Austin Fry's ad available online??
spoon2001
check out this link
http://shopping.dallasnews.com/ROP/ads.aspx?advid=2519&adid=5578383&type=
It happens to be the same as the Austin ad for 12/30/2007.
I have been looking for the Austin ad too, no luck.
Anybody know if the Austin ad is also available online?
Lew
"spoon2001" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:xy46yfnjzw4t$.1jdfm9c94qwnk$.dlg@40tude.net...
Have you tried http://www.frys.com/
Dat thair is funny
$19 for 108MB Wireless ... likely never have them in stock ...
http://cdn.travidia.com/rop-sub/19297671
Peter Principle
news:K60ej.29447$CN4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Have you? Perhpas you can show the rest of us incredible idiots where,
exactly, you found the current Austin print ad on the Fry's siute, yes?
Please do...
Lew
"Peter Principle" <petes...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:47796eda$0$28813$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>didn't check the link in detail. I just assumed that maybe the OP could
>somehow find what he was after by perusing the link. Happy New Year to you
>Sir!!!
Tnguyen
At the time, they have what seems to be few hundred in stock. I dont
know about now though.
Peter Principle
>
> "Peter Principle" <petes...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:47796eda$0$28813$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>> "Lew" <lewzee...@PANTIESyahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:K60ej.29447$CN4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>> "spoon2001" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:xy46yfnjzw4t$.1jdfm9c94qwnk$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>> It is possible to get an image of the Dallas Fry's newspaper ad
>>>> online -
>>>>
>>>> check out this link
>>>>
>>>> http://shopping.dallasnews.com/ROP/ads.aspx?advid=2519&adid=5578383&type=
>>>>
>>>> It happens to be the same as the Austin ad for 12/30/2007.
>>>>
>>>> I have been looking for the Austin ad too, no luck.
>>>>
>>>> Anybody know if the Austin ad is also available online?
>>>
>>> Have you tried http://www.frys.com/
>>
>> Have you? Perhpas you can show the rest of us incredible idiots where,
>> exactly, you found the current Austin print ad on the Fry's siute, yes?
>> Please do...
<clueless luser bad attribute fixed>
>Whoa! No need to be insulting.
Asking you to provide a citation is somehow insulting? Intersting. That is
*prescisely* what was asked for to begin with, don't you know. So, in what
dictionary are you finding this, er, novel definition?
> I was merely giving a point of reference.
You were merely providing absolutely NOTHING, as the discussion was at a
lever FAR beyond your comprehension.
> I didn't check the link in detail.
Gosh, you're kidding. Who'da thunk it?
> I just assumed that maybe the OP could somehow find what he was after by
> perusing the link.
You just assumed that he, and all of the rest of us here, must be every bit
as clueless as you. FYI and for future reference, not possible...
> Happy New Year to you Sir!!!
1. Learn how to respond to a post, fer chrissakes. It ain't rocket science.
99.999% of Usenet users have no trouble whatsoever properly quoting and
responding and properly attributing quotes. You, OTOH, are obviously
"special".
You want insulting? Quite frankly, it is insulting to have your utter
cluelessness appear under my nick. Please get it right in the future.
2. Or do you mean insulting as in your assuming no one here has enough
firing synapses to figure out that maybe, just maybe frys.com might, just
might be the home site of, well, Fry's? Is THAT the kind of insulting you
mean?
Or maybe you mean insulting as in assuming all of us are simply too fucking
stupid to find the one and only FEATURED WEEKLY ADVETISMENT on said site?
BTW and FYI, had you the slightest clue as to that which you fart, you'd
know IT ISN'T THERE, which, FYI, was kinda the entire POINT of the OP's
question.
See, he *knew* it wasn't there when he asked. So did pretty much every other
upright ambulator here. In point of fact, that's precisely *why* he asked.
The Fry's Austin print ad is NEVER on the Fry's site. Never has been, isn't
now, never will be, forever and ever, duh.
Wait, wait, wait, I got it! You mean insulting as in not even bothering to
check Google, where you'd have found this subject has been oft discussed
here, because obviously as far as you're concerned we're just a bunch of
morons too stupid by half to figure out, oh, say, ANYTHING AT ALL, right?
Why, whatever would we do without you, Captain Obvious, to lead us into
oblivion?
