Republicans push to stop Social Security. [URL]

[W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*]

<http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/gop-bill-to-impose-major-cuts-on-social-
security>

<http://tinyurl.com/jzhbf4j>

What did you expect from the Republicans?

[W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*]

duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
news:9pa05cd7vhodki9ma...@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 10:49:43 -0600, "W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure,
> Golden Truth!*" <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>><http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/gop-bill-to-impose-major-cuts-on-socia

>>l- security>
>>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/jzhbf4j>
>>
>> What did you expect from the Republicans?
>

> Here. NO cuts to benefits.
Bull Shit.
>
> Here's a quick run-down of the GOP plan for drastic cuts to Social
> Security. Notably, this is not phaseout, not privatization. It's a
> broad-ranging series of hikes to the retirement age, and cuts to
> benefits, mostly engineered through changes in the cost of living
> adjustment formulas, with some means testing thrown in for good
> measure.

Which all add up to the destruction of the Social Security system.
Retirees already live hand to mouth. These Republican changes should
destroy what little is left of their lives. But there's no impact on
the rich, not even a raise in their Social Security taxes. Go figure.

[W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*]

Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1319938106503356492.7865...@news.easynews.com:

> "W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*" <m1...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>> news:9pa05cd7vhodki9ma...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 10:49:43 -0600, "W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure,
>>> Golden Truth!*" <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/gop-bill-to-impose-major-cuts-on-so
>>>> cia l- security>
>>>>
>>>> <http://tinyurl.com/jzhbf4j>
>>>>
>>>> What did you expect from the Republicans?
>>>
>>> Here. NO cuts to benefits.
>> Bull Shit.
>>>
>>> Here's a quick run-down of the GOP plan for drastic cuts to Social
>>> Security. Notably, this is not phaseout, not privatization. It's a
>>> broad-ranging series of hikes to the retirement age, and cuts to
>>> benefits, mostly engineered through changes in the cost of living
>>> adjustment formulas, with some means testing thrown in for good
>>> measure.
>>
>> Which all add up to the destruction of the Social Security system.
>> Retirees already live hand to mouth. These Republican changes should
>> destroy what little is left of their lives. But there's no impact on
>> the rich, not even a raise in their Social Security taxes. Go
>> figure.
>

> What are the social security taxes of the rich?

Nothing above about $50,000.00 a year is the current limit. If you make
twice that, you only pay the SS tax on the first half.

[W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*]

Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote in
news:322163780503358736.38603...@news.easynews.com:

> Thanks for the info, WTS. Is that fair?

Depends on if you're rich or poor. Doubling the limit to $100,000.00 per
year would keep SS solvent for several more decades, removing any limit
would keep SS solvent for the rest of the century. But, if Congress keep
"borrowing" from the SS trust fund, who knows.

[W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*]

Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote in
news:352434852503359953.82970...@news.easynews.com:

> "W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*" <m1...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>> Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote in

>> news:322163780503358736.38603...@news.easynews.co

> Then it would seem to me like a better plan if the limit were higher.

_If_ you can get the Republicans to go against the upper level income
people.

[W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*]

Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1575059788503444542.4774...@news.easynews.com:

> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>> On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 21:06:23 -0600, "W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure,
>> Golden Truth!*" <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:352434852503359953.82970...@news.easynews.c

>>> om:
>>>
>>>> "W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*" <m1...@earthlink.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote in

>>>>> news:322163780503358736.38603...@news.easynews
>>>>> .co m:
>>>>>

>>>>>> "W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*"
>>>>>> <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote in

>>>>>>> news:1319938106503356492.7865...@news.easyn

>> One people, one tax for all. Sounds fair to me.
>
> The higher income people would be okay with that if their benefit is
> increased accordingly.

It certainly should be, I can't see any reason it shouldn't be
proportional to what you paid in.

