Obama nominee John Kerry is part of the 0.07%

[RichA]

John Kerry is worth $200M.

[moviePig]

On Jan 23, 6:42 pm, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> John Kerry is worth $200M.

Be sure to ask for unmarked bills...

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[calvin]

On Jan 24, 3:23 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> On Jan 23, 6:42 pm, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > John Kerry is worth $200M.
>
> Be sure to ask for unmarked bills...

His behavior when he returned from Vietnam made
him worse than worthless for all time, IMO. Now
he's nominated for Secretary of State, one of Obama's
nastiest acts.

[Antonio E. Gonzalez]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 15:42:36 -0800 (PST), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>John Kerry is worth $200M.

Nice!

--

Officially, President Obama will be the best US President since FDR on
2017. Unofficially, he already is.



--

- ReFlex76

- <http://twitter.com/ReFlex76>

[Tom]

What behavior did he demonstrate?

Tom

[nick]

from Wikipedia--

"After returning to the United States, Kerry joined the Vietnam
Veterans Against the War (VVAW). Then numbering about 20,000,[56] VVAW
was considered by some (including the administration of President
Richard Nixon) to be an effective, if controversial, component of the
antiwar movement.[57] According to Nixon Secretary of Defense Melvin
Laird, "I didn’t approve of what he did, but I understood the
protesters quite well", and he declined two requests from the Navy to
court martial Reserve Lieutenant Kerry over his antiwar activity.[58]

On April 22, 1971, Kerry became the first Vietnam veteran to testify
before Congress about the war, when he appeared before a Senate
committee hearing on proposals relating to ending the war. He was
still a member of the United States Navy Reserve, holding the rank of
Lieutenant Junior Grade. Wearing green fatigues and service ribbons,
he spoke for nearly two hours with the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee in what has been named the Fulbright Hearings, after the
Chairman of the proceedings, Senator J. W. Fulbright. Kerry began with
a prepared speech, in which he presented the conclusions of the Winter
Soldier Investigation, and then went on to address larger policy
issues.

The day after this testimony, Kerry participated in a demonstration
with thousands of other veterans in which he and other veterans threw
their medals and ribbons over a fence erected at the front steps of
the United States Capitol building to dramatize their opposition to
the war. Jack Smith, a Marine, read a statement explaining why the
veterans were returning their military awards to the government. For
more than two hours, almost 1000 angry veterans tossed their medals,
ribbons, hats, jackets, and military papers over the fence. Each
veteran gave his or her name, hometown, branch of service and a
statement. Kerry threw some of his decorations as well as some given
to him by other veterans to throw. As Kerry threw his decorations over
the fence, his statement was: "I'm not doing this for any violent
reasons, but for peace and justice, and to try and make this country
wake up once and for all. "[59] The documentary film Sir! No Sir!
includes archival footage of Kerry at the demonstration: he is one of
several young men seen throwing things over the fence."

He was throwing things over a fence That's the behavior he was
demonstrating. I hope those vets had a good time throwing things
over a fence because 40 years down the road Calvin Rice is still going
on about it. It bothered him a lot more than it did Nixon's
Secretary of Defence.

[Tom]

Yeah, I know abut his anti- war stance after returning from Viet Nam.
I'll agree throwing things over the fence can be described as a
behavior. 'calvin' made it sound like Mr. Kerry was barking at the
moon or shoplifting.

President Nixon said Mr. Kerry's testimony was "extremely effective."
Mr. Kerry did more to accelerate the end of the war than any other
single effort to that date.

I wonder why 'calvin' didn't enlist and volunteer to fight in Viet
Nam...

Tom

[calvin]

You left out "Jinjis" Khan.

[trotsky]

He didn't like being spit on.

[trotsky]

On 1/24/13 10:13 PM, Tom wrote:

> I wonder why 'calvin' didn't enlist and volunteer to fight in Viet
> Nam...

It's more than likely that it had something to do with "don't ask don't
tell".

[nick]

On Jan 25, 2:09 am, Lewis <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <aecafa96-a017-4caf-81d1-0389379de...@k4g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>

> He was too busy cowering under his bridge.
>
Maybe he got hit in the head by one of those medals Kerry was throwing
over the fence and he's held a grudge ever since.

[calvin]

On Jan 25, 8:23 am, nick <leftbehindbythetalk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 25, 2:09 am, Lewis <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> >   Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 24, 9:58 pm, nick <leftbehindbythetalk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Jan 24, 10:50 pm, Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >> > On Jan 24, 7:40 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > >> > > On Jan 24, 3:23 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > On Jan 23, 6:42 pm, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > > John Kerry is worth $200M.
> > >> > > > Be sure to ask for unmarked bills...
>
> > >> > > His behavior when he returned from Vietnam made
> > >> > > him worse than worthless for all time, IMO.  Now
> > >> > > he's nominated for Secretary of State, one of Obama's
> > >> > > nastiest acts.
>
> > >> > What behavior did he demonstrate?
>

That was bad, but what bothered me much more was the "Jinjis" Khan
speech.

> > > Yeah, I know abut his anti- war stance after returning from Viet Nam.
> > > I'll agree throwing things over the fence can be described as a
> > > behavior. 'calvin' made it sound like Mr. Kerry was barking at the
> > > moon or shoplifting.
> > > President Nixon said Mr. Kerry's testimony was "extremely effective."
> > > Mr. Kerry did more to accelerate the end of the war than any other
> > > single effort to that date.

------------------------------------------------------------------

> > > I wonder why 'calvin' didn't enlist and volunteer to fight in Viet
> > > Nam...
>
> > He was too busy cowering under his bridge.
>
> Maybe he got hit in the head by one of those medals Kerry was throwing
> over the fence and he's held a grudge ever since.

Even though I was a liberal at the time and against the
war, I never agreed with Buffy Sainte-Marie about 'The
Universal Soldier'. The blame for the war was Johnson's,
who built it up, and Nixon's, who took just as long, and with
equal cost in American lives, to wind it down. The only
serviceman who deserved (retroactively) to be spit on
when he returned, was John Kerry.

[BTR1701]

In article <nvt3g89a94tqc099g...@4ax.com>,

Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 15:42:36 -0800 (PST), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >John Kerry is worth $200M.
>
> Nice!

Yeah, there's nothing like being lectured to about 'patriotic taxpaying'
by a guy who moved his yacht to a different state to avoid $500,000 in
taxes.

[calvin]

On Jan 25, 9:33 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> [someone wrote:]

> > > >> He was throwing things over a fence  That's the behavior he was

> > > >> demonstrating. ...

> That was bad, but what bothered me much more was the

> "Jinjis" Khan speech, the most infamous act of anyone
> currently in the U.S. Government.

>
> Even though I was a liberal at the time and against the
> war, I never agreed with Buffy Sainte-Marie about 'The
> Universal Soldier'.  The blame for the war was Johnson's,
> who built it up, and Nixon's, who took just as long, and with
> equal cost in American lives, to wind it down.  The only
> serviceman who deserved (retroactively) to be spit on
> when he returned, was John Kerry.

And by the way, he didn't actually throw his medals
over the fence. The lying bastard faked it.

[calvin]

And by the way again, typically of you libs, you make
an assumption, and then act as though your assumption is
a fact. I never said that throwing his medals over a fence
was the behavior of Kerry that bothered me. It would be
stupid to dwell on that when his despicable act obviously
was his speech to Congress, the "Jinjis" Khan speech.

[nick]

So you're allowed to evolve, going from being a liberal to being a
conservative, but someone like John Kerry, he's going to be held to
account for the rest of his days for things he did forty years ago?

[RichA]

The most dishonourable thing he did came much later, when he traded on
his Vietnam "battle" experience. This was long after he had thrown
his medals over that fence. Disgusting and unbelievable.

[calvin]

Wasn't Kerry one of those who jumped to condemn
American servicemen in Iraq for murder of civilians
in a case for which they were eventually cleared?
My memory is hazy on that, so correct me if I'm
wrong. If I'm right, Kerry doesn't appear to have
evolved.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Friday, January 25, 2013 9:33:41 AM UTC-5, calvin wrote:

>
> Even though I was a liberal at the time and against the
> war, I never agreed with Buffy Sainte-Marie about 'The
> Universal Soldier'. The blame for the war was Johnson's,
> who built it up, and Nixon's, who took just as long, and with
> equal cost in American lives, to wind it down. The only
> serviceman who deserved (retroactively) to be spit on
> when he returned, was John Kerry.

Just a note for historical accuracy: It was John F Kennedy's war and he violated at least one UN treaty to escalate the war. Plus, if you look into the Nathan Hale or Salem House operations, you will see a "Gulf of Tonkin incident" ready to happen as these were cross-border using US troops for destruction of North Vietnam military supplies. What sealed our fate in Vietnam was the overthrow and assassination of Vietnam President Ngo Dinh Diem carried out by the CIA at the direction of Kennedy. All Johnson did was follow in Kennedy's footsteps.

[calvin]

Like everyone else in the universe, I'm aware that the
U.S. was in Vietnam under Kennedy, but it was Johnson
who escalated the war and prolonged it. Many believed that
Kennedy would have done neither. (Oliver Stone thought
that was why JFK was assassinated.) I believe that the
actual Gulf of Tonkin incident that mattered most was the
one that Johnson used as an excuse to escalate.

[Antonio E. Gonzalez]

He can do whatever he wants so long as he pisses you guys off.

[calvin]

On Jan 25, 9:41 pm, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:41:30 -0800, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> > Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 15:42:36 -0800 (PST), RichA <rander3...@gmail.com>

> >> wrote:
>
> >> >John Kerry is worth $200M.
>
> >>    Nice!
>
> >Yeah, there's nothing like being lectured to about 'patriotic taxpaying'
> >by a guy who moved his yacht to a different state to avoid $500,000 in
> >taxes.
>
>    He can do whatever he wants so long as he pisses you guys off.

His very existence does that.

[BTR1701]

In article <2hg6g89b39rj6ti08...@4ax.com>,

Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:41:30 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <nvt3g89a94tqc099g...@4ax.com>,
> > Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 15:42:36 -0800 (PST), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >John Kerry is worth $200M.
> >>
> >> Nice!
> >
> >Yeah, there's nothing like being lectured to about 'patriotic taxpaying'
> >by a guy who moved his yacht to a different state to avoid $500,000 in
> >taxes.

> He can do whatever he wants so long as he pisses you guys off.

Well, at least you admit that all this 'fair share' nonsense has nothing
to do with actual fiscal policy, or even fairness.

It's nothing more than you guys being butthurt little shits who're just
jealous of everyone who is actually successful in life.

[Antonio E. Gonzalez]

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:35:16 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

>In article <2hg6g89b39rj6ti08...@4ax.com>,
> Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:41:30 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <nvt3g89a94tqc099g...@4ax.com>,
>> > Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 15:42:36 -0800 (PST), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >John Kerry is worth $200M.
>> >>
>> >> Nice!
>> >
>> >Yeah, there's nothing like being lectured to about 'patriotic taxpaying'
>> >by a guy who moved his yacht to a different state to avoid $500,000 in
>> >taxes.
>
>> He can do whatever he wants so long as he pisses you guys off.
>
>
>Well, at least you admit that all this 'fair share' nonsense has nothing
>to do with actual fiscal policy, or even fairness.
>

Actually, it's based on one simple thing: it works.

From 1933 to 1981 we had reasonable tax rates. Upper marginal
rates never dipped below 74%, and were even as high as 91%. No
deficits, no huge debt, just balanced budgets and everyone getting
along. Then Milton Friedman decided the rich should get all the
money, while the rest of us got "trickled down" on.

>It's nothing more than you guys being butthurt little shits who're just
>jealous of everyone who is actually successful in life.