Yeah, boy, yer obviously a rilly, rilly deep thinker. Very helpful, too. I
can't tell you how helpful it is to offer comments on that about which you
absolutely nothing while providing citations to that which you're too
clueless to know doesn't exist and to lazy to bother to check. But hey,
other than that...
In the future, when someone asks a *very* specific question, you may wish to
restrain yourself from answering unless you actually *know* the answer.
Heck, you may even want to glean a clue as to what they might possibly be
talking about, and what has already been discussed. You kight even want to
entertain the possibility that they actually *know* what they're talking
about.
Might help a tad. You never know. Just a thought...
Hal Burton
OUTgmail.com> said:
Yep, you're definitely not bringing down the quality of discourse on
this newsgroup. Not one bit.
Lew
"Hal Burton" <h...@burton.spam> wrote in message
news:2008010323395716807-hal@burtonspam...
Well, not everyone is as brilliant as you, or as clever, or as fabulous, or
as amazing, or as ----etc!
So go and fuck yourself with the rough end of a pineapple you self
opinionated piece of shit!!!
And where the fuck did you get such a name as Principle. You probably have
has much principle as a limp turd!!!!
George Kerby
On 1/3/08 7:24 PM, in article 477d8ab5$0$5148$4c36...@roadrunner.com,
Don't mince any words, now. No point in holding back: Tell Lew how you
rilly, rilly, feel!
George Kerby
You have violated the Rules.
John Asinine will now present you with a thousand word dissertation as to
why you are several magnitudes inferior to a maggot.
Brace yourself!
You HAVE been warned...
On 1/3/08 12:35 PM, in article
WV9fj.27985$4V6....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net, "Tnguyen"
Peter Principle
news:ohzacgipnc26$.dlg@sqwertz.com...
> Oh... My ... Gawd. This is so freaky.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sqwertz" <swe...@cluemail.compost>
Newsgroups: austin.general
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 11:04 PM
Subject: Re: Austin Fry's ad available online??
> Oh... My ... Gawd. This is so freaky.
Weird, sure, but trust me, nobody expects anything else from your crazy ass.
So, which part of my response did you disagree with? Or, if you'd rather,
which part of Lew's response did you find helpful?
For 20 frickin' years clueless newbie Captain Obvious is it September
already posts have been trashed and dashed in every group on Usenet, as they
should be. This isn't alt.clueless.newbie.uselsess.chatter. What changed,
crazy person, and when? Cite, please...
Peter Principle
news:KGmfj.31437$CN4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
this time. Good for you! Now, if only you actually knew to whom you were
responding...
(Hint: It wasn't Hal)
> So go and fuck yourself with the rough end of a pineapple you self
> opinionated piece of shit!!!
Ah, what a carefully crafted, well reasoned, thoroughly persuasive argument
you have there...
BTW, a small point. What type of opinion is it, pray tell, that you somehow
imagine to not be "self opinionated"? Are not opinions, by definition,
entirely a matter of *personal* belief?
Not to mention, my response was a litany of fact, not opinion. It is a fact
that Fry's print ads are NEVER on the Fry's site. It is a fact that all of
the users here in any way interested already know this. It is a fact you did
not know this, but felt compelled to offer bad advice to those who already
knew better, anyway. It is also a fact that you seem to have trouble with
some of the very most basic aspects of How Things Work here.
It is also a fact that most people have at least some ability to learn.
Hopefully you are not an exception. There are basically 2 ways to learn
around here. One is to research before the fact. The other is to leap in and
take the mistakes as they come.
The first supposes an ability to learn from the experiences of others. The
second requires the ability to learn from mistakes. If you're unhappy with
your choice, it's never to late to revert to choice 1.
> And where the fuck did you get such a name as Principle. You probably have
> has much principle as a limp turd!!!!
There's that razor sharp mind and brilliant wit you're becoming known for...
Is there no allusion so easy that it can't nonetheless fly completely
undetected over your addled pate?
Peter Principle
news:2008010323395716807-hal@burtonspam...
> Yep, you're definitely not bringing down the quality of discourse on this
> newsgroup. Not one bit.
Why, I see your point, obsessed one. Obviously useless luser crap from know
nothing clueless newbies represents a much higher quality of discourse than
is par for this group. That your point, is it, obsessed one?
Do tell, obsessed one, what, exactly, so offended your delicate
sensibilities? Was it the barrage of vulgar language? Was it some matter of
factual inaccuracy? Perhaps you feel the actual quality of the prose to be
not up to Usenet snuff. Maybe you found Lew's response to be somehow
helpful, if entirely content devoid.