[W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*]

Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
news:03v35ctb50v16epth...@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 22:22:28 GMT, Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>>> One people, one tax for all. Sounds fair to me.
>>
>>The higher income people would be okay with that if their benefit is
>>increased accordingly.
>

> I like the Value Added Tax (VAT) business in Germany. Everyone pays
> 13 percent tax on everything they purchase. No income tax. No IRS.

A good way to prevent inflation by holding down spending and encourging
people to save more

[W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*]

Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote in
news:436577259503464383.35388...@news.easynews.com:

> Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 22:22:28 GMT, Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>>>> One people, one tax for all. Sounds fair to me.
>>>
>>> The higher income people would be okay with that if their benefit is
>>> increased accordingly.
>>
>> I like the Value Added Tax (VAT) business in Germany. Everyone pays
>> 13 percent tax on everything they purchase. No income tax. No IRS.
>

> That would be much better, I agree.

It probably would, but it's tricky to prevent a sales tax from affecting
the poor much more than the wealthy.

[W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*]

Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
news:i7j55c9g887439ufj...@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 21:55:02 -0600, "W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure,

> Golden Truth!*" <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote in
>>news:436577259503464383.35388...@news.easynews.com
>>:
>>
>>> Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 22:22:28 GMT, Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 21:06:23 -0600, "W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of
>>>>>> Pure, Golden Truth!*" <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:352434852503359953.82970...@news.easyne

>>>>>>> ws .com:
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> "W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*"
>>>>>>>> <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote in

>>>>>>>>> news:322163780503358736.38603...@news.easy

>>>>>>>>> ne ws.co m:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*"
>>>>>>>>>> <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote in

>>>>>>>>>>> news:1319938106503356492.786568sam.m.tedesco-gmail.com@news.e

> It affects everyone equally.

So, if you buy a car, and you only make $20,000.00 a year, it affects
you the same as a person making $100,000.00 a year that buys the same
car? For example, if the tax is 10%, and the car cost $30,000.00 (for
example only), they each pay $3,000.00 of tax. Which of the two can
absorb the tax easier??? This is not to mention that the higher income
person pays cash, so no interest payments, which the lower income person
pays a large tax (to him) plus the interest on the loan to buy the car.
_Any_ tax can be tricky in one form or another. In this case, the
straight sales tax can be heavier on the low income than the high
income.

[W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*]

Beam Me Up Scotty <Hillary&Obama&Mer...@shadow.world.gov> wrote in
news:WwA4A.90025$dL2....@fx12.iad:

> On 12/14/2016 09:14 PM, Patrick wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 22:22:28 GMT, Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>>>> One people, one tax for all. Sounds fair to me.
>>>
>>> The higher income people would be okay with that if their benefit is
>>> increased accordingly.
>>
>> I like the Value Added Tax (VAT) business in Germany. Everyone pays
>> 13 percent tax on everything they purchase. No income tax. No IRS.
>>

> Make it a sales tax on NEW ITEMS ONLY.... That way items are taxed
> once. And older items have more value so they will be used up rather
> than discarded. It would be what the Libs call a GREEN TAX that helps
> create less trash and at the same time it helps the poor that will use
> the older untaxed items.

Good point, but fine tuning _any_ tax system is a major task. There're
just too many interest groups, or loopholes in the very best of systems.
Someone always pays more in either percentage, or total amount, than
someone else. It's just the nature of the way things are.