Yes, the butthurt President Obama has laid out was further cemented
in that inauguration speech. Leaderhip bitches!

Keep yelling "jealousy" all you want, they're basically more sweet
screams of butthurt!

Sad part, you're probably not "successful in life" yourself, yet
will defend the undertaxed rich like the good Boxer you are.
--

- Officially, President Obama will be the best US President since FDR
on 2017. Unofficially, he already is.

[Antonio E. Gonzalez]

Sweet!

The only bad part is Susan Rice would've been a better Secretary of
State.

[calvin]

On Jan 26, 4:05 am, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
> ... Susan Rice would've been a better Secretary of State.

On that we agree.

[trotsky]

On 1/25/13 7:53 PM, calvin wrote:
> On Jan 25, 8:30 pm, wlahe...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, January 25, 2013 9:33:41 AM UTC-5, calvin wrote:
>>
>>> Even though I was a liberal at the time and against the
>>> war, I never agreed with Buffy Sainte-Marie about 'The
>>> Universal Soldier'. The blame for the war was Johnson's,
>>> who built it up, and Nixon's, who took just as long, and with
>>> equal cost in American lives, to wind it down. The only
>>> serviceman who deserved (retroactively) to be spit on
>>> when he returned, was John Kerry.
>>
>> Just a note for historical accuracy: It was John F Kennedy's war and he violated at least one UN treaty to escalate the war. Plus, if you look into the Nathan Hale or Salem House operations, you will see a "Gulf of Tonkin incident" ready to happen as these were cross-border using US troops for destruction of North Vietnam military supplies. What sealed our fate in Vietnam was the overthrow and assassination of Vietnam President Ngo Dinh Diem carried out by the CIA at the direction of Kennedy. All Johnson did was follow in Kennedy's footsteps.
>
> Like everyone else in the universe, I'm aware that the
> U.S. was in Vietnam under Kennedy, but it was Johnson
> who escalated the war and prolonged it.

Wouldn't JFK had to have been alive for him to do that?

[trotsky]

Is there anything you right wing dicks aren't threatened by?

[trotsky]

Yeah, that describes Mitt Romney to a T. Why I laugh?

[calvin]

On Jan 26, 4:05 am, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
> ...

>    From 1933 to 1981 we had reasonable tax rates.  Upper marginal
> rates never dipped below 74%, and were even as high as 91%.  No
> deficits, no huge debt, just balanced budgets and everyone getting
> along.  Then Milton Friedman decided the rich should get all the
> money, while the rest of us got "trickled down" on.

> ...

You guys have sealed your own doom along with everybody else's.
That's not sweet, but it is bittersweet.

[moviePig]

That rebuttal, placed alongside what you've chosen to rebut, seems
comparatively apoplectic...

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[trotsky]

To paraphrase Mark Twain, the rumors of our demise have been greatly
exaggerated.

[Tom]

Your behavior never changes... you make a vague comment, unsupported
by facts or even details, leaving the reader to draw their own
conclusions, After said conclusions are reached, you then complain
about the reader making assumptions about what you wrote.

If you don't want people drawing their own conclusions about your
brief and meaningless posts, provide more detail... a few facts would
help, too.

If you choose to not support your own posts with information, stop
whining about our conclusions.

Tom

[calvin]

That wasn't meant to be a rebuttal, but only an acknowledgement
of their folly. To comment on what he said:

First, we didn't have balanced budgets all those years.
It was only in the late 90s that we had a balanced
budget, and that was because of the "dot com" bubble,
which didn't last. And even then the Democrats, instead
of wanting to use the surplus to pay off some of the
accumulated debt, wanted to increase spending, which
is what they want to do even now, as you will hear in
Obama's State of the Union Address, only he will call
it new 'investments'.

The 'trickle-down' theory, more properly called
'cascade down' or 'deluge down', worked beautifully.
One of the most destructive of Democrat lies is that
when the producers make money in industry,
benefits don't follow for everyone.

Third, it stands to reason that when the rich are allowed
to keep more of their income, their industries expand
accordingly, more people are hired, and the country
becomes more prosperous. Even the rich who make
money not by production do not keep their money in
cash in the basement. Wherever it is, it is invested.
Some will rush to say that they are keeping their money
in other countries; but that is because the government
has made it unprofitable to keep their money here.
The answer is simple (but impossible to get Democrats
to implement): Get government off the backs of
industry and the economy will take off again, and
employment and prosperity will follow, as it has in the
past.

So you want me to have to key all that in every time
a liberal says something about the economy? How
many times have I written it in the past, for you
simply to ignore?

As I keep saying, though, you guys have won. And

[BTR1701]

In article <te67g894omd9spghj...@4ax.com>,

Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:35:16 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <2hg6g89b39rj6ti08...@4ax.com>,
> > Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:41:30 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <nvt3g89a94tqc099g...@4ax.com>,
> >> > Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 15:42:36 -0800 (PST), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >John Kerry is worth $200M.
> >> >>
> >> >> Nice!
> >> >
> >> >Yeah, there's nothing like being lectured to about 'patriotic taxpaying'
> >> >by a guy who moved his yacht to a different state to avoid $500,000 in
> >> >taxes.
> >
> >> He can do whatever he wants so long as he pisses you guys off.
> >
> >
> >Well, at least you admit that all this 'fair share' nonsense has nothing
> >to do with actual fiscal policy, or even fairness.
> >
>
> Actually, it's based on one simple thing: it works.

No, it isn't. If it were there wouldn't be an ongoing media jihad
against Phil Mikelson merely for commenting that he doesn't like giving
the government 60% of everything he makes.

Gazillionaire John Kerry avoids taxes and you cheer him on, Mikelson
just *talks* about doing the same thing and it's as if he was running
the ovens of Auschwitz.

It's all political with you butthurt little shits. If one passes the
ideology test, one can do whatever with impunity.

> From 1933 to 1981 we had reasonable tax rates.

We also had comparatively reasonable spending rates. You want to go back
to 90s-level taxes? How about we go back to 90s-level spending, too?

Oh, wait... let me guess... that's 'different'.

[Tom]

David Stockman disagrees with you.

Tom

[calvin]

> > Third, it stands to reason that when the rich are allowed
> > to keep more of their income, their industries expand
> > accordingly, more people are hired, and the country
> > becomes more prosperous. Even the rich who make
> > money not by production do not keep their money in
> > cash in the basement. Wherever it is, it is invested.
> > Some will rush to say that they are keeping their money
> > in other countries; but that is because the government
> > has made it unprofitable to keep their money here.
> > The answer is simple (but impossible to get Democrats
> > to implement): Get government off the backs of
> > industry and the economy will take off again, and
> > employment and prosperity will follow, as it has in the

> > past. [snipped part of gist restored]

>
> David Stockman disagrees with you.

Okay, I'll post this again. Please contact David Stockman
and ask him to read it:

Several people in this thread don't seem to understand
how tax cuts can both stimulate the economy and increase
government revenue. Especially, the possibility of
increasing government revenue by cutting taxes eludes
them. But the paradox isn't very hard to understand,
if you try.

I'll put this in terms of a simplified example:

Let's say that Suzy is a typical little girl who
needs some extra spending money. She decides to
set up a lemonade stand, at 25 cents per cup. It
costs her 20 dollars of savings to set up the business,
with a crude table, chair, sign, and the first day's supply
of lemonade and ice. Every day she sells a hundred paper
cups of lemonade, bringing in 25 dollars. She has to
spend 5 dollars a day on replenishing supplies,
and she has to pay 10 dollars a day in city tax.

After her initial investment, made from her savings,
she clears 10 dollars a day, which is what she needed
in extra money, and she's also able to gradually restore
her savings. The government gets ten dollars a day
from Suzy, which it spends on worthwhile programs,
while Suzy makes 10 dollars a day in profit. Also,
5 dollars a day goes to business for the sellers of
powdered lemonade, ice, and paper cups.

So everything is stable, with Suzy and the government
benefitting from the lemonade business. Suzy's
suppliers benefit a little too.

Now the city elects a new mayor, who decides to cut
taxes in half. This means that the government gets
only 5 dollars a day from Suzy. So how can it
continue its worthwhile programs?

Well, Suzy now gets to keep an extra 5 dollars a day.
But instead of splurging and spending it, she saves
it, and uses it to set up new lemonade stands in
4 other neighborhoods. Every week she sets up
another little girl with a lemonade stand of her own
in another neighborhood. For each new business,
in similar neighborhoods, the government starts getting
an additional 5 dollars a day.

Suzy collects 2 dollars a day from each new business,
each of which, after paying Suzy 2 dollars a day, and
5 dollars a day in tax to the city, and 5 dollars a day
to replenish supplies, has 13 dollars a day in profit.

Suzy can only expand to four new businesses, because
of issues of age and logistics, but the net result of
all of her expansion, made possible by the city's
tax cut, is that the city is now bringing in 25 dollars
a day in taxes to use for its worthwhile programs, 4 new
jobs have been created, creating a total of 52 dollars
a day in profit for the 4 new girls, and increasing Suzy's
daily profit from 10 dollars a day to 18, giving her
a lot of extra money to save for college. Also, the
suppliers of the 5 girls are getting 5 times their
original daily business.

That's how tax cuts create new investments, which
create jobs and more business, bringing benefits and
wealth to more people, and INCREASING GOVERNMENT REVENUE.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Friday, January 25, 2013 8:53:19 PM UTC-5, calvin wrote:

> Like everyone else in the universe, I'm aware that the
> U.S. was in Vietnam under Kennedy, but it was Johnson
> who escalated the war and prolonged it. Many believed that
> Kennedy would have done neither. (Oliver Stone thought
> that was why JFK was assassinated.) I believe that the
> actual Gulf of Tonkin incident that mattered most was the
> one that Johnson used as an excuse to escalate.

You are living in a spin dream and please leave Oliver Stone out of any reasonable discussion about Kennedy. Kennedy escalated all along. When he became president there were 10,000 US "advisors" in Vietnam. He raised it to 25,000 and had some 10,000 in Thailand where they wouldn't be counted by the UN. If the coup against Ngo Dinh Diem isn't the most obvious form of escalation, then there is no sense continuing this conversation. Kennedy needed a pro-US regime and not a nationalist in Saigon because Diem was bitching about the number of "advisors" and was going to break the relationship with the US. Kennedy was going to win in Vietnam come hell or high water.

[RichA]

On Jan 26, 11:58 am, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <te67g894omd9spghjif147mk2fhdjsr...@4ax.com>,
>  Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:35:16 -0800, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > >In article <2hg6g89b39rj6ti08881qfj3326tqdd...@4ax.com>,
> > > Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:41:30 -0800, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >In article <nvt3g89a94tqc099gc21ek363erth84...@4ax.com>,
> > >> > Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 15:42:36 -0800 (PST), RichA <rander3...@gmail.com>

> > >> >> wrote:
>
> > >> >> >John Kerry is worth $200M.
>
> > >> >>    Nice!
>
> > >> >Yeah, there's nothing like being lectured to about 'patriotic taxpaying'
> > >> >by a guy who moved his yacht to a different state to avoid $500,000 in
> > >> >taxes.
>
> > >>    He can do whatever he wants so long as he pisses you guys off.
>
> > >Well, at least you admit that all this 'fair share' nonsense has nothing
> > >to do with actual fiscal policy, or even fairness.
>
> >    Actually, it's based on one simple thing: it works.
>
> No, it isn't. If it were there wouldn't be an ongoing media jihad
> against Phil Mikelson merely for commenting that he doesn't like giving
> the government 60% of everything he makes.
>
> Gazillionaire John Kerry avoids taxes and you cheer him on, Mikelson
> just *talks* about doing the same thing and it's as if he was running
> the ovens of Auschwitz.
>
> It's all political with you butthurt little shits. If one passes the
> ideology test, one can do whatever with impunity.
>
> >    From 1933 to 1981 we had reasonable tax rates.
>
> We also had comparatively reasonable spending rates. You want to go back
> to 90s-level taxes? How about we go back to 90s-level spending, too?
>
> Oh, wait... let me guess... that's 'different'.

