote: You don't need a lawyer for marriage or divorce. Unless we have it your way. We won't. I guess you have never been through a divorce. You pretty much need a lawyer familiar with the laws in the state you are divorcing in, just to figure out who gets the "stuff" and how to legally convey it. If kids are involved it gets way more complicated than that. You don't need one. Sometimes its a good idea. Sometimes its unnecessary. I suppose if there are no assets no kids and you live in a state with a very simple divorce procedure, you can get way with Kinkos blank divorce petition but if there is any confusion at all about the divorce, you will wish you had a lawyer. Wishing and needing are two different ****ing things. You're really being particularly stupid today. There's +1100 gov laws that take marital status into consideration. At a certain point, why would anyone enter into a contract that involves 1100+ different laws without legal advice? If Edie Winter had better legal advice, she would not have been slammed with that huge tax bill. So, blame the grieving widow. You're claiming what exactly? She should just write off her dying wife? I guess so. If she really had a million dollar inheritance coming (as indicated by the $360,000 tax bill), she really should have sought legal advice and engaged in some tax planning. It is simple logic. Sure. So, it's her fault or her dead spouses. What a lame brain. I hate lawyers but I also understand they are necessary if you want to protect yourself from other lawyers or, in this case, the government. What advice would the lawyer have given them Mr. I'm-an-expert? There are a number of very simple ways to hold property jointly, even if you are not married. Go for it. We're waiting... So you can just forget about a simple flat tax and other wacko ideas. The country has never worked that way and never will. Just concentrate on waste and corruption. As long as special interests still control congress, we will never have a flat tax. I suppose you will be defending the carried interest deduction next. Nor should we. It's very regressive. It hurts those who can least afford it. The rich do fine though. It is all part of our 10,000 page tax code. 99% of it has nothing to do with anyone who isn't a millionaire. All of those "loopholes" were put in there to placate some special interest, usually a very rich special interest. So, when making things simpler and fair comes around, you're all for it. Good. Just don't mention flat tax, as that is simple but it aint fair. For virtually everyone making less than about $150,000 a year, a flat tax would be better. No it wouldn't. It's class warfare.. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articl...-class-warfare Guys like Buffett and Romney would be paying a lot more. Stupid like you don't get it. We come full circle back to the idea that marriage is a simple contract between anyone who wants to enter into it at that point don't we? That's fine with me. Good deal. That is as it should be Tell your right-wing buddies. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:23:16 -0400, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:49:57 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "Wayne B" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:32:20 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: I don't see multiple sides to the position of reducing gun violence. Study after study has shown and country after country has demonstrated that fewer guns means fewer deaths. ==== Carried to its logical end point, your view leads to the inescapable conclusion that eliminating all guns would eliminate all gun deaths. Since there are way too many people who would be all too happy to press for eliminating all guns, the NRA serves as an effective counterpoint to that line of reasoning. I think that if you actually knew any rural gun owners, you'd find that they are almost universally opposed to *any* increased gun control measures, mostly because they don't trust you city/suburban folks or the type of government that you advocate. ---------------------------------------- Yup. Sorta like imposing your religion onto others. Not even close. Sounds like a democracy to me. Nice try though. Read some DeToqueville You have no idea what legislative power is or the obligation of the population has to support those less fortunately. So, next time you pull **** out of your ass, kindly do it in private. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likesthis
On 3/30/13 12:38 PM, Urin Asshole wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:23:16 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:49:57 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "Wayne B" wrote in message ... On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:32:20 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: I don't see multiple sides to the position of reducing gun violence. Study after study has shown and country after country has demonstrated that fewer guns means fewer deaths. ==== Carried to its logical end point, your view leads to the inescapable conclusion that eliminating all guns would eliminate all gun deaths. Since there are way too many people who would be all too happy to press for eliminating all guns, the NRA serves as an effective counterpoint to that line of reasoning. I think that if you actually knew any rural gun owners, you'd find that they are almost universally opposed to *any* increased gun control measures, mostly because they don't trust you city/suburban folks or the type of government that you advocate. ---------------------------------------- Yup. Sorta like imposing your religion onto others. Not even close. Sounds like a democracy to me. Nice try though. Read some DeToqueville You have no idea what legislative power is or the obligation of the population has to support those less fortunately. So, next time you pull **** out of your ass, kindly do it in private. Or even what the guy's name was. It ain't DeToqueville. It is de Tocqueville, Alexis de Tocqueville, and in usual discussion, the reference is Tocqueville, as in "Tocqueville said, among other things, that democracy in the United States had a fair balance of liberty and equality, and concern for the individual as well as the community which he lived." If Tocqueville visited these days, he'd have a far different opinion, thanks to the radicalization of the right. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likesthis