[W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*]

Jan Tagmier <jbt...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:o2vsq1$gve$1...@news.albasani.net:

> On 12/14/2016 9:19 AM, jane.playne wrote:
>> On 12/13/2016 5:03 PM, W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*

>> wrote:
>>> Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote in

>>> news:322163780503358736.38603...@news.easynews.c

>>> om:
>>>
>>>> "W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*" <m1...@earthlink.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote in

>>>>> news:1319938106503356492.7865...@news.easynew

>> You lack the knowledge on this topic and you need a lot more
>> education of the topic for this conversation. Since you lack the
>> knowledge, you are simply parroting falsehoods stated by others.
>>
>> Let me prove my point by illustrating one of your parroted
>> falsehoods:
>>
>> You stated, "But, if Congress keep "borrowing" from the SS trust
>> fund..."
>>
>> The outflow of benefits EXCEEDED the inflow of FICA payments in 2010
>> and there is no "extra" cash available for congress to "borrow".[1]
>> The SS administration is currently using the SS Trust Funds to pay SS
>> benefits AND money is being transferred from the General Fund TO the
>> SS Trust Fund ... NOT the other direction.
>>
>> The fact that Social Security is in trouble is old news. Back in 1998
>> Congress wanted to "Save Social Security First".[2][3]
>>
>> In Clinton's State of the Union Address, Clinton stated that SS was
>> in trouble, it would be unable to pay "promised" benefits in 2032,
>> and it needed to be saved.[4][5]
>>
>> Democrats did nothing back then. Since Republicans were in control, a
>> partisan hack could have blamed the republicans, BUT the democrats
>> did NOTHING later when they controlled the House, the Senate and the
>> White House.
>>
>> It is now 17 years later and nothing has been done.
>> 1. SS collections are currently insufficient to pay scheduled
>> benefits; 2. The SS Trust Fund will be *depleted* in 2034;
>> 3. In 2034 SS will be able pay ONLY 75% of scheduled benefits;
>> 4. There will be only 2 worker for each retiree.
>>
>> Republicans are not "pushing to *STOP* Social Security" as YOU
>> dishonestly claimed in your subject line; one republican is offering
>> solutions to SAVE a horribly mismanaged Government owned and managed
>> insurance program.
>>
>> Citations:
>>
>> 1. 2016 Social Security Trustee Report.
>> 2. Congressional Record, Page 22092, Mr. Wynn: "The fact of the
>> matter is we should save Social Security first."
>>
>> 3. Congressional Record, Page 22093, Mr Pallone: "That is why we have
>> to vote down this Republican bill and save Social Security first."
>>
>> 4. "But by 2013, payroll taxes will no longer be sufficient to cover
>> monthly payments. By 2032, the trust fund will be exhausted and
>> Social Security will be unable to pay the full benefits older
>> Americans have been promised." - Pres Clinton 1999
>>
>> 5. "So first, and above all, we must save Social Security for the
>> 21st century. - Pres Clinton 1999
>>
> Congress has repeatedly taken funds OUT of social security
> to the tune of 2.5 trillion dollars and spent it on everything BUT
> the people that paid it in.
>
> Congress has been using it as a slush fund since the Reagan days,
> which is why it is now figured IN the budget.

Excellent points. Many argue about SS while knowing little of the
history or the facts.

[Patrick]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 22:03:10 GMT, Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote:


>>>>> The higher income people would be okay with that if their benefit is
>>>>> increased accordingly.
>>>>
>>>> I like the Value Added Tax (VAT) business in Germany. Everyone pays
>>>> 13 percent tax on everything they purchase. No income tax. No IRS.
>>>
>>> That would be much better, I agree.
>>
>> It probably would, but it's tricky to prevent a sales tax from affecting
>> the poor much more than the wealthy.
>

>I guess the solution for that would be not to tax necessities.

Therein lies the problem.
Someone ALWAYS wants to add shit to the simplistic solution.
Wahhhhhhhhhhhh.
That isn't fair to those of us who love Peanut Brittle......

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Bread, beer, air and water, need not be taxed.



