Re: Obama says he cannot guarantee Social Security checks will go out on August 3
walt tonne
> President Obama on Tuesday said he cannot guarantee that retirees will
> receive their Social Security checks August 3 if Democrats and Republicans
> in Washington do not reach an agreement on reducing the deficit in the
> coming weeks.
>
> "I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't
> resolved this issue.
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20078789-503544.html
>
> --
>
> Mr. President, why would you choose to punish older Americans? This shows
> where your priorities lie. Sad.
Obama is just a sorry-assed nigger.
DCI
Aside from your unwarranted comment, the game being played by the
Obama administration: Brinksmanship.
DCI
LilAbner
the game it is natural
Twibil
>
>
> > Obama is just a sorry-assed nigger.
>
> Aside from your unwarranted comment, the game being played by the
> Obama administration: Brinksmanship.
Um, when both sides refuse to budge on an issue it's called
"Brinksmanship".
But when one side is willing to compromise to get at least part of
what they want -and Obama has repeatedly offered to compromise on any
number of issues- and the other side refuses to compromise in any way
whatesoever, it isn't "brinksmanship" any more.
It's what we call "dictating terms".
Twibil
>
>
> When Politicians don't get their way they lie. They are so caught up in
Ah, but there's an easy way to tell when they're lying: They begin
their sentences with the words "The American people", and follow that
phrase with whatever it is that they're trying to sell this week.
Example: "The American people won't stand for job-killing tax
increases during this time of high unemployment!"
Translation: "We know that no one is proposing tax increases right
now and that most American citizens would happily string up the big
oil company executives by their thumbs over a slow fire, but these
guys bribe us with incredible amounts of money so we have to say
*something* that will keep them from being asked to pay their fair
share."
See?
It's easy!
Billy
<8d5d51d9-2b46-4915...@q12g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Twibil <noway...@gmail.com> wrote:
It's posturing, just like they do in the WWF. The loser puts up a
gallant battle and then is overwhelmed, just like it says in the script.
It may be futile, but a 3rd party is our only choice. In the meantime,
if you see an opportunity to push back, take it.
--
- Billy
America is not broke. The country is awash in wealth and cash.
It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the
greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks
and the portfolios of the uber-rich.
<http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/10/michael-moore
/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/>
You put Lloyd Blankfein in pound-me-in-the-ass prison for one six-month term, and all this bullshit would stop, all over Wall Street. That's all it would take. Just once.
DCI
> In article
> <8d5d51d9-2b46-4915-86fe-83629633e...@q12g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> Twibil <nowayjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 12, 12:14 pm, DCI <50b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Obama is just a sorry-assed nigger.
>
> > > Aside from your unwarranted comment, the game being played by the
> > > Obama administration: Brinksmanship.
>
> > Um, when both sides refuse to budge on an issue it's called
> > "Brinksmanship".
>
> > But when one side is willing to compromise to get at least part of
> > what they want -and Obama has repeatedly offered to compromise on any
> > number of issues- and the other side refuses to compromise in any way
> > whatesoever, it isn't "brinksmanship" any more.
>
> > It's what we call "dictating terms".
>
> It's posturing, just like they do in the WWF. The loser puts up a
> gallant battle and then is overwhelmed, just like it says in the script.
> It may be futile, but a 3rd party is our only choice. In the meantime,
> if you see an opportunity to push back, take it.
> --
> - Billy
> America is not broke. The country is awash in wealth and cash.
> It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the
> greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks
> and the portfolios of the uber-rich.
>
> You put Lloyd Blankfein in pound-me-in-the-ass prison for one six-month term, and all this bullshit would stop, all over Wall Street. That's all it would take. Just once.
The pending created orifice would be just as bad.
DCI
tomorrowat...@yahoo.com
> Ah, but there's an easy way to tell when [politicians are] lying: They begin
> their sentences with the words "The American people", and follow that
> phrase with whatever it is that they're trying to sell this week.
>
> Example: "The American people won't stand for job-killing tax
> increases during this time of high unemployment!"
>
> Translation: "We know that no one is proposing tax increases right
> now and that most American citizens would happily string up the big
> oil company executives by their thumbs over a slow fire, but these
> guys bribe us with incredible amounts of money so we have to say
> *something* that will keep them from being asked to pay their fair
> share."
>
> See?
>
> It's easy!
Do you honestly think for one nanosecond that if the government raised
taxes or tax rates or closed tax loopholes on oil companies (or any
other sector dominated by big businesse entities) in an effort to make
them "pay their fair share" that the big oil company executives (or
the executives of any other multi-billion dollar corporate entities)
would lose money or give up compensation?
I do not.
I do think that in such a case, "The American people" would pay more
for gasoline (or whatever other product the big business entities in
question were peddling), and almost certainly would pay more than any
increased tax revenues that would result from the effort.
[numerous troll-infested xposted ngs snipped]
Calgary (Don)
Increasing taxes as you describe would also drive investment capital out
of your country. Money does not have a home or a nationality.
--
Disclaimer
Do not believe a thing I have said, unless you already know it to be
true, or can independently verify it from another source.
Reeky Ride To The Rockies
http://actualriders.ca/reekyrockies.htm
Twibil
If we were dealing with honest men -or if they didn't have a strangle-
hold on the Republican party- you might have a point; but we aren't
and they do.
And as a result, all you're doing is parroting the old "You shouldn't
tax the rich (or their corporations)" line that was invented by
(surprise!) the rich and their corporations.
Even were that not the case, the fact that the rich used to pay a
*lot* more taxes than they presently do, and that gas prices -and
corporate profits- were much lower during that period, give the lie to
that tired old bromide.
Unrestricted laissez-faire capitalisim doesn't work any better than
old-fashioned Communisim did; and for very much the same resons: both
are founded on the supposition that human beings are basically good
and will usually do what's best for the community/nation rather than
do what's best for themselves and say "screw everybody else".
There is a place for government rules and graduated taxes, just as
there are good reasons not to over-regulate or over-tax.
Jared
When people say that a company will just pass on their expenses, they're
just bluffing. Sometimes a business can pass on their expenses and
sometimes they can't. If they _could_ charge more, why wouldn't they
already be doing it? It all depends on supply and demand curves,
according to orthodox economic theory.
It's also worth pointing out that making a company "pay their fair
share" is not intended to punish the executives, so saying that it
_won't_ punish them may be true but is completely irrelevant.