So, obsessed one, for extra credit, please quote the part(s) you feel so
lowered the level of discourse here so that your concerns may be adequately
addressed, aka dismissed as the ranting of an obsessed fool.
Riddle me this: Why do you think an Aussie newbie is suddenly posting here?
Could it be the "aus" in our group name that first attracted Lew? Or is Lew
just a troll? Either way, it's not like he's in any way adding anything of
any value to this group.
You want a higher lever of discourse, do you? Fine. Please explain why you
think entirely useless clueless luser Captain Obvious idiocy from some lost
Aussie represents a higher lever of discourse.
God Bless Texas
>
> BTW, a small point. What type of opinion is it, pray tell, that you
> somehow imagine to not be "self opinionated"? Are not opinions, by
> definition, entirely a matter of *personal* belief?
>
Well, most of Mr. Smith's opinions seem to come from someone else that he
listens to, or has read to him . . .
God Bless Texas
>
> Riddle me this: Why do you think an Aussie newbie is suddenly posting
> here? Could it be the "aus" in our group name that first attracted Lew?
> Or is Lew just a troll? Either way, it's not like he's in any way adding
> anything of any value to this group.
>
> You want a higher lever of discourse, do you? Fine. Please explain why
> you think entirely useless clueless luser Captain Obvious idiocy from
> some lost Aussie represents a higher lever of discourse.
Yeah, that was the same guy that was pissing and moaning about how Bush
made him feel like less of a Texan.
Strangely enough, Bush makes *me* feel like less of an Aussie, although I
didn't point that out to our friend from the antipode.
Mike Smith
<no.one....@no.when.no.how.org> wrote:
I actually enjoy reading the fantasies you usenet kooks have of me.
You delusions are rather funny and amusing.
Mike Smith
God Bless Texas
Take my word for it, Mike, you don't know the half of it . . .
Robert Allison
Not only does he not know,... he doesn't even suspect!
--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
Georgetown, TX
Mike Smith
BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHahhahahahahahah
{This should be fun, folks!!!}
OK, either of you two have an example of what y'all are babbling
about?
Mike Smith
Hal Burton
Want to prove that you can form complex opinions of your own? Okay,
here's a test for you: in your own words, and in clear, complete
sentences, explain the likely impact of the Fair Tax plan, as espoused
by Huckabee, on the housing market, if it were to be enacted in 2009.
God Bless Texas
>
> OK, either of you two have an example of what y'all are babbling about?
Not me - not only did you not understand the last explanation, you didn't
even understand that someone was explaining something to you.
I can sort my socks and feel like I've wasted less time.
Mike Smith
<no.one....@no.when.no.how.org> wrote:
That's about what I expected... You have your fantasies and little
else...
Mike Smith
Mike Smith
No impact.
It will never happen.
Next.
Mike Smith
Hal Burton
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 19:11:46 -0500, Hal Burton <h...@burton.spam> wrote:
>
>> On 2008-01-07 15:37:47 -0500, Mike Smith <m...@wt.net> said:
>>
>>> On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:57:26 GMT, Robert Allison
>>> <rims...@spamless.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> God Bless Texas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 18:35:45 -0600, Mike Smith wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 06 Jan 2008 19:38:03 GMT, God Bless Texas
>>>>>> <no.one....@no.when.no.how.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 17:27:13 -0600, Peter Principle wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BTW, a small point. What type of opinion is it, pray tell, that you
>>>>>>>> somehow im Hagine to not be "self opinionated"? Are not opinions, by
>>>>>>>> definition, entirely a matter of *personal* belief?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, most of Mr. Smith's opinions seem to come from someone else that
>>>>>>> he listens to, or has read to him . . .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I actually enjoy reading the fantasies you usenet kooks have of me. You
>>>>>> delusions are rather funny and amusing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike Smith
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Take my word for it, Mike, you don't know the half of it . . .
>>>>
>>>> Not only does he not know,... he doesn't even suspect!
>>>
>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHahhahahahahahah
>>> {This should be fun, folks!!!}
>>>
>>> OK, either of you two have an example of what y'all are babbling
>>> about?
>>
>> Want to prove that you can form complex opinions of your own? Okay,
>> here's a test for you: in your own words, and in clear, complete
>> sentences, explain the likely impact of the Fair Tax plan, as espoused
>> by Huckabee, on the housing market, if it were to be enacted in 2009.
