Obama spent over $5 million to look "pretty" on stage in Nazi-like ceremony
libcrus...@gmail.com
"Nuremberg" type Rally at Invesco Field. Over five million in Dem
donations to make himself look "pretty", thanks to his massive Hitler-
like ego. The other sad thing is there is no market for used, cheap
Nazi-type columns that surrounded Obama at the rally, so he won't be
able to recoup any of the money for charity -
-------
http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2008/10/13/daily43.html
The Democrats spent an additional $5.3 million on the Barackopolis at
Invesco Field.
----
Other similarities Obama shares with his childhood idol, Adolf Hitler,
in his rise to power:
Both had their Hitler and Obama Jugend.
Both had little to no experience when gaining power.
Both came to power largely on their oratory skills and speeches.
Obama isn't black (he's got a white mother) and Hitler wasn't German
(he was born in Austria).
Both came to power after a stock market crash and unpopular war,
setting the stage for radical "change".
Both were labeled "the Messiah".
Both favored huge outdoor rallies at night.
Both favored "spreading the wealth".
Both were endorsed by the Kennedys.
Hitler didn't want to develop the nuclear bomb because he said it was
"Jewish Physics" and unproven.
Obama wants to cut defense and "cut unproven missile defense systems"
and "slow our development of future combat sytems".
The Nazis blamed the Jews for everything and said they were the rich
and controlled everything. Obama and Dems blame Bush and the Repubs
for everything and say they are the rich and control everything.
Goebbels made one-sided, anti-Jew propaganda films like "The Eternal
Jew" which depicted Jews in candid shots, with sinister music and a
haunting commentary.
Michael Moore and Spike Lee made one-sided, anti-Bush/Repub propaganda
films like "Fahrenheit 9/11" and about Katrina which depicted Bush/
Repubs in candid shots, with sinister music and a haunting commentary.
The Nazis controlled everything leaving no checks and balances.
The Libs are about to control everything - the House, Senate and White
House, leaving no checks and balances.
Without hard times and scapegoats, radical change like Obama and
Hitler could never happen.
History - look into it.
"Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it" -
George Santayana
Busch Wacked
>
> History - look into it.
>
> "Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it" -
> George Santayana
>
That is exactly why the Busch and McClinton clan is being kicked out.
John
<libcrus...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:58b1652c-97e4-41d7...@e38g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
More idiocy from the stupid crazed right wing nutjobs.
Avatar the Aviator
> John wrote:
> More idiocy from the stupid crazed right wing nutjobs.
John,
Imo, they were humored for almost 10 years and began to think they had
legitimacy going for them. The next couple of years will slap
the shit out of their loud, stupid, wannabe Hummer-driving, McMansion
living jerkoffs.
By 2011, all of this will probably have down regulated into a meek
phase of shamed obeisance. These people aren't leaders by nature.
They're pack-dog cowards, emboldened by each other's barking.
Truth. mvm
RS
wrote:
>
>Other similarities Obama shares with his childhood idol, Adolf Hitler,
>in his rise to power:
>
>setting the stage for radical "change".
So the moral of the story is: If you're Hitler, you gotta pray that
someone like George Bush gets elected to crash the economy and start a
crappy war. Thanks for your 'insight,' genius.
BaJoRi
"RS" <R...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:oo37g4lqe61523rik...@4ax.com...
I have to be honest: I read Obama's first book, and I can't remember him
praising Hitler. Now, it's always a possibility I missed that part, but I
would think someone saying that "Hitler is my idol" would be something that
I remember. "My father was a Kenyan goat-herder, and I love Hitler" would
just not tend to be someting I could gloss over.
marcus
Me
> It has been revealed Barack Hussein Oafbama spent $5.3 million for his
> "Nuremberg" type Rally at Invesco Field. Over five million in Dem
> donations to make himself look "pretty", thanks to his massive Hitler-
> like ego. The other sad thing is there is no market for used, cheap
> Nazi-type columns that surrounded Obama at the rally, so he won't be
> able to recoup any of the money for charity -
>
You're right about what you say, but it's important to remember that
the anti-semitic, white hating, America hating, high taxing,
socialist, terrorist associating, inexperience, lying, community
organizing (think Al Sharpton of Chicago), affirmative action
recipient B. Hussien Obama identifies with the common man. He's just
one of us, isn't he?
Think Chairman Barak. Oh yeah, the sheeple who populate this NG would
love that. Thinking about anything beyond The Beatles or their next
wank is hard,
Sonnova
(in article
<a1bd3675-0bdc-420e...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>):
You can say that again.
McGarnagle
wrote:
Agreed. This is the MTV generation and they know little about history.
McGarnagle
You're already on record as saying Kerry would win in 2004, NY and
Washington would be nuked by 2008, China would invade Taiwan by 2009
and AGA Neocon chickenhawks would be haunted by Haditha forever.
Will you ever get one right, Muleass?
McGarnagle
Nope, the moral of the story is: If you're a radical like Hitler, you
gotta pray that someone like libs will ruin anything they can and
backstab the President and country at every opportunity for personal
power.
"I blame Bush for everything" - thanks for your 'insight', lib.
John Gilmer
> wrote:
>>
>>Other similarities Obama shares with his childhood idol, Adolf Hitler,
>>in his rise to power:
>>
>>Both came to power after a stock market crash and unpopular war,
>>setting the stage for radical "change".
The "umpopular war" in the case of Hitler would be WWI which ended some 14
years before Hitler took office.
And the war was "popular" with Hitler and many of his supporters who claimed
that the military was stabbed in the back by the left wing civilians.
Many conservatives feel the same way about the VN war which ended over 30
years ago.
marcus
> "I blame Bush for everything" -
It all began with Reagan...the policies he began are responsible for
the current rot we find ourselves in.
KK
Which policies in particular?
Avatar the Aviator
>
> It all began with Reagan...the policies he began are responsible for
> the current rot we find ourselves in.
>
True. GOP hard-core's idolize the old actor. He was a man for his times.
In their own times, Nixon and Kissinger went to China...Whoopee! When
Taiwan finally lights up and the U.S. Navy gets involved... expect stink:
*spark-online.com >> version 20.0, >> MARC V. MULAY
spark-online contents page. ... ESOCIETY, *SPARK-ONLINE VERSION 20.0.
the first casualty. by marc v. mulay. printer friendly version ...
http://www.spark-online.com/issue20/mulay.html
Regards,
Marc Mulay
>
>> >
http://tinyurl.com/32j32m >
>> >
>
Avatar the Aviator
Specifically, tax breaks for the wealthy with the notion of trickle down
vs. greed / invest in your own family. Trickle down became the poster
child for:
Fuck the employee,
fuck the customer:
It's *all* about the *SHAREHOLDER* .
That's the USA's Market Fundamentalism that gave rise to the level of
deregulation that brought the tidal wave we see today (watch the layoffs
as this year ends...).
The media/4th estate was PacMan-consumed by McCorporate (ex/ GE /
Disney) and spoon feeding infotainment vs. news became the *norm*.
Perp walks, back dating stock options, mass layoffs, outsourcing,
"jobless recoveries", it all started _then_ .
The GOP droolers merely needed to be coddled w/ NRA coziness and
televangelist luv to get-along-go-along. Phuctards.
NOW look. It went too far. WAY fucking too far.
mvm
Avatar the Aviator
> Fuck the employee,
>
> fuck the customer:
>
>
> It's *all* about the *SHAREHOLDER* .
> NOW look. It went too far. WAY fucking too far.
>
> mvm
Avatar the Aviator
>> Fuck the employee,
>>
>> fuck the customer:
>>
>>
>> It's *all* about the *SHAREHOLDER* .
>
>> NOW look. It went too far. WAY fucking too far.
>>
>> mvm
KK
> KK wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 05:53:17 -0700, marcus wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 27, 12:54 am, McGarnagle <McGarna...@notospam.com> wrote:
>>>> "I blame Bush for everything" -
>>> It all began with Reagan...the policies he began are responsible for
>>> the current rot we find ourselves in.
>>
>> Which policies in particular?
>
> Specifically, tax breaks for the wealthy with the notion of trickle down
> vs. greed / invest in your own family.
That wasn't 'specific' at all. Tell us what brackets and rates changed.
And you really have a problem with the 'notion' of working hard and
'invest[ing] in your own family' rather than some collectivist baloney?
> Trickle down became the poster
> child for:
>
> Fuck the employee,
You're nuts. Allowing businesses to keep more of their money allowed
them to hire more people - hardly 'fucking the employee'.
> fuck the customer:
What do you think Eeagan's tax policy had to do with 'fuck the
customer'? I'd make fun of you but I can't imagine what you mean.
>
>
> It's *all* about the *SHAREHOLDER* .
>
> That's the USA's Market Fundamentalism that gave rise to the level of
> deregulation that brought the tidal wave we see today (watch the layoffs
> as this year ends...).
The current problems are rooted not in a market unshackled by
regulation. They're rooted in well-meaning government manipluation of
markets. They're rooted in bad regulation.
>
> The media/4th estate was PacMan-consumed by McCorporate (ex/ GE /
> Disney) and spoon feeding infotainment vs. news became the *norm*.
>
> Perp walks, back dating stock options, mass layoffs, outsourcing,
> "jobless recoveries", it all started _then_ .
>
> The GOP droolers merely needed to be coddled w/ NRA coziness and
> televangelist luv to get-along-go-along. Phuctards.
>
> NOW look. It went too far. WAY fucking too far.
>
> mvm
You're not very well-informed.
KK
posts would have clinched it.
Lord Valve
> It has been revealed Barack Hussein Oafbama spent $5.3 million for his
> "Nuremberg" type Rally at Invesco Field. Over five million in Dem
> donations to make himself look "pretty", thanks to his massive Hitler-
> like ego. The other sad thing is there is no market for used, cheap
> Nazi-type columns that surrounded Obama at the rally, so he won't be
> able to recoup any of the money for charity -
I do indeed recall the remark I made to my wife in the opening moments of
his Denver appearance:
"My God - shades of Albert Speer!" Guess I'm
not the only one who noticed, eh? ;-)
Lord Valve
NoBama '08
BaaaaaarrrrrrrAAAAAACCCCCKKKKK!!! <Safety!!>
Avatar the Aviator
1.]