--
That's Karma

[W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*]

duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
news:rso75ctcls68jo0cu...@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 00:16:52 -0600, "W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure,

Golden
> Truth!*" <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Jan Tagmier <jbt...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>news:o2vsq1$gve$1...@news.albasani.net:
>>
>>> On 12/14/2016 9:19 AM, jane.playne wrote:
>>>> On 12/13/2016 5:03 PM, W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*
>

>>> Congress has been using it as a slush fund since the Reagan days,
>>> which is why it is now figured IN the budget.
>>
>>Excellent points. Many argue about SS while knowing little of the
>>history or the facts.
>

> Yep, like me.
>
> The pukester, KKKatholiKKK Fool.
>
> *****
> "The Mass is the most perfect form of ignorance."
> Pope Idiot XIII
> *****

Get the _FACTS_:

<http://www.kiplinger.com/slideshow/retirement/T051-S003-don-t-fall-for-
these-common-social-security-myths/index.html>

<http://tinyurl.com/j3f4hgt>

<https://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html>

<http://tinyurl.com/h7scu27>

<http://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-2016/debunking-six-more-
myths-about-social-security.html>

<http://tinyurl.com/hw4tuh6>

[W.T.S. ocv9 The Lamp of Pure, Golden Truth!*]

Beam Me Up Scotty <Hillary&Obama&Mer...@shadow.world.gov> wrote in

news:AfU4A.192687$Uz2.1...@fx29.iad:

What about your Dilantin?

[Patrick]

And certainly not Captain Morgan's Spiced Rum.
Or wait.... Coffee.... likes my coffee.
Or... we have to think about Jeanne.
She likes COOOO-KEEEEs....

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Are you also a vegan.... so we can't tax vegetables.

Allergic to milk and have to drink soy pretend milk....?

All kinds of problems. Then the only way is a flat 10% tax no
deductions, and apply it to every living soul.


--
That's Karma

[jane.playne]

.

A Flat 10% tax with no deductions is the the tax system that we
currently have.

If you recall from 1986, that is EXACTLY what everyone wanted. After
the proposal, those on the left were upset about the effect of the loss
of mortgage deduction on the lower income. SO, ... they put the
mortgage interest deduction back in ... but NOT for the rich people.

THEN there came the problem of the deductions ... what about the poor
wage earner who makes ends meet by buying a duplex and renting out the
other side??? SO, they came up with the concept of "earned" income vs
"passive" income. I have both an EARNED dollar and a PASSIVE dollar in
my wallet and I can not fine a single person who can identify one from
another. THEN they allowed PASSIVE deductions against EARNED INCOME,
BUT ... only for people who make below $100,000. There was a phase in
range of $100k to $150k. If you earned $100,000 or more, you could
only deduct a portion of your passive dollars against your EARNED
dollars. By $150K, you weren't allowed to deduct ANY of your PASSIVE
dollars against your EARNED dollars.

THEN there was the issue of charitable deductions, so they put those
back in too.


And on, and on, and on ...

The 10% flat rate was no longer enough and even 10% would hurt the
lowest income group SO our 10% flat tax rate became a three tiered
progressive system (with those at the bottom have a tax rate of 0% AND
also a NEGATIVE tax rate due to money FROM the government)

The NO DEDUCTION SYSTEM came with all kinds of reinstated deductions.


SO, my suggestion is to stop touting a FLAT TAX; The system we have
today it is what we got after the LAST time we asked for a FLAT TAX.

[First-Post]

A flat federal sales tax is not the same as a flat income tax.
But the problem with the tax you're referring to was the same as it
has been.
It's kinda hard to try to lower taxes without reducing bloated
expenditures.
Plus it is virtually impossible to impose any tax on those on the
bottom of the economic ladder without doing more damage to them than
the middle and upper classes.

My take on it would be to increase the limit for which no tax is paid.
For example have a flat 10% no deduction tax for income exceeding
$25.000 per year for individuals. Make it $35 or $40 thousand for a
couple and increase that by up to $10,000 for each child or other
dependant.
Then there would be no need to discuss how to give the poor less of a
burden.

But in order for such a plan to be successful, a lot of wasteful
government spending would have to be eliminated.
Stop giving stupid assed grants to every jerk that comes along and
says they have some important research or project that they need
millions from the government to perform.
Eliminate the assistants to assistants to assistants in piss ant do
nothing offices if not eliminate the do nothing bureaucratic offices
altogether.
The list goes on but you understand the idea.