To follow on. Kerry just divested himself of nearly $1M in Canadian
oil sands stocks. I guess he figured it wouldn't mesh with Obama's
nutty Euro-trash environmentalism? Nice to see Kerry (as ever) is a
fair weather environmentalist just like he is a fair weather patriot.

[Tom]

>
> > David Stockman disagrees with you.
>
> Okay, I'll post this again.  Please contact David Stockman
> and ask him to read it:
>

You contact Stockman. He knows more economics than you, perhaps if you
hear it from him, you'll understand the truth.

Stockman was the architect of trickle down economics under President
Reagan. Years after the 11 tax increases and two recessions during the
Reagan administration, Stockman admitted he and his staff cooked the
books to sell the dubious economic policy.

Trickle down economics doesn't work.

Tom

[calvin]

On Jan 27, 11:12 am, Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
> Trickle down economics doesn't work.

That lie is what will doom you along with me, and my
misery will love your company. The more free the trade,
the more prosperous is the country that permits it. That
has been true for centuries before the phrase 'trickle down'
was invented. This became a prosperous country long
before the Reagan administration. Whatever the Reagan
administration did or did not do, it is still a fact that the more
free the trade, the more prosperous is the country that
permits it. See you on the bread lines.

[moviePig]

Does your 'free trade' include, say, predatory pricing?

[calvin]

I'm curious; how much 'predatory pricing' have you
personally suffered from in your lifetime?

[moviePig]

How many bread lines have you spoken? (I take it you're narrowly
escaping the jaws of yet another damnable straightforward yes-or-no
question...)

[calvin]

By the way, I see 'predatory pricing' every time I
go into a convenience store, where people who
look like they can least afford it are buying lottery
tickets, a loathsome competition-free enterprise
run by the government, and approvingly reported on,
rather than properly exposed, by the media.

[Tom]

If trickle down economics works, why has unemployment increased after
each tax cut for the rich? Why have our most prosperous times occurred
when tax rates were higher? Why did America shed millions of jobs
after the Bush tax cuts?

Free trade is not analogous to trickle down economics. Nice dodge.
You're a master of changing the subject after you've been proven
wrong.

Don't bother with a reply. I'm out of this pointless discussion.

Tom

[calvin]

To the others, I posted this upthread:

[Irish Mike]

On Jan 23 2013 7:42 PM, RichA wrote:

> John Kerry is worth $200M.

Kerry got his money from marrying his wife. His wife got her money from
marrying a wealthy businessman. The wealthy businessman made them both
rich - by dying.

Irish Mike

The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other
people's money.

[Joan in GB-W]

"Irish Mike" <ad7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:kutgt9x...@news.ezprovider.com...

> On Jan 23 2013 7:42 PM, RichA wrote:
>
>> John Kerry is worth $200M.
>
> Kerry got his money from marrying his wife. His wife got her money from
> marrying a wealthy businessman. The wealthy businessman made them both
> rich - by dying.
>
> Irish Mike

Kerry was wealthy in his own right before marrying Widow Heinz, but not as
wealthy as she was. She owns something like 4 % of Heinz, a mega amount
when you consider the size of that company. Yes, they have a prenupt.

[Bill Steele]

> > So you're allowed to evolve, going from being a liberal to being a
> > conservative,

One might even evolve the ability to resist responding to off-topic
posts.

[Antonio E. Gonzalez]

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 08:58:29 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

>In article <te67g894omd9spghj...@4ax.com>,
> Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:35:16 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <2hg6g89b39rj6ti08...@4ax.com>,
>> > Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:41:30 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <nvt3g89a94tqc099g...@4ax.com>,
>> >> > Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 15:42:36 -0800 (PST), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >John Kerry is worth $200M.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Nice!
>> >> >
>> >> >Yeah, there's nothing like being lectured to about 'patriotic taxpaying'
>> >> >by a guy who moved his yacht to a different state to avoid $500,000 in
>> >> >taxes.
>> >
>> >> He can do whatever he wants so long as he pisses you guys off.
>> >
>> >
>> >Well, at least you admit that all this 'fair share' nonsense has nothing
>> >to do with actual fiscal policy, or even fairness.
>> >
>>
>> Actually, it's based on one simple thing: it works.
>
>No, it isn't.

"It isn't work." You can't even get basic grammar right. You
obviously fail history already.

If it were there wouldn't be an ongoing media jihad
>against Phil Mikelson merely for commenting that he doesn't like giving
>the government 60% of everything he makes.
>

He's keeping 40% of $34 million, that's $13.6 million. I'd love to
have $13.6 million after taxes.

BTW, the fact he's paying less than 70% over one million $ should
be unacceptable. 74% at least, 91% preferably.

At 91% taxes (over a million), he'd be keeping over $3 million. I'd
love to keep $3 million after taxes.

>Gazillionaire John Kerry avoids taxes and you cheer him on,

He's earned it. Do keep whining.

Mikelson
>just *talks* about doing the same thing and it's as if he was running
>the ovens of Auschwitz.
>

Nah, just pissed at how ungrateful he is. Though he has
apologized.

>It's all political with you butthurt little shits. If one passes the
>ideology test, one can do whatever with impunity.
>
>> From 1933 to 1981 we had reasonable tax rates.
>
>We also had comparatively reasonable spending rates. You want to go back
>to 90s-level taxes?

Hell yes!

>How about we go back to 90s-level spending, too?
>

Yes, spending is also at record lows (relative to GDP), it would be
nice to invest in some infrastructure again!

>Oh, wait... let me guess... that's 'different'.

Huh, I guess you were expecting a different answer.

Hint: when you ask questions, don't be shocked when you get
answers!


--

- ReFlex76

- <http://twitter.com/ReFlex76>

[Antonio E. Gonzalez]

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:58:53 -0800 (PST), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:

It just means the end of filthy oil as a credible energy source
keeps getting closer and gloriously closer.

Nice to see Kerry (as ever) is a
>fair weather environmentalist just like he is a fair weather patriot.

Filthy oil is filthy oil, somehow Canada managed to dig up the tar
sands to find filthier oil.

[BTR1701]

In article <ofseg85jomir2juri...@4ax.com>,

Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 08:58:29 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <te67g894omd9spghj...@4ax.com>,
> > Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:35:16 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <2hg6g89b39rj6ti08...@4ax.com>,
> >> > Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:41:30 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <nvt3g89a94tqc099g...@4ax.com>,
> >> >> > Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 15:42:36 -0800 (PST), RichA
> >> >> >> <rande...@gmail.com>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >John Kerry is worth $200M.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Nice!
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Yeah, there's nothing like being lectured to about 'patriotic
> >> >> > taxpaying' by a guy who moved his yacht to a different state
> >> >> > to avoid $500,000 in taxes.
> >> >
> >> >> He can do whatever he wants so long as he pisses you guys off.

> >> > Well, at least you admit that all this 'fair share' nonsense
> >> > has nothing to do with actual fiscal policy, or even fairness.

> >> Actually, it's based on one simple thing: it works.
> >
> >No, it isn't.
>
> "It isn't work." You can't even get basic grammar right.

You might have a point if I'd written "It isn't work." Since that's not
what I wrote, you're merely an idiot.

> > If it were there wouldn't be an ongoing media jihad
> > against Phil Mikelson merely for commenting that he doesn't
> > like giving the government 60% of everything he makes.

> He's keeping 40% of $34 million, that's $13.6 million. I'd love to
> have $13.6 million after taxes.

So go be successful instead of whining about people who are.

> BTW, the fact he's paying less than 70% over one million $ should
> be unacceptable.

Only to a communist.

> 74% at least, 91% preferably.

Keep dreamin', comrade.

> At 91% taxes (over a million), he'd be keeping over $3 million. I'd
> love to keep $3 million after taxes.

So go be successful instead of whining about people who are.

> >Gazillionaire John Kerry avoids taxes and you cheer him on,
>
> He's earned it.

No, Mikelson earned it. Kerry married it.

But that's just further illustration of how people who meet your
ideological/political test get a free pass.

Just like corrupt communists the world over, the ideological 'elite'
somehow get to avoid the 'glories' of actual communism.

> > Mikelson just *talks* about doing the same thing and it's as if
> > he was running the ovens of Auschwitz.

> Nah, just pissed at how ungrateful he is.

So Mikelson's 'ungrateful' for even thinking about reducing his tax
burden, but Kerry actually does it and he's your hero?

Explain that as anything less than ideological favoritism. This should
be entertaining.

> Though he has apologized.

Actually, he didn't. At most he apologized for talking about it in
public. He certainly didn't apologize for considering moving to Florida
to reduce his tax burden. And Tiger Woods chimed in proudly that that's
the reason he lives in Florida. No apology there.

Nor should there be.

> Hint: when you ask questions, don't be shocked when you get
> answers!

When I ask you questions, the only thing that shocks me is getting
anything less than a dishonest weasel answer form you.

[calvin]

You asked a predatory question. I answered it with a question,
and gave an example of government 'predatory pricing' in a
following post:
-------------------------------------------------------

By the way, I see 'predatory pricing' every time I
go into a convenience store, where people who
look like they can least afford it are buying lottery
tickets, a loathsome competition-free enterprise
run by the government, and approvingly reported on,
rather than properly exposed, by the media.

--------------------------------------------------------
I'm not here to be bound by every question that liberals
throw out to discredit the concept of free trade. When
I use the term 'free trade', I mean trade as free as it can
reasonably be allowed to be. And I mean allowed to be
by reasonable people who understand the value of
trade and business and industry, not by leftists who
are not of good will and understanding where business
is concerned.

Competition removes the concept of 'predatory pricing'
from consideration, by the way.

[moviePig]

I take this to mean that, as much as you hate to utter it, you do
recognize that 'free trade' is merely an engine rather than a
Commandment, and must not be allowed to run amok. (Yes, competition
indeed obviates predatory pricing ...which is why, whenever possible,
the latter is used to destroy the former.)

[calvin]

I've always recognized that there have to be laws
against wrongful behavior. Free trade is not a
Commandment, but it is a pure concept. If practiced
with minimum wrongful behavior it is the greatest
boon to civilization in the history of the world. It
appears to me that the left claims that wrongful
behavior is built into trade. In your paragraph above
you say "run amok" as if that is a feature of trade,
and you claim that predatory pricing is used "whenever
possible" to destroy competition, as if trade has that
built-in evil. We probably could agree on many laws
against wrongful behavior by businessmen, but we
will never agree on your loathing, which projects
assumed bad behavior into the practice of trade, and
my reverence for trade as an essential feature of life
and civilization, a discovery/invention on a par with fire
and the wheel.

My loathing is for Marxism, which seeks to take all of
the freedom out of trade, turning it over to be run by the
government. I'm currently reading 'Doctor Zhivago',
the first half of which completely agrees with Ayn Rand's
'We the Living' in its depictions of life in Russia during
and after the Revolution of 1917. Pasternak's book is
not overtly political (neither is Rand's), but I've just
read early in the second half these words that he
puts into Zhivago's mouth in conversation:

[after someone claimed, "Marxism is a positive science,
a teaching about reality, a philosophy of the historical
situation," Zhivago replied:]

"... Marxism has too little control of itself to be a science.
Sciences are better balanced. Marxism and objectivity?
I don't know of a movement more isolated within itself
and further from the facts than Marxism. Each of us is
concerned with testing himself by experience, but
people in power, for the sake of the fable of their own
infallibility, turn away from the truth with all their might.
Politics says nothing to me. ..."