Here are the specifics of what the ERTA, or Reagan Tax Cuts as they
are called entailed:
Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981
- phased-in 23% cut in individual tax rats; top rate dropped from 70%
to 50%
- accelerated depreciation deductions; replaced depreciation system
with ACRS
- indexed individual income tax parameters (beginning in 1985)
- created 10% exclusion on income for two-earner married couples
($3,000 cap)
- phased-in increase in estate tax exemption from $175,625 to $600,000
in 1987
- reduced Windfall Profit taxes
- allowed all working taxpayers to establish IRAs
- expanded provisions for employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs)
- replaced $200 interest exclusion with 15% net interest exclusion
($900 cap) (begin in 1985)
Source is the following document on a US Govt. Treasury site:
http://www.ustreas.gov/ota/ota81.pdf
The tax bubble you describe, "under the 1990 budget agreement, a tax
bubble for joint filers earning between $78,400 and $185,000 was
eliminated, lowering taxes for this group from 33% to 31%," is noted
in this document from The National Center for Public Policy Research,
in the section titled "Talking Points on the Economy: Government
Spending #6":
http://www.nationalcenter.org/TPSpending1-8.html
"In the Reagan years the maximum tax bracket was reduced from 70 to 28
percent with a tax bubble, affecting only the middle class, jumping to
33 percent," as one source described it. The bubble effect does not
reflect an item written into the law, but rather an artifact created
by the entire tax structure. The important distinction to remember is
that tax rate can be marginal tax rate, or total tax rate.
As family income climbs, the effect of personal exemptions as a
percentage of income becomes smaller. Therefore when you calculate
the tax rate for a given income, you will find it climibing as the
exemptions "help" less and less.
Furthermore, as family income climbs, it reaches levels of higher
marginal tax rates, meaning that each ADDITIONAL dollar is taxed at a
higher rate than the dollars below it.
Those two factors together result in a family hitting a level of
marginal tax rates (a tax bracket)where each additional dollar they
earn is taxed at the higher rate but the exemptions are not helping.
This results in a zone where the effective tax rate is higher. The
rest is just math. As family income continues to rise, but the
marginal tax rate does not, the tax rate goes back to "normal" I hope
I have explained this in adequately. If not, just let me know and I'll
try a different tack.
Addtional sources useful for ERTA tax rates:
The Century Foundation tells us, "The most important changes to the
personal tax code since the World War II rate increases were made
during the Reagan administration in the 1980s. In 1981, the Economic
Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) reduced the top rate by almost 30 percent—from
70 to 50 percent—and all other rates by approximately 23 percent over
a three-year period." The citation is found on the fifth paragraph of
the following page:
http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Basics/Tax/History.html
The following chart on page four of the document below shows the
effect of the tax cuts. As you see, the average tax rate dropped
slightly while the top marginal rate plummeted.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/indincdi.pdf
2.] The growing over-emphasis upon the shareholder de-emphasized the
employee and the customer in terms of value. Loyalty between all
parties except CEO class and Wall Street, dissolved.
3. You're blaming mortgage company packaging and resale of bad loans to
Wall Street investment banks (CDO's / CMO's into SIV's)that were then
blessed by ratings agencies, Fitch, S&P and wound into extremely
complex portfolios -upon government manipulation?! Which Govt.?
Whacky. It's called the people who were supposed to be "governing"
via stewardship. The free market, unregulated ran amok. I presume you
either didn't see or didn't understand A. Greenspan's testimony
before a federal subcommittee? His mea culpa re; Investment Banking?
4.] _Me_ not very well informed? You may well be a HS-only educated Fox
/ Limbaugh parrot for all I know.
Twisting, misinterpreting, etc. goes nowhere there, "KK"
Regards,
mvm
Avatar the Aviator
> If you didn't already seem to be a kook, multiple replies to your own
> posts would have clinched it.
Nutters almost always view the intent, an addendum, a post-script / PS
as "repied to his own post". Thus you exhibit the open mind of a rock
and the creative capacity of a bag of hair on fire. Clinch that,
slappy. :-). mvm
Avatar the Aviator
libcrus...@gmail.com
KK
I note you don't have a reply to the actual response of substance that I
posted. "open mind" indeed.
Avatar the Aviator
;-) & I note that you have chosen to troll-act as if it wasn't posted.
Therefore, try again:
1.]
Here are the specifics of what the ERTA, or Reagan Tax Cuts as they
are called entailed:
Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981
- phased-in 23% cut in individual tax rats; top rate dropped from 70%
to 50%
- accelerated depreciation deductions; replaced depreciation system
with ACRS
- indexed individual income tax parameters (beginning in 1985)
- created 10% exclusion on income for two-earner married couples
($3,000 cap)
- phased-in increase in estate tax exemption from $175,625 to $600,000
in 1987
- reduced Windfall Profit taxes
- allowed all working taxpayers to establish IRAs
- expanded provisions for employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs)
- replaced $200 interest exclusion with 15% net interest exclusion
($900 cap) (begin in 1985)
Source is the following document on a US Govt. Treasury site:
http://www.ustreas.gov/ota/ota81.pdf
The tax bubble, "under the 1990 budget agreement, a tax
KK
Do I have to hold your hand through your own argument?
I didn't ask you to cut and paste out of a book. I asked what specifics
of his tax policies led directly to "the current rot we find ourselves
in".
And also how you believe lowering taxes translates to "fuck the customer"
and "fuck the employee".
>
>
> 2.] The growing over-emphasis upon the shareholder de-emphasized the
> employee and the customer in terms of value. Loyalty between all
> parties except CEO class and Wall Street, dissolved.
Pleases support - and define - this "growing over-emphasis upon the
shareholder" claim.
>
> 3. You're blaming mortgage company packaging and resale of bad loans to
> Wall Street investment banks (CDO's / CMO's into SIV's)that were
> then blessed by ratings agencies, Fitch, S&P and wound into
> extremely complex portfolios -upon government manipulation?
Yes. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were unbelievably allowed to donate to
and lobby the politicians who directly regulated them. That, in
combination with those politicians' desire to provide mortgages to people
who were not able to afford them, led to this. It was not caused by
government confiscating less of our money.
>
> 4.] _Me_ not very well informed? You may well be a HS-only educated Fox
> / Limbaugh parrot for all I know.
For all *you* seem to know, the earth is flat, and Marx had it right.
AJ
says...
There was a whole lot more to the Reagan tax cuts than just reducing the
rates. A very large number of deductions were eliminated. Before
itemizers could deduct ALL state and local sales taxes, utility taxes,
gas taxes, fees, dog licenses etc. I remember quite well spending hours
adding them all up from bags of receipts. You could also deduct all
interest paid on car loans, credit cards, etc., plus a whole laundry
list of medical, business, & miscellaneous stuff without the %AGR tests
used now. When all was said and done the number on the bottom line for
most people ended up about the same, as do all 'new' tax plans like the
so-called flat tax. The government needs X amount of money, so no matter
how they slice and dice the tax code, they're going to get it.
But one of the most significant Reagan-era changes of all, was they
changed the way they calculate inflation. That was the smoke and mirrors
that ended stagflation of the Carter years and is still used today. It
is heavily weighted towards manufactured goods people don't actually buy
that often, and the core rate excludes energy and food. A lot of COLA's,
interest rates, are tied to the rate. The mess we're in now is partly
due to low cost manufactured goods from China keeping the rate
artificially low. That's why the GW Bush tax cuts only allowed you to
supersize your fries for about 6 months before higher prices for
services and commodities more than ate them up.
Real inflation, when measured by what people actually spend has been
rising between 8-10% a year since GW took office. In the meantime the
Fed has been keeping interest rates artificially low while Treasury has
been content to let the dollar fall to about half its former value. The
stock market in real terms, even before the present downturn, has gone
nowhere.
Well guess what. Really wealthy people don't like to loose wealth. With
nowhere to put it to earn a decent return, unlike Joe the Plumber they
turn to exotic highly leveraged investments like hedge funds, junk
bonds, commodities and currency trading. Unlike us common folk, the
Investment Banks let them play with borrowed money - a.k.a. other
people's money. Talk about mortgages with 1% down, wealthy investors
were playing with less than that, that's why the Investment banks got
stuck holding the bag.
But this isn't new and the GOP especially should have known better. LBJ
also tried to fight 2 wars and keep his pet(Great Society) program going
without paying for them, and the result was the same. The GOP often
accuses the Dems of throwing money at problems in the form of programs.
The only difference is the GOP Supply Siders literally throw 'money' at
the problem and hope it goes away. ;-)
One other thing about Reagan. He was a blow-hard conservative, but he
had to deal with a Democratic Congress and together they DID get us out
of that mess. Clinton was a fairly moderate Democrat but had to work
with a conservative Republican Congress, and we all know the results.
AJ
Utroll&@I~winHUGE.org says...
>
> The GOP droolers merely needed to be coddled w/ NRA coziness and
> televangelist luv to get-along-go-along. Phuctards.
>
> NOW look. It went too far. WAY fucking too far.
>
> mvm
>
I wonder if the great blunder of the Bush administration for the future
of the GOP, will turn out to be giving the Right to Life people what
they wanted.
Dave Fritzinger
> In article <J%FNk.4476$o57.3...@newsfe02.iad>, _...@furburger.net
You aren't quite correct here. I believe the original Reagan tax cuts
were just rate cuts. Later, in 1986 I believe, there was a revamping
of the tax laws that was partly led by Sen. Bill Bradley. That is
where many of the deductions were taken away.
[snip]
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
libcrus...@gmail.com
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, P-Dub wrote:
> > My mom says that Obama is like Hitler. He's "too"
> > popular, kinda like a rock star, or a fascist
> > dictator.
>
> I was raised in one country but my father was born in another. I was
> not his only child. He fathered several children with a number of
> women.
>
> I became very close to my mother because my father showed little
> interest in me. Then my mother died at an early age from cancer.
> Later in life, questions arose over my real name. My birth records
> were sketchy and no one was able to produce a reliable birth
> certificate.
>
> I grow up practicing one faith, but converted to Christianity because
> this was widely accepted in my country. But I practiced
> non-traditional beliefs and did not follow mainstream Christianity.
>
> I worked and lived among lower-class people as a young adult before I
> decided it was time to get serious about my life and I embarked on a
> new career.
>
> I wrote a book about my struggles growin g up. It was clear to those
> who read my memoirs that I had difficulties accepting that my father
> abandoned me as a child.
>
> I became active in local politics when I was in my 30s and then burst
> onto the scene as a candidate for national office when I was in my
> 40s. I had a virtually non-existent resume, very little work history,
> and no experience in leading a single organization. Yet I was a
> powerful speaker who managed to draw incredibly large crowds during my
> public appearances.
>
> At first, my political campaign focused on my country's foreign
> policy. I was critical of my country in the last war. But what
> launched my rise to national prominence were my views on the country's
> economy. I had a plan on how we could do better. I knew which group
> was responsible for getting us into this mess.
>
> Mine was a peoples campaign. I was the surprise candidate because I
> emerged from outside the traditional path of politics and was able to
> gain widespread popular support. I offered the people the hope that
> together we could change our country and the world.