The only reason that we are taxed to the degree that we are is because
we have allowed the government to be nothing but a huge spend thrift
for so many decades.
The politicians have always done a good job to get the public to agree
to spend a shitload of money while never reminding them that they, the
public, are going to be the ones footing the bill.

For any sort of flat tax or fair tax to actually stand up to time, the
federal government will have to go back to what it was originally
meant to do which is primarily maintain the interstate highways, the
national airways and railroads(infrastructure) and defend the nation.

Right now there are just too many hogs in the pen to think about
cutting back on the feed.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 12/16/2016 11:33 AM, jane.playne wrote:
>
> A Flat 10% tax with no deductions is the the tax system that we
> currently have.

Where did you get 10%? After the 1986 Act, we had 4 brackets ranging
from 15% to 28% (and only a few deductions). Before the Act, we had 15
brackets ranging from 10% to 50% (and many more deductions). Moreover,
the 1986 Act treated capital gains the same as earned income.

All the stuff you (rightly) complain about below were add-ons over the
years that undid the 1986 Act, making our current system look more like
what came before 1986. But, that shouldn't be a criticism of going back
to what we had in 1986. It should be a criticism of all the add-ons
since then.

[Patrick]

On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 18:17:32 GMT, Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote:

>Josh Rosenbluth <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 12/16/2016 11:33 AM, jane.playne wrote:
>>>
>>> A Flat 10% tax with no deductions is the the tax system that we
>>> currently have.
>>
>> Where did you get 10%? After the 1986 Act, we had 4 brackets ranging
>> from 15% to 28% (and only a few deductions). Before the Act, we had 15
>> brackets ranging from 10% to 50% (and many more deductions). Moreover,
>> the 1986 Act treated capital gains the same as earned income.
>>
>> All the stuff you (rightly) complain about below were add-ons over the
>> years that undid the 1986 Act, making our current system look more like
>> what came before 1986. But, that shouldn't be a criticism of going back
>> to what we had in 1986. It should be a criticism of all the add-ons since then.
>

>Thanks Josh. I appreciate your input here, for you're one of the very few
>who always have something intelligent and informative to share with us.

You really are a kiss-ass troll, aren't you?

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

On 12/17/2016 01:17 PM, Ted wrote:
> Thanks Josh. I appreciate your input here, for you're one of the very few
> who always have something intelligent and informative to share with us.

HELLO...... we're all sitting here. Telling us he's the smart one is a
bit of a hurtful thing don't you think?

I need a crying blanket and some Warm Cocoa.



--
That's Karma

[Patrick]

On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 19:43:02 GMT, Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote:

>My statement to Josh was 100% sincere, but you may not be sufficiently
>intelligent to recognize its truth.

Oh, I am sufficiently intelligent enough.
But, since you already claim that you are a troll, why should we
believe anything you say?

[Patrick]

On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 19:50:18 GMT, Ted <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote:

>Beam Me Up Scotty <Hillary&Obama&Mer...@shadow.world.gov> wrote:

>Heheh. You made a valid point. But I happen to appreciate your input too.

Of course you do.

[Patrick]

On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 22:54:53 +0000 (UTC), Ted
<sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote:

> "This troll is one of the
>dumbest, most opinionated, most blinkered and also the most arrogant septic
>idiots one can come across."

I rest my case.

[Jan Tagmier]

On 12/18/2016 9:10 AM, Ted wrote:

> 1. I didn't write that.
>
> 2. Nowhere does it say 'liar'.
>
> Now you'll either run or be forced to admit you were irrationally hateful.
>

It's a sign of programming..loss of control of their emotions..pre
programmed.