>
> No impact.
> It will never happen.
>
> Next.
In other words, no analytical abilities. You apparently don't
understand how to analyze a hypothetical situation. Maybe you are
better off answering questions along the lines of, "Look down. What do
you see?" But, since you asked, I'll give you another chance. Explain,
in your own words and in clear, complete sentences, which US
presidential candidate's electability was most affected by Bhutto's
assassination.
Mike Smith
Are you being intentionally stupid or are have you forgotten your
question?
> You apparently don't
>understand how to analyze a hypothetical situation.
I did analyze your hypothetical impact scenario. You just did not like
my answer.
>Maybe you are
>better off answering questions along the lines of, "Look down. What do
>you see?" But, since you asked, I'll give you another chance. Explain,
>in your own words and in clear, complete sentences, which US
>presidential candidate's electability was most affected by Bhutto's
>assassination.
Bhutto's assassination with have no measurable effect on the
electability of anyone running for President in November 2008.
Next.
Mike Smith
Hal Burton
Once again, no analytical abilities. You didn't show any rationale for
your pronouncement, you just delivered a judgement, as Moses from the
mountaintop. How do you know whether you are correct, when obviously
you don't even understand your own opinions? I'll not drag this out any
further; you probably really don't even understand what you're doing
wrong.
Mike Smith
I'm beginning to think you do not know what analytical abilities
are...
>You didn't show any rationale for
>your pronouncement, you just delivered a judgement, as Moses from the
>mountaintop.
Nope, I analyzed the situation and came up with the legitimate
conclusion that her death would not affect our Presidential campaign.
So far, I am dead-on accurate.
>How do you know whether you are correct, when obviously
>you don't even understand your own opinions? I'll not drag this out any
>further; you probably really don't even understand what you're doing
>wrong.
I completely understand exactly why you "think" I am doing something
wrong. You do not like my carefully thought-out answers.
Mike Smith
Mike Smith
{tap... tap... tap... tap...}
Is this going to take y'all forever? Having trouble finding examples
of anything that would back up your posted words?
{tap... tap... tap... tap...}
I'm patiently waiting for these fools to produce something that would
rationalize what they posted....
{tap... tap... tap... tap...}
<yawn>
Mike Smith
Robert Allison
BWAAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAA! Oh my god! That
is hilarious!
OK, I am convinced. I have carefully considered this and
there is no way that even a conservative can be this ignorant
without intentionally trying to do so. So, Mike, I have to
give it to you. You are the most convincing troll that I have
yet encountered. I have been fooled in the past, but not for
this long.
Mike is just attempting to pull our leg. He is intentionally
saying stuff just to get our goats. He is really a pretty
smart guy that is trying to sound stupid. And he does it well.
Robert Allison
You are good, Mike! Have you been planning this for a long
time?
Mike Smith
Obviously you cannot refute my answers to Cory's questions, so you run
off on a tangent and ignore my dead-on analysis of the hypothetical
situations that "Hal" posted.
That was expected...
Mike Smith
Robert Allison
You are the MAN, Mike! You are the best troll I have ever
seen. I think it has to do with usenet, because NOONE could
do this in person and keep a straight face! You have got to
be rolling around on the floor laughing your head off. I know
I am.
C'mon, though, it is time to give it up. Your MO is exposed,
so you can drop the ignorant facade. What do you really
believe in? Are you a libertarian?
Hal Burton
> Mike Smith wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:31:38 GMT, Robert Allison
>> <rims...@spamless.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Mike Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 07:28:02 -0500, Hal Burton <h...@burton.spam> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I completely understand exactly why you "think" I am doing something
>>>> wrong. You do not like my carefully thought-out answers.
>>>>
>>>> Mike Smith
>>>
>>> BWAAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAA! Oh my god! That is hilarious!
>>>
>>> OK, I am convinced. I have carefully considered this and there is no
>>> way that even a conservative can be this ignorant without intentionally
>>> trying to do so. So, Mike, I have to give it to you. You are the most
>>> convincing troll that I have yet encountered. I have been fooled in
>>> the past, but not for this long.
>>>
>>> Mike is just attempting to pull our leg. He is intentionally saying
>>> stuff just to get our goats. He is really a pretty smart guy that is
>>> trying to sound stupid. And he does it well.
>>
>>
>> Obviously you cannot refute my answers to Cory's questions, so you run
>> off on a tangent and ignore my dead-on analysis of the hypothetical
>> situations that "Hal" posted.