>
> I spoke on behalf of the downtrodden including persecuted minorities
> such as Jews, but my actual views were not widely known until after I
> became my nations leader. However, anyone could have easily learned
> what I really believed if they had simply read my writings and
> examined those people I associated with. But they did not.
>
> Then I became the most powerful man in the world. And the world
> learned the truth.
>
> Who am I? Scroll down for the answer.
>
> Adolf Hitler
>
> - --
> John Mayson <j...@mayson.us>
> Austin, Texas, USA
Great post.
Elvis Kabong
"KK" <_K...@furburger.net> wrote in message
news:J%FNk.4476$o57....@newsfe02.iad...
What good is lower taxes if you are either unemployed or
homeless or disabled, food is poisoned, air is unbreathable,
the roads and infrasctructure is in disrepair, the cost of
living is sky-high, the American Dream became way too
over-priced and the middle class has been reduced to a
serfdom or when businesses have the attitude in
the cartoon at the below link?
http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/tr/2008/tr080816.gif
(Be sure to scroll down past the box that sez "This is
for pro-users only".
RichL
> Great post.
And Hitler didn't write this, you absolute doofus.
By the way, I thought you had read Mein Kampf. Anyone who actually has
done so knows that Hitler's aims were well known years before he became
Chancellor of the Reich.
"But Rush said <sputter sputter....>"
Bip Bop
> BaaaaaarrrrrrrAAAAAACCCCCKKKKK!!!
> <Safety!!><
TPS
No way man! Obama is *exactly* like Hitler. I mean, Hitler used
powerful imagery, so does Obama. Hitler wrote a book, so did Obama.
Hitler often wore a suit, and so does Obama. Hitler had a mother, so
does Obama.
I mean, come on! How many more similarities does it take for you to
put it together?
Dale Houstman
The current mess can most likely be tracked to Reagan, but truth be
told, the U.S. has gone through cycles of progressive and conservative
movements again and again in its history, or rather a cycle between
periods when the ideal was expressed as "we're all in this together" and
"rich people own us" - Teddy Roosevelt fought the "good fight" and FDR
did the same, and so on. Unfortunately the pendulum will swing back
again in a generation or two. But the relative good news is that the
swibng away from progressive motions almost never demolished the
advances entirely. Reagan did a good job on us, dismantling FDR's
capitalism saving programs, but now that these "conservative geniuses"
have helped smash the economy and much of democracy, we have an outside
chance of a sustaining progressive movement for the nonce. That all
depends on Obama's dedication not only to at least a minimal liberalism,
but also on his ability to "tell a compelling story" that effectively
erases the "conservative fairy tale" we've been force fed for so long
now. But if it's just a matter of giving a few more bucks to the "common
man" and polishing capital's image, we could be in for another
faux-liberalism/conservatism lite like the one Clinton so generously
gifted us with. Again, and as always, it depends on how engaged we are.
dmh
libcrus...@gmail.com
OMG
This guy can't read.
IT'S ABOUT HITLER'S LIFE! It's scripted like a Jeopardy question.
See the part where it says "scroll down for the answer"? (Only the
newsreader cutoff about 20 spaces)
The next words are "Adolf Hitler".
LMFAO
Another *golden* DickL moment.
Anyone not knowing would think the answer was going to be Obama, but
since you know nothing about him, it went right over your
intellectually-challenged head!
> By the way, I thought you had read Mein Kampf. Anyone who actually has
> done so knows that Hitler's aims were well known years before he became
> Chancellor of the Reich.
Yeah, I've said that quite often. Even in a thread where I said Obama
did too and you said,"No way."
It even says in the above, "However, anyone could have easily learned
what I really believed if they had simply read my writings."
You grow dumber by the minute.
>
> But Mike Moore said
Dude, no one gives a fuck about Mike Moore except you and Blum. LOL
"It wasn't written by Hitler" - another DickL classic
libcrus...@gmail.com
>
> No way man! Obama is *exactly* like Hitler. I mean, Hitler used
> powerful imagery, so does Obama. Hitler wrote a book, so did Obama.
> Hitler often wore a suit, and so does Obama. Hitler had a mother, so
> does Obama.
> I mean, come on! How many more similarities does it take for you to
> put it together?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Too bad you know very little of history and can't recognize what is
going on.
You probably think if there was no Iraq war (or no WW1), no Stock
Market crash (or no Great Depression) and everyone blaming everything
on Bush and the Repubs (or blaming the Jews), that a black man with
virtually no experience (or an unemployed, homeless, high school
dropout) would be labeled a "messiah" (like the dude in Germany) and
would be elected President in 2008 (or Chancellor of Germany in 1933)
mainly on his oratory skills (like the German guy).
I remember just a few years ago people saying a black man would never
be President in our lifetime.
"It's just another election. The unknown and inexperienced black guy
would have won anyway. I don't see any big deal" - TPS
"He said Hitler! That means he thinks Obama is a skinhead and going to
gas people. I get hysterical and can't think straight because someone
is questioning my messiah. No way he came out of nowhere like Hitler!"
- TPS and other emotional libs
libcrus...@gmail.com
And don't forget my other great essay on Parallels In History (FDR as
viewed by libs who hate Bush):
---
I hear lots of libs claim FDR was the best President ever.
Why?
--
Pearl Harbor happened on FDR's watch.
FDR could have stopped it.
FDR lied, people died.
FDR made Nazi Germany the priority even though it was Japan that
attacked us.
FDR was a chickenhawk who never served in the military.
FDR was poor at diplomacy and angered our enemies with his calling for
an international "quarantine of the aggressor nations".
FDR racially profiled 120,000 Japanese and Japanese Americans and
threw them into internment camps (JITMOs) without regard to their
rights and the Constitution.
FDR aided the Soviet Union and is even seen in pictures smiling with
Stalin.
Over 400,000 innocent Americans died because of FDR.
FDR did nothing to stop the Holocaust and the deaths of 10 million
innocent people.
FDR was a complete failure and resembled a penguin.
--
Liberals are hypocrites and hate America.
Just say NO to libs.
Busch Wacked
> No way man! Obama is *exactly* like Hitler. I mean, Hitler used
> powerful imagery, so does Obama. Hitler wrote a book, so did Obama.
> Hitler often wore a suit, and so does Obama. Hitler had a mother, so
> does Obama.
> I mean, come on! How many more similarities does it take for you to
> put it together?
I passed a women in the grocery store who had covered her head and
face with a veil .. obviously a Muslim terrorist. The dead give away
was she had small package of flower fertilizer in her cart, next
to the little jars of baby food. WE ALL
KNOW THAT FERTILIZER MIXED WITH GASOLINE IS A BOMB .
I gathered up other men from the store, and we stoned
her to death in the parking lot.
Hannity and Lush came to my defense, saying it was an American
thing to do .. Never associate with a Muslim .. who we
all know ... are terrorists.
RichL
Right. Unemployed, homeless, high-school dropout = Harvard law degree.
Brilliant analysis, as usual.
p.s....The only people calling Obama "the messiah" are Rush and the rest
of the RWNJs.
Hope this helps...
RichL
> And don't forget my other great essay on Parallels In History
> (FDR as viewed by libs who hate Bush):
"Essay"? You can't even write a coherent paragraph, let alone an essay.
> FDR was a chickenhawk who never served in the military.
As I recall, so are you.
RichL
<whoosh>
GodHatesFez
He was born in a country different than the one in which he ran for office
Instead of providing substance, he used a media image to gain public support
He made a special effort to focus on the youth of his country
He was a powerful and compelling public speaker
He convinced his people to make judgments based on race
He preyed on the fear caused by a failing economy
He blamed a specific group for all of society's ills
He proposed that he was the only one who could *change* things
He promised that he would take from the rich and give to the poor to create
an egalitarian society
His followers had no idea what he really stood for but blindly followed him
Those who opposed him was harassed, verbally assaulted and even had their
property and persons attacked
Avatar the Aviator
> Hay88r wrote:
>
> He was born in a country different than the one in which he ran for office
>
> Instead of providing substance, he used a media image to gain public support
>
> He made a special effort to focus on the youth of his country
>
> He was a powerful and compelling public speaker
>
> He convinced his people to make judgments based on race
>
> He preyed on the fear caused by a failing economy
>
> He blamed a specific group for all of society's ills
>
> He proposed that he was the only one who could *change* things
>
> He promised that he would take from the rich and give to the poor to create
> an egalitarian society
>
> His followers had no idea what he really stood for but blindly followed him
>
> Those who opposed him was harassed, verbally assaulted and even had their
> property and persons attacked
KK
> What good is lower taxes if you are either unemployed or homeless
Lower taxes on employers make it more affordable to hire more people.
> or
> disabled, food is poisoned, air is unbreathable
Taxes don't unpoison food or clean air.
>, the roads and
> infrasctructure is in disrepair, the cost of living is sky-high,
Increased taxes increase cost-of-living the same as a pay cut or a price
hike.
> the
> American Dream became way too over-priced and the middle class has been
> reduced to a serfdom or when businesses have the attitude in the cartoon
> at the below link?
If your economic reasoning is based on a cartoon, I'm not sure if we even
need to talk. But nobody would blame low sales on low salaries, so the
cartoon wasn't written by someone with real-world experience.
KK
When did that happen?
DocDice
> It has been revealed Barack Hussein Oafbama spent $5.3 million for his
> "Nuremberg" type Rally at Invesco Field. Over five million in Dem
> donations to make himself look "pretty", thanks to his massive Hitler-
> like ego. The other sad thing is there is no market for used, cheap
> Nazi-type columns that surrounded Obama at the rally, so he won't be
> able to recoup any of the money for charity -
So? What is your point???????
Obama is going to be elected to be the next president of the United
States.
I understand that you hold fast to the neo-con philosiphy that if you
have nothing of value to offer into a conversation, you still rely on
telling everyoone else how messed up they are and how whatever you do
not like is responsible for their misery. Forunately, the American
people has seen through the veil of lies fostered by you and your kind
and have chosen to listen to someone who truly has something to say.
Unfortunately, it is the neo-con mantra that states even if someone
you do not like gets elected by the popular vote, you will still do
everything in your power to ensure they fail at governing, therefore,
you must do everything possible to destroy the government of the
United States.....that makes you a traitor........I hope you meet the
traitors end soon.
Lord Valve
> FDR racially profiled 120,000 Japanese and Japanese Americans and
> threw them into internment camps (JITMOs) without regard to their
> rights and the Constitution.
FDR also interned over 50,000 GERMANS - some of them third-generation
Americans.
Of course you never hear about this, because the Germans
never said shit about it, and didn't whine to the government
to get paid because they were unfairly incarcerated based on
on their ethnicity. And the main reason you never hear about
it is because it's an inconvenient fact that doesn't fit into the
"America is a racist nation" shit the libs wallow in 24/7/365.