--
Jared
Jared
[...]
> Unrestricted laissez-faire capitalisim doesn't work any better than
> old-fashioned Communisim did; and for very much the same resons: both
> are founded on the supposition that human beings are basically good
> and will usually do what's best for the community/nation rather than
> do what's best for themselves and say "screw everybody else".
Regardless of what you think of those two systems, I thought everybody
knew that the defenders of laissez-faire capitalism believe that it is a
system which turns individual self-interest to the common good.
It is beyond my understanding how someone knowledgeable enough to have
heard of the term "laissez-faire" can think that it is based on
supposing people are selfless.
Have you ever heard of Adam Smith?
--
Jared
Twibil
>
>
> > Unrestricted laissez-faire capitalisim doesn't work any better than
> > old-fashioned Communisim did; and for very much the same resons: both
> > are founded on the supposition that human beings are basically good
> > and will usually do what's best for the community/nation rather than
> > do what's best for themselves and say "screw everybody else".
>
> Regardless of what you think of those two systems, I thought everybody
> knew that the defenders of laissez-faire capitalism believe that it is a
> system which turns individual self-interest to the common good.
You've been listening to the wrong defenders of laissez-faire
capitalisim.
The current Tea Party crowd have thrown out the classic definition and
substituted their own*; To wit: "anything the government does is bad
and anything that business does is good. Therefore, the government
should let business do absolutely anything that it wants to do".
> It is beyond my understanding how someone knowledgeable enough to
have
> heard of the term "laissez-faire" can think that it is based on
> supposing people are selfless.
You've apparently missed all the far right wing pronouncments claiming
that businessmen would *never* do anything that was bad for the county
as a whole because they'd be cutting their own throats in the long
term. (The fact that it's self-evident that many businessmen care
*nothing* for either the long term or for their country has so far
escaped the notice of [for instance] Fox News.)
> Have you ever heard of Adam Smith?
Have you ever heard of the Tea Party?
Jared
> On Jul 12, 9:37 pm, Jared<jared4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Unrestricted laissez-faire capitalisim doesn't work any better than
>>> old-fashioned Communisim did; and for very much the same resons: both
>>> are founded on the supposition that human beings are basically good
>>> and will usually do what's best for the community/nation rather than
>>> do what's best for themselves and say "screw everybody else".
>>
>> Regardless of what you think of those two systems, I thought everybody
>> knew that the defenders of laissez-faire capitalism believe that it is a
>> system which turns individual self-interest to the common good.
>
> You've been listening to the wrong defenders of laissez-faire
> capitalisim.
>
> The current Tea Party crowd
The Tea Party did not found the idea of laissez-faire capitalism. Really.
And if they think it is based on people being inherently selfless, then
they don't know what it is and are therefore not defenders of it.
--
Jared
tomorrowat...@yahoo.com
I disagree. I was asking a simple question, which you chose not to
answer.
> Even were that not the case, the fact that the rich used to pay a
> *lot* more taxes than they presently do, and that gas prices -and
> corporate profits- were much lower during that period, give the lie to
> that tired old bromide.
That neither answers the question nor takes into account the demand,
the supply, the price of oil, the cost of getting it out of the
ground then compared to now when looking at retail gasoline prices.
tomorrowat...@yahoo.com
> On Jul 12, 9:37 pm, Jared <jared4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Unrestricted laissez-faire capitalisim doesn't work any better than
> > > old-fashioned Communisim did; and for very much the same resons: both
> > > are founded on the supposition that human beings are basically good
> > > and will usually do what's best for the community/nation rather than
> > > do what's best for themselves and say "screw everybody else".
>
> > Regardless of what you think of those two systems, I thought everybody
> > knew that the defenders of laissez-faire capitalism believe that it is a
> > system which turns individual self-interest to the common good.
>
> You've been listening to the wrong defenders of laissez-faire
> capitalisim.
>
> The current Tea Party crowd have thrown out the classic definition and
> substituted their own*; To wit: "anything the government does is bad
> and anything that business does is good. Therefore, the government
> should let business do absolutely anything that it wants to do".
I sure would love to see a cite that provides support for that claim.
It sounds suspciously like a personal supposition rather than an
actual fact.
Nice piece of misdirection wrt Jared's cogent observation, though. A
truly classic reeky device!
tomorrowat...@yahoo.com
I would love to see the correlation between increased taxes on
corporations and reduced ceo compensation, then, so that the concept
of corporations paying "their fair share" can make sense to this tax-
paying retail gasoline purchaser, since the basic idea behind comments
like Pete's that "most American citizens would happily string up the
big oil company executives by their thumbs over a slow fire" does seem
to faintly be looking for some sort of "punishment" of those execs.
Snag
IMO it's the politicians and bankers that should be strung up .
Politicians for changing the rules to let the bankers run wild , bankers for
bribing the pols to do so .
I also think we need to *stimulate* natgas and oil production and nuclear
energy instead of *strangling* them . Is it coincidence that the surge in
oil prices happened just at the right time to help crash our economy ? I
think not , and IMNSHO it was the biggest Islamic Terrorist Action we'll
ever see .
--
Snag
Learning keeps
you young !
Vito
| When Politicians don't get their way they lie.
That's only half true. Politicians lie whether they get their way or not.
I went to GOP "Leadership School". We were taught that, no matter your
agenda, you must get elected to have a voice. And the way to get elected is
to hire polls to determine what voters want to hear then to say it louder
and more often than your opponants. Note that there is no need to be
honest - just to tell people what they want to hear no matter what you
really plan to do. The Democrats have the same schools and Obama's last
campaign is a good example. Polls told him that voters were fed up with
Bush and wanted change so he promised them change - without ever telling
them what that "change" might be. Then he didn't even deliver "change".
Bottom line is that anybody who votes for a candidate based on what he says
or promises is a fool.
LilAbner
professional politicians are up too.
those that live long enough finally realize not to listen to their word
but instead listen to their actions.
There are those that don't care and are riding their coat tails for
advantage.
the most fundamental good change I think we could have is public funded
election campaigns.
One dollar one vote was never envisioned by our Founders. I think they
didn't realize that explicit prohibition should have been included.
different times and motives though.
The adherence to ?Christian principle has vanished and brought us to
this. They simply don't care about the Republic or Citizens.
Donors, of necessity?, come first.
We are becmming a more stratified country with the Ruling Investor Class
and the ruled or managed, for their profits. Supply Side
Economics/Government?