On 3/30/13 12:46 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/30/13 12:38 PM, Urin Asshole wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:23:16 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:49:57 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "Wayne B" wrote in message ... On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:32:20 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: I don't see multiple sides to the position of reducing gun violence. Study after study has shown and country after country has demonstrated that fewer guns means fewer deaths. ==== Carried to its logical end point, your view leads to the inescapable conclusion that eliminating all guns would eliminate all gun deaths. Since there are way too many people who would be all too happy to press for eliminating all guns, the NRA serves as an effective counterpoint to that line of reasoning. I think that if you actually knew any rural gun owners, you'd find that they are almost universally opposed to *any* increased gun control measures, mostly because they don't trust you city/suburban folks or the type of government that you advocate. ---------------------------------------- Yup. Sorta like imposing your religion onto others. Not even close. Sounds like a democracy to me. Nice try though. Read some DeToqueville You have no idea what legislative power is or the obligation of the population has to support those less fortunately. So, next time you pull **** out of your ass, kindly do it in private. Or even what the guy's name was. It ain't DeToqueville. It is de Tocqueville, Alexis de Tocqueville, and in usual discussion, the reference is Tocqueville, as in "Tocqueville said, among other things, that democracy in the United States had a fair balance of liberty and equality, and concern for the individual as well as the community which he lived." If Tocqueville visited these days, he'd have a far different opinion, thanks to the radicalization of the right. "...community in which he lived." |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 12:46:42 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 3/30/13 12:38 PM, Urin Asshole wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:23:16 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:49:57 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "Wayne B" wrote in message ... On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:32:20 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: I don't see multiple sides to the position of reducing gun violence. Study after study has shown and country after country has demonstrated that fewer guns means fewer deaths. ==== Carried to its logical end point, your view leads to the inescapable conclusion that eliminating all guns would eliminate all gun deaths. Since there are way too many people who would be all too happy to press for eliminating all guns, the NRA serves as an effective counterpoint to that line of reasoning. I think that if you actually knew any rural gun owners, you'd find that they are almost universally opposed to *any* increased gun control measures, mostly because they don't trust you city/suburban folks or the type of government that you advocate. ---------------------------------------- Yup. Sorta like imposing your religion onto others. Not even close. Sounds like a democracy to me. Nice try though. Read some DeToqueville You have no idea what legislative power is or the obligation of the population has to support those less fortunately. So, next time you pull **** out of your ass, kindly do it in private. Or even what the guy's name was. It ain't DeToqueville. It is de Tocqueville, Alexis de Tocqueville, and in usual discussion, the reference is Tocqueville, as in "Tocqueville said, among other things, that democracy in the United States had a fair balance of liberty and equality, and concern for the individual as well as the community which he lived." If Tocqueville visited these days, he'd have a far different opinion, thanks to the radicalization of the right. You are *so* f'ing smart, FOAESADD! Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likesthis
On 3/30/2013 12:58 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 12:46:42 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 12:38 PM, Urin Asshole wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:23:16 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:49:57 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "Wayne B" wrote in message ... On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:32:20 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: I don't see multiple sides to the position of reducing gun violence. Study after study has shown and country after country has demonstrated that fewer guns means fewer deaths. ==== Carried to its logical end point, your view leads to the inescapable conclusion that eliminating all guns would eliminate all gun deaths. Since there are way too many people who would be all too happy to press for eliminating all guns, the NRA serves as an effective counterpoint to that line of reasoning. I think that if you actually knew any rural gun owners, you'd find that they are almost universally opposed to *any* increased gun control measures, mostly because they don't trust you city/suburban folks or the type of government that you advocate. ---------------------------------------- Yup. Sorta like imposing your religion onto others. Not even close. Sounds like a democracy to me. Nice try though. Read some DeToqueville You have no idea what legislative power is or the obligation of the population has to support those less fortunately. So, next time you pull **** out of your ass, kindly do it in private. Or even what the guy's name was. It ain't DeToqueville. It is de Tocqueville, Alexis de Tocqueville, and in usual discussion, the reference is Tocqueville, as in "Tocqueville said, among other things, that democracy in the United States had a fair balance of liberty and equality, and concern for the individual as well as the community which he lived." If Tocqueville visited these days, he'd have a far different opinion, thanks to the radicalization of the right. You are *so* f'ing smart, FOAESADD! Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. He's ****ed because the radical money lenders took his house away. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likesthis
On 3/30/13 12:58 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 12:46:42 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 12:38 PM, Urin Asshole wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:23:16 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:49:57 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "Wayne B" wrote in message ... On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:32:20 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: I don't see multiple sides to the position of reducing gun violence. Study after study has shown and country after country has demonstrated that fewer guns means fewer deaths. ==== Carried to its logical end point, your view leads to the inescapable conclusion that eliminating all guns would eliminate all gun deaths. Since there are way too many people who would be all too happy to press for eliminating all guns, the NRA serves as an effective counterpoint to that line of reasoning. I think that if you actually knew any rural gun owners, you'd find that they are almost universally opposed to *any* increased gun control measures, mostly because they don't trust you city/suburban folks or the type of government that you advocate. ---------------------------------------- Yup. Sorta like imposing your religion onto others. Not even close. Sounds like a democracy to me. Nice try though. Read some DeToqueville You have no idea what legislative power is or the obligation of the population has to support those less fortunately. So, next time you pull **** out of your ass, kindly do it in private. Or even what the guy's name was. It ain't DeToqueville. It is de Tocqueville, Alexis de Tocqueville, and in usual discussion, the reference is Tocqueville, as in "Tocqueville said, among other things, that democracy in the United States had a fair balance of liberty and equality, and concern for the individual as well as the community which he lived." If Tocqueville visited these days, he'd have a far different opinion, thanks to the radicalization of the right. You are *so* f'ing smart, FOAESADD! Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Awwww. It's just something you learn when you get a good liberal arts education. Tocqueville was a progressive thinker. No one would accuse you of either of those attributes. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