Lord Valve
American
Lord Valve
> Unfortunately, it is the neo-con mantra that states even if someone
> you do not like gets elected by the popular vote, you will still do
> everything in your power to ensure they fail at governing...
Well, gosh, um..."Doc"...
You mean like questioning election results, screaming
bloody murder for eight solid years about conspiracies
involving Haliburton, Diebold, Skull and Bones, shadow
governments, hidden concentration camps, black
helicopters...holy shit, how long would you like this
list to continue...making movies about how to assassinate
the president of the United States, hanging chads, you
fucking NAME it, son...and now you point the finger at
Neocons and make a bloody fucking lame accusation
like that? If it's true, they had great teachers, didn't they?
You fucking putz.
Lord Valve
American
Stephen Cowell
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 21:57:11 -0500, Elvis Kabong wrote:
...
>>, the roads and
>> infrasctructure is in disrepair, the cost of living is sky-high,
>
> Increased taxes increase cost-of-living the same as a pay cut or a price
> hike.
You let us know when Microsoft starts taking
care of the roads in front of your house.
__
Steve
.
Snit
w0%Nk.3537$Ei5...@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com on 10/29/08 8:11 AM:
Not to mention, a lack of increase in minimum wage as prices go up is *also*
the same as a price cut. Yeah, yeah, I know - big businesses hire people
out of the kindness of their hearts, not based on business needs, and if you
make the minimum wage keep pace with inflation they will no longer have any
reason to hire people. Heck, if they actually had to pay people they would
not be able to pay the CEO's several hundred times more than the general
worker.
--
Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/f351
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
KK
First of all, since Microsoft pays several orders of magnitude more taxes
than you do, they *do* help take care of those roads.
And nowhere did I suggest that nobody pay any taxes - so your comment is
either ignorant or intentionally misleading.
KK
> "Stephen Cowell" <sco...@sbcglobal.net> stated in post
> w0%Nk.3537$Ei5...@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com on 10/29/08 8:11 AM:
>
>
>> "KK" <_K...@furburger.net> wrote in message
>> news:hq_Nk.15898$o57....@newsfe02.iad...
>>> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 21:57:11 -0500, Elvis Kabong wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>>> , the roads and
>>>> infrasctructure is in disrepair, the cost of living is sky-high,
>>>
>>> Increased taxes increase cost-of-living the same as a pay cut or a
>>> price hike.
>>
>> You let us know when Microsoft starts taking care of the roads in front
>> of your house.
>
> Not to mention, a lack of increase in minimum wage as prices go up is
> *also* the same as a price cut.
I think you meant pay cut.
But, given inflation, *any* lack of pay hike is a pay cut. The minimum
wage isn't special in that regard.
To say that there should be a hike in the minimum wage is to say that
there is no job worth less than $6.55 per hour. Whether you believe that
to be true or not, the fact is that raising the minimum wage will result
in a loss of jobs, most of them near the bottom of the pay scale.
> Yeah, yeah, I know - big businesses
> hire people out of the kindness of their hearts, not based on business
> needs,
That's stupid. They hire people based on business needs.
> and if you make the minimum wage keep pace with inflation they
> will no longer have any reason to hire people.
If a task isn't worth $6.55 + the associated taxes and expenses, they
won't hire someone to do it.
> Heck, if they actually
> had to pay people they would not be able to pay the CEO's several
> hundred times more than the general worker.
Corporations are not in existence to provide jobs; nor are they in
existence to overpay CEOs. Both are wrong and should be opposed by
stockholders, and if execs fraudulently use company resources for
personal use they should be prosecuted.
RichL
> Of course you never hear about this, because the Germans
> never said shit about it, and didn't whine to the government
> to get paid because they were unfairly incarcerated based on
> on their ethnicity. And the main reason you never hear about
> it is because it's an inconvenient fact that doesn't fit into the
> "America is a racist nation" shit the libs wallow in 24/7/365.
Poor Willy. Now he somehow thinks that reminding us about what FDR (a
white guy) did 65 years ago to German-Americans (a bunch of other white
guys) has something to do with whether or not America is a racist
nation.
Six days and counting. Enjoy it while you can!
-p.s.....America as a whole is not a racist nation; the election of
Obama will prove that. You're about as obsessed with racism as JP is
over gay sex.
RichL
> Today's game: race baiting
Not playing. Take it elsewhere.
Snit
on 10/29/08 8:32 AM:
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 08:19:21 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> "Stephen Cowell" <sco...@sbcglobal.net> stated in post
>> w0%Nk.3537$Ei5...@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com on 10/29/08 8:11 AM:
>>
>>
>>> "KK" <_K...@furburger.net> wrote in message
>>> news:hq_Nk.15898$o57....@newsfe02.iad...
>>>> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 21:57:11 -0500, Elvis Kabong wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>>>> , the roads and
>>>>> infrasctructure is in disrepair, the cost of living is sky-high,
>>>>
>>>> Increased taxes increase cost-of-living the same as a pay cut or a
>>>> price hike.
>>>
>>> You let us know when Microsoft starts taking care of the roads in front
>>> of your house.
>>
>> Not to mention, a lack of increase in minimum wage as prices go up is
>> *also* the same as a price cut.
>
> I think you meant pay cut.
Yes, I did. Thank you.
> But, given inflation, *any* lack of pay hike is a pay cut. The minimum
> wage isn't special in that regard.
Sure... though when the minimum wage is increased it tends to lead to an
increase in pay at levels at least somewhat above the minimum wage.
> To say that there should be a hike in the minimum wage is to say that
> there is no job worth less than $6.55 per hour. Whether you believe that
> to be true or not, the fact is that raising the minimum wage will result
> in a loss of jobs, most of them near the bottom of the pay scale.
There are generally exceptions and, of course, the minimum wage used to be
much higher, in corrected dollars. People still hired the low wage workers.
I am not saying there would be no examples of this, but I simply do not
believe that - in general - companies are hiring simply to create jobs and
not because of business needs. Yes, I get that there is a balance and that
if you demand they pay burger-flippers (or whoever) the same wage as the CEO
that this is unworkable... but if you compare CEO pay, low-wage pay, and
inflation things are pretty heavily out of whack.
>> Yeah, yeah, I know - big businesses hire people out of the kindness of their
>> hearts, not based on business needs,
>>
> That's stupid. They hire people based on business needs.
I was being sarcastic... that is my point. The claim that businesses will
toss a large number of their workers on the street if they have to pay them
a reasonable wage is just silly... these people are hired because there is a
business need.
>> and if you make the minimum wage keep pace with inflation they
>> will no longer have any reason to hire people.
>
> If a task isn't worth $6.55 + the associated taxes and expenses, they
> won't hire someone to do it.
If you do not have the low wage workers you, often, do not have a business.
As you said: there is a business *need* they are filling.
>> Heck, if they actually had to pay people they would not be able to pay the
>> CEO's several hundred times more than the general worker.
>>
> Corporations are not in existence to provide jobs; nor are they in existence
> to overpay CEOs. Both are wrong and should be opposed by stockholders, and if
> execs fraudulently use company resources for personal use they should be
> prosecuted.
One of the things businesses do is keep the economy going. One of their
roles in society *is* to provide jobs, which is not to say that they should
do so beyond their own needs... heck, if you can run a multimillion dollar
business with no employees then by all means do so.
The idea, though, that a multimillion or multibillion dollar company and Mr.
AvergeJoe enter into agreements as equals is, well, a bit silly. Clearly
one has far, far more power in the relationship than does the other. Decent
and reasonable unions can be a big part of the balance for this, but this
does not apply to all sectors and in some cases efforts to build a closer
level of equity are actually illegal.
--
I know how a jam jar feels...
... full of jam!
Snit
on 10/29/08 8:26 AM:
Ah, so you are for taxes, even though they are the same as a pay cut. OK.
--
But if you are somebody who is not too concerned about price, who is not too
concerned about freedom, I don't think we can say the Linux desktop offers
the very best experience.
- Mark Shuttleworth (founded Canonical Ltd. / Ubuntu Linux)
KK
> The idea, though, that a multimillion or multibillion dollar company and
> Mr. AvergeJoe enter into agreements as equals is, well, a bit silly.
> Clearly one has far, far more power in the relationship than does the
> other.
No kidding. Until someone is educated and experienced enough to be
valuable to someone else, they ... won't be. That's the way it *should*
work, because it provide a *huge* incentive to improve one's prospects,
something which is still pretty easy to do in this country.
KK
>>
>> First of all, since Microsoft pays several orders of magnitude more
>> taxes than you do, they *do* help take care of those roads.
>>
>> And nowhere did I suggest that nobody pay any taxes - so your comment
>> is either ignorant or intentionally misleading.
>
> Ah, so you are for taxes, even though they are the same as a pay cut.
> OK.
Taxes aren't the same as a pay cut. *Raising* taxes is the same as a pay
cut.
I am not for raising taxes.
Snit
on 10/29/08 10:20 AM:
Ah, but if raising taxes is the same as a pay cut then taxes at all are the
same as a lower wage.
Are you for lower wages?
--
... something I'm committed to work on, focusing increasing amounts of
resources of Canonical on figuring out on how we actually move the desktop
experience forward to compete with Mac OS X.
Snit
on 10/29/08 10:19 AM:
Do you think the low wage earners serve a need in the economy?
--
The answer to the water shortage is to dilute it.
KK
> "KK" <_K...@furburger.net> stated in post
> vX0Ok.20322$UD6....@newsfe07.iad on 10/29/08 10:20 AM:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 10:04:18 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> First of all, since Microsoft pays several orders of magnitude more
>>>> taxes than you do, they *do* help take care of those roads.
>>>>
>>>> And nowhere did I suggest that nobody pay any taxes - so your comment
>>>> is either ignorant or intentionally misleading.
>>>
>>> Ah, so you are for taxes, even though they are the same as a pay cut.
>>> OK.
>>
>> Taxes aren't the same as a pay cut. *Raising* taxes is the same as a
>> pay cut.
>>
>> I am not for raising taxes.
>
> Ah, but if raising taxes is the same as a pay cut then taxes at all are
> the same as a lower wage.
>
> Are you for lower wages?
It seems that you think you're being clever, but you're really not.
"Taxes at all" (sic) is only the same as a lower wage when compared to
"no taxes at all".
I'll repeat that I am not calling for no taxes.
It's a different conversation, but I'd absolutely say that taxes that
disincentivize income are *not* the way to go if we were making it up
from scratch.
KK
If they do, someone will pay them for it. If nobody does, then they
don't.
Snit
on 10/29/08 10:29 AM:
...
>>> Taxes aren't the same as a pay cut. *Raising* taxes is the same as a
>>> pay cut.
>>>
>>> I am not for raising taxes.