Americans didn't create the situation with SS and Medicare. It started
with Johnson and all of Washington since then. somehow it is our fault
though.
Billy
"Vito" <vi...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
<http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/04/18/112346/obama-ran-against-bush-but-
now.html>
--
- Billy
America is not broke. The country is awash in wealth and cash.
It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the
greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks
and the portfolios of the uber-rich.
<http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/10/michael-moore
/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/>
saddlebag
So would I. I hear liberals say this and it bugs the shit out of me
because it makes no sense and sounds like something a conservative
would say to fool his followers. I expect better from liberals.
Corporate taxes are stupid beyond belief. They are hidden taxes on
everyone who uses the companies products or invests in the company.
Much better and more transparent to simply and progressively tax the
people benefiting from income generated by the company.
> then, so that the concept
> of corporations paying "their fair share" can make sense to this tax-
> paying retail gasoline purchaser, since the basic idea behind comments
> like Pete's that "most American citizens would happily string up the
> big oil company executives by their thumbs over a slow fire" does seem
> to faintly be looking for some sort of "punishment" of those execs.
They should be punished for things like allowing the gulf of Mexico to
change colors or giving all the elk in Yellowstone a cathartic with
every drink. For the execs who try to do things right, we should just
progressively tax their income so that it becomes more beneficial for
companies to hire people and invest than to give some joker *running*
a perfectly self functioning company all of the rewards.
Tim
> "LilAbner" <-...@Daisey.Mae> wrote
> | When Politicians don't get their way they lie.
>
> That's only half true. Politicians lie whether they get their way or not.
LOL! Good one, Vito!
Bob Myers
> On Jul 13, 5:26 am, "tomor...@erols.com"
> <tomorrowaterolsdot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> I would love to see the correlation between increased taxes on
>> corporations and reduced ceo compensation
> So would I. I hear liberals say this and it bugs the shit out of me
> because it makes no sense and sounds like something a conservative
> would say to fool his followers. I expect better from liberals.
> Corporate taxes are stupid beyond belief. They are hidden taxes on
> everyone who uses the companies products or invests in the company.
> Much better and more transparent to simply and progressively tax the
> people benefiting from income generated by the company.
And this seems like a wonderful time to remind all concerned of the old
adage in science, that "correlation" and "causation" are two VERY
different things...
Bob M.
Mark Olson
xkcd has the perfect explanation of this: http://xkcd.com/552/
(I posted it in our office break area for the data massagers to
chuckle over).
tomorrowat...@yahoo.com
I chose the word on purpose; as I do not believe there is any
correlation. If there *were* demonstrated correlation, then I would
need to see evidence of causation. In this case, I don't think we
will ever get to the second phase.
saddlebag
<tomorrowaterolsdot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I would love to see the correlation between increased taxes on
> corporations and reduced ceo compensation,
> I chose the word on purpose; as I do not believe there is any
> correlation. If there *were* demonstrated correlation, then I would
> need to see evidence of causation. In this case, I don't think we
> will ever get to the second phase.
I think this is the crux of the liberal argument.
http://acctwkshop.cox.smu.edu/acctwkshop/Fabio%20Gaertner%20(job%20market%20paper).pdf
Her dissertation says kinda the opposite. Basically, that CEOs who
find loopholes to lower their corporate taxes get better compensation
deals. If we eliminated corporate taxes and made the top progressive
rate for say earning over a million dollars a year back to 90% as it
was during the reign of that liberal, commie sympathizer Eisenhower,
we could incentivize corporations to:
a) Lower CEO compensation
b) Lower prices
c) Increase business investment
d) Increase shareholder ROI
and most importantly
e) Make America a place where global businesses are dying to set up
shop!
Don't hold your breath, the lawyers are in charge and will never
figure it out. After all, they went into law because they weren't so
hot at math...
tomorrowat...@yahoo.com
> On Jul 14, 5:48 pm, "tomor...@erols.com"
>
> <tomorrowaterolsdot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I would love to see the correlation between increased taxes on
> > corporations and reduced ceo compensation,
> > I chose the word on purpose; as I do not believe there is any
> > correlation. If there *were* demonstrated correlation, then I would
> > need to see evidence of causation. In this case, I don't think we
> > will ever get to the second phase.
>
> I think this is the crux of the liberal argument.
>
>
> Her dissertation says kinda the opposite. Basically, that CEOs who
> find loopholes to lower their corporate taxes get better compensation
> deals. If we eliminated corporate taxes and made the top progressive
> rate for say earning over a million dollars a year back to 90% as it
> was during the reign of that liberal, commie sympathizer Eisenhower,
> we could incentivize corporations to:
>
> a) Lower CEO compensation
> b) Lower prices
> c) Increase business investment
> d) Increase shareholder ROI
>
> and most importantly
>
> e) Make America a place where global businesses are dying to set up
> shop!
>
> Don't hold your breath, the lawyers are in charge and will never
> figure it out. After all, they went into law because they weren't so
> hot at math...
You are the one who is missing the obvious math. CEO's and other high
earners assiduously practice tax avoidance now, when the maximum tax
rate is what, 36% or something like that? Make it 90% and you would
not get one dime more in taxes from CEO's; although you would line
more lawyers and accountants and tax advisor's pockets and would
reduce the return on investment on little people's 401(k) and IRA
retirement funds that hold the stocks of those companies.
You could eliminate all loopholes in the tax code, pass laws to reduce
CEO total compensation (salary and stock options and retirement plans
and corporate freebies) to that of the lowest paid employee of the
firm, and furthermore require that all such reductions flow directly
to the federal government, and you would not make a noticeable dent in
the budget deficit, let alone the national debt, or even notice the
difference in total federal tax receipts.
But at least you'd feel better.
All these things you mentioned are good, but you're not going to get
there without major structural changes in this country, changes that
not only lawyers and elected officials would resist, but changes that
have been rejected at the point of purchase by the American consumer
in trends that are now going on 40-45 years old.
P.S. How many people do you think we have in this country with a
taxable SALARY of over a million dollars?
saddlebag
Not if you remove their write-offs along with it. Then the lawyers
would have to do something productive to earn their keep. It's a win-
win!
> You could eliminate all loopholes in the tax code, pass laws to reduce
> CEO total compensation (salary and stock options and retirement plans
> and corporate freebies) to that of the lowest paid employee of the
> firm
Strawman, no one suggested any such thing.