In article ,
says... On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 12:46:42 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 12:38 PM, Urin Asshole wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:23:16 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:49:57 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "Wayne B" wrote in message ... On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:32:20 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: I don't see multiple sides to the position of reducing gun violence. Study after study has shown and country after country has demonstrated that fewer guns means fewer deaths. ==== Carried to its logical end point, your view leads to the inescapable conclusion that eliminating all guns would eliminate all gun deaths. Since there are way too many people who would be all too happy to press for eliminating all guns, the NRA serves as an effective counterpoint to that line of reasoning. I think that if you actually knew any rural gun owners, you'd find that they are almost universally opposed to *any* increased gun control measures, mostly because they don't trust you city/suburban folks or the type of government that you advocate. ---------------------------------------- Yup. Sorta like imposing your religion onto others. Not even close. Sounds like a democracy to me. Nice try though. Read some DeToqueville You have no idea what legislative power is or the obligation of the population has to support those less fortunately. So, next time you pull **** out of your ass, kindly do it in private. Or even what the guy's name was. It ain't DeToqueville. It is de Tocqueville, Alexis de Tocqueville, and in usual discussion, the reference is Tocqueville, as in "Tocqueville said, among other things, that democracy in the United States had a fair balance of liberty and equality, and concern for the individual as well as the community which he lived." If Tocqueville visited these days, he'd have a far different opinion, thanks to the radicalization of the right. You are *so* f'ing smart, FOAESADD! Salmonbait You.... aren't. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likesthis
On 3/30/2013 1:29 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/30/13 12:58 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 12:46:42 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 12:38 PM, Urin Asshole wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:23:16 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:49:57 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "Wayne B" wrote in message ... On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:32:20 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: I don't see multiple sides to the position of reducing gun violence. Study after study has shown and country after country has demonstrated that fewer guns means fewer deaths. ==== Carried to its logical end point, your view leads to the inescapable conclusion that eliminating all guns would eliminate all gun deaths. Since there are way too many people who would be all too happy to press for eliminating all guns, the NRA serves as an effective counterpoint to that line of reasoning. I think that if you actually knew any rural gun owners, you'd find that they are almost universally opposed to *any* increased gun control measures, mostly because they don't trust you city/suburban folks or the type of government that you advocate. ---------------------------------------- Yup. Sorta like imposing your religion onto others. Not even close. Sounds like a democracy to me. Nice try though. Read some DeToqueville You have no idea what legislative power is or the obligation of the population has to support those less fortunately. So, next time you pull **** out of your ass, kindly do it in private. Or even what the guy's name was. It ain't DeToqueville. It is de Tocqueville, Alexis de Tocqueville, and in usual discussion, the reference is Tocqueville, as in "Tocqueville said, among other things, that democracy in the United States had a fair balance of liberty and equality, and concern for the individual as well as the community which he lived." If Tocqueville visited these days, he'd have a far different opinion, thanks to the radicalization of the right. You are *so* f'ing smart, FOAESADD! Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Awwww. It's just something you learn when you get a good liberal arts education. Tocqueville was a progressive thinker. No one would accuse you of either of those attributes. The world is over populated with liberal artists and lawyers. We need more doctors, dentists, nurses, engineers, and technicians. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 12:58:30 -0400, J Herring
wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 12:46:42 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 12:38 PM, Urin Asshole wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:23:16 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:49:57 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "Wayne B" wrote in message ... On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:32:20 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: I don't see multiple sides to the position of reducing gun violence. Study after study has shown and country after country has demonstrated that fewer guns means fewer deaths. ==== Carried to its logical end point, your view leads to the inescapable conclusion that eliminating all guns would eliminate all gun deaths. Since there are way too many people who would be all too happy to press for eliminating all guns, the NRA serves as an effective counterpoint to that line of reasoning. I think that if you actually knew any rural gun owners, you'd find that they are almost universally opposed to *any* increased gun control measures, mostly because they don't trust you city/suburban folks or the type of government that you advocate. ---------------------------------------- Yup. Sorta like imposing your religion onto others. Not even close. Sounds like a democracy to me. Nice try though. Read some DeToqueville You have no idea what legislative power is or the obligation of the population has to support those less fortunately. So, next time you pull **** out of your ass, kindly do it in private. Or even what the guy's name was. It ain't DeToqueville. It is de Tocqueville, Alexis de Tocqueville, and in usual discussion, the reference is Tocqueville, as in "Tocqueville said, among other things, that democracy in the United States had a fair balance of liberty and equality, and concern for the individual as well as the community which he lived." If Tocqueville visited these days, he'd have a far different opinion, thanks to the radicalization of the right. You are *so* f'ing smart, FOAESADD! Salmonbait That's quite the insult coming from someone like you. You could say the same thing about a turnip and mean it compared to you. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likesthis