>>
>> Ah, but if raising taxes is the same as a pay cut then taxes at all are
>> the same as a lower wage.
>>
>> Are you for lower wages?
>
> It seems that you think you're being clever, but you're really not.
I am being *obvious*, not clever. The fact you think such obvious comments
are likely to be seen as "clever" that says a lot about you.
> "Taxes at all" (sic) is only the same as a lower wage when compared to
> "no taxes at all".
Of course. I told you it was obvious!
To be taxed, at all, is the same as getting less money, right? The same
argument against raising taxes, based on it being like a pay cut, works for
*any* taxes - the worker still makes less money for their efforts.
> I'll repeat that I am not calling for no taxes.
So you agree there should be some taxes... so then the question becomes how
they are to be split between tax payers. The fact of where they are now,
above or below that level, seems a silly basis for deciding what would be
best in the long run. Of course you do not want to turn a system on its
head over night, if that is decided what is needed, but to not work towards
what is possibly best simply because it would increase taxes for some is
just silly.
> It's a different conversation, but I'd absolutely say that taxes that
> disincentivize income are *not* the way to go if we were making it up
> from scratch.
*All* income taxes " disincentivize" income; they *all* reduce the amount of
take-home pay a worker gets. All. Even if they are the same or lower than
what the person pays now... or higher.
--
I can't say we will succeed at this, but we will make a significant attempt
to elevate the Linux desktop to the point where it is as good or better than
Apple.
Snit
on 10/29/08 10:37 AM:
If they are not being paid then they are not low-wage earners... they are
not wage earners.
So, again, do you think low wage earners serve a need in the economy?
--
"If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson
KK
> "KK" <_K...@furburger.net> stated in post
> X31Ok.20327$UD6....@newsfe07.iad on 10/29/08 10:29 AM:
>
> ...
>>>> Taxes aren't the same as a pay cut. *Raising* taxes is the same as a
>>>> pay cut.
>>>>
>>>> I am not for raising taxes.
>>>
>>> Ah, but if raising taxes is the same as a pay cut then taxes at all
>>> are the same as a lower wage.
>>>
>>> Are you for lower wages?
>>
>> It seems that you think you're being clever, but you're really not.
>
> I am being *obvious*, not clever. The fact you think such obvious
> comments are likely to be seen as "clever" that says a lot about you.
Whoa there, ad hominem man. You started off your sentence with "Ah" like
you'd just realized something profound.
>
>> "Taxes at all" (sic) is only the same as a lower wage when compared to
>> "no taxes at all".
>
> Of course. I told you it was obvious!
>
> To be taxed, at all, is the same as getting less money, right? The same
> argument against raising taxes, based on it being like a pay cut, works
> for *any* taxes - the worker still makes less money for their efforts.
Arguing against an increase in something is not the same thing as arguing
for the elimination of something. That leap you're making is pretty dumb.
>> I'll repeat that I am not calling for no taxes.
>
> So you agree there should be some taxes... so then the question becomes
> how they are to be split between tax payers. The fact of where they are
> now, above or below that level, seems a silly basis for deciding what
> would be best in the long run. Of course you do not want to turn a
> system on its head over night, if that is decided what is needed, but to
> not work towards what is possibly best simply because it would increase
> taxes for some is just silly.
>
>> It's a different conversation, but I'd absolutely say that taxes that
>> disincentivize income are *not* the way to go if we were making it up
>> from scratch.
>
> *All* income taxes " disincentivize" income;
No shit. What I meant, and what I said, was that income taxes are a
foolish way to generate revenue.
> they *all* reduce the
> amount of take-home pay a worker gets. All. Even if they are the same
> or lower than what the person pays now... or higher.
thanks, Captain Obvious.
KK
> "KK" <_K...@furburger.net> stated in post
> Nb1Ok.20330$UD6....@newsfe07.iad on 10/29/08 10:37 AM:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 10:27:29 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> "KK" <_K...@furburger.net> stated in post
>>> SW0Ok.20321$UD6....@newsfe07.iad on 10/29/08 10:19 AM:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 09:49:57 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The idea, though, that a multimillion or multibillion dollar company
>>>>> and Mr. AvergeJoe enter into agreements as equals is, well, a bit
>>>>> silly. Clearly one has far, far more power in the relationship than
>>>>> does the other.
>>>>
>>>> No kidding. Until someone is educated and experienced enough to be
>>>> valuable to someone else, they ... won't be. That's the way it
>>>> *should* work, because it provide a *huge* incentive to improve one's
>>>> prospects, something which is still pretty easy to do in this
>>>> country.
>>>
>>> Do you think the low wage earners serve a need in the economy?
>>
>> If they do, someone will pay them for it. If nobody does, then they
>> don't.
>
> If they are not being paid then they are not low-wage earners... they
> are not wage earners.
There was a first half of that sentence as well. Maybe you missed it.
> So, again, do you think low wage earners serve a need in the economy?
I don't know exactly what "serve a need in the economy" means, or what
you're defining "low wage" as.
If "low wage" means "below minimum wage" then your question (I think) is
"is any job worth less than $6.55 per hour".
Snit
on 10/29/08 12:12 PM:
...
>>>>> Taxes aren't the same as a pay cut. *Raising* taxes is the same as a
>>>>> pay cut.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not for raising taxes.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, but if raising taxes is the same as a pay cut then taxes at all
>>>> are the same as a lower wage.
>>>>
>>>> Are you for lower wages?
>>>
>>> It seems that you think you're being clever, but you're really not.
>>
>> I am being *obvious*, not clever. The fact you think such obvious
>> comments are likely to be seen as "clever" that says a lot about you.
>
> Whoa there, ad hominem man. You started off your sentence with "Ah" like
> you'd just realized something profound.
<http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ah>
-----
An expression of relief, relaxation, comfort, confusion,
understanding, wonder, awe, et cetera according to uttered
inflection.
-----
Ah, you are looking to play semantic games and leave the topic behind. Sad,
but not uncommon for folks who know they have lost any footing as they try
to defend their views.
>>> "Taxes at all" (sic) is only the same as a lower wage when compared to
>>> "no taxes at all".
>>
>> Of course. I told you it was obvious!
>>
>> To be taxed, at all, is the same as getting less money, right? The same
>> argument against raising taxes, based on it being like a pay cut, works
>> for *any* taxes - the worker still makes less money for their efforts.
>
> Arguing against an increase in something is not the same thing as arguing
> for the elimination of something. That leap you're making is pretty dumb.
If we are looking to find the best level of something it is silly to base it
on the arbitrary level it currently is at!
>>> I'll repeat that I am not calling for no taxes.
>>
>> So you agree there should be some taxes... so then the question becomes
>> how they are to be split between tax payers. The fact of where they are
>> now, above or below that level, seems a silly basis for deciding what
>> would be best in the long run. Of course you do not want to turn a
>> system on its head over night, if that is decided what is needed, but to
>> not work towards what is possibly best simply because it would increase
>> taxes for some is just silly.
>>
>>> It's a different conversation, but I'd absolutely say that taxes that
>>> disincentivize income are *not* the way to go if we were making it up
>>> from scratch.
>>
>> *All* income taxes " disincentivize" income;
>
> No shit. What I meant, and what I said, was that income taxes are a
> foolish way to generate revenue.
Are you against all taxes on income?
>> they *all* reduce the
>> amount of take-home pay a worker gets. All. Even if they are the same
>> or lower than what the person pays now... or higher.
>
> thanks, Captain Obvious.
So your argument fails to explain why an increase is bad... unless you think
all taxes on income are bad.
--
God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?
Snit
on 10/29/08 12:18 PM:
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 12:10:25 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> "KK" <_K...@furburger.net> stated in post
>> Nb1Ok.20330$UD6....@newsfe07.iad on 10/29/08 10:37 AM:
>>
>>> On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 10:27:29 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> "KK" <_K...@furburger.net> stated in post
>>>> SW0Ok.20321$UD6....@newsfe07.iad on 10/29/08 10:19 AM:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 09:49:57 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The idea, though, that a multimillion or multibillion dollar company
>>>>>> and Mr. AvergeJoe enter into agreements as equals is, well, a bit
>>>>>> silly. Clearly one has far, far more power in the relationship than
>>>>>> does the other.
>>>>>
>>>>> No kidding. Until someone is educated and experienced enough to be
>>>>> valuable to someone else, they ... won't be. That's the way it
>>>>> *should* work, because it provide a *huge* incentive to improve one's
>>>>> prospects, something which is still pretty easy to do in this
>>>>> country.
>>>>
>>>> Do you think the low wage earners serve a need in the economy?
>>>
>>> If they do, someone will pay them for it. If nobody does, then they
>>> don't.
>>
>> If they are not being paid then they are not low-wage earners... they
>> are not wage earners.
>
> There was a first half of that sentence as well. Maybe you missed it.
There is no "if" needed to answer the question.
>
>> So, again, do you think low wage earners serve a need in the economy?
>
> I don't know exactly what "serve a need in the economy" means, or what
> you're defining "low wage" as.
But above you claimed to have answered the question!
>
> If "low wage" means "below minimum wage" then your question (I think) is
> "is any job worth less than $6.55 per hour".
I set no dollar limit. Now answer the question... if you can:
Do you think low wage earners serve a need in the economy?
--
When thinking changes your mind, that's philosophy.
When God changes your mind, that's faith.
When facts change your mind, that's science.
KK
> "KK" <_K...@furburger.net> stated in post
> mA2Ok.20342$UD6....@newsfe07.iad on 10/29/08 12:12 PM:
>
> ...
>>>>>> Taxes aren't the same as a pay cut. *Raising* taxes is the same as
>>>>>> a pay cut.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not for raising taxes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, but if raising taxes is the same as a pay cut then taxes at all
>>>>> are the same as a lower wage.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you for lower wages?
>>>>
>>>> It seems that you think you're being clever, but you're really not.
>>>
>>> I am being *obvious*, not clever. The fact you think such obvious
>>> comments are likely to be seen as "clever" that says a lot about you.
>>
>> Whoa there, ad hominem man. You started off your sentence with "Ah"
>> like you'd just realized something profound.
>
> <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ah>
> -----
> An expression of relief, relaxation, comfort, confusion,
> understanding, wonder, awe, et cetera according to uttered
> inflection.
> -----
>
> Ah, you are looking to play semantic games and leave the topic behind.
> Sad, but not uncommon for folks who know they have lost any footing as
> they try to defend their views.
Ah, but I *didn't* "leave the topic behind", did I? So there goes that
theory.
>
>>>> "Taxes at all" (sic) is only the same as a lower wage when compared
>>>> to "no taxes at all".
>>>
>>> Of course. I told you it was obvious!
>>>
>>> To be taxed, at all, is the same as getting less money, right? The
>>> same argument against raising taxes, based on it being like a pay cut,
>>> works for *any* taxes - the worker still makes less money for their
>>> efforts.