And the author notes that "the doctor's words [were
considered to be] the whimsicalities of a witty eccentric."

[Antonio E. Gonzalez]

Me: it works.

you: No, it isn't.

Maybe you were talking about "it's based on one simple thing," but
you weren't clear. Be clear, or be misunderstood.

You fail grammar, *and* comprehension.

>> > If it were there wouldn't be an ongoing media jihad
>> > against Phil Mikelson merely for commenting that he doesn't
>> > like giving the government 60% of everything he makes.
>
>> He's keeping 40% of $34 million, that's $13.6 million. I'd love to
>> have $13.6 million after taxes.
>
>So go be successful instead of whining about people who are.
>

Not whining, just pointing out something obvious.

Oh, and if I ever make that much, I'll happily pay the proper taxes
without Mickelson-esque whining.

>> BTW, the fact he's paying less than 70% over one million $ should
>> be unacceptable.
>
>Only to a communist.
>

So, the US was communist 1933-1981. You just called President
Dwight D. Eisenhower a communist. You fail history.

>> 74% at least, 91% preferably.
>
>Keep dreamin', comrade.
>

Those were US upper marginal tax rates 1933-1981. You fail history
harder.

>> At 91% taxes (over a million), he'd be keeping over $3 million. I'd
>> love to keep $3 million after taxes.
>
>So go be successful instead of whining about people who are.
>

Broken record.

. . .

*sigh*

A "record" was an old way to play audio. When it broke, it would
play the same section over and over again.

. . .

*sigh*

"Audio" is another word for sound.

Dammit, teaching the special needs kids usually pays more.

>> >Gazillionaire John Kerry avoids taxes and you cheer him on,
>>
>> He's earned it.
>
>No, Mikelson earned it.

No he didn't. There are dozens of golfers at least as good if not
better than him, but Mickelson just happens to be more popular. If
you want to call that "earning," that's your problem.


>Kerry married it.
>

Whatever.

>But that's just further illustration of how people who meet your
>ideological/political test get a free pass.
>

There are always Special Cases.

>Just like corrupt communists the world over, the ideological 'elite'
>somehow get to avoid the 'glories' of actual communism.
>

There's that communist fetish again. I can pretty much guarantee
you have no idea what communism actually is.

>> > Mikelson just *talks* about doing the same thing and it's as if
>> > he was running the ovens of Auschwitz.
>
>> Nah, just pissed at how ungrateful he is.
>
>So Mikelson's 'ungrateful' for even thinking about reducing his tax
>burden, but Kerry actually does it and he's your hero?
>

Special Cases, feel free to keep hatin' if you please.

>Explain that as anything less than ideological favoritism. This should
>be entertaining.
>

. . .

Here' the thing, I only take orders from: people with aurhority
over me, people I respect, or if I feel like it. None apply here.
Maybe if you ask politely.

>> Though he has apologized.
>
>Actually, he didn't. At most he apologized for talking about it in
>public. He certainly didn't apologize for considering moving to Florida
>to reduce his tax burden. And Tiger Woods chimed in proudly that that's
>the reason he lives in Florida. No apology there.
>

He lives in Florida, that's punishment enough.


>Nor should there be.
>

Anyone that ungrateful should apologize.

>> Hint: when you ask questions, don't be shocked when you get
>> answers!
>
>When I ask you questions, the only thing that shocks me is getting
>anything less than a dishonest weasel answer form you.

Now you have no idea how dishonesty works. Feel free to explain
where I'm lying.

Wow, huge F all around. You parents must be proud.

--

- Officially, President Obama will be the best US President since FDR
on 2017. Unofficially, he already is.

[moviePig]

On Jan 30, 12:44 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> On Jan 29, 10:36 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:

> ...

> > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > I'm not here to be bound by every question that liberals
> > > throw out to discredit the concept of free trade.

Questions are never binding... except perhaps when they reveal
bindings...

>  When
> > > I use the term 'free trade', I mean trade as free as it can
> > > reasonably be allowed to be.  And I mean allowed to be
> > > by reasonable people who understand the value of
> > > trade and business and industry, not by leftists who
> > > are not of good will and understanding where business
> > > is concerned.

When, by 'reasonable', one means 'people like himself', then the
question is well and truly begged...

> > > Competition removes the concept of 'predatory pricing'
> > > from consideration, by the way.
>
> > I take this to mean that, as much as you hate to utter it, you do
> > recognize that 'free trade' is merely an engine rather than a
> > Commandment, and must not be allowed to run amok.  (Yes, competition
> > indeed obviates predatory pricing ...which is why, whenever possible,
> > the latter is used to destroy the former.)
>
> I've always recognized that there have to be laws
> against wrongful behavior.  Free trade is not a
> Commandment, but it is a pure concept.

So is fire.

> If practiced
> with minimum wrongful behavior it is the greatest
> boon to civilization in the history of the world.

Practiced with "minimum wrongful behavior", communism would kick ass
even better.

> It
> appears to me that the left claims that wrongful
> behavior is built into trade.  In your paragraph above
> you say "run amok" as if that is a feature of trade,
> and you claim that predatory pricing is used "whenever
> possible" to destroy competition, as if trade has that
> built-in evil.

I can't speak for the "left" any more than you can, but... across the
historical spectrum of known, profitable business practices, name any
vacuum that has ever gone unfilled merely for being too unprincipled.

> We probably could agree on many laws
> against wrongful behavior by businessmen, but we
> will never agree on your loathing, which projects
> assumed bad behavior into the practice of trade, and
> my reverence for trade as an essential feature of life
> and civilization, a discovery/invention on a par with fire
> and the wheel.

You're projecting. I no more "loathe" badly-behaving businessmen than
I do my dog when he shits on the rug.

> My loathing is for Marxism, which seeks to take all of
> the freedom out of trade, turning it over to be run by the
> government.

*My* loathing (among others) is for free-trade evangelists, both pro
and con. Adapting Dawkins re religion in general: "I am against [it]
because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the
world." It's fine to champion free-trade as a fragile resource, but
not as a talisman to override common sense.

> I'm currently reading 'Doctor Zhivago',
> the first half of which completely agrees with Ayn Rand's
> 'We the Living' in its depictions of life in Russia during
> and after the Revolution of 1917.  Pasternak's book is
> not overtly political (neither is Rand's), but I've just
> read early in the second half these words that he
> puts into Zhivago's mouth in conversation:
>
> [after someone claimed, "Marxism is a positive science,
> a teaching about reality, a philosophy of the historical
> situation," Zhivago replied:]
>
> "... Marxism has too little control of itself to be a science.
> Sciences are better balanced.  Marxism and objectivity?
> I don't know of a movement more isolated within itself
> and further from the facts than Marxism.  Each of us is
> concerned with testing himself by experience, but
> people in power, for the sake of the fable of their own
> infallibility, turn away from the truth with all their might.
> Politics says nothing to me. ..."
>
> And the author notes that "the doctor's words [were
> considered to be] the whimsicalities of a witty eccentric."

Zhivago seems to be saying that although Marx's historical perspective
has some merit towards understanding society, it falls woefully short
as a science (...as indeed much of science does -- and, in a way, is
meant to do). Afaik, outside the "godless-commie" hunting party
anyway, that thinking is pretty mainstream over here...

[calvin]

On Jan 30, 2:17 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 12:44 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > On Jan 29, 10:36 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> > ...
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > I'm not here to be bound by every question that liberals
> > > > throw out to discredit the concept of free trade.
>
> Questions are never binding... except perhaps when they reveal
> bindings...

And 'gotcha' questions, masquerading as 'simple yes or no'
questions, especially.

>
> > > > When
> > > > I use the term 'free trade', I mean trade as free as it can
> > > > reasonably be allowed to be. And I mean allowed to be
> > > > by reasonable people who understand the value of
> > > > trade and business and industry, not by leftists who
> > > > are not of good will and understanding where business
> > > > is concerned.
>
> When, by 'reasonable', one means 'people like himself', then the
> question is well and truly begged...
>

Sorry, but I don't trust people who are anti-business to start with,
to be the ones who define the freedom that trade is allowed to have.

> > > > Competition removes the concept of 'predatory pricing'
> > > > from consideration, by the way.
>
> > > I take this to mean that, as much as you hate to utter it, you do
> > > recognize that 'free trade' is merely an engine rather than a
> > > Commandment, and must not be allowed to run amok. (Yes, competition
> > > indeed obviates predatory pricing ...which is why, whenever possible,
> > > the latter is used to destroy the former.)
>
> > I've always recognized that there have to be laws
> > against wrongful behavior. Free trade is not a
> > Commandment, but it is a pure concept.
>
> So is fire.

Which I equated with trade below.

What you loathe is your own business, but clearly you are
no friend to the idea or practice of free enterprise.

You really should pay more attention to what the left is
doing and advocating. You had a great chance to see
the attitudes of the left in action with the 2011 'occupy'
riots and demonstrations. I know more about what I'm
against that you know about what you are supporting.

And when you use terms like 'godless-commie', that has no
applicability to me. I am against Marxism in principle, but
am not bothered a bit by communists being godless. As you
know, I agree with Ayn Rand for the most part about free
trade issues, and she was as godless as any communist.

You said,

"Practiced with "minimum wrongful behavior", communism

would kick ass even better [than free trade]."

That tells me that liberty means absolutely nothing to you,
and you're admitting preferring something that hasn't
been demonstrated. In my preference for free-as-possible
trade, I have thousands of years of proven performance
to back me up. You have nothing but poverty, pollution,
exploitation, and repression to show for your preference.
(For pollution, see eastern Europe after the collapse of
the USSR; for exploitation, see current Chinese labor
practices; for poverty and repression, see the results of
Marxism wherever it has been tried.)

What is it about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
that bothers you?

[calvin]

On Jan 30, 2:55 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2:17 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 30, 12:44 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > It appears to me that the left claims that wrongful
> > > behavior is built into trade.  In your paragraph above
> > > you say "run amok" as if that is a feature of trade,
> > > and you claim that predatory pricing is used "whenever
> > > possible" to destroy competition, as if trade has that
> > > built-in evil.
>
> > I can't speak for the "left" any more than you can, but... across the
> > historical spectrum of known, profitable business practices, name any
> > vacuum that has ever gone unfilled merely for being too unprincipled.

I wasn't trying to speak for the left, but based on
everything I've ever heard from you, I know a lot
more about the left than you do, unless you're keeping
your knowledge of the left to yourself. As for your
"name any vacuum ...", I don't accept your premise
that business is inherently unprincipled. Business
is simply trade, for god's sake. Bad people do bad
things, but business, trade, and industry are not
inherently bad. Their nature is of the greatest good.

[moviePig]

I think the best I can do at this point is to explain to you that a
'gotcha' question is one that contains implicit "unavoidable"
assumptions which would be superficially validated by any normal
answer. For example:

"Have you canceled your membership in Transsexuals Anonymous?"

...or...

"What is it about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that
bothers you?"

Note that a 'gotcha' question is *not* is a simple request for
information about you that, for fear of whatever, you'd rather not
share ...such as:

"Do you think 'free-trade' should be allowed to include 'predatory
pricing'?"

No assumptions, no probing for closeted skeletons, just a
straightforward issue you'd apparently rather not be seen to
address ...which doesn't speak well for your confidence in your own
world-view. (Either that, or some version of "I don't gotta answer no
steenking questions" ...a little bizarre in a running Usenet
dialogue.)

[calvin]

I've answered your question in several ways, but I'll
answer it again:

Q: Does your 'free trade' include, say, predatory pricing?

A: No.