On 3/30/13 6:12 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 13:29:13 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 12:58 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 12:46:42 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 12:38 PM, Urin Asshole wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:23:16 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:49:57 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "Wayne B" wrote in message ... On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:32:20 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: I don't see multiple sides to the position of reducing gun violence. Study after study has shown and country after country has demonstrated that fewer guns means fewer deaths. ==== Carried to its logical end point, your view leads to the inescapable conclusion that eliminating all guns would eliminate all gun deaths. Since there are way too many people who would be all too happy to press for eliminating all guns, the NRA serves as an effective counterpoint to that line of reasoning. I think that if you actually knew any rural gun owners, you'd find that they are almost universally opposed to *any* increased gun control measures, mostly because they don't trust you city/suburban folks or the type of government that you advocate. ---------------------------------------- Yup. Sorta like imposing your religion onto others. Not even close. Sounds like a democracy to me. Nice try though. Read some DeToqueville You have no idea what legislative power is or the obligation of the population has to support those less fortunately. So, next time you pull **** out of your ass, kindly do it in private. Or even what the guy's name was. It ain't DeToqueville. It is de Tocqueville, Alexis de Tocqueville, and in usual discussion, the reference is Tocqueville, as in "Tocqueville said, among other things, that democracy in the United States had a fair balance of liberty and equality, and concern for the individual as well as the community which he lived." If Tocqueville visited these days, he'd have a far different opinion, thanks to the radicalization of the right. You are *so* f'ing smart, FOAESADD! Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Awwww. It's just something you learn when you get a good liberal arts education. Tocqueville was a progressive thinker. No one would accuse you of either of those attributes. I thank my lucky stars on a daily basis that you and I don't share attributes! Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Right...you're neither progressive nor a thinker. Got it. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 13:29:13 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 3/30/13 12:58 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 12:46:42 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 12:38 PM, Urin Asshole wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:23:16 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:49:57 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "Wayne B" wrote in message ... On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:32:20 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: I don't see multiple sides to the position of reducing gun violence. Study after study has shown and country after country has demonstrated that fewer guns means fewer deaths. ==== Carried to its logical end point, your view leads to the inescapable conclusion that eliminating all guns would eliminate all gun deaths. Since there are way too many people who would be all too happy to press for eliminating all guns, the NRA serves as an effective counterpoint to that line of reasoning. I think that if you actually knew any rural gun owners, you'd find that they are almost universally opposed to *any* increased gun control measures, mostly because they don't trust you city/suburban folks or the type of government that you advocate. ---------------------------------------- Yup. Sorta like imposing your religion onto others. Not even close. Sounds like a democracy to me. Nice try though. Read some DeToqueville You have no idea what legislative power is or the obligation of the population has to support those less fortunately. So, next time you pull **** out of your ass, kindly do it in private. Or even what the guy's name was. It ain't DeToqueville. It is de Tocqueville, Alexis de Tocqueville, and in usual discussion, the reference is Tocqueville, as in "Tocqueville said, among other things, that democracy in the United States had a fair balance of liberty and equality, and concern for the individual as well as the community which he lived." If Tocqueville visited these days, he'd have a far different opinion, thanks to the radicalization of the right. You are *so* f'ing smart, FOAESADD! Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Awwww. It's just something you learn when you get a good liberal arts education. Tocqueville was a progressive thinker. No one would accuse you of either of those attributes. I thank my lucky stars on a daily basis that you and I don't share attributes! Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 18:10:29 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 3/30/13 6:12 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 13:29:13 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 12:58 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 12:46:42 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 12:38 PM, Urin Asshole wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:23:16 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:49:57 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "Wayne B" wrote in message ... On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:32:20 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: I don't see multiple sides to the position of reducing gun violence. Study after study has shown and country after country has demonstrated that fewer guns means fewer deaths. ==== Carried to its logical end point, your view leads to the inescapable conclusion that eliminating all guns would eliminate all gun deaths. Since there are way too many people who would be all too happy to press for eliminating all guns, the NRA serves as an effective counterpoint to that line of reasoning. I think that if you