>>
>> Arguing against an increase in something is not the same thing as
>> arguing for the elimination of something. That leap you're making is
>> pretty dumb.
>
> If we are looking to find the best level of something it is silly to
> base it on the arbitrary level it currently is at!
We're talking about policy changes advocated by the presidential
candidates, not an academic discussion of "the best level of something".
Again: It does not follow that, because I oppose a tax increase, that I
oppose taxes altogether. I've repeated that several times now.
>
>>>> I'll repeat that I am not calling for no taxes.
>>>
>>> So you agree there should be some taxes... so then the question
>>> becomes how they are to be split between tax payers. The fact of
>>> where they are now, above or below that level, seems a silly basis for
>>> deciding what would be best in the long run. Of course you do not
>>> want to turn a system on its head over night, if that is decided what
>>> is needed, but to not work towards what is possibly best simply
>>> because it would increase taxes for some is just silly.
>>>
>>>> It's a different conversation, but I'd absolutely say that taxes that
>>>> disincentivize income are *not* the way to go if we were making it up
>>>> from scratch.
>>>
>>> *All* income taxes " disincentivize" income;
>>
>> No shit. What I meant, and what I said, was that income taxes are a
>> foolish way to generate revenue.
>
> Are you against all taxes on income?
It's not the best way to generate revenue. I don't care to start another
separate conversation with you.
>>> they *all* reduce the
>>> amount of take-home pay a worker gets. All. Even if they are the
>>> same or lower than what the person pays now... or higher.
>>
>> thanks, Captain Obvious.
>
> So your argument fails to explain why an increase is bad... unless you
> think all taxes on income are bad.
Jesus, you're really trying to hammer that round peg into the square hole
on this one.
Show me the specific words I said that you're claiming I didn't explain.
KK
I thought I did. Evidently I didn't, to your standards, so I'm asking
you to clarify your very vague question.
>>
>> If "low wage" means "below minimum wage" then your question (I think)
>> is "is any job worth less than $6.55 per hour".
>
> I set no dollar limit. Now answer the question... if you can:
>
> Do you think low wage earners serve a need in the economy?
- define "serve a need in the economy"
- define "low wage"
or ... don't bother responding.
GodHatesFez
Ha ha ha ha! Typical white guilt ridden Obamite. If you DARE criticize him
you are a racist. Funny how people who dog our next Vice President Sarah
Palin are not sexist.
Osama Obama is falling apart. His lead has fallen to single digits. People
are starting to see the foolishness of RAISING taxes when people and
companies are broke. Some of his staunchest supporters are waffling. The
Bradley Effect is going to save us.
You people in Detroit and LA better get ready for the violence when Barack
HUSSEIN Obama is defeated
--
McCain '08- Patriotism not Paternalism
UsurperTom
> he somehow thinks that reminding us about what FDR (a white guy) did 65 years ago to German-Americans
Actually, it was the Japanese-Americans who were interned during the
war.
Snit
on 10/29/08 12:43 PM:
Do you think low wage earners serve a need in the economy...
Use common definitions and stop dodging.
--
You really have to give credit to Apple for driving innovation.
Dale Houstman
poisoned rose wrote:
> libcrus...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>You probably think if there was no Iraq war (or no WW1), no Stock
>>Market crash (or no Great Depression) and everyone blaming everything
>>on Bush and the Repubs (or blaming the Jews), that a black man with
>>virtually no experience (or an unemployed, homeless, high school
>>dropout) would be labeled a "messiah" (like the dude in Germany) and
>>would be elected President in 2008 (or Chancellor of Germany in 1933)
>>mainly on his oratory skills (like the German guy).
>
>
> My experience is that no one labels Obama "messiah" more than rabid
> Obama-bashers searching for reasons to flail at him.
My experience is that no one period labels Obama "messiah" except rabid
Obama-bashers searching for reasons to flail at him. Certainly there is
a lot of sentimental hyperbole out there amongst the Dems, but I've
never heard any Obama supporter go that far. It's a complete fabrication.
dmh
KK
>> - define "serve a need in the economy" - define "low wage"
>>
>> or ... don't bother responding.
>
> Do you think low wage earners serve a need in the economy...
>
> Use common definitions and stop dodging.
There's no "common definition" for "serve a need in the economy". I
asked if you meant what I thought would be the obvious defintion for "low
wage" and you told me you didn't.
You're asking a vague, subjective question that has no answer without
clarification.
I'll answer if you'll define those terms. I won't if you don't. Last
time I'll tell you.
KK
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
Snit
on 10/29/08 12:41 PM:
...
>>>>> "Taxes at all" (sic) is only the same as a lower wage when compared
>>>>> to "no taxes at all".
>>>>
>>>> Of course. I told you it was obvious!
>>>>
>>>> To be taxed, at all, is the same as getting less money, right? The
>>>> same argument against raising taxes, based on it being like a pay cut,
>>>> works for *any* taxes - the worker still makes less money for their
>>>> efforts.
>>>
>>> Arguing against an increase in something is not the same thing as
>>> arguing for the elimination of something. That leap you're making is
>>> pretty dumb.
>>
>> If we are looking to find the best level of something it is silly to
>> base it on the arbitrary level it currently is at!
>
> We're talking about policy changes advocated by the presidential
> candidates, not an academic discussion of "the best level of something".
Do you think that policy changes in terms of taxation should, when possible,
be based on working toward making things betters... on working toward
setting taxes to the best level?
I do and, I admit, just took this as a given. I did not consider that you
might have different assumptions - my mistake.
> Again: It does not follow that, because I oppose a tax increase, that I
> oppose taxes altogether. I've repeated that several times now.
You keep saying that as though you thought you were showing comprehension of
my comments. Odd.
...
>>> No shit. What I meant, and what I said, was that income taxes are a
>>> foolish way to generate revenue.
>>
>> Are you against all taxes on income?
>
> It's not the best way to generate revenue.
So, apparently, you are, at least in an ideal system.
> I don't care to start another
> separate conversation with you.
I am asking you to explain your views on the current topic: income taxes.
You have said you think it is unwise to raise them, but your reasoning
applies equally well to having them at all - in both cases it reduces the
take home pay of the worker.
>>>> they *all* reduce the amount of take-home pay a worker gets. All. Even if
>>>> they are the same or lower than what the person pays now... or higher.
>>>>
>>> thanks, Captain Obvious.
>>>
>> So your argument fails to explain why an increase is bad... unless you think
>> all taxes on income are bad.
>>
> Jesus, you're really trying to hammer that round peg into the square hole on
> this one.
>
> Show me the specific words I said that you're claiming I didn't explain.
You really are not very good at defending or even explaining your position
on income taxes. Frankly I wish you were better at it... it would make for
a more interesting conversation.
Snit
on 10/29/08 1:09 PM:
...
>> Do you think low wage earners serve a need in the economy...
>>
>> Use common definitions and stop dodging.
>
> There's no "common definition" for "serve a need in the economy".
So without my assistance you cannot figure out if something is good or bad
for the economy. OK. That puts your claims into perspective...
In the end you have *no* idea if low wage earners serve a need in the
economy or not. Ok. The question has been answered; your answer, clearly,
is you do not know.
...
--
"Uh... ask me after we ship the next version of Windows [laughs] then I'll
be more open to give you a blunt answer." - Bill Gates
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/gates/>
KK
And since you're being a douche and trying a junior-high debate trick to
force me to answer questions you're not defining, I'm not playing.
If you want to have a conversation, try to have one. Treat me like a
hostile witness and I'll respond accordingly.
BaJoRi
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C52DCD09.DD044%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <sco...@sbcglobal.net> stated in post
> w0%Nk.3537$Ei5...@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com on 10/29/08 8:11 AM:
>
>>
>> "KK" <_K...@furburger.net> wrote in message
>> news:hq_Nk.15898$o57....@newsfe02.iad...
>>> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 21:57:11 -0500, Elvis Kabong wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>>> , the roads and
>>>> infrasctructure is in disrepair, the cost of living is sky-high,
>>>
>>> Increased taxes increase cost-of-living the same as a pay cut or a price
>>> hike.
>>
>> You let us know when Microsoft starts taking
>> care of the roads in front of your house.
>
> *also*
> the same as a price cut. Yeah, yeah, I know - big businesses hire people
> out of the kindness of their hearts, not based on business needs, and if
> you
> make the minimum wage keep pace with inflation they will no longer have
> any
> reason to hire people. Heck, if they actually had to pay people they
> would
> not be able to pay the CEO's several hundred times more than the general
> worker.
Speaking of minimum wage increases, why did Nancy Pelosi place a rider on
the minimum wage increase that exempted American Samoa from that increase?
Could it be because Star-kist Tuna, with headquarters in Pelosi's district,
has 75% of it's non white-collar workforce on that island? Could it also be
due to the fact that Pelosi's husband owns about $17 million dollars in
stock in Star-Kist's parent corporation? Amazing how Pelosi screams about
the impoverished, unless it is brown people out in the middle of the
Pacific.
BaJoRi
> "KK" <_K...@furburger.net> stated in post 7m%Nk.20297$UD6....@newsfe07.iad
> on 10/29/08 8:32 AM:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 08:19:21 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> "Stephen Cowell" <sco...@sbcglobal.net> stated in post
>>> w0%Nk.3537$Ei5...@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com on 10/29/08 8:11 AM:
>>>
>>>
>>>> "KK" <_K...@furburger.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:hq_Nk.15898$o57....@newsfe02.iad...
>>>>> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 21:57:11 -0500, Elvis Kabong wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> , the roads and
>>>>>> infrasctructure is in disrepair, the cost of living is sky-high,
>>>>>
>>>>> Increased taxes increase cost-of-living the same as a pay cut or a
>>>>> price hike.
>>>>
>>>> You let us know when Microsoft starts taking care of the roads in front
>>>> of your house.
>>>
>>> Not to mention, a lack of increase in minimum wage as prices go up is
>>> *also* the same as a price cut.
>>
>
> Yes, I did. Thank you.
>
>> But, given inflation, *any* lack of pay hike is a pay cut. The minimum
>> wage isn't special in that regard.
>
> Sure... though when the minimum wage is increased it tends to lead to an
> increase in pay at levels at least somewhat above the minimum wage.
The minimum wage should NEVER be set to inflation. You start to lose all
incentive for people to look for jobs beyond the minimum wage, or work on
their skills to be able to qualify for positions above the minimum wage. .
>
>> To say that there should be a hike in the minimum wage is to say that
>> there is no job worth less than $6.55 per hour. Whether you believe that
>> to be true or not, the fact is that raising the minimum wage will result
>> in a loss of jobs, most of them near the bottom of the pay scale.