> to the federal government, and you would not make a noticeable dent in
> the budget deficit, let alone the national debt, or even notice the
> difference in total federal tax receipts.
Keep knocking down that which *you* built.
> But at least you'd feel better.
Why, none of those are my ideas?
> All these things you mentioned are good, but you're not going to get
> there without major structural changes in this country, changes that
> not only lawyers and elected officials would resist, but changes that
> have been rejected at the point of purchase by the American consumer
> in trends that are now going on 40-45 years old.
Americans aren't known for being particularly bright, but I'm
optimistic.
> P.S. How many people do you think we have in this country with a
> taxable SALARY of over a million dollars?
Probably the top few percent of earners. Of course for many it
wouldn't be a *salary* per se as they take it in the form of stock
options, deferred comp etc to avoid taxes.
Either way, guys like the CEO making a few hundred million a year will
still be able to get by, even though I'm sure he works that much
harder and is that much brighter than you and is therefore really
worth it. Hell, the more I think about it, the more I think you ought
to fill up your neighbors cars in his honor!
Jared
Well, if we want to tax the rich, I agree, it would be better to abolish
corporate taxes and simply tax individuals according to their income or
wealth.
But another issue is that some corporations or industries get favorable
treatment relative to others. If we are going to have corporate taxes,
it might be that some corporations are not paying their "fair share"
relative to other corporations. This is not about fat cats, but about
one segment of the economy being treated differently from another
segment for no good reason, which distorts investment.
--
Jared
saddlebag
It's not a matter of want. It would be just peachy if we could all
have massive gubament we could stand to run around the world attacking
people for our pleasure, but in reality, we gotta pay for it. As
famed bank robber Willie Sutton once answered the question "why do you
rob banks?" he replied "because that's where the money is." In our
new conservative banana republic of rich and poor, if you need to fund
the cannon fodder, you're going to have to ask the rich to pony up
since that's where our nation's wealth now lies.
> it would be better to abolish
> corporate taxes and simply tax individuals according to their income or
> wealth.
I'm glad you agree.
> But another issue is that some corporations or industries get favorable
> treatment relative to others. If we are going to have corporate taxes,
> it might be that some corporations are not paying their "fair share"
> relative to other corporations. This is not about fat cats, but about
> one segment of the economy being treated differently from another
> segment for no good reason, which distorts investment.
Yet another great reason to abolish corporate taxes. If no
corporation receives special treatment in the tax code, the field is
level for all. But as long as Republicans are in Congress in the
numbers to oppose such a thing they will because they are bought and
paid to protect the interests of the wealthy in our country and will
never redistribute the tax burden from the dummies who buy the
corporate products to the elite who own and operate the corporation
itself. And as long as Democrats are too jealous of paper entities to
get their heads around how stupid it is to tax them, we are stuck with
massive gubament and no way to pay for it while simultaneously
disincentivizing wealth creating businesses from operating in the US.
Brilliant!
FarmI
Obama is just a sorry-assed nigger.
-------------------------------------------------------
And walt tone is a crossposting cretin.
Tim
I was making the point that salaries are not the same as total
compensation and that your suggestion to make "the top progressive
rate for say earning over a million dollars a year back to 90%" would
not result in "Lower CEO compensation" as you stated was your desire.
I didn't make a strawman argument; I was making a point - one which
you agreed with (by turning 180 degrees around) after dismissing my
discussion by saying "Of course for many it wouldn't be a *salary* per
se as they take it in the form of stock options, deferred comp etc to
avoid taxes."
Silly Saddle.
This is why I stopped bothering attempting to have a serious
discussion with you in the first place.
My bad!
Tim
And we all know that Democrats uniformly oppose preferential tax
treatment for corporate entities that line the pockets of their
candidates....
saddlebag
No, lower CEO pay is not my desire. A more equitable distribution of
wealth within a company and the ability for gubament to be able to
earn enough to operate are the goals. There is only so much money in
a corporation, so lowering the CEO salary would be the only way to
raise other employee compensation. However, I would be just as happy
to see the CEO work harder at growing the business and make everyone
in it including himself more money than to spend so much time working
with lawyers and accountants on how he can most greedily and
efficiently milk the business.
Just curious, which do you think makes for a better economy:
a) One guy with a yacht?
b) A thousand guys with fishing boats?
> I didn't make a strawman argument; I was making a point - one which
> you agreed with (by turning 180 degrees around) after dismissing my
> discussion by saying "Of course for many it wouldn't be a *salary* per
> se as they take it in the form of stock options, deferred comp etc to
> avoid taxes."
BS. You were implying that I am for some communist state where
everyone is paid the same regardless of skill or performance. The
only thing I am for is eliminating all the avenues for corporate crime
and malfeasance. Furthermore, you are crazy if you think increasing
the tax burden on the rich won't make a difference in budget
deficits. Will it solve the problem, no, your peeps have gotten us
into too many wars and given away too many drugs for that, but to say
it won't make a dent is either misinformed or disingenuous.
> This is why I stopped bothering attempting to have a serious
> discussion with you in the first place.
Nahh, you just hate gettin punked in public. Feel free to spin it
anyway you like, this is USENET.
Tim
Except that is EXACTLY what you said. And it is EXACTLY what I was
talking about when you replied to me.
> A more equitable distribution of
> wealth within a company
Which has exactly WHAT do do with ANYONE outside that company?
> and the ability for gubament to be able to
> earn enough to operate are the goals.
The government does not "earn" money.
> There is only so much money in
> a corporation, so lowering the CEO salary would be the only way to
> raise other employee compensation.
This claim indicates someone who has no understanding of how a
business is run. Have you ever run a business? Have you ever been
involved in the running of a business? I would guess not, given the
above statement.
> However, I would be just as happy
> to see the CEO work harder at growing the business and make everyone
> in it including himself more money
So would I.
> than to spend so much time working
> with lawyers and accountants on how he can most greedily and
> efficiently milk the business.
That would be between the CEO and the stockholders, if any. Why would
it be the concern of anyone else?
> Just curious, which do you think makes for a better economy:
>
> a) One guy with a yacht?
>
> b) A thousand guys with fishing boats?
That depends on a lot of factors that you didn't identify. If you
just want to make a generalization, please do so.