actually knew any rural gun owners, you'd find that they are almost universally opposed to *any* increased gun control measures, mostly because they don't trust you city/suburban folks or the type of government that you advocate. ---------------------------------------- Yup. Sorta like imposing your religion onto others. Not even close. Sounds like a democracy to me. Nice try though. Read some DeToqueville You have no idea what legislative power is or the obligation of the population has to support those less fortunately. So, next time you pull **** out of your ass, kindly do it in private. Or even what the guy's name was. It ain't DeToqueville. It is de Tocqueville, Alexis de Tocqueville, and in usual discussion, the reference is Tocqueville, as in "Tocqueville said, among other things, that democracy in the United States had a fair balance of liberty and equality, and concern for the individual as well as the community which he lived." If Tocqueville visited these days, he'd have a far different opinion, thanks to the radicalization of the right. You are *so* f'ing smart, FOAESADD! Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Awwww. It's just something you learn when you get a good liberal arts education. Tocqueville was a progressive thinker. No one would accuse you of either of those attributes. I thank my lucky stars on a daily basis that you and I don't share attributes! Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Right...you're neither progressive nor a thinker. Got it. Not *nearly* of your caliber! Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likesthis
On 3/30/2013 10:36 AM, J Herring wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:10:05 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 9:24 AM, J Herring wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 09:20:00 -0400, Hank© wrote: On 3/30/2013 7:48 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 3/30/13 7:47 AM, J Herring wrote: On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 23:10:12 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "J Herring" wrote in message ... BTW, has your wife taken the course which teaches all the items you covered? =============================================== My wife has no desire to even hold or look at a gun, let alone shoot one. If she did, and wanted to get a permit to own one, I'd recommend she take the course that my son and his wife took that was far more extensive. In anticipation of your next question, all my guns are kept in a safe in my house and the only other person other than me who has the combination is my son in South Carolina (in case something should happen to us.) My point in my original post was that I found the simple, 5 hour course required to get a LTC in MA is marginally worthwhile, especially for people who are not familiar with firearms or have little or no experience with using them. I think that is a little ironic for a state that otherwise has some very strict gun ownership laws. There is a whole list of courses available for my wife (and me, possibly) to take if we desire. They include advanced handgun, personal protection, concealed carry, pistol cleaning and maintenance, Utah/multi-state concealed carry, and a pot full of rifle courses. She took the basic pistol course. Good catch on my next question. We do keep a loaded gun in the house, and have for many years. When I saw the class given by a woman for women, I thought my wife would be interested. She was. Now she's wanting me to take her to the range. It won't be in the woods shooting at stumps. Last night, while going out for dinner, she mentioned getting a carry permit. So, she may be taking the next courses sooner than I thought! Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Oh, boy! Be sure to keep us posted...I don't often watch the local news on TV. Why do you have to be such an asshole, all of the time. Tell the little woman who manages your life and pays your bills to find something for you to do that makes you happy. Otherwise you'll sit there pounding on your keyboard, chewing your fingers and becoming more miserable. It's called 'bitterness'. Damn shame. But, it happens. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Bitterness? I'm not the aging white guy whose beliefs and phobias are confronting him...you are. In anything or everything that matters, I'm very pleased not to be a hateful old fart like you, and scared stiff of blacks, latinos, strong women, gays, whatever. Fortunately, you right-wing assholes are dying faster than your breed stock can replace you. Yup, that's what I'm talking about! Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. He's just mad because he has no reason to leave his basement. We are back outside agian, Jess is back on the bike (shoulder is holding together for now) and we are working wit the new team and Suspension Sponsor... Her track and strength coach got a technique into her this week I have been working on for over a year and it should change everything for us... Keep having fun John, like my dad said. "Life is short, you gotta' do what you love, there can be no compromise"! |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
On Saturday, March 30, 2013 9:53:43 PM UTC-3, JustWaitAFrekinMinute! wrote:
On 3/30/2013 10:36 AM, J Herring wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:10:05 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 9:24 AM, J Herring wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 09:20:00 -0400, Hank� wrote: On 3/30/2013 7:48 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 3/30/13 7:47 AM, J Herring wrote: On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 23:10:12 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "J Herring" wrote in message ... BTW, has your wife taken the course which teaches all the items you covered? =============================================== My wife has no desire to even hold or look at a gun, let alone shoot one. If she did, and wanted to get a permit to own one, I'd recommend she take the course that my son and his wife took that was far more extensive. In anticipation of your next question, all my guns are kept in a safe in my house and the only other person other than me who has the combination is my son in South Carolina (in case something should happen to us.) My point in my original post was that I found the simple, 5 hour course required to get a LTC in MA is marginally worthwhile, especially for people who are not familiar with firearms or have little or no experience with using them. I think that is a little ironic for a state that otherwise has some very strict gun ownership laws. There is a whole list of courses available for my wife (and me, possibly) to take if we desire. They include advanced handgun, personal protection, concealed carry, pistol cleaning and maintenance, Utah/multi-state concealed carry, and a pot full of rifle courses. She took the basic pistol course. Good catch on my next question. We do keep a loaded gun in the house, and have for many years. When I saw the class given by a woman for women, I thought my wife would be interested. She was. Now she's wanting me to take her to the range. It won't be in the woods shooting at stumps. Last night, while going out for dinner, she mentioned getting a carry permit. So, she may be taking the next courses sooner than I thought! Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Oh, boy! Be sure to keep us posted...I don't often watch the local news on TV. Why do you have to be such an asshole, all of the time. Tell the little woman who manages your life and pays your bills to find something for you to do that makes you happy. Otherwise you'll sit there pounding on your keyboard, chewing your fingers and becoming more miserable. It's called 'bitterness'. Damn shame. But, it happens. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Bitterness? I'm not the aging white guy whose beliefs and phobias are confronting him...you are. In anything or everything that matters, I'm very pleased not to be a hateful old fart like you, and scared stiff of blacks, latinos, strong women, gays, whatever. Fortunately, you right-wing assholes are dying faster than your breed stock can replace you. Yup, that's what I'm talking about! Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. He's just mad because he has no reason to leave his basement. We are back outside agian, Jess is back on the bike (shoulder is holding together for now) and we are working wit the new team and Suspension Sponsor... Her track and strength coach got a technique into her this week I have been working on for over a year and it should change everything for us... Keep having fun John, like my dad said. "Life is short, you gotta' do what you love, there can be no compromise"! What happened to your daughter's shoulder? |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likesthis
On 3/30/13 8:53 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
He's just mad because he has no reason to leave his basement. We are back outside agian, Jess is back on the bike (shoulder is holding together for now) and we are working wit the new team and Suspension Sponsor... Her track and strength coach got a technique into her this week I have been working on for over a year and it should change everything for us... Keep having fun John, like my dad said. "Life is short, you gotta' do what you love, there can be no compromise"! Yawn. Kiddie motorbike racing. Hope your daughter doesn't get injured, finds a nice guy, and moves out of your dysfunctional household. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
In article ,
says... On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 13:29:13 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 12:58 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 12:46:42 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 12:38 PM, Urin Asshole wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:23:16 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:49:57 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "Wayne B" wrote in message ... On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:32:20 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: I don't see multiple sides to the position of reducing gun violence. Study after study has shown and country after country has demonstrated that fewer guns means fewer deaths. ==== Carried to its logical end point, your view leads to the inescapable conclusion that eliminating all guns would eliminate all gun deaths. Since there are way too many people who would be all too happy to press for eliminating all guns, the NRA serves as an effective counterpoint to that line of reasoning. I think that if you actually knew any rural gun owners, you'd find that they are almost universally opposed to *any* increased gun control measures, mostly because they don't trust you city/suburban folks or the type of government that you advocate. ---------------------------------------- Yup. Sorta like imposing your religion onto others. Not even close. Sounds like a democracy to me. Nice try though. Read some DeToqueville You have no idea what legislative power is or the obligation of the population has to support those less fortunately. So, next time you pull **** out of your ass, kindly do it in private. Or even what the guy's name was. It ain't DeToqueville. It is de Tocqueville, Alexis de Tocqueville, and in usual discussion, the reference is Tocqueville, as in "Tocqueville said, among other things, that democracy in the United States had a fair balance of liberty and equality, and concern for the individual as well as the community which he lived." If Tocqueville visited these days, he'd have a far different opinion, thanks to the radicalization of the right. You are *so* f'ing smart, FOAESADD! Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Awwww. It's just something you learn when you get a good liberal arts education. Tocqueville was a progressive thinker. No one would accuse you of either of those attributes. I thank my lucky stars on a daily basis that you and I don't share attributes! Salmonbait Duly noted that Herring thanks his lucky stars that he's not a progressive thinker.... |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 19:28:53 -0400, wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 09:36:07 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 01:54:03 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 22:07:36 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 21:42:39 -0400, wrote: You don't need a lawyer for marriage or divorce. Unless we have it your way. We won't. I guess you have never been through a divorce. You pretty much need a lawyer familiar with the laws in the state you are divorcing in, just to figure out who gets the "stuff" and how to legally convey it. If kids are involved it gets way more complicated than that. You don't need one. Sometimes its a good idea. Sometimes its unnecessary. I suppose if there are no assets no kids and you live in a state with a very simple divorce procedure, you can get way with Kinkos blank divorce petition but if there is any confusion at all about the divorce, you will wish you had a lawyer. Wishing and needing are two different ****ing things. You're really being particularly stupid today. Since you have no experience in this your opinion is meaningless. Fortunately no. Unlike some dickbrain who's handle starts with G? There's +1100 gov laws that take marital status into consideration. At a certain point, why would anyone enter into a contract that involves 1100+ different laws without legal advice? If Edie Winter had better legal advice, she would not have been slammed with that huge tax bill. So, blame the grieving widow. You're claiming what exactly? She should just write off her dying wife? I guess so. If she really had a million dollar inheritance coming (as indicated by the $360,000 tax bill), she really should have sought legal advice and engaged in some tax planning. It is simple logic. Sure. So, it's her fault or her dead spouses. What a lame brain. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, never was, never will be. So, it's her dead spouce's fault, right? Come on, say it. I hate lawyers but I also understand they are necessary if you want to protect yourself from other lawyers or, in this case, the government. What advice would the lawyer have given them Mr. I'm-an-expert? A lawyer might have suggested a trust with a million dollars at stake but most investment vehicles can simply be held in joint tenancy. Feel free to offer everyone your thoughts given you got divoriced (once I'm assuming). That certainly confirms your expertise spanning nuclear technology and the law. There are a number of very simple ways to hold property jointly, even if you are not married. Go for it. We're waiting... look up You mentioned it, so name it. So you can just forget about a simple flat tax and other wacko ideas. The country has never worked that way and never will. Just concentrate on waste and corruption. As long as special interests still control congress, we will never have a flat tax. I suppose you will be defending the carried interest deduction next. Nor should we. It's very regressive. It hurts those who can least afford it. The rich do fine though. It is all part of our 10,000 page tax code. 99% of it has nothing to do with anyone who isn't a millionaire. All of those "loopholes" were put in there to placate some special interest, usually a very rich special interest. So, when making things simpler and fair comes around, you're all for it. Good. Just don't mention flat tax, as that is simple but it aint fair. Not fair to whom? Millionaires? Everyone else pretty much. For virtually everyone making less than about $150,000 a year, a flat tax would be better. No it wouldn't. It's class warfare.. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articl...-class-warfare This guy is talking mostly about the home interest deduction, that is class warfare too. Renters, the poorest group generally, do not have a mortgage deduction. Gee ya thunk? The fact that the only interest that is deductible contributed to the housing crash because instead of taking out a car loan, they took a second on their house. People were encouraged by the government to use the equity in their home as a source of extra spending money and they could borrow 125% or more of an artificially inflated value on their home. When housing had a slight decline, they were upside down and it snowballed from there. Tell me again why this is a good thing? Where did I say it was? Flat-tax = regressive. That's what I said. . Guys like Buffett and Romney would be paying a lot more. Stupid like you don't get it. Romney paid about 15%, so did Buffett So, you're claiming that if Romney paid 25% (say) and some guy who makes $40,000 pays 25%, that would be fair? Jesus H. ****ing Christ. We come full circle back to the idea that marriage is a simple contract between anyone who wants to enter into it at that point don't we? That's fine with me. Good deal. That is as it should be Tell your right-wing buddies. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 14:51:28 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 11:02:52 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 19:28:53 -0400, wrote: Sure. So, it's her fault or her dead spouses. What a lame brain. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, never was, never will be. So, it's her dead spouce's fault, right? Come on, say it. Yes it was their fault for not doing good tax planning. Even if they were a man and woman, married, they still should be doing some tax planning when the money is over a million dollars. I'm glad we cleared that up! So, it doesn't matter if it's fair or isn't. They ****ed up because she was trying to deal with the impending death of a person she loved. Did she actually get caught by the IRS or did she offer this up to make a legal case out of it? The IRS notified her is all I know. Feel free to claim otherwise. I hate lawyers but I also understand they are necessary if you want to protect yourself from other lawyers or, in this case, the government. What advice would the lawyer have given them Mr. I'm-an-expert? A lawyer might have suggested a trust with a million dollars at stake but most investment vehicles can simply be held in joint tenancy. Feel free to offer everyone your thoughts given you got divoriced (once I'm assuming). That certainly confirms your expertise spanning nuclear technology and the law. I know that even with an amicable divorce and no fights over the property, I needed a lawyer, just to be sure all of the property titles and such were properly transferred and recorded. The papers all have to be filed with the court. I was also dealing with the laws of 2 states. It was $300 and a bargain at the price. Nice to know you're a hypocrite. If you think you can do all that, well what does the quote say "If you try to be your own lawyer, you have an idiot for a client" See previous comment. There are a number of very simple ways to hold property jointly, even if you are not married. Go for it. We're waiting... look up You mentioned it, so name it. I meant look up in the thread a few lines. I said you can create a trust or you can hold your securities in joint tenancy. For over a million, I would go with a trust. It gives you lots of protections. The second option is the easiest for small stake holders. I thought you said you think lawyers are ok. You sound like an expert. Oh wait, you are for all things. No it wouldn't. It's class warfare.. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articl...-class-warfare This guy is talking mostly about the home interest deduction, that is class warfare too. Renters, the poorest group generally, do not have a mortgage deduction. Gee ya thunk? You do understand that rich people get the most benefit from mortgage interest deductions? They can write off a house and a yacht. Huh? Are you trying to make my case? Poor and middle class people get hit harder with a flat tax. The fact that the only interest that is deductible contributed to the housing crash because instead of taking out a car loan, they took a second on their house. People were encouraged by the government to use the equity in their home as a source of extra spending money and they could borrow 125% or more of an artificially inflated value on their home. When housing had a slight decline, they were upside down and it snowballed from there. Tell me again why this is a good thing? Where did I say it was? Flat-tax = regressive. That's what I said. You take the regressivity out with a large standard exemption. So, then it's not a flat tax. "A flat tax (short for flat rate tax) is a tax system with a constant tax rate." . Guys like Buffett and Romney would be paying a lot more. Stupid like you don't get it. Romney paid about 15%, so did Buffett So, you're claiming that if Romney paid 25% (say) and some guy who makes $40,000 pays 25%, that would be fair? Jesus H. ****ing Christ. The guy who makes $40k pays nothing because the exemption would be $50k or $60k for a family of 4. Thus, it is not a flat tax. It's a tiered system which is basically what we have now, except the richer you are the more you can take advantage of loopholes that are not available to anyone else. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 23:49:04 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 14:39:01 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 14:51:28 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 11:02:52 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 19:28:53 -0400, wrote: Sure. So, it's her fault or her dead spouses. What a lame brain. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, never was, never will be. So, it's her dead spouce's fault, right? Come on, say it. Yes it was their fault for not doing good tax planning. Even if they were a man and woman, married, they still should be doing some tax planning when the money is over a million dollars. I'm glad we cleared that up! So, it doesn't matter if it's fair or isn't. They ****ed up because she was trying to deal with the impending death of a person she loved. So the IRS are pricks, alert the media! If you have a million dollars and you are not doing estate planning, you are going to get screwed. They had years to do this. The bottom line is that those two people were denied the benefits that any hetero couple would have had. Feel free to blame the victim. Did she actually get caught by the IRS or did she offer this up to make a legal case out of it? The IRS notified her is all I know. Feel free to claim otherwise. You know that? cite It's been in the news. I thought you watched things besides fox. I hate lawyers but I also understand they are necessary if you want to protect yourself from other lawyers or, in this case, the government. What advice would the lawyer have given them Mr. I'm-an-expert? A lawyer might have suggested a trust with a million dollars at stake but most investment vehicles can simply be held in joint tenancy. Feel free to offer everyone your thoughts given you got divoriced (once I'm assuming). That certainly confirms your expertise spanning nuclear technology and the law. I know that even with an amicable divorce and no fights over the property, I needed a lawyer, just to be sure all of the property titles and such were properly transferred and recorded. The papers all have to be filed with the court. I was also dealing with the laws of 2 states. It was $300 and a bargain at the price. Nice to know you're a hypocrite. How is that? You hate lawyers and you think SS is a fraud, but you use both. If you think you can do all that, well what does the quote say "If you try to be your own lawyer, you have an idiot for a client" See previous comment. Again why? See previous comment. There are a number of very simple ways to hold property jointly, even if you are not married. Go for it. We're waiting... look up You mentioned it, so name it. I meant look up in the thread a few lines. I said you can create a trust or you can hold your securities in joint tenancy. For over a million, I would go with a trust. It gives you lots of protections. The second option is the easiest for small stake holders. I thought you said you think lawyers are ok. You sound like an expert. Oh wait, you are for all things. I think lawyers are the scum of the earth but they set up the rules of the game and we have to play by those rules. There are times when you really need a lawyer or at least a tax professional. That is certainly true when you are talking about a million bucks.. If you think lawyers are scum and you use them, then you're a hypocritical scum. No it wouldn't. It's class warfare.. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articl...-class-warfare This guy is talking mostly about the home interest deduction, that is class warfare too. Renters, the poorest group generally, do not have a mortgage deduction. Gee ya thunk? You do understand that rich people get the most benefit from mortgage interest deductions? They can write off a house and a yacht. Huh? Are you trying to make my case? Poor and middle class people get hit harder with a flat tax. Poor and middle class people don't pay anything with a flat tax if you put the standard exemption high enough. (50-60k) Really? For a family of say four? You think that's adequate? Why not 80K? Oh yeah, because then it wouldn't be so regressive. And, it wouldn't really be a flat tax because they wouldn't be paying a flat rate. A guy making $300k may take a beating if he has been flogging the deductions but I am not sure I care about that. Do you? We would just see fewer tax deductible boats and Hummers. Or, we could just go back to 50% for the upper tax bracket. Oh yeah, that wouldn't hit the middle class, so you're not for it. The fact that the only interest that is deductible contributed to the housing crash because instead of taking out a car loan, they took a second on their house. People were encouraged by the government to use the equity in their home as a source of extra spending money and they could borrow 125% or more of an artificially inflated value on their home. When housing had a slight decline, they were upside down and it snowballed from there. Tell me again why this is a good thing? Where did I say it was? Flat-tax = regressive. That's what I said. You take the regressivity out with a large standard exemption. So, then it's not a flat tax. "A flat tax (short for flat rate tax) is a tax system with a constant tax rate." It is not a "first dollar" flat tax. Have you ever actually looked at one of the proposals? Well, you're the expert I guess. Have you actually looked at the definition of a flat tax? Better yet, why not just fix the problems with the current tax structure. You have to look at FICA taxes to see the tax you are thinking of and that seems to be your favorite government program,. Huh? If you want an example of a regressive tax Social Security/Medicare is it. The more money you make, the lower percentage you pay. As I said, remove the cap on SS. Thanks for making my point. That was a big part of Buffett's gripe. He pays the same $13k as his secretary. And your point? . Guys like Buffett and Romney would be paying a lot more. Stupid like you don't get it. Romney paid about 15%, so did Buffett So, you're claiming that if Romney paid 25% (say) and some guy who makes $40,000 pays 25%, that would be fair? Jesus H. ****ing Christ. The guy who makes $40k pays nothing because the exemption would be $50k or $60k for a family of 4. Thus, it is not a flat tax. It's a tiered system which is basically what we have now, except the richer you are the more you can take advantage of loopholes that are not available to anyone else. That is why the flat tax is better, there are no loopholes for the rich to take and virtually all of the loopholes are for rich people. I bet you didn't get to write off a million dollar yacht mortgage and I am sure you don't have a carried interest deduction or a forward contract on a buttload of stock. It's not a matter for the rich, it's a matter for the middle. They won't have any "loopholes" either and they and the poor will be hurt. The rich always find a way to shelter income. Anyway, I thought you said taxing the rich won't help, so where's the beef? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:18 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com