[moviePig]

Then we are in agreement that 1) free-trade probably should be
regulated, and 2) it probably should not be regulated out of
existence. ('Probably' is included to mark the opinion of a mere
mortal.)

[calvin]

Probably a good (and historic) note on which to end.

[BTR1701]

In article <13fhg8148qiq5r84u...@4ax.com>,

Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 23:22:34 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <ofseg85jomir2juri...@4ax.com>,
> > Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:

> >> >> Actually, it's based on one simple thing: it works.
> >> >
> >> >No, it isn't.
> >>
> >> "It isn't work." You can't even get basic grammar right.
> >
> >You might have a point if I'd written "It isn't work." Since that's not
> >what I wrote, you're merely an idiot.
> >
>
> Me: it works.
>
> you: No, it isn't.

YOU: It's based on one simple thing.

ME: No, it isn't.

You jammed two sentences together into one. I responded to the one I
found most significant. You're cherry picking the other in order to
engage in a petty grammar flame-- what is universally recognized across
Usenet as an essential admission that you're both a douche and have
nothing substantive to contribute.

Bad enough that you're grammar-flaming. It's more sad for you by orders
of magnitude that my grammar wasn't even wrong to begin with.

> >> > If it were there wouldn't be an ongoing media jihad
> >> > against Phil Mikelson merely for commenting that he doesn't
> >> > like giving the government 60% of everything he makes.
> >
> >> He's keeping 40% of $34 million, that's $13.6 million. I'd love to
> >> have $13.6 million after taxes.
> >
> >So go be successful instead of whining about people who are.
> >
>
> Not whining, just pointing out something obvious.

It's obviously straight up jealous whining.

> Oh, and if I ever make that much, I'll happily pay the proper taxes
> without Mickelson-esque whining.

Riiighhht. That's what all you communists say until it actually happens,
then like the Politburos of old, you're living in fancy countryside
dachas, and tooling around town in tricked out Zil limos with dedicated
elite-only lanes on the highway, while everyone else stands in endless
lines for a crust of bread.

> >> BTW, the fact he's paying less than 70% over one million $ should
> >> be unacceptable.
> >
> > Only to a communist.

> So, the US was communist 1933-1981. You just called President
> Dwight D. Eisenhower a communist.

Eh. If the shoe fits.

> >> 74% at least, 91% preferably.
> >
> >Keep dreamin', comrade.

> Those were US upper marginal tax rates 1933-1981.

As I said, keep dreamin', comrade.

You'll never see those rates again, especially without going back to the
spending levels of those decades. Obamacare alone costs more than the
entire 1933 federal budget.

> >> At 91% taxes (over a million), he'd be keeping over $3 million. I'd
> >> love to keep $3 million after taxes.
> >
> >So go be successful instead of whining about people who are.

> Broken record.

Desperate communist, jealous of his betters.

> *sigh*

*burp*

> A "record" was an old way to play audio. When it broke, it would
> play the same section over and over again.

Uncial is a majuscule script, written entirely in capital letters,
commonly used from the 3rd to 8th centuries AD by Latin and Greek
scribes.

> *sigh*

*burp*

> "Audio" is another word for sound.

Papyrus is a thick paper-like material produced from the pith of the
papyrus plant.

> >> >Gazillionaire John Kerry avoids taxes and you cheer him on,
> >>
> >> He's earned it.
> >
> >No, Mikelson earned it.
>
> No he didn't.

Yes, he did.

> There are dozens of golfers at least as good if not
> better than him, but Mickelson just happens to be more popular.

You don't get the win unless you put the ball in the hole, genius.

Even so, there are certainly senators every bit as good as Kerry. He
just managed to gold-dig his way into a fortune.

> > Kerry married it.

> Whatever.

About what I expected as a response. Can't deny it, so say something
meaninglessly dismissive.

> > But that's just further illustration of how people who meet your
> > ideological/political test get a free pass.
> >
>
> There are always Special Cases.

Of course there are, comrade. Everyone's equal, just some are more equal
than others, right?

> > Just like corrupt communists the world over, the ideological 'elite'
> > somehow get to avoid the 'glories' of actual communism.

> There's that communist fetish again. I can pretty much guarantee
> you have no idea what communism actually is.

You're doing a great job illustrating it. (That and the 'no true
Scotsman' fallacy.)

> >So Mikelson's 'ungrateful' for even thinking about reducing his tax
> >burden, but Kerry actually does it and he's your hero?

> Special Cases, feel free to keep hatin' if you please.

That's exactly what I said above. Special pass for being a liberal. At
least you admit your hypocrisy.

> >Explain that as anything less than ideological favoritism. This should
> >be entertaining.

> Here' the thing, I only take orders from: people with aurhority
> over me, people I respect, or if I feel like it. None apply here.
> Maybe if you ask politely.

So you can't justify it as anything less than ideological favoritism. No
matter. You already admitted to the ideological favoritism by repeatedly
claiming Kerry's a 'special case'.

> >> Though he has apologized.
> >
> >Actually, he didn't. At most he apologized for talking about it in
> >public. He certainly didn't apologize for considering moving to Florida
> >to reduce his tax burden. And Tiger Woods chimed in proudly that that's
> >the reason he lives in Florida. No apology there.
> >
>
> He lives in Florida, that's punishment enough.

I'm sure he cries himself to sleep every night in his beautiful
beachside villa. Meanwhile, your jealousy of the successful has never
been more evident.

> >Nor should there be.

> Anyone that ungrateful should apologize.

Only if you define 'ungrateful' as anyone who legally manages their
affairs so as to minimize their tax burden. In which case, Kerry (and
every other limousine liberal with their armies of accountants) should
be apologizing as well. Oh, but they're 'special cases' so they get a
pass.

Or in the alternative, we could just take a lesson from Justice Learned
Hand, one of the great scholars in the history of the Supreme Court:

"Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as
low as possible; he is not legally or morally bound to choose
that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a
patriotic duty to increase one's taxes.

Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing
sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as
possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do
right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the
law demands."

> Now you have no idea how dishonesty works. Feel free to explain
> where I'm lying.

Your puerile attempt at a grammar flame alone brands you as a dishonest
little shit. Documenting the rest would take far more time than I'm
willing to give it.

[Antonio E. Gonzalez]

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 08:45:27 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

>In article <13fhg8148qiq5r84u...@4ax.com>,
> Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 23:22:34 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <ofseg85jomir2juri...@4ax.com>,
>> > Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> >> >> Actually, it's based on one simple thing: it works.
>> >> >
>> >> >No, it isn't.
>> >>
>> >> "It isn't work." You can't even get basic grammar right.
>> >
>> >You might have a point if I'd written "It isn't work." Since that's not
>> >what I wrote, you're merely an idiot.
>> >
>>
>> Me: it works.
>>
>> you: No, it isn't.
>
>YOU: It's based on one simple thing.
>
>ME: No, it isn't.
>
>You jammed two sentences together into one. I responded to the one I
>found most significant. You're cherry picking the other in order to
>engage in a petty grammar flame-- what is universally recognized across
>Usenet as an essential admission that you're both a douche and have
>nothing substantive to contribute.
>
>Bad enough that you're grammar-flaming. It's more sad for you by orders
>of magnitude that my grammar wasn't even wrong to begin with.
>

You weren't c;lear, and should own up to that.

>> >> > If it were there wouldn't be an ongoing media jihad
>> >> > against Phil Mikelson merely for commenting that he doesn't
>> >> > like giving the government 60% of everything he makes.
>> >
>> >> He's keeping 40% of $34 million, that's $13.6 million. I'd love to
>> >> have $13.6 million after taxes.
>> >
>> >So go be successful instead of whining about people who are.
>> >
>>
>> Not whining, just pointing out something obvious.
>
>It's obviously straight up jealous whining.
>

So, you're obviously straight-up jealous whining.

>> Oh, and if I ever make that much, I'll happily pay the proper taxes
>> without Mickelson-esque whining.
>
>Riiighhht. That's what all you communists say until it actually happens,
>then like the Politburos of old, you're living in fancy countryside
>dachas, and tooling around town in tricked out Zil limos with dedicated
>elite-only lanes on the highway, while everyone else stands in endless
>lines for a crust of bread.
>

That communist thing again, someone wants in!

Not me though, my BA is in history, and I know what a failure
communism was . . .

>> >> BTW, the fact he's paying less than 70% over one million $ should
>> >> be unacceptable.
>> >
>> > Only to a communist.
>
>> So, the US was communist 1933-1981. You just called President
>> Dwight D. Eisenhower a communist.
>
>Eh. If the shoe fits.
>

: )

>> >> 74% at least, 91% preferably.
>> >
>> >Keep dreamin', comrade.
>
>> Those were US upper marginal tax rates 1933-1981.
>
>As I said, keep dreamin', comrade.
>

Thank you for proving one of my maxims:

Conservatives hate government programs that don't work, but they
despise government programs that do.

74%-91% upper marginal tax rates worked, they'll work again.

>You'll never see those rates again, especially without going back to the
>spending levels of those decades. Obamacare alone costs more than the
>entire 1933 federal budget.
>

Ummmm, it's called inflation.

>> >> At 91% taxes (over a million), he'd be keeping over $3 million. I'd
>> >> love to keep $3 million after taxes.
>> >
>> >So go be successful instead of whining about people who are.
>
>> Broken record.
>
>Desperate communist, jealous of his betters.
>

We get it, you want to be a communist.


>> *sigh*
>
>*burp*
>

Tums!

>> A "record" was an old way to play audio. When it broke, it would
>> play the same section over and over again.
>
>Uncial is a majuscule script, written entirely in capital letters,
>commonly used from the 3rd to 8th centuries AD by Latin and Greek
>scribes.
>
>> *sigh*
>
>*burp*
>

Seriously, you need Tums, or some other antacid.

>> "Audio" is another word for sound.
>
>Papyrus is a thick paper-like material produced from the pith of the
>papyrus plant.
>
>> >> >Gazillionaire John Kerry avoids taxes and you cheer him on,
>> >>
>> >> He's earned it.
>> >
>> >No, Mikelson earned it.
>>
>> No he didn't.
>
>Yes, he did.
>

Nope!

>> There are dozens of golfers at least as good if not
>> better than him, but Mickelson just happens to be more popular.
>
>You don't get the win unless you put the ball in the hole, genius.
>

Which many golfers can do better than Mickelson, just not on TV;
it's called marketing. All Mickelson's "earned" is being popular.

>Even so, there are certainly senators every bit as good as Kerry. He
>just managed to gold-dig his way into a fortune.
>
>> > Kerry married it.
>
>> Whatever.
>
>About what I expected as a response. Can't deny it, so say something
>meaninglessly dismissive.
>
>> > But that's just further illustration of how people who meet your
>> > ideological/political test get a free pass.
>> >
>>
>> There are always Special Cases.
>
>Of course there are, comrade. Everyone's equal, just some are more equal
>than others, right?
>

Communism's dead dude; there's nothing for you to get into.

>> > Just like corrupt communists the world over, the ideological 'elite'
>> > somehow get to avoid the 'glories' of actual communism.
>
>> There's that communist fetish again. I can pretty much guarantee
>> you have no idea what communism actually is.
>
>You're doing a great job illustrating it. (That and the 'no true
>Scotsman' fallacy.)
>
>> >So Mikelson's 'ungrateful' for even thinking about reducing his tax
>> >burden, but Kerry actually does it and he's your hero?
>
>> Special Cases, feel free to keep hatin' if you please.
>
>That's exactly what I said above. Special pass for being a liberal. At
>least you admit your hypocrisy.
>

Just enjoying this.