> > I didn't make a strawman argument; I was making a point - one which
> > you agreed with (by turning 180 degrees around) after dismissing my
> > discussion by saying "Of course for many it wouldn't be a *salary* per
> > se as they take it in the form of stock options, deferred comp etc to
> > avoid taxes."
>
> BS.
No, actually, I just demonstrated that it was true by quoting your
response that said the same thing that I did.
> You were implying that I am for some communist state where
> everyone is paid the same regardless of skill or performance.
Not only did I not imply that, I do not think that you are calling for
that, and have never even considered that you might be calling for
that.
> The
> only thing I am for is eliminating all the avenues for corporate crime
> and malfeasance.
Strangely, reducing CEO compensation (none of our business) or
eliminating corporate taxation (a great idea) would not fall under
that "thing," so obviously you are "for" more than that.
> Furthermore, you are crazy if you think increasing
> the tax burden on the rich won't make a difference in budget
> deficits.
It will make an infinitesimal difference at the increases that have
been discussed. It would make a very MINOR difference, virtually
unnoticeable, if we simply confiscated ALL CEO compensation at all
levels and gave it to the federal government.
> Will it solve the problem, no, your peeps have gotten us
> into too many wars and given away too many drugs for that,
See? This is why it is useless to attempt to discuss anything
seriously with you.
> but to say
> it won't make a dent is either misinformed or disingenuous.
Reducing a $2 trillion shortfall budget by $25 billion is not a dent;
it is hardly a scratch. Railing on about CEO compensation in the
face of the $800 billion economic "stimulus" spending plans is what is
misinformed and disingenuous.
> > This is why I stopped bothering attempting to have a serious
> > discussion with you in the first place.
>
> Nahh, you just hate gettin punked in public.
I simply demonstrated, using your own arguments, why you were not
making sense. I'll probably give this one up shortly, as well, since
it has alreadt been demonstrated to be futile.
> Feel free to spin it
> anyway you like, this is USENET.
After all, that is what you *DO* here. Always.
Billy
"FarmI" <ask@itshall be given> wrote:
> "walt (The Bigot) tonne" <tonnew...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> Obama is just a sorry-assed nigger.
> -------------------------------------------------------
> And walt tone is a crossposting cretin.
You are far too kind.
saddlebag
> > No, lower CEO pay is not my desire.
>
> Except that is EXACTLY what you said. And it is EXACTLY what I was
> talking about when you replied to me.
No, I said it would be an outcome of shifting the tax burden from the
legal entity to the people profiting. I never said it was my "desire"
or that I wanted him to make what the janitor makes, though often the
janitor is probably more deserving.
> > A more equitable distribution of
> > wealth within a company
>
> Which has exactly WHAT do do with ANYONE outside that company?
Nothing. What's wrong with rewarding the people creating the wealth?
> > and the ability for gubament to be able to
> > earn enough to operate are the goals.
>
> The government does not "earn" money.
Alright *confiscate enough*, fine. Either way, you are the one
benefiting from the military industrial complex, so if they ain't
earning it, neither are you.
> > There is only so much money in
> > a corporation, so lowering the CEO salary would be the only way to
> > raise other employee compensation.
>
> This claim indicates someone who has no understanding of how a
> business is run. Have you ever run a business? Have you ever been
> involved in the running of a business? I would guess not, given the
> above statement.
This was a fantastic insult and completely avoids the inconvenient
fact that if a company has $500 million budgeted for salaries and
overhead and one guy gets $300 million of it, the rest of the people
will make less than if that one guy only got $200 million, or $100
million, or $1 million.
> > However, I would be just as happy
> > to see the CEO work harder at growing the business and make everyone
> > in it including himself more money
>
> So would I.
>
> > than to spend so much time working
> > with lawyers and accountants on how he can most greedily and
> > efficiently milk the business.
>
> That would be between the CEO and the stockholders, if any. Why would
> it be the concern of anyone else?
Because typical stockholders don't have the shares to vote anyone off
the board and even if they did, I'm not sure they would have adequate
information. Look at a board of directors sometime, they are all CEOs
and they sit on on one another's boards and run up one another's
compensation at the expense of the shareholders. You think with your
100 shares your going to change that? And you want to know if I've
ever run a business?
> > Just curious, which do you think makes for a better economy:
>
> > a) One guy with a yacht?
>
> > b) A thousand guys with fishing boats?
>
> That depends on a lot of factors that you didn't identify. If you
> just want to make a generalization, please do so.
It's not a generalization dude, look around, the middle class is
getting clobbered while the elite run off with the loot and are
protected by your Republicans.
> > > I didn't make a strawman argument; I was making a point - one which
> > > you agreed with (by turning 180 degrees around) after dismissing my
> > > discussion by saying "Of course for many it wouldn't be a *salary* per
> > > se as they take it in the form of stock options, deferred comp etc to
> > > avoid taxes."
>
> > BS.
>
> No, actually, I just demonstrated that it was true by quoting your
> response that said the same thing that I did.
>
> > You were implying that I am for some communist state where
> > everyone is paid the same regardless of skill or performance.
>
> Not only did I not imply that, I do not think that you are calling for
> that, and have never even considered that you might be calling for
> that.
Well, that isn't the way I read:
"You could eliminate all loopholes in the tax code, pass laws to
reduce
CEO total compensation (salary and stock options and retirement plans
and corporate freebies) to that of the lowest paid employee of the
firm, and furthermore require that all such reductions flow directly
to the federal government, and you would not make a noticeable dent
in
the budget deficit,"
When you say *you*, it sounds like you are talking about me. At least
we are in agreement that that is not why I am in favor of zero
corporate tax and a high top marginal rate.
> > The
> > only thing I am for is eliminating all the avenues for corporate crime
> > and malfeasance.
>
> Strangely, reducing CEO compensation (none of our business)
It is if you work for a corporation that has been withholding raises
while the captains take multimillion dollar bonuses. It is if you are
a consumer who is paying the obscene inflation to keep these suits
sucking on silver pacifiers. It is if you are a stockholder who has
watched your investment stay flat for over a decade, while the CEO's
salary has risen exponentially.
To top it all off, MOST of these corporations either get a large
percentage of their revenue from either direct gov't contracts or at
least beneficial tax preferences. So even if you are just an ordinary
tax paying citizen, the CEO's salary is your business.
> eliminating corporate taxation (a great idea) would not fall under
> that "thing," so obviously you are "for" more than that.