There's nothing to refute. Mike's idea of intellectual debate is a
(slightly) more verbose version of, "Is not! Is too! Is not!".
Apparently, the Age of Reason never managed to crack its way into
Houston, TX. If Mike were alive during Galileo's time, or Kepler's
time, he would be firmly on the doubter's side then.
Mike: science is true because it works. All of the comforts of your
humble abode are due to the accomplishments of science. Practically
everything scientists have set out to achieve, given sufficient time,
they have accomplished.
Mike Smith
wrote:
Science is true because it works?
Like the flat earth scientists back in the 1400's?
Or the global warming idiots...errr.scientists of today?
Or would you be referring to the branch of science that is amazed at
how odd our galaxy is, compared to their carefully created consensus?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/080110-black-holes.html
And I noticed that you conveniently snipped every one of my answers to
your poorly formed questions about Bhutto and the Fair Tax effect on
home mortgages. Are you pretending I did not answer your questions?
And I noticed that you did not try to refute my answers.
Mike Smith
Hal Burton
One can't refute your answer, because there's no logic. Logic is a set
of premises followed by a conclusion. You provided only a conclusion.
George Kerby
On 1/11/08 3:05 PM, in article aqlfo311m2ujq0vh7...@4ax.com,
"Mike Smith" <m...@wt.net> wrote:
Hal is more like the computer in "2001 Space Odyssey":
Determined on survival. But no cognitive skills...
George Kerby
On 1/11/08 5:59 PM, in article 2008011117594916807-hal@burtonspam, "Hal
Burton" <h...@burton.spam> wrote:
And your conclusion is finished: You have no analytical ability.
Mike Smith
wrote:
I gave you a dead-on accurate analysis, based on the parameters of
your question. Your lame-assed perception of my answers is flawed.
Mike Smith
Hal Burton
Ok, fine. I'll play your game. You said, "Bhutto's assassination with
have no measurable effect on the
electability of anyone running for President in November 2008."
My refutation is equally powerful: "Bhutto's assassination will have a
measurable effect on the
electability of everyone running for President in November 2008."
You see what I mean, idiot?
Mike Smith
wrote:
I see you are being incoherent.
I'll assume you have never heard of not being able to prove a
negative, however you just posted a positive statement,. so provide
the proof. Where is there a "measurable effect" on anyone's campaign?
I have found no measurable effect on any of our Presidential
contender's campaigns {as I previously stated}.
Mike Smith
George Kerby
On 1/12/08 7:49 PM, in article n8rio3hiqk0gji7p0...@4ax.com,
"Mike Smith" <m...@wt.net> wrote:
You are asking the dipshit to pull something out of his asshole.
Ain't gonna happen!
Hal Burton
I don't have to refute my own statement. You do.
Mike Smith
wrote:
I just did. It is not surprising that you did not see how I refuted
your position. Let me explain it better:
There are no known measurable effects on any of the Presidential
candidate's campaigns, based on my research.
If you "think" there has been an effect, post a link.
Consider yourself thoroughly and completely refuted.
Mike Smith
Hal Burton
There are measurable effects on every presidential candidate's
campaigns, based on my research. Consider yourself thoroughly refuted.
Mike Smith
wrote:
Show me.
Mike Smith
Hal Burton
You show me first.
mh
Hal, not saying that *you* are the fool here, but you're certainly on a
fool's errand.
Really, the best way to deal with Smith is to not. Put him in your
killfile along with Kerbey and you'll certainly find some inner peace. :)
George Kerby
On 1/13/08 3:46 PM, in article fme0rl$q2k$1...@aioe.org, "mh"
<hobra...@gmail.com> wrote:
You apparently are too stupid to do so.
It starts out with the ability to spell a name correctly.
Sorry about the double-digit IQ that you present. Must hurt...
Mike Smith
wrote:
I cannot show you something that does not exist, just like YOU cannot
show me something that does not exist {evidence of any effect}.
Mike Smith
Hal Burton
You mean your research does not exist? You said "based on my research."
So, show me your research.
Mike Smith
wrote:
I see you are becoming pretty dense, when it comes to understanding
plain english. Let me help you...
Go to:
www.google.com
do a search for:
effects of Bhutto's death on US political candidates
Enjoy...