>
> There are generally exceptions and, of course, the minimum wage used to be
> much higher, in corrected dollars. People still hired the low wage
> workers.
> I am not saying there would be no examples of this, but I simply do not
> believe that - in general - companies are hiring simply to create jobs and
> not because of business needs. Yes, I get that there is a balance and
> that
> if you demand they pay burger-flippers (or whoever) the same wage as the
> CEO
> that this is unworkable... but if you compare CEO pay, low-wage pay, and
> inflation things are pretty heavily out of whack.
>
>>> Yeah, yeah, I know - big businesses hire people out of the kindness of
>>> their
>>> hearts, not based on business needs,
>>>
>> That's stupid. They hire people based on business needs.
>
> I was being sarcastic... that is my point. The claim that businesses will
> toss a large number of their workers on the street if they have to pay
> them
> a reasonable wage is just silly... these people are hired because there is
> a
> business need.
Not always.
>
>>> and if you make the minimum wage keep pace with inflation they
>>> will no longer have any reason to hire people.
>>
>> If a task isn't worth $6.55 + the associated taxes and expenses, they
>> won't hire someone to do it.
>
> If you do not have the low wage workers you, often, do not have a
> business.
> As you said: there is a business *need* they are filling.
Correct. And if you raise the wage too high, instead of having three people
making minimum, working 35 hours per week, that will get cut to 2 people
making minimum working 45 hours per week, who are expected to make up the
work load of the third person, who was laid off. And that is from
experience, as I was in college working in a minimum wage position during an
increase in the minimum wage. The scenario I described is EXACTLY what
happened.
KK
> "KK" <_K...@furburger.net> stated in post
> kq3Ok.20362$UD6....@newsfe07.iad on 10/29/08 1:09 PM:
>
> ...
>>> Do you think low wage earners serve a need in the economy...
>>>
>>> Use common definitions and stop dodging.
>>
>> There's no "common definition" for "serve a need in the economy".
>
> So without my assistance you cannot figure out if something is good or
> bad for the economy. OK. That puts your claims into perspective...
>
> In the end you have *no* idea if low wage earners serve a need in the
> economy or not. Ok. The question has been answered; your answer,
> clearly, is you do not know.
And *that* is what I meant when I said you were being "douchy".
Asking for clarification of a vaguely and stupidly worded question isn't
requring "assistance"; it's holding your hand through putting together a
direct question that has an answer - something yours isn't and doesn't.
BaJoRi
> "KK" <_K...@furburger.net> stated in post vX0Ok.20322$UD6....@newsfe07.iad
> on 10/29/08 10:20 AM:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 10:04:18 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> First of all, since Microsoft pays several orders of magnitude more
>>>> taxes than you do, they *do* help take care of those roads.
>>>>
>>>> And nowhere did I suggest that nobody pay any taxes - so your comment
>>>> is either ignorant or intentionally misleading.
>>>
>>> Ah, so you are for taxes, even though they are the same as a pay cut.
>>> OK.
>>
>> Taxes aren't the same as a pay cut. *Raising* taxes is the same as a pay
>> cut.
>>
>> I am not for raising taxes.
>
> Ah, but if raising taxes is the same as a pay cut then taxes at all are
> the
> same as a lower wage.
>
No, because you accept a position the taxes are already in place, and taken
into consideration.
Snit
on 10/29/08 1:34 PM:
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:21:43 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> "KK" <_K...@furburger.net> stated in post
>> kq3Ok.20362$UD6....@newsfe07.iad on 10/29/08 1:09 PM:
>>
>> ...
>>>> Do you think low wage earners serve a need in the economy...
>>>>
>>>> Use common definitions and stop dodging.
>>>
>>> There's no "common definition" for "serve a need in the economy".
>>
>> So without my assistance you cannot figure out if something is good or
>> bad for the economy. OK. That puts your claims into perspective...
>>
>> In the end you have *no* idea if low wage earners serve a need in the
>> economy or not. Ok. The question has been answered; your answer,
>> clearly, is you do not know.
>
> And *that* is what I meant when I said you were being "douchy".
I asked you a question you, clearly, do not know how to answer. I have
noted this. If you cannot help but call me names in light of this that is a
weakness of yours - not mine.
...
--
Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value.
--Albert Einstein
Bernie Woodham
> would be elected President in 2008 (or Chancellor of Germany in 1933)
> mainly on his oratory skills (like the German guy).
>
Hitler was not elected Chancellor, he was appointed.
Snit
on 10/29/08 1:22 PM:
>>> Jesus, you're really trying to hammer that round peg into the square
>>> hole on this one.
>>>
>>> Show me the specific words I said that you're claiming I didn't
>>> explain.
>>
>> You really are not very good at defending or even explaining your
>> position on income taxes. Frankly I wish you were better at it... it
>> would make for a more interesting conversation.
>
> And since you're being a douche and trying a junior-high debate trick to
> force me to answer questions you're not defining, I'm not playing.
>
> If you want to have a conversation, try to have one. Treat me like a
> hostile witness and I'll respond accordingly.
You stated you were against tax increases because you feel they are just
like lowering someone's pay. We both agreed that this was true in the same
way that any taxes on someone's income is like reducing their pay from what
it would be without taxes. We also agreed that inflation, without equal
increases in pay, is also like a pay cut.
You then, when pressed, acknowledged that you did not think taxes on income
were the best way to tax, though you have not offered any alternatives (such
as sales taxes or something else). You have also been somewhat inconsistent
if you are for or against government changes that lead to pay cuts: in the
case of raised taxes you are against it but in the case of the reduction in
pay caused by a stagnant minimum wage you are least seem to be *for* the pay
cuts. I find it odd to be *for* pay cuts for lower income earners but
against them for the wealthy.
So you are for pay cuts for the low wage earner, or at least not
particularly against them, but you cannot figure out what your views are on
the value of the low wage earner for the economy as a whole.
I can accept these things and do not hold you in low regard for your
views... we all have areas where we have beliefs but have not really thought
through all the details.
I appreciate the conversation... but believe I have learned as much about
your views on the topic as you are willing to share.
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
Snit
UN3Ok.205552$KY3.1...@fe02.news.easynews.com on 10/29/08 1:35 PM:
As I wrote:
So you agree there should be some taxes... so then the
question becomes how they are to be split between tax payers.
The fact of where they are now, above or below that level,
seems a silly basis for deciding what would be best in the
long run. Of course you do not want to turn a system on its
head over night, if that is decided what is needed, but to
not work towards what is possibly best simply because it
would increase taxes for some is just silly.
--
What do you call people who are afraid of Santa Claus? Claustrophobic.
KK
> "KK" <_K...@furburger.net> stated in post
> nN3Ok.20375$UD6....@newsfe07.iad on 10/29/08 1:34 PM:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:21:43 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> "KK" <_K...@furburger.net> stated in post
>>> kq3Ok.20362$UD6....@newsfe07.iad on 10/29/08 1:09 PM:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>>> Do you think low wage earners serve a need in the economy...
>>>>>
>>>>> Use common definitions and stop dodging.
>>>>
>>>> There's no "common definition" for "serve a need in the economy".
>>>
>>> So without my assistance you cannot figure out if something is good or
>>> bad for the economy. OK. That puts your claims into perspective...
>>>
>>> In the end you have *no* idea if low wage earners serve a need in the
>>> economy or not. Ok. The question has been answered; your answer,
>>> clearly, is you do not know.
>>
>> And *that* is what I meant when I said you were being "douchy".
>
> I asked you a question you, clearly, do not know how to answer.
And anyone who can read your question can see that it's not answerable.
How about this: *you* answer it. Answer it clearly and in a
substantiated way without referencing or defining that which I asked you
to clarify.
> I have
> noted this. If you cannot help but call me names in light of this that
> is a weakness of yours - not mine.
Yes. I will demonstrate more of my weakness shortly if you'd like.
Snit
...
>> Yes, I did. Thank you.
>>
>>> But, given inflation, *any* lack of pay hike is a pay cut. The minimum
>>> wage isn't special in that regard.
>>
>> Sure... though when the minimum wage is increased it tends to lead to an
>> increase in pay at levels at least somewhat above the minimum wage.
>
> The minimum wage should NEVER be set to inflation. You start to lose all
> incentive for people to look for jobs beyond the minimum wage, or work on
> their skills to be able to qualify for positions above the minimum wage. .
You think people *want* to be "stuck" in minimum wage jobs?
How about tying it to average CEO pay. As CEO pay goes up, so does the
minimum wage. You could even have this be on a per company basis: if a
company has X employees than the lowest earning person can make no less
than, say, Y% of the CEO (or the average pay of the top tier). This way
CEO's of large companies would make more money... clearly not an ideal
system in that it encourages corporations to merge and grow... but worth
considering.
>>> To say that there should be a hike in the minimum wage is to say that there
>>> is no job worth less than $6.55 per hour. Whether you believe that to be
>>> true or not, the fact is that raising the minimum wage will result in a loss
>>> of jobs, most of them near the bottom of the pay scale.
>>>
>> There are generally exceptions and, of course, the minimum wage used to be
>> much higher, in corrected dollars. People still hired the low wage workers.
>> I am not saying there would be no examples of this, but I simply do not
>> believe that - in general - companies are hiring simply to create jobs and
>> not because of business needs. Yes, I get that there is a balance and that
>> if you demand they pay burger-flippers (or whoever) the same wage as the CEO
>> that this is unworkable... but if you compare CEO pay, low-wage pay, and
>> inflation things are pretty heavily out of whack.
>>
>>>> Yeah, yeah, I know - big businesses hire people out of the kindness of
>>>> their hearts, not based on business needs,
>>>>
>>> That's stupid. They hire people based on business needs.
>>>
>> I was being sarcastic... that is my point. The claim that businesses will
>> toss a large number of their workers on the street if they have to pay them a
>> reasonable wage is just silly... these people are hired because there is a
>> business need.
>>
> Not always.
Well, hence why I say "large number". There may be some people who are
hired simply because a corporation wants to give people jobs.
>>>> and if you make the minimum wage keep pace with inflation they will no
>>>> longer have any reason to hire people.
>>>>
>>> If a task isn't worth $6.55 + the associated taxes and expenses, they won't
>>> hire someone to do it.
>>>
>> If you do not have the low wage workers you, often, do not have a business.
>> As you said: there is a business *need* they are filling.
>>
> Correct. And if you raise the wage too high, instead of having three people
> making minimum, working 35 hours per week, that will get cut to 2 people
> making minimum working 45 hours per week, who are expected to make up the work
> load of the third person, who was laid off. And that is from experience, as I
> was in college working in a minimum wage position during an increase in the
> minimum wage. The scenario I described is EXACTLY what happened.
So the business became more efficient... or it did not and eventually they
had to hire a third person again. Or it failed in the market and another
company hired the three people.