Lawyers make laws. Just because a certain group of self centered
politicians fool the majority of dumb shit Americans and make it legal
for certain business people to extricate large sums of money from the
businesses they run (as opposed to own), does not mean a moral crime
is not being committed on the dumb shit Americans. Even dumb shit
people deserve protection from white collar criminals.
> > Furthermore, you are crazy if you think increasing
> > the tax burden on the rich won't make a difference in budget
> > deficits.
>
> It will make an infinitesimal difference at the increases that have
> been discussed. It would make a very MINOR difference, virtually
> unnoticeable, if we simply confiscated ALL CEO compensation at all
> levels and gave it to the federal government.
Well, it's not just CEOs. Doctors are way over compensated because
gov't has skewed the market by providing unlimited healthcare for
anyone who has worked for them for a few years, the elderly, the
indigent, etc.
I just got a $400 bill to have my wife's blood work done. When she
was born, the hospital doctors only charged her parents $7.
This is not to say that I don't think a gov't single payer would be
the best solution, because I think it is. The problem is that the
coverage is only for the "chosen" at the expense of the rest of us.
If a farmer has 10 dozen eggs and wants $2 a dozen, but the gov't
demands he sell them seven dozen eggs for $1 per dozen, guess how much
the non govies are going to pay for the remaining 3 dozen eggs?
> > Will it solve the problem, no, your peeps have gotten us
> > into too many wars and given away too many drugs for that,
>
> See? This is why it is useless to attempt to discuss anything
> seriously with you.
Oh, so are you claiming that the Republican party to whom you have in
the past expressed an almost religious devotion too haven't been
warring on everything from drugs, to Mexicans, to gays, to Muslims in
between writing multi-billion dollar, unfunded wealth re-distribution
bills to their campaign contributors in big Pharma? Couldn't possibly
be, every knows Republicans stand for small, unobtrusive gubament.
> > but to say
> > it won't make a dent is either misinformed or disingenuous.
>
> Reducing a $2 trillion shortfall budget by $25 billion is not a dent;
> it is hardly a scratch.
I don't know where $25 billion came from, but I doubt it was from any
CBO analysis of my plan.
> Railing on about CEO compensation in the
> face of the $800 billion economic "stimulus" spending plans is what is
> misinformed and disingenuous.
If it had been an $800 billion dollar stimulus it would have paid for
itself. Instead, Republicans insured that a large portion of it was
more tax breaks for those who hoard cash. That is obviously a much
bigger priority for a healthy economy than improving education,
improving infrastructure upon which wealth creating businesses depend,
boosting the business of companies involved in the manufacture of
goods for infrastructure re-work, boosting all the service businesses
that depend on the wealth creating of the goods providing businesses
and so on.
I find it interesting that you don't find spending that kind of jack
YEARLY on the defense industry from which you prosper to be a
problem. But to spend it once in response to attempt to ease a
conservative ignited depression for the common working stiff seems
unfathomable.
> > > This is why I stopped bothering attempting to have a serious
> > > discussion with you in the first place.
>
> > Nahh, you just hate gettin punked in public.
>
> I simply demonstrated, using your own arguments
No, you used my argument about eliminating corporate tax to pat me on
the head and used my argument about raising the top marginal rates to
try and make me look like some sort of raging Socialist wants no more
than to make rich people mad. You have decades of proof Tim. Look at
the decrease in tax rates following WWII until present then look at
the rise of wealth toward the top and the subsequent explosion of
debts. There are economic multiplier effects of having a healthy
middle class that go beyond just the extra tax dollars contributed by
the rich in any given year. And we can't have a strong middle class
while we are paying CEOs billions to ship our jobs overseas.
Talk about the party that wants to kill granny, just wait until Paul
Ryan gets Medicare replaced with a $10k voucher for senior citizens.
You may be right Tim. Trying to convince me using Gordon Gekkos "greed
is good" arguments may be futile. But hell, it's always fun playing.
tomorrowat...@yahoo.com
> > > and the ability for gubament to be able to
> > > earn enough to operate are the goals.
>
> > The government does not "earn" money.
>
> Alright *confiscate enough*, fine. Either way, you are the one
> benefiting from the military industrial complex, so if they ain't
> earning it, neither are you.
So long, Saddle.
saddlebag
Timsey no likely when his thoughts and words come back to bite him on
his hiney.
tomorrowat...@yahoo.com
More to the point, fuck you and fuck your fucking personal insults.
Done with you. You are an asswipe and a lowlife motherfucking
scumbag.
Has nothing to do with politics, it's entirely personal. You made it
that way.
saddlebag
>
> > On Jul 16, 1:02 pm, "tomor...@erols.com"
>
> > <tomorrowaterolsdot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 15, 7:39 pm, saddlebag <saddle...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > and the ability for gubament to be able to
> > > > > > earn enough to operate are the goals.
>
> > > > > The government does not "earn" money.
>
> > > > Alright *confiscate enough*, fine. Either way, you are the one
> > > > benefiting from the military industrial complex, so if they ain't
> > > > earning it, neither are you.
>
> > > So long, Saddle.
>
> > Timsey no likely when his thoughts and words come back to bite him on
> > his hiney.
>
> More to the point, fuck you and fuck your fucking personal insults.
I can see why you'd be mad, why with me pointing out you insulting
yourself.
> Done with you. You are an asswipe and a lowlife motherfucking
> scumbag.
One of the finest strings of profanity I've seen lately. You are to be
commended.
> Has nothing to do with politics, it's entirely personal. You made it
> that way.
You made it that way a long time ago. You were the one who made being
a govie and later a govie contractor a point of credibility in
previous discussions. I will be the first to point out that gov't does
not produce wealth, but you went a step further and insisted that
govies don't *earn* their living. Some probably don't, but what set
your panties on fire is the fact that I reminded you that you are
still one even if a step removed.
Put in a bind, you had three choices:
1) Become a private sector worker that does not take gov't money
2) Admit (against every Republican talking point you hold dear) that
govies (and their contractors) do in fact *earn* their money
3) Rant and rave that Saddle is the anti-Christ for pointing out the
obvious
Given your options, I don't blame you for choosing the later. It
doesn't require any loss of income nor self examination of your
thought and belief system.
In any event, you ought to go over to AMS and apologize to Bob. You
act just like him.
Rob Kleinschmidt
<tomorrowaterolsdot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> More to the point, fuck you and fuck your fucking personal insults.
> Done with you. You are an asswipe and a lowlife motherfucking
> scumbag.