>> >Explain that as anything less than ideological favoritism. This should
>> >be entertaining.
>
>> Here' the thing, I only take orders from: people with aurhority
>> over me, people I respect, or if I feel like it. None apply here.
>> Maybe if you ask politely.
>
>So you can't justify it as anything less than ideological favoritism. No
>matter. You already admitted to the ideological favoritism by repeatedly
>claiming Kerry's a 'special case'.
>
>> >> Though he has apologized.
>> >
>> >Actually, he didn't. At most he apologized for talking about it in
>> >public. He certainly didn't apologize for considering moving to Florida
>> >to reduce his tax burden. And Tiger Woods chimed in proudly that that's
>> >the reason he lives in Florida. No apology there.
>> >
>>
>> He lives in Florida, that's punishment enough.
>
>I'm sure he cries himself to sleep every night in his beautiful
>beachside villa. Meanwhile, your jealousy of the successful has never
>been more evident.
>

I've been to Florida, I'll stay in California.

>> >Nor should there be.
>
>> Anyone that ungrateful should apologize.
>
>Only if you define 'ungrateful' as anyone who legally manages their
>affairs so as to minimize their tax burden. In which case, Kerry (and
>every other limousine liberal with their armies of accountants) should
>be apologizing as well. Oh, but they're 'special cases' so they get a
>pass.
>
>Or in the alternative, we could just take a lesson from Justice Learned
>Hand, one of the great scholars in the history of the Supreme Court:
>
> "Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as
> low as possible; he is not legally or morally bound to choose
> that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a
> patriotic duty to increase one's taxes.
>
> Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing
> sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as
> possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do
> right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the
> law demands."
>
>> Now you have no idea how dishonesty works. Feel free to explain
>> where I'm lying.
>
>Your puerile attempt at a grammar flame alone brands you as a dishonest
>little shit. Documenting the rest would take far more time than I'm
>willing to give it.

Heh, "dishonest little shit"

[Bill Steele]

In article <ggu3h8tpcmo9n9qgk...@4ax.com>,

Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:

> Heh, "dishonest little shit"

Well chosen to keep a troll thread rolling.

[BTR1701]

In article <ggu3h8tpcmo9n9qgk...@4ax.com>,

Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 08:45:27 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <13fhg8148qiq5r84u...@4ax.com>,
> > Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:

> >> Me: it works.
> >>
> >> you: No, it isn't.
> >
> >YOU: It's based on one simple thing.
> >
> >ME: No, it isn't.
> >
> >You jammed two sentences together into one. I responded to the one I
> >found most significant. You're cherry picking the other in order to
> >engage in a petty grammar flame-- what is universally recognized across
> >Usenet as an essential admission that you're both a douche and have
> >nothing substantive to contribute.
> >
> >Bad enough that you're grammar-flaming. It's more sad for you by orders
> >of magnitude that my grammar wasn't even wrong to begin with.

> You weren't c;lear, and should own up to that.

Says the guy who puts a semi-colon in the middle of a word.

If I wasn't clear, then you picking the one interpretation that allowed
you to grammar flame was especially petty and dishonest.

> >> >> > If it were there wouldn't be an ongoing media jihad
> >> >> > against Phil Mikelson merely for commenting that he doesn't
> >> >> > like giving the government 60% of everything he makes.
> >> >
> >> >> He's keeping 40% of $34 million, that's $13.6 million. I'd love to
> >> >> have $13.6 million after taxes.
> >> >
> >> >So go be successful instead of whining about people who are.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Not whining, just pointing out something obvious.
> >
> >It's obviously straight up jealous whining.
> >
> So, you're obviously straight-up jealous whining.

Ah, I see we've reached the 'I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I' kindergarten
stage of your repertoire. Well done!

> >> Oh, and if I ever make that much, I'll happily pay the proper taxes
> >> without Mickelson-esque whining.
> >
> >Riiighhht. That's what all you communists say until it actually happens,
> >then like the Politburos of old, you're living in fancy countryside
> >dachas, and tooling around town in tricked out Zil limos with dedicated
> >elite-only lanes on the highway, while everyone else stands in endless
> >lines for a crust of bread.

> Not me though, my BA is in history, and I know what a failure
> communism was . . .

And yet you seem to admire it so much! Awww...

> 74%-91% upper marginal tax rates worked, they'll work again.

So did not having $16 trillion debt. Or spending trillions we don't have.

> >You'll never see those rates again, especially without going back to the
> >spending levels of those decades. Obamacare alone costs more than the
> >entire 1933 federal budget.
> >
> Ummmm, it's called inflation.

No, it's called spending wildly above the country's means. You could
confiscate every single dime from every single American-- not just the
evol rich-- and it still wouldn't be even close to enough money to
support the current obscene spending coming out of DC.

> >> >> At 91% taxes (over a million), he'd be keeping over $3 million. I'd
> >> >> love to keep $3 million after taxes.
> >> >
> >> >So go be successful instead of whining about people who are.
> >
> >> Broken record.
> >
> >Desperate communist, jealous of his betters.
> >
> We get it, you want to be a communist.

I see we've reached the 'I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I' kindergarten
stage of your repertoire. Well done!

> >> >> >Gazillionaire John Kerry avoids taxes and you cheer him on,
> >> >>
> >> >> He's earned it.
> >> >
> >> >No, Mikelson earned it.
> >>
> >> No he didn't.
> >
> >Yes, he did.

> Nope!

Yep. And more to the point, it's not for you or government bureaucrats
to decide whose money is legitimately earned and whose isn't. As long as
it's not generated illegally, it's all equally legitimate.

> >> There are dozens of golfers at least as good if not
> >> better than him, but Mickelson just happens to be more popular.
> >
> >You don't get the win unless you put the ball in the hole, genius.
> >
> Which many golfers can do better than Mickelson, just not on TV;

That's part of the game. Doing it when it counts. Mikelson can do it
better than the others.

> it's called marketing. All Mickelson's "earned" is being popular.

Which is what sports and entertainment business is all about, genius.
Mikelson figured out a way to do it better than any of his competitors
and he's earned the purse.

> >> > But that's just further illustration of how people who meet your
> >> > ideological/political test get a free pass.
> >> >
> >>
> >> There are always Special Cases.
> >
> >Of course there are, comrade. Everyone's equal, just some are more equal
> >than others, right?
> >
> Communism's dead dude; there's nothing for you to get into.

And yet you're spouting Marxist slogans like it's 1975 all over again.
'Special cases' my ass.

> >> >So Mikelson's 'ungrateful' for even thinking about reducing his tax
> >> >burden, but Kerry actually does it and he's your hero?
> >
> >> Special Cases, feel free to keep hatin' if you please.
> >
> >That's exactly what I said above. Special pass for being a liberal. At
> >least you admit your hypocrisy.
> >
> Just enjoying this.

Weird, most people don't enjoy being exposed as a hypocrite.

Different strokes, I suppose.

> >> >> Though he has apologized.
> >> >
> >> >Actually, he didn't. At most he apologized for talking about it in
> >> >public. He certainly didn't apologize for considering moving to Florida
> >> >to reduce his tax burden. And Tiger Woods chimed in proudly that that's
> >> >the reason he lives in Florida. No apology there.

> >> He lives in Florida, that's punishment enough.
> >
> >I'm sure he cries himself to sleep every night in his beautiful
> >beachside villa. Meanwhile, your jealousy of the successful has never
> >been more evident.
> >
> I've been to Florida, I'll stay in California.

You do that. Maybe you can voluntarily help make up the difference when
Mikelson moves. You being so enthusiastic to give the government your
money and all...

[Antonio E. Gonzalez]

On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:57:41 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

>In article <ggu3h8tpcmo9n9qgk...@4ax.com>,
> Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 08:45:27 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <13fhg8148qiq5r84u...@4ax.com>,
>> > Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Me: it works.
>> >>
>> >> you: No, it isn't.
>> >
>> >YOU: It's based on one simple thing.
>> >
>> >ME: No, it isn't.
>> >
>> >You jammed two sentences together into one. I responded to the one I
>> >found most significant. You're cherry picking the other in order to
>> >engage in a petty grammar flame-- what is universally recognized across
>> >Usenet as an essential admission that you're both a douche and have
>> >nothing substantive to contribute.
>> >
>> >Bad enough that you're grammar-flaming. It's more sad for you by orders
>> >of magnitude that my grammar wasn't even wrong to begin with.
>
>> You weren't c;lear, and should own up to that.
>
>Says the guy who puts a semi-colon in the middle of a word.
>

It seems I did. My mistake, I own up to it.

Your turn.

>If I wasn't clear, then you picking the one interpretation that allowed
>you to grammar flame was especially petty and dishonest.
>

Still waiting.

>> >> >> > If it were there wouldn't be an ongoing media jihad
>> >> >> > against Phil Mikelson merely for commenting that he doesn't
>> >> >> > like giving the government 60% of everything he makes.
>> >> >
>> >> >> He's keeping 40% of $34 million, that's $13.6 million. I'd love to
>> >> >> have $13.6 million after taxes.
>> >> >
>> >> >So go be successful instead of whining about people who are.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Not whining, just pointing out something obvious.
>> >
>> >It's obviously straight up jealous whining.
>> >
>> So, you're obviously straight-up jealous whining.
>
>Ah, I see we've reached the 'I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I' kindergarten
>stage of your repertoire. Well done!
>

You're the one saying "obviously straight up jealous whining," so
clearly you're talking about yourself.

>> >> Oh, and if I ever make that much, I'll happily pay the proper taxes
>> >> without Mickelson-esque whining.
>> >
>> >Riiighhht. That's what all you communists say until it actually happens,
>> >then like the Politburos of old, you're living in fancy countryside
>> >dachas, and tooling around town in tricked out Zil limos with dedicated
>> >elite-only lanes on the highway, while everyone else stands in endless
>> >lines for a crust of bread.
>
>> Not me though, my BA is in history, and I know what a failure
>> communism was . . .
>
>And yet you seem to admire it so much! Awww...
>

Ummm, no, that should be rather clear with the "what a failure"
part.

Like libertairanism, communism is something that looks great on
paper, but failis miserably in practice.

>> 74%-91% upper marginal tax rates worked, they'll work again.
>
>So did not having $16 trillion debt. Or spending trillions we don't have.
>

Great, you're admitting that 74-91% upper marginal tax rates are
critical to containing debt! (as they were 1933-1981)

Baby steps.

>> >You'll never see those rates again, especially without going back to the
>> >spending levels of those decades. Obamacare alone costs more than the
>> >entire 1933 federal budget.
>> >
>> Ummmm, it's called inflation.
>
>No, it's called spending wildly above the country's means. You could
>confiscate every single dime from every single American-- not just the
>evol rich-- and it still wouldn't be even close to enough money to
>support the current obscene spending coming out of DC.
>

Actually, spending is a record lows "out of DC" (when you adjust
for inflation and percentage of GDP).

This "austerity" nonsense needs to stop, we need New Deal 2 and need
it yesterday. $2 tirllion for infrastructure would be a good start.

>> >> >> At 91% taxes (over a million), he'd be keeping over $3 million. I'd
>> >> >> love to keep $3 million after taxes.
>> >> >
>> >> >So go be successful instead of whining about people who are.
>> >
>> >> Broken record.
>> >
>> >Desperate communist, jealous of his betters.
>> >
>> We get it, you want to be a communist.
>
>I see we've reached the 'I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I' kindergarten
>stage of your repertoire. Well done!

Wow, deja vu.

>> >> >> >Gazillionaire John Kerry avoids taxes and you cheer him on,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> He's earned it.
>> >> >
>> >> >No, Mikelson earned it.
>> >>
>> >> No he didn't.
>> >
>> >Yes, he did.
>
>> Nope!
>
>Yep. And more to the point, it's not for you or government bureaucrats
>to decide whose money is legitimately earned and whose isn't. As long as
>it's not generated illegally, it's all equally legitimate.
>

Ummm, it's called taxation, it's literally in The Constitution as
their right.