The idea that many people will work for very, very little if they have no
options does not mean it is the best thing for society to have many people
working for almost nothing.
--
Projects should really look to the whole Linux desktop and see how they can
appeal to both sides.
Snit
Irrelevant to the discussion... but, if true, of course that does not seem
right... I would love to hear from someone who has a different take on the
situation.
--
The direct use of physical force is so poor a solution to the problem of
limited resources that it is commonly employed only by small children and
great nations. - David Friedman
Steve Carroll
> > nG2Ok.20347$UD6.19...@newsfe07.iad on 10/29/08 12:18 PM:
>
> >> On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 12:10:25 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
> >>> Nb1Ok.20330$UD6.3...@newsfe07.iad on 10/29/08 10:37 AM:
>
> >>>> On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 10:27:29 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
> >>>>> SW0Ok.20321$UD6.17...@newsfe07.iad on 10/29/08 10:19 AM:
Snit is a troll... and this is how he trolls... by using vague terms
he refuses
to define as he attempts to get you to commit to something he will
toss
back at you later. He takes things out of context, purposefully
misrepresents
the positions of others, issues ad hominem attacks and many other
little
tricks. He appears, on the surface, to be somewhat reasonable for a
few
posts but it quickly degenerates.
FYI here are what a few people have said about Snit:
--
1- Adam Kesher: "Steve, IIRC Sandman's website has a member area and a
login. If you forget your password, you can ask it to e-mail it to
you,
and a bot will send an e-mail.
*That* is the e-mail Snit got from Sandman's website, and yes he's
that
fucked in the head and starved for attention that he'd claim it to be
an
e-mail from Sandman himself. So, don't get sucked into his little
circus.
The e-mail, in this particular instance, did probably originate from
Sandman.net."
2- Alan Baker: "People's perceptions of you are *formed* by behaviour
and not withstanding your occasional on topic posts, I wish you'd
leave
too. Please note that despite the amazing silliness that is Edwin, I
have never made the same wish of him."
3- Andrew J. Brehm: "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you
are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting the
newsgroup."
4- AZ Nomad: "The fact that you routinely change your headers to
weasel
out of killfiles proves that you're an asshole."
5- Andy/news/nospam: "Why do you keep these things up, Snit? Why not
just let them go away and show how responsible a member of CSMA you
are?
You could show your enemies up by being better than then, rise above
the
low level you so obviously dislike. Anything, just stop...."
6- B.B.: "Does the From: header contain the string "Snit"? If yes,
then
troll. Otherwise, maybe. Dunno why I had my KF on you set to expire,
but
it's fixed now."
7- bobinnv: "I learned some time ago how much better this group can be
if you kill file Snit. I have never understood why more people don't
do
the same.."
8- Bob S: "This has always been pretty much a free-for-all group, but
since Snit showed up, its become almost impossible to have a decent
discussion about anything.
The solution is to NOT REPLY TO SNIT. But for some reason, some people
just can't stop feeding him."
9- ?b? unny: "snit makes me sad."
10- buzz off: "Snit is obviously mentally ill..."
11- chrisv (cola): "No, she called him "shit", and rightly so, for
they
way he was so ignominiously birthed into a toilet at the bus depot,
and
simply refused to die, despite repeated flushes.
It's now far too late to *flush* him, but we can still *plonk* him..."
12- C Lund: "Snit is not my responsibility. Maybe it's time for you to
learn how to use your kill-filter. I am assuming, of course, that your
Usenet browser has a kill-filter."
13- Code Orange: "Then why post it? What need is there for you to
"win"
an argument? They don't like you, you don't like them. Why must you
keep
this up? What results are you expecting?"
14- Dawg Tail: "You've already apologized for having already misread
what I had previously written. What makes you think that you're
correctly understanding what I'm writting now. You've got a history of
reading into things what you wanted people to have said instead of
what
they really said.
I suggest you get over this limitation of yours. It's making you look
foolish."
Dawg Tail: "PC advocates, Mac advocates, Linux advocates. Almost all
of
them are making similar claims about Snit. When you have so many
diverse
people who share a common perception where do you think the problem
lies? With Snit? Or almost everyone else? The answer doesn't require
an
advanced degree to figure out."
15- Dave Fritzinger: "Snit, please go away. Get a life, meet a woman,
do
something, but please, please, please, GO AWAY!!!! "
16- Donald L McDaniel: "Jesus, snit. You're a teacher. I thought you
knew what a metaphor was, and could recognize one when it was
presented
to you. I guess I had too much confidence in you."
17- ed: "snit, you continually amaze me with how much of a liar and
loser you are. you may notice a semi-regular pattern with me where i
stop responding to your posts for stretches at a time, then start up
responding as if you were a normal person. i suppose it's tough for
the
magnitude of your 'loserdom' to stick, so it loses some of it's
sharpness when i stop responding to you. you almost always start
responding back in a semi normal way, but inevitably degenerate. it's
once again that time. i can only ask that you pass my condolences to
your wife and unborn child for having to put up with such a dishonest
fool as yourself. (well, if your wife is a loser as well, just pass
those condolences to the rug-rat to be; if not, double
condolences to her). "
18- Edwin: "You've got to be out of your mind, Snit. You're the worst
troll this group has ever seen. You're a liar and a forger, and you've
almost destroyed this group single-handedly. For you to post a list of
out of context arguments, and lies, and forgeries about your enemies
labled as a "peace effort" has to be one of the craziest stunts you've
pulled. It's all about your sick need for attention, your need to be
center stage at all times. You'd publicly eat dog turd if you thought
it
would make people look at you."
19- Elijah Baley: "Seriously, Snit, you need psychiatric help. Go see
a
doctor."
20- Elizabot v2.0.2: "I see you were unable to respond to the points
in
my post and you are back to your repetitious regurgitation mode. How
childishly typical of you, Snit. "
21- fibercut: "That is the problem. In the years I have been coming to
CSMA I have seen in the past year a real hatred among people, besides
the typical Mac vs. Windows typical argument. I feel that it is like
being in a room of really young children trying there best to best the
other person. The one common thing among all of this seems to be you.
I
hate to be like this, but facts are facts. You seem to be in the
middle
of a great percentage of arguments. CSMA has become less about Macs
and
more about "look everybody, I think he lied". Is there no end then all
this picking at each other on such a personal level. CSMA has always
been al little adversarial but you have personally crank it up to the
point that this place is no longer fun. Congratulations on stopping
CSMA
and making this place your own personal
circus."
22- George Graves: "Jason. You have started an argument with the Snit
(AKA Michael Glasser), this should not be done. He will drive you
crazy
with his twisted logic, his deep-rooted need to be ALWAYS right at any
cost. He will move goalposts, set up strawmen, and bore you into
submission with his endless pedanticism. The only way to engage him is
to hit and run. NEVER engage him, it's a futile, empty procedure that
will only anger you and feed him. Take my advice and STAY AWAY!"
23- gimme_this_gimme_t...@yahoo.com: "Hitting the vodka tonight Snit?"
24- Greycloud: "You really shouldn't lie like that. Everyone else
notices that you are not honest and you have no honor."
25- Henry Flam: "Who gives a damn about this shit? Snit, once in a
while, I make the mistake in thinking that that you are starting to
make
sense in your posts; I tend to agree with your politics. Then you post
stuff like this and it destroys any respect that I have for you."
26- Heywood Mogroot: "*plonk*"
27- Jamie Hart (cola): "It seems that since you are unable to offer
support for your statements, you're reduced to personal attacks on me.
Incidentally, anyone reading this post can see that I have offered no
straw men, and have only asked you to explain how the things you state
as facts can be true. I'm really sorry that you're taking this
attitude,
the topic is an interesting one and I thought you might have some
insights. I've snipped the rest, since you dislike long posts and
avoid
answering any of the questions I asked by saying everything was just
repeated. "
28- Jason McNorton: "You're one of the many, many paranoid people on
usenet that should be confined most likely. You sit there and refresh
your screen endlessly. You post the same nonsense over and over.
Either
you're a super troll, or you're a super mess."
29- JEDIDIAH (cola): "You're simply full of shit."
30- Jeff B.: "Yo, Snit. We're not pals. I think you're a git."
31- Jeff Hoppe: "This is a Macintosh Advocacy newsgroup. Not a 12-step
recovery plan. Your medical problems or conditions won't help me
achieve
a greater understanding of my Mac. In fact, it detracts from it and
those kinds of discussions have no place in a newsgroup such as this."
32- Jesus: "Really, Snit. It's annoying. What are you accomplishing
besides being annoying? Is that your goal?"
33- Jim Lee Jr.: "Snit, read the thread's title, is Bush mentioned in
it? You (and Carroll) ought to learn to stay on topic and not hijack
threads."
34- Jim Polaski: "Why is it that nearly every thread you're involved
in
seems like it turns into some tit-for-tat, dozens of responses to OT
things and garbage?"
35- Jim Richardson (cola): "And yet again, Snit runs away, rather than
actually provide evidence for his claims. Par for the course I
suppose."
36- Joey Jojo Junior Shabadoo: "and Snithead has even farther to fall
-
in a few weeks he'll be out on the street after midnight, yelling at
passersby 'sucky sucky, $2...'"
37- John C. Randolph: "You're nothing but a troll yourself. What are
you
bitching about?"
38- JohnOfArc (cola): "I'm not sure "troll" does it justice- more like
a
black hole! But hey, if we all promise to never again even entertain
an
unkind thought re Apple, will you take it back and lock it up?
Please??"
39- John Q. Public: "I have not been bothered to read Snit's postings
since I figured out who he is. I don't bother to filter his posts, I
just consider the source and skip to the next one when I see his
name."
40- John Slade: "I don't get posts from Snit. I wouldn't be shocked
that
he has some kind of disorder. He made up stuff about being a computer
repairman and teacher. He's just plain loony and best ignored. Let him
deal with his disorder by medication. He's here to do one thing, get
attention from people. He says the crazy stuff just to get a reaction.
You say you like to beat him over the head. Well that's what he's
counting on, he says stuff he knows isn't true in hopes to get a rise
out of people like you. Ignore him, you won't regret it."
John Slade: "Snit, you have a enough problems as it is without adding
drinking booze to the list. How the hell did you manage to get out of
my
killfile? Oh well back into the cage you go, PLONK."
41- Josh McKee: "Snit, I assume there was some point to this posting?
Because I certainly cannot find it."
42- K E: "I haven't read this board for awhile but I see that even
though the trolls still roam free at least the worst troll of the lot
is
mostly being ignored by readers on this bb. If the few stragglers that
keep replying to him would just stop responding to Snit at all this
place could be worth coming back to. There's a good chance he'll pack
up
and take his trolling to more fertile ground."