Mostly, I follow this group for the camaraderie of motorcycling.
Calgary (Don)
Saddle is nothing more than a usenet warrior and a troll. He hasn't got
a clue about the topics of discussion. His only purpose is to argue any
point, with the sole purpose of pushing someone's buttons.
Once you strip away the misrepresentations, liberal paraphrasing and the
tired old cliches, what are you left with? Little of any substance.
Life is too short to waste on these guys.
--
Disclaimer
Do not believe a thing I have said, unless you already know it to be
true, or can independently verify it from another source.
Reeky Ride To The Rockies
http://actualriders.ca/reekyrockies.htm
saddlebag
wrote:
The clique now returns the favor and comes to Timsey's rescue. Always
good to see the camaraderie of egoistical, old farts.
Calgary (Don)
>> > Life is too short to waste on these guys.
> The clique now returns the favor and comes to Timsey's rescue. Always
> good to see the camaraderie of egoistical, old farts.
>
Or maybe just someone commending a friend for making a good decision.
Besides I don't think I have sugar coated my opinion of you Saddle. Your
exchange with Tim did nothing to change my mind, in fact it supported my
opinion. You are just a troll who spends too much time at his computer.
saddlebag
wrote:
> On 16/07/2011 9:26 PM, saddlebag wrote:
>
> >> > Life is too short to waste on these guys.
> > The clique now returns the favor and comes to Timsey's rescue. Always
> > good to see the camaraderie of egoistical, old farts.
>
> Or maybe just someone commending a friend for making a good decision.
Like two little girls on a mission to seek popularity. Very touching.
Calgary (Don)
You know if I didn't bother to look at the message header I'd swear that
was written by Krusty.
saddlebag
wrote:
> On 17/07/2011 4:11 AM, saddlebag wrote:
>
> > On Jul 17, 12:42 am, "Calgary (Don)"<actual.rider*...@telus.net>
> > wrote:
> >> On 16/07/2011 9:26 PM, saddlebag wrote:
>
> >>>>> Life is too short to waste on these guys.
> >>> The clique now returns the favor and comes to Timsey's rescue. Always
> >>> good to see the camaraderie of egoistical, old farts.
>
> >> Or maybe just someone commending a friend for making a good decision.
>
> > Like two little girls on a mission to seek popularity. Very touching.
>
> You know if I didn't bother to look at the message header I'd swear that
> was written by Krusty.
Krusty may have his issues, but at least he isn't an adult child that
calls names then takes his marbles and runs home every time someone
calls his BS.
Why don't you send him a condolence e-mail to let him know that you
think I'm a really mean prick too?
Calgary (Don)
> Why don't you send him a condolence e-mail to let him know that you
> think I'm a really mean prick too?
Just the like the good troll you are, you make shit up to further the
pissing contest. I never called either of you a mean prick or suggested
I think you are a mean prick. Whatever you may be, clearly you are
comfortable with lying. That makes you pathetic but not mean.
saddlebag
wrote:
> On 17/07/2011 12:56 PM, saddlebag wrote:
>
> > Why don't you send him a condolence e-mail to let him know that you
> > think I'm a really mean prick too?
>
> Just the like the good troll you are, you make shit up to further the
> pissing contest. I never called either of you a mean prick or suggested
> I think you are a mean prick.
It doesn't matter what you think, your friend thinks so, so run and
comfort him.
Interesting concept of friendship you guys got. Don't challenge each
others thoughts, don't seek improvement or understanding, just coddle
one another when people say things you don't like. Must be a Harley
tough guy thing?
The Older Gentleman
> > > Why don't you send him a condolence e-mail to let him know that you
> > > think I'm a really mean prick too?
> >
> > Just the like the good troll you are, you make shit up to further the
> > pissing contest. I never called either of you a mean prick or suggested
> > I think you are a mean prick.
>
> It doesn't matter what you think, your friend thinks so, so run and
> comfort him.
FFS. Both of you. You're both posting the finest collection of
non-sequiturs and evasions I've ever seen in a single thread.
--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Kawasaki GPz750 Honda CB400F
Triumph Street Triple Suzuki TS250ERx2 GN250.
Higgler Supreme
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
saddlebag
Gentleman) wrote:
> saddlebag <saddle...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > Why don't you send him a condolence e-mail to let him know that you
> > > > think I'm a really mean prick too?
>
> > > Just the like the good troll you are, you make shit up to further the
> > > pissing contest. I never called either of you a mean prick or suggested
> > > I think you are a mean prick.
>
> > It doesn't matter what you think, your friend thinks so, so run and
> > comfort him.
>
> FFS. Both of you. You're both posting the finest collection of
> non-sequiturs and evasions I've ever seen in a single thread.
If you want us to stop, post something interesting about motorcycles.
FWIW, my local Yami shop got a KTM STM in and it is gorgeous. I don't
know crap about KTM and there is little available online, but what is
there is all positive. Here's my favorite link so far:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV_TW3kT53s
What sucks is that I was finally getting set on the idea of being a
guy who settles for croozers with a little lean angle, but this lil
monster is taking me home...or maybe vice versa.
The Older Gentleman
> If you want us to stop, post something interesting about motorcycles.
I frequently do.
Calgary (Don)
> saddlebag<sadd...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Why don't you send him a condolence e-mail to let him know that you
>>>> think I'm a really mean prick too?
>>>
>>> Just the like the good troll you are, you make shit up to further the
>>> pissing contest. I never called either of you a mean prick or suggested
>>> I think you are a mean prick.
>>
>> It doesn't matter what you think, your friend thinks so, so run and
>> comfort him.
>
> FFS. Both of you. You're both posting the finest collection of
> non-sequiturs and evasions I've ever seen in a single thread.
>
>
LOL. Coming from you that's a good one.
Calgary (Don)
> saddlebag<sadd...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> If you want us to stop, post something interesting about motorcycles.
>
> I frequently do.
>
>
Damn you are on a roll today.
gus
> Krusty may have his issues
I have "issues"?
Isn't that a snippy way of saying "Krusty is crazy?"
Who in this world does NOT have "issues"?
The Dalai Lama (arguably the most serene man on the planet) has
"issues" with the treatment of the Tibetan people by the Chinese and
has theological "issues"
with other Vajrayana practicers.