Keep in mind you get to vote for those "government bureaucrats."

>> >> There are dozens of golfers at least as good if not
>> >> better than him, but Mickelson just happens to be more popular.
>> >
>> >You don't get the win unless you put the ball in the hole, genius.
>> >
>> Which many golfers can do better than Mickelson, just not on TV;
>
>That's part of the game. Doing it when it counts. Mikelson can do it
>better than the others.
>

Yes, that's called luck. If not for TV marketing, he'd be just
another guy whacking a ball.

>> it's called marketing. All Mickelson's "earned" is being popular.
>
>Which is what sports and entertainment business is all about, genius.
>Mikelson figured out a way to do it better than any of his competitors
>and he's earned the purse.
>

No, he lucked into it, and he should pay up his fair share.

>> >> > But that's just further illustration of how people who meet your
>> >> > ideological/political test get a free pass.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> There are always Special Cases.
>> >
>> >Of course there are, comrade. Everyone's equal, just some are more equal
>> >than others, right?
>> >
>> Communism's dead dude; there's nothing for you to get into.
>
>And yet you're spouting Marxist slogans like it's 1975 all over again.
>'Special cases' my ass.
>

I'd love to hear which "Marxist slogans" I'm spouting.

Anyway, you're the one constantly bringing up communism, you're
clearly into it.

>> >> >So Mikelson's 'ungrateful' for even thinking about reducing his tax
>> >> >burden, but Kerry actually does it and he's your hero?
>> >
>> >> Special Cases, feel free to keep hatin' if you please.
>> >
>> >That's exactly what I said above. Special pass for being a liberal. At
>> >least you admit your hypocrisy.
>> >
>> Just enjoying this.
>
>Weird, most people don't enjoy being exposed as a hypocrite.
>
>Different strokes, I suppose.
>

: )

>> >> >> Though he has apologized.
>> >> >
>> >> >Actually, he didn't. At most he apologized for talking about it in
>> >> >public. He certainly didn't apologize for considering moving to Florida
>> >> >to reduce his tax burden. And Tiger Woods chimed in proudly that that's
>> >> >the reason he lives in Florida. No apology there.
>
>> >> He lives in Florida, that's punishment enough.
>> >
>> >I'm sure he cries himself to sleep every night in his beautiful
>> >beachside villa. Meanwhile, your jealousy of the successful has never
>> >been more evident.
>> >
>> I've been to Florida, I'll stay in California.
>
>You do that. Maybe you can voluntarily help make up the difference when
>Mikelson moves. You being so enthusiastic to give the government your
>money and all...

If I made $65 million a year like Mickelson, I'd happily pay $60
million, since it means keeping $5 million.

Repeat: I'd be keeping $5 million, that's nothing a rational person
would complain about. (speaking volumes of Mickelson)

[BTR1701]

In article <16pjh895npna8qgjs...@4ax.com>,

Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:57:41 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <ggu3h8tpcmo9n9qgk...@4ax.com>,
> > Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 08:45:27 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

> >If I wasn't clear, then you picking the one interpretation that allowed
> >you to grammar flame was especially petty and dishonest.
> >
>
> Still waiting.

Not sure why. I gave you an accurate summation: If I wasn't clear, then

you picking the one interpretation that allowed you to grammar flame was
especially petty and dishonest.

> >> >It's obviously straight up jealous whining.
> >> >
> >> So, you're obviously straight-up jealous whining.
> >
> >Ah, I see we've reached the 'I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I' kindergarten
> >stage of your repertoire. Well done!

> You're the one saying "obviously straight up jealous whining," so
> clearly you're talking about yourself.

Saying 'I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I' again doesn't make it any less of
a kindergarten-level schtick. If that's the way you want to go, who am I
to stop you?

> >> >> Oh, and if I ever make that much, I'll happily pay the proper taxes
> >> >> without Mickelson-esque whining.
> >> >
> >> >Riiighhht. That's what all you communists say until it actually happens,
> >> >then like the Politburos of old, you're living in fancy countryside
> >> >dachas, and tooling around town in tricked out Zil limos with dedicated
> >> >elite-only lanes on the highway, while everyone else stands in endless
> >> >lines for a crust of bread.
> >
> >> Not me though, my BA is in history, and I know what a failure
> >> communism was . . .
> >
> >And yet you seem to admire it so much! Awww...
> >
>
> Ummm, no, that should be rather clear with the "what a failure"
> part.

So you admire that which failed. You wouldn't be the first.

> Actually, spending is a record lows "out of DC" (when you adjust
> for inflation and percentage of GDP).

That's just nonsense.

> >> >Desperate communist, jealous of his betters.
> >> >
> >> We get it, you want to be a communist.
> >
> >I see we've reached the 'I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I' kindergarten
> >stage of your repertoire. Well done!
>
> Wow, deja vu.

When you repeat yourself, so will I.

> >> >> >No, Mikelson earned it.
> >> >>
> >> >> No he didn't.
> >> >
> >> >Yes, he did.
> >
> >> Nope!
> >
> >Yep. And more to the point, it's not for you or government bureaucrats
> >to decide whose money is legitimately earned and whose isn't. As long as
> >it's not generated illegally, it's all equally legitimate.

> Ummm, it's called taxation, it's literally in The Constitution as
> their right.

The power to tax /= the legal, ethical, or moral right to decide whose
legal income is legitimate whose isn't.

>
> Keep in mind you get to vote for those "government bureaucrats."

Actually, no one votes for the bureaucrats. The people only get to vote
for the politicians.

> >> >> There are dozens of golfers at least as good if not
> >> >> better than him, but Mickelson just happens to be more popular.
> >> >
> >> >You don't get the win unless you put the ball in the hole, genius.
> >> >
> >> Which many golfers can do better than Mickelson, just not on TV;
> >
> >That's part of the game. Doing it when it counts. Mikelson can do it
> >better than the others.

> Yes, that's called luck.

That's part of the game. Being lucky when it counts. Mikelson can do it
better than the others.

> >> it's called marketing. All Mickelson's "earned" is being popular.
> >
> >Which is what sports and entertainment business is all about, genius.
> >Mikelson figured out a way to do it better than any of his competitors
> >and he's earned the purse.
> >
>
> No, he lucked into it, and he should pay up his fair share.

No, he figured out a way to do it better than any of his competitors and

he's earned the purse.

But even if he had just stumbled onto a fortune, that doesn't justify
taking more from him than anyone else.

Your jealousy of others' success is not a proper justification for the
use of the government's taxing power.

> Anyway, you're the one constantly bringing up communism, you're
> clearly into it.

More 'I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I'. It's your go-to stategy. You really
must have scored with that one in grade school, I guess.

> >> I've been to Florida, I'll stay in California.
> >
> >You do that. Maybe you can voluntarily help make up the difference when
> >Mikelson moves. You being so enthusiastic to give the government your
> >money and all...
>
> If I made $65 million a year like Mickelson, I'd happily pay $60
> million, since it means keeping $5 million.

So your enthusiasm to give the government such a massive chunk of your
property is dependent on a set of conditions which will never exist. How
very convenient.

In the meantime, you'll continue to selflessly volunteer others to pay
that which you will not volunteer to pay yourself. Speaks volumes for
you.

[Antonio E. Gonzalez]

On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 10:52:27 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

>In article <16pjh895npna8qgjs...@4ax.com>,
> Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:57:41 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <ggu3h8tpcmo9n9qgk...@4ax.com>,
>> > Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 08:45:27 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> >If I wasn't clear, then you picking the one interpretation that allowed
>> >you to grammar flame was especially petty and dishonest.
>> >
>>
>> Still waiting.
>
>Not sure why. I gave you an accurate summation: If I wasn't clear, then
>you picking the one interpretation that allowed you to grammar flame was
>especially petty and dishonest.
>

That's nice.

*Still* waiting.

>> >> >It's obviously straight up jealous whining.
>> >> >
>> >> So, you're obviously straight-up jealous whining.
>> >
>> >Ah, I see we've reached the 'I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I' kindergarten
>> >stage of your repertoire. Well done!
>
>> You're the one saying "obviously straight up jealous whining," so
>> clearly you're talking about yourself.
>
>Saying 'I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I' again doesn't make it any less of
>a kindergarten-level schtick. If that's the way you want to go, who am I
>to stop you?
>

So, I carefully explain, and you ignore. Color me not surprised.

>> >> >> Oh, and if I ever make that much, I'll happily pay the proper taxes
>> >> >> without Mickelson-esque whining.
>> >> >
>> >> >Riiighhht. That's what all you communists say until it actually happens,
>> >> >then like the Politburos of old, you're living in fancy countryside
>> >> >dachas, and tooling around town in tricked out Zil limos with dedicated
>> >> >elite-only lanes on the highway, while everyone else stands in endless
>> >> >lines for a crust of bread.
>> >
>> >> Not me though, my BA is in history, and I know what a failure
>> >> communism was . . .
>> >
>> >And yet you seem to admire it so much! Awww...
>> >
>>
>> Ummm, no, that should be rather clear with the "what a failure"
>> part.
>
>So you admire that which failed. You wouldn't be the first.
>

I get you admire that which failed (commuism), that's *your*
problem.

You also need to accept how much you love that communism you
mention so much.

>> Actually, spending is a record lows "out of DC" (when you adjust
>> for inflation and percentage of GDP).
>
>That's just nonsense.
>
>> >> >Desperate communist, jealous of his betters.
>> >> >
>> >> We get it, you want to be a communist.
>> >
>> >I see we've reached the 'I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I' kindergarten
>> >stage of your repertoire. Well done!
>>
>> Wow, deja vu.
>
>When you repeat yourself, so will I.
>
>> >> >> >No, Mikelson earned it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No he didn't.
>> >> >
>> >> >Yes, he did.
>> >
>> >> Nope!
>> >
>> >Yep. And more to the point, it's not for you or government bureaucrats
>> >to decide whose money is legitimately earned and whose isn't. As long as
>> >it's not generated illegally, it's all equally legitimate.
>
>> Ummm, it's called taxation, it's literally in The Constitution as
>> their right.
>
>The power to tax /= the legal, ethical, or moral right to decide whose
>legal income is legitimate whose isn't.
>>

You don't seem to understaind what "legitimate" means. No one's
calling for making any money made over one million to be illegal, just
taxed properly (70% or higher).

>> Keep in mind you get to vote for those "government bureaucrats."
>
>Actually, no one votes for the bureaucrats. The people only get to vote
>for the politicians.
>

. . . who hire the "government bureaucrats." Think McFly, think!

>> >> >> There are dozens of golfers at least as good if not
>> >> >> better than him, but Mickelson just happens to be more popular.
>> >> >
>> >> >You don't get the win unless you put the ball in the hole, genius.
>> >> >
>> >> Which many golfers can do better than Mickelson, just not on TV;
>> >
>> >That's part of the game. Doing it when it counts. Mikelson can do it
>> >better than the others.
>
>> Yes, that's called luck.
>
>That's part of the game. Being lucky when it counts. Mikelson can do it
>better than the others.
>
>> >> it's called marketing. All Mickelson's "earned" is being popular.
>> >
>> >Which is what sports and entertainment business is all about, genius.
>> >Mikelson figured out a way to do it better than any of his competitors
>> >and he's earned the purse.
>> >
>>
>> No, he lucked into it, and he should pay up his fair share.
>
>No, he figured out a way to do it better than any of his competitors and
>he's earned the purse.
>

No, it's luck, you admit as much: " Being lucky when it counts."

>But even if he had just stumbled onto a fortune, that doesn't justify
>taking more from him than anyone else.
>

Yes, it does, that's how government works; especially government
done right (US 1933-1981).