[Patrick]

On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 15:10:16 +0000 (UTC), Ted
<sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote:

>1. I didn't write that.
>
>2. Nowhere does it say 'liar'.
>
>Now you'll either run or be forced to admit you were irrationally hateful.

I didn't claim it said liar.
I merely copied what was at the bottom of your own post.
Look back.

[Patrick]

On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 09:50:14 -0600, Jan Tagmier <jbt...@gmail.com>
wrote:

God what a husband I'd make! Yes, I should get married!
So much to do! like sneaking into Mr Jones' house late at night
and cover his golf clubs with 1920 Norwegian books . . .
And when the milkman comes leave him a note in the bottle
Penguin dust, bring me penguin dust, I want penguin dust."
(Gregory Corso, "Marriage," 1958)

[Patrick]

On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 16:03:45 +0000 (UTC), Ted
<sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote:

>I see.

Of course you do.....

"Still through the hawthorn blows the cold wind:
Says suum, mun, ha, no, nonny.
Dolphin my boy, my boy, sessa! let him trot by."
(Edgar in William Shakespeare's King Lear, Act 3, Scene 4)

[Patrick]

On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 18:50:49 +0000 (UTC), Ted

>You copied it in answer to my assertion that I'm not a liar. From our
>preceding discussion:
>
>You: You really are a kiss-ass troll, aren't you?
>
>Me: My statement to Josh was 100% sincere, but you may not be sufficiently

>intelligent to recognize its truth.
>

>You: Oh, I am sufficiently intelligent enough. But, since you already claim

>that you are a troll, why should we believe anything you say?
>

>Me: Because "troll" isn't synonymous with "liar", as "Patrick" is with
>"asshole". See? :)


You aren't smart enough to understand.
You said so yourself.

[Jan Tagmier]

Moron..

[Patrick]

On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 20:01:32 -0600, Jan Tagmier <jbt...@gmail.com>

It was gibberish, the same as your "programming" answer.

[Patrick]

On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 06:19:35 +0000 (UTC), Ted

>You're dodging and lying, Patrick. I hadn't expected that, but can
>understand it. Because it means you're just another worthless little cretin
>here.
>
Didn't you once claim you weren't smart enough?
I am merely dragging out your own convictions.

[the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois]

On 12/18/2016 10:50 AM, Ted wrote:
> Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 15:10:16 +0000 (UTC), Ted
>> <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 22:54:53 +0000 (UTC), Ted
>>>> <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "This troll is one of the
>>>>> dumbest, most opinionated, most blinkered and also the most arrogant septic
>>>>> idiots one can come across."
>>>>
>>>> I rest my case.
>>>
>>> 1. I didn't write that.
>>>
>>> 2. Nowhere does it say 'liar'.
>>>
>>> Now you'll either run or be forced to admit you were irrationally hateful.
>>
>>
>> I didn't claim it said liar.
>> I merely copied what was at the bottom of your own post.
>> Look back.
>

> You copied it in answer to my assertion that I'm not a liar. From our
> preceding discussion:
>

> You: You really are a kiss-ass troll, aren't you?
>
> Me: My statement to Josh was 100% sincere, but you may not be sufficiently

> intelligent to recognize its truth.
>

> You: Oh, I am sufficiently intelligent enough. But, since you already claim

> that you are a troll, why should we believe anything you say?
>

> Me: Because "troll" isn't synonymous with "liar", as "Patrick" is with
> "asshole". See? :)

Perfect!

[Patrick]

On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 23:25:34 +0000 (UTC), Ted

>I admit I'm stupid. So?

[Patrick]

On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 23:25:34 +0000 (UTC), Ted
<sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote:

>LOL. Thank you, ma'am. :)

Be careful what you call: "ma'am."

[Patrick]

On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 23:47:37 +0000 (UTC), Ted

>Have some respect, Patrick. Marie is a lady.

You don't know her.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

> Have some respect, Patrick. Marie is a lady.
>

SO which toilet do they use?

--
That's Karma