Life without "issues" is nirvana, and what is left for the nirvani to
do except to stop his lion's roar and lay down and die (over the
objections of his followers)?
gus
wrote:
> On 17/07/2011 4:11 AM, saddlebag wrote:
> > Like two little girls on a mission to seek popularity. Very touching.
>
> You know if I didn't bother to look at the message header I'd swear that
> was written by Krusty.
Krusty (one of the few involved in this thread who would actually be
impacted by Obama's threat) hadn't weighed in on the subject at all
before being invoked like
an imp from Hell...
So why involve Krusty in this little clique war?
saddlebag
> On Jul 17, 11:56 am, saddlebag <saddle...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Krusty may have his issues
>
> I have "issues"?
>
> Isn't that a snippy way of saying "Krusty is crazy?"
Would you have ran screaming and cursing if I had called you an imp
from hell? Seems to be a lot of estrogen in the Reeky drinking water
lately.
Rob Kleinschmidt
> On Jul 19, 9:58 am, gus <aengusmaco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 17, 11:56 am, saddlebag <saddle...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Krusty may have his issues
>
> > I have "issues"?
>
> > Isn't that a snippy way of saying "Krusty is crazy?"
>
> Would you have ran screaming and cursing if I had called you an imp
> from hell?
More likely, he'd have felt flattered.
gus
> Would you have ran screaming and cursing if I had called you an imp
> from hell?
Whatever mows your lawn.
I've been called a "Nazi" and a "child molester" and a "father raper"
by Reekyites, so my virtue has been regularly impugned to the maximum
in here.
> Seems to be a lot of estrogen in the Reeky drinking water
> lately.
Consider the clientele in this poisonous watering hole.
You have an uptight stuffy Canuckistani and a religious fanatic hoser
and at least two smart-aleck British trolls and you have Pete pimping
civil rights for Negros, and you're surprised at the general
atmosphere of bitchiness?
You're down to the last of the die hard flamers and trolls in here...
OTOH, if you go to http://www.reddit.com/r/motorcycles/ you'll find
nearly 9000 happy campers (most of them newbies with less than a
year's riding experience), who are deliriously happy to have gotten
their motorcycle license or endorsement and have bought their first
motorcycle and they are enjoying the sport immensely.
Hardly anybody feels the need to read every message and flame the
poster for being a newby over there.
Au contraire, when somebody posts a picture of their first bike, they
get *welcomed* to the sport, even if it's a 1972 CB350!
And there are no emoticon graphics or sigfiles, so it loads quickly...
The Older Gentleman
> http://www.reddit.com/r/motorcycles/
This, posted by you, made me laugh:
""Run flat" as related to motorcycle tires doesn't mean that you can
actually ride the motorcycle for 50 miles without any air in the tire,
like you can drive a car, "run flat" means that the beads will still
grip the rim and the rider can safely get over to the side of the road
without extreme drama."
Which is exactly what I told you when you raised the question here,and
you started yammering, saying it was wrong.
So regard reeky as your schoolroom.
I see why you like the site - it's nothing but newbies, who don't
realise that you spout bollocks.
gus
of Shit) Murray wrote:
> gus <aengusmaco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >http://www.reddit.com/r/motorcycles/
> ""Run flat" as related to motorcycle tires doesn't mean that you can
> actually ride the motorcycle for 50 miles without any air in the tire,
> like you can drive a car, "run flat" means that the beads will still
> grip the rim and the rider can safely get over to the side of the road
> without extreme drama."
>
> Which is exactly what I told you when you raised the question here,and
> you started yammering, saying it was wrong.
>
> So regard reeky as your schoolroom.
>
> I see why you like the site - it's nothing but newbies, who don't
> realise that you spout bollocks.
Don't follow me over there you lying sack of shit.
I am respected and appreciated on r/motorcycles.
If I figure out that you're undermining me over there, I wil notify
the moderators and you WILL be banned.
TOG@Toil
> I am respected and appreciated on r/motorcycles.
>
> If I figure out that you're undermining me over there, I wil notify
> the moderators and you WILL be banned.
Whoopie! Now there's a challenge. I predict loads of fun :-))
Let's see now.... username, username....
<fx: snaps fingers>
Yup, got it.
BryanUT
Time to get some popcorn.
The Older Gentleman
It's hilarious that he's now posting my corrections to his technical
bullshit. Still, it means he's learning, which cannot be a bad thing.
Anything amusing that happens there; I'll post the url ;-)
Road Glidin' Don
Goodie. What name is Krusty postin under?
BryanUT
Gentleman) wrote:
> BryanUT <nestl...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Jul 20, 9:01 am, "TOG@Toil" <totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > On Jul 20, 1:39 pm, gus <aengusmaco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I am respected and appreciated on r/motorcycles.
>
> > > > If I figure out that you're undermining me over there, I wil notify
> > > > the moderators and you WILL be banned.
>
> > > Whoopie! Now there's a challenge. I predict loads of fun :-))
>
> > > Let's see now.... username, username....
>
> > > <fx: snaps fingers>
>
> > > Yup, got it.
>
> > Time to get some popcorn.
>
> It's hilarious that he's now posting my corrections to his technical
> bullshit. Still, it means he's learning, which cannot be a bad thing.
>
> Anything amusing that happens there; I'll post the url ;-)
>
> --
I have an account over there but I don't actually read all the posts
and just post occasionally. Once you get past all "I am new rider,
what kind of bike should I get" posts it is a good source of random
motorcycle news and videos (like the Chad Reed crash I posted here)
and other links.
Reddit is a different culture than usenet so the same rules of
engagement don't apply. But an honest debate on the merits of a
position are always appreciated. Generally speaking calling someone a
cunt is not appreciated but an authoritative rebuttal of a position
is.
gus
<totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Whoopie! Now there's a challenge. I predict loads of fun :-))
>
> Let's see now.... username, username....
>
> <fx: snaps fingers>
>
> Yup, got it.
You'll stick out like a sore asshole and flag yourself the first time
you reply to anything I post.
The Older Gentleman
grunge_ryder
The Older Gentleman
Mark Olson
What difference does it make? If he's true to form he'll switch to a new
nym in a little while, anyway.
It took me about five minutes of reading to figure it out, since he writes
in more or less the same pedantic style (and spews the same BS) there, as
he does here.
The Older Gentleman
> he writes
> in more or less the same pedantic style (and spews the same BS) there, as
> he does here.
Oh, sure, but it'll be interesting to see the reactions of the credulous
newbies when his bullshit is exposed :-)