Mike Smith
Hal Burton
BWAAA HAAA HAAAA! You've finally gone and done it, Mike. If it weren't
possible to look even more foolish, you've raised -- err, lowered --
the bar! A single Google search is NOT research! Thank you, you've
proven the point. You are incapable of forming original opinions. QED.
Mike Smith
wrote:
I see you are confused about the meaning of research.
Free clue: You have to start somewhere. I was attempting to keep it as
simple as possible for you. I apparently failed. You couldn't even
figure that one out...
Oh well.
Mike Smith
Hal Burton
You sure love your fantasies. FYI, if there's one thing college grads
know how to do, it's conduct research. Most college graduates have even
taken a course or two in Research Methods, in order to learn
specifically about techniques of conducting research.
Mike Smith
wrote:
So are you going to take one of those classes, or not?
Mike Smith
Hal Burton
Uhh, I do have a college degree, and yes I did. How about yourself?
Mike Smith
wrote:
You're kidding!!!!
Really?
Maybe you can get a refund.
Mike Smith
Hal Burton
So you've degenerated from "is not, is too!" to "nanny-nanny-boo-boo".
That's consistent with your mental age, which apparently is about 10.
Mike Smith
wrote:
>
>So you've degenerated from "is not, is too!" to "nanny-nanny-boo-boo".
>That's consistent with your mental age, which apparently is about 10.
So you have been doing the same drugs John/Dusty/Peter has been using.
OK
Mike Smith
Hal Burton
Ooh, now you're calling me names! What other playground tactics do you
have to offer? Spitballs?
Wankatoa
hal@burtonspam:
> Want to prove that you can form complex opinions of your own? Okay,
> here's a test for you: in your own words, and in clear, complete
> sentences, explain the likely impact of the Fair Tax plan, as espoused
> by Huckabee, on the housing market, if it were to be enacted in 2009.
>
>
It's not really a "fair" tax anyway, thus it's doomed to premature
legislative ejaculatory failure.
Like all taxes proposed by pandering chickenshit avererage IQ cowardly
office-seeking assholes, it's rigged prehand to fuck the middle and upper
middle class and let the rich and poor off scot free.
Of course the lazy stupid poor won't have to pay the tax. Of course the
rich will still have "investment credits" and other such instruments.
And of course, as always, the middle/uppermiddle class will have no options
but pay the whole fucking bill, like they always do.
So, the impact on the housing market? Why not debate how many angels can
dance on your pinhead instead because that's as likely as that idiotic flat
tax would be to get passed.
Now a REAL flat tax, like originally proposed by Forbes, 10% on EVERYONE
and ALL purchases, would be the best and fairest tax system in the world,
and would raise billions more in revenue and would still not affect the
poor. NO exemptions.
See, the poor don't buy as much, therefor they pay less...
--
Explanation of a Free Country:
Democracy is when 2 wolves and a sheep meet
to decide who is for dinner.
Liberty is when the sheep has a gun.
Mike Smith
wrote:
>Hal Burton <h...@burton.spam> scribblednews:2008010719114616807-
>hal@burtonspam:
>
>> Want to prove that you can form complex opinions of your own? Okay,
>> here's a test for you: in your own words, and in clear, complete
>> sentences, explain the likely impact of the Fair Tax plan, as espoused
>> by Huckabee, on the housing market, if it were to be enacted in 2009.
>>
>>
>
>It's not really a "fair" tax anyway, thus it's doomed to premature
>legislative ejaculatory failure.
>
>Like all taxes proposed by pandering chickenshit avererage IQ cowardly
>office-seeking assholes, it's rigged prehand to fuck the middle and upper
>middle class and let the rich and poor off scot free.
>
>Of course the lazy stupid poor won't have to pay the tax. Of course the
>rich will still have "investment credits" and other such instruments.
>
>And of course, as always, the middle/uppermiddle class will have no options
>but pay the whole fucking bill, like they always do.
>
>So, the impact on the housing market? Why not debate how many angels can
>dance on your pinhead instead because that's as likely as that idiotic flat
>tax would be to get passed.
I told him something similar to that. He didn't comprehend it.
>
>Now a REAL flat tax, like originally proposed by Forbes, 10% on EVERYONE
>and ALL purchases, would be the best and fairest tax system in the world,
>and would raise billions more in revenue and would still not affect the
>poor. NO exemptions.
That is the best solution I've heard.
Too bad it will never happen as long as we have the "Cody's" among the
voting public...