>Your jealousy of others' success is not a proper justification for the
>use of the government's taxing power.
>

So, you're jealous of others; might help to explain what you're
jealous of.

>> Anyway, you're the one constantly bringing up communism, you're
>> clearly into it.
>
>More 'I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I'. It's your go-to stategy. You really
>must have scored with that one in grade school, I guess.
>

It's called "projection," something you suffer from in spades.

>> >> I've been to Florida, I'll stay in California.
>> >
>> >You do that. Maybe you can voluntarily help make up the difference when
>> >Mikelson moves. You being so enthusiastic to give the government your
>> >money and all...
>>
>> If I made $65 million a year like Mickelson, I'd happily pay $60
>> million, since it means keeping $5 million.
>
>So your enthusiasm to give the government such a massive chunk of your
>property is dependent on a set of conditions which will never exist. How
>very convenient.
>

"Conditions which will never exist," yet somehow exist just fine
for Phil Mickelson (and hundreds of thousands of others), way to deny
reality.

Apparently my explanation made so much sense, you chose to just
look the other way.

>In the meantime, you'll continue to selflessly volunteer others to pay
>that which you will not volunteer to pay yourself. Speaks volumes for
>you.

I pay plenty in taxes, so does everybody, that's the point; tax
money is yours mine and ours, to be used by you me and I.. Obviously,
those who make more than they'll need should pay more, that's just
common sense; nobody *needs* over a million dollars. You're free to
deny 1933-1981and those 90% upper marginal tax rates happened; and
keep calling President Eisienhower a communist, it makes this so much
more fun!

Gotta say, I love this editoon that shows the upper margnal rates in
US history (you'd be in the group of idiots screaming "socialism"):


<http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/top-rate.jpg>

--

Any upper marginal tax rate under 70% should be called what it is,
unacceptably low.

[BTR1701]

On Mar 1 2013 11:49 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:

> On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 10:52:27 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

> > > Still waiting.
>
> > Not sure why. I gave you an accurate summation: If I wasn't clear,
> > then you picking the one interpretation that allowed you to grammar
> > flame was especially petty and dishonest.
>
> That's nice.

> *Still* waiting.

That's nice, but I'm not sure why. I gave you an accurate summation: If I

wasn't clear, then you picking the one interpretation that allowed you to
grammar flame was especially petty and dishonest.

But if you want to continue to wait, by all means, have at it. You can
take a number behind Beetlejuice.

> > > You're the one saying "obviously straight up jealous whining," so
> > > clearly you're talking about yourself.
>
> > Saying 'I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I' again doesn't make it any less
> > of a kindergarten-level schtick. If that's the way you want to go,
> > who am I to stop you?
>
> So, I carefully explain, and you ignore. Color me not surprised.

The word 'ignore' doesn't mean what you apparently think it does.

>> >> >> Oh, and if I ever make that much, I'll happily pay the proper
>> >> >> taxes without Mickelson-esque whining.
>> >> >
>> >> >Riiighhht. That's what all you communists say until it actually
>> >> >happens, then like the Politburos of old, you're living in fancy
>> >> >countryside dachas, and tooling around town in tricked out Zil
>> >> >limos with dedicated elite-only lanes on the highway, while
>> >> >everyone else stands in endless lines for a crust of bread.
>> >
> > > > > Not me though, my BA is in history, and I know what a failure
> > > > > communism was...
>> >
> > > > And yet you seem to admire it so much! Awww...

> > > Ummm, no, that should be rather clear with the "what a failure"
> > > part.
>
> > So you admire that which failed. You wouldn't be the first.
>
> I get you admire that which failed (commuism), that's *your* problem.

More 'I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I' schtick. Must have really worked
wonders for you on the playground.

> > > > Yep. And more to the point, it's not for you or government
> > > > bureaucrats to decide whose money is legitimately earned and
> > > > whose isn't. As long as it's not generated illegally, it's all equally
legitimate.
>
> > > Ummm, it's called taxation, it's literally in The Constitution as
> > > their right.
>
> > The power to tax /= the legal, ethical, or moral right to decide
> > whose legal income is legitimate whose isn't.

> You don't seem to understaind what "legitimate" means.

Behold the irony.

> No one's calling for making any money made over one million to be
> illegal

No, you're just claiming it's somehow not legitimate for a person to
possess or earn more than one million dollars. That's absurd, ridiculous,
and in no way the proper function of government. At least not for the U.S.
government. You might be able to find some junta or strongman somewhere
that believes as you do.

> > > Keep in mind you get to vote for those "government bureaucrats."
>
> > Actually, no one votes for the bureaucrats. The people only get to
> > vote for the politicians.
>

> ...who hire the "government bureaucrats." Think McFly, think!

And there's the spin you're famous for. You get caught making a blatantly
false statement and you pretend it's the other person who doesn't get it.

Neat trick if you can find someone stupid enough to fall for it.

> > > No, he lucked into it, and he should pay up his fair share.
>
> > No, he figured out a way to do it better than any of his competitors
> > and he's earned the purse.

> No, it's luck, you admit as much: "Being lucky when it counts."

And he figured out a way to do everything involved in golf-- whether it's
luck, marketing, or putting the ball in the hole-- better than any of his

competitors and he's earned the purse.

> > But even if he had just stumbled onto a fortune, that doesn't
> > justify taking more from him than anyone else.

> Yes, it does, that's how government works

Only if it's an immoral government.

> > Your jealousy of others' success is not a proper justification for
> > the use of the government's taxing power.

> So, you're jealous of others; might help to explain what you're
> jealous of.

May I momma dog face in the banana patch?

> > > Anyway, you're the one constantly bringing up communism, you're
> > > clearly into it.
>

> > More 'I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I'. It's your go-to strategy. You

> > really must have scored with that one in grade school, I guess.

> It's called "projection"

Yes, I'm sure it is. At least you admit you have a problem. Baby steps...

> > > > > I've been to Florida, I'll stay in California.
>> >
> > > > You do that. Maybe you can voluntarily help make up the
> > > > difference when Mikelson moves. You being so enthusiastic to
> > > > give the government your money and all...
>>
> > > If I made $65 million a year like Mickelson, I'd happily pay $60
> > > million, since it means keeping $5 million.
>
> > So your enthusiasm to give the government such a massive chunk of
> > your property is dependent on a set of conditions which will never
> > exist. How very convenient.

> "Conditions which will never exist," yet somehow exist just fine for
> Phil Mickelson

Conditions which will never exist for you. You have no problem advocating
the forced confiscation of others' property, but when it comes to your
own, you're conveniently only willing to do it under circumstances you can
be fairly confident will never come to pass.

> > In the meantime, you'll continue to selflessly volunteer others to
> > pay that which you will not volunteer to pay yourself. Speaks
> > volumes for you.

> I pay plenty in taxes

Not enough, apparently, since there are plenty of people worse off than
you. What the hell are you doing with all that money when others need it
more than you? Why shouldn't you be forced to give all of it (less just
enough to put a meal on your table every night and roof over your head) to
the government for redistribution? After all, you don't actually *need*
more than that. It's just selfish greed on your part that makes you want
to keep anything more than the absolute bare minimum. Hell, the money you
use to pay your ISP to keep you connected to the internet so you can post
your socialist garbage here could easily go to feeding a family that's
going without tonight. What sort of greedy bastard are you, that you keep
that money from them and instead use it to indulge yourself?

[Antonio E. Gonzalez]

On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:20:04 -0700, "BTR1701"
<a54...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>On Mar 1 2013 11:49 PM, Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 10:52:27 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> > > Still waiting.
>>
>> > Not sure why. I gave you an accurate summation: If I wasn't clear,
>> > then you picking the one interpretation that allowed you to grammar
>> > flame was especially petty and dishonest.
>>
>> That's nice.
>
>> *Still* waiting.
>
>That's nice, but I'm not sure why. I gave you an accurate summation: If I
>wasn't clear, then you picking the one interpretation that allowed you to
>grammar flame was especially petty and dishonest.
>
>But if you want to continue to wait, by all means, have at it. You can
>take a number behind Beetlejuice.
>

- At least you admit you never cop to your mistakes, especially when
they are clearly mistakes.

- Any upper marginal tax rate under 70% should be called what it is,
unacceptably low.

- AMENDMENT XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes,
from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several
states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

- Any upper marginal tax rate under 70% should be called what it is,
unacceptably low.

>> > > Keep in mind you get to vote for those "government bureaucrats."
>>
>> > Actually, no one votes for the bureaucrats. The people only get to
>> > vote for the politicians.
>>
>
>> ...who hire the "government bureaucrats." Think McFly, think!
>
>And there's the spin you're famous for. You get caught making a blatantly
>false statement and you pretend it's the other person who doesn't get it.
>
>Neat trick if you can find someone stupid enough to fall for it.
>
>> > > No, he lucked into it, and he should pay up his fair share.
>>
>> > No, he figured out a way to do it better than any of his competitors
>> > and he's earned the purse.
>
>> No, it's luck, you admit as much: "Being lucky when it counts."
>
>And he figured out a way to do everything involved in golf-- whether it's
>luck, marketing, or putting the ball in the hole-- better than any of his
>competitors and he's earned the purse.
>
>> > But even if he had just stumbled onto a fortune, that doesn't
>> > justify taking more from him than anyone else.
>
>> Yes, it does, that's how government works
>
>Only if it's an immoral government.
>

- It's what government does. If you think that's immoral, that's your
problem Mr. "President Eisenhower was a Communist."

- Any upper marginal tax rate under 70% should be called what it is,
unacceptably low.

- If Mr. MIckelson could luck into those circumstances, I know I can.

- You're as free to believe I won't keep $1 million a year as you're
free to believe in unicorns.

- BTW, you just refered to taxation as "forced confiscation of others'
property" proving you have no understanding of basic civics.

- Any upper marginal tax rate under 70% should be called what it is,
unacceptably low.

>> > In the meantime, you'll continue to selflessly volunteer others to
>> > pay that which you will not volunteer to pay yourself. Speaks
>> > volumes for you.
>
>> I pay plenty in taxes
>
>Not enough, apparently, since there are plenty of people worse off than
>you.

- Good point, taxes in the US are at their lowest level since the
1950s, we could all up our share of the revenue.

- Not surprisingly, government spending is also at it's lowest point
since the 1950s (proprietary spending; adjusted for inflation,
population growth, and GDP growth). We have a revenue problem.

- Any upper marginal tax rate under 70% should be called what it is,
unacceptably low.

What the hell are you doing with all that money when others need it
>more than you? Why shouldn't you be forced to give all of it (less just
>enough to put a meal on your table every night and roof over your head) to
>the government for redistribution? After all, you don't actually *need*
>more than that. It's just selfish greed on your part that makes you want
>to keep anything more than the absolute bare minimum. Hell, the money you
>use to pay your ISP to keep you connected to the internet so you can post
>your socialist garbage here could easily go to feeding a family that's
>going without tonight. What sort of greedy bastard are you, that you keep
>that money from them and instead use it to indulge yourself?

- Nice questions, but I don't make over $1 million a year (yet), so
irrelevant.

- You clearly don't make over $1 million a year, yet you're willing to
kiss up to people who do. One has to wonder what your problem is.
I'm tempted to call you a Servile Serf.

- You also think President Eisherhower was a Communist, and refer to
taxation as "forced confiscation of others' property," so it's almost
impossible to take you seriously.

- I support 91%-74% upper marginal tax rates for one simple reason:
they work. These are the rates we had 1933-1981, and we had a sound
economy for that duration.

- Feel free to scream "socialism," "Communism," or whatever; the
correct term is "pragmatism."

- Feel free to continue living in your libertarian fanasy land. Like
Communism, libertarianism looks great on paper, but fails miserably in
real life.