Mike Smith
Hal Burton
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:08:12 -0000, Wankatoa <Wan...@anonmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hal Burton <h...@burton.spam> scribblednews:2008010719114616807-
>> hal@burtonspam:
>>
>>> Want to prove that you can form complex opinions of your own? Okay,
>>> here's a test for you: in your own words, and in clear, complete
>>> sentences, explain the likely impact of the Fair Tax plan, as espoused
>>> by Huckabee, on the housing market, if it were to be enacted in 2009.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It's not really a "fair" tax anyway, thus it's doomed to premature
>> legislative ejaculatory failure.
>>
>> Like all taxes proposed by pandering chickenshit avererage IQ cowardly
>> office-seeking assholes, it's rigged prehand to fuck the middle and upper
>> middle class and let the rich and poor off scot free.
>>
>> Of course the lazy stupid poor won't have to pay the tax. Of course the
>> rich will still have "investment credits" and other such instruments.
>>
>> And of course, as always, the middle/uppermiddle class will have no options
>> but pay the whole fucking bill, like they always do.
>>
>> So, the impact on the housing market? Why not debate how many angels can
>> dance on your pinhead instead because that's as likely as that idiotic flat
>> tax would be to get passed.
>
> I told him something similar to that. He didn't comprehend it.
The difference is, he used more than five monosyllabic words. In other
words, he thought through his opinion and explained his reasoning. It's
funny that you don't know the difference.
Mike Smith
wrote:
>On 2008-01-15 16:59:19 -0600, Mike Smith <m...@wt.net> said:
Oh, I see... You want flowery words to fill up the sentences, instead
of dead-on accurate "short" sentences, combined with a short
paragraph..
Sorry, that doesn't make any sense.
Mike Smith
George Kerby
On 1/15/08 6:45 AM, in article hlapo3tc8mr8qkj8o...@4ax.com,
"Mike Smith" <m...@wt.net> wrote:
Thanks for cutting to the chase. My scrolling finger was getting worn out!
Hal Burton
Mike, you have subhuman intelligence. Is that short and to-the-point
enough for you?
Mike Smith
wrote:
See what I meant?
>>>
>>> The difference is, he used more than five monosyllabic words. In other
>>> words, he thought through his opinion and explained his reasoning. It's
>>> funny that you don't know the difference.
>>
>> Oh, I see... You want flowery words to fill up the sentences, instead
>> of dead-on accurate "short" sentences, combined with a short
>> paragraph..
>
>Mike, you have subhuman intelligence. Is that short and to-the-point
>enough for you?
Thanks for posting more proof that my assessment of your "Dusty"
imitation was dead-on accurate.
And I have noted that you have never disputed my assessment of your
query. In case you forgot, here it is:
"No impact.
It will never happen."
Maybe you did not understand my answer. It meant there will be no fair
tax passed in 2009, therefore there is no need to assess the effect on
the housing market.
And here's my other brilliant analysis of your poorly constructed
"what if" scenario {in case you forgot}:
"Bhutto's assassination with have no measurable effect on the
electability of anyone running for President in November 2008."
Mike Smith
Hal Burton
I realize you have trouble keeping up, but the point was not to debate
politics. The point was to prove that you are an idiot. That was done,
so now I'm moving on.
Mike Smith
wrote:
Whatever feeds your fantasies, dude...
Mike Smith
mh
*golf clap*
Wankatoa
scribblednews:amiro3t3519bcl499...@4ax.com:
> And here's my other brilliant analysis of your poorly constructed
> "what if" scenario {in case you forgot}:
> "Bhutto's assassination with have no measurable effect on the
> electability of anyone running for President in November 2008."
>
> Mike Smith
Only if she called for Texas to have a State Income tax, to raise the
federal and state gas taxes and to give The Domain more tax breaks....THEN
you'd hear nothing but it in the filthy AAS and every demorat's lips.
Since all she did was threaten the liberals' favorite people, the Jew
Haters and those who make Bush look bad in Afghanistan, you never hear a
peep.
The AAS instead fills every daily paper with "Today, US Marines killed two
women and 14 children in an airstrike upon freedom loving ethic people's
houses in Ramallah. Residents pointed out that in the house were many
freedom fighters, and there is no count of how many were brutally slain by
our slavering paid Mercenary Marines, but we have an accurate, verfified by
the Terrror...err....freedom's fighter's spokesperson, Al Jazzera, that
"many many innocent loving women and innocent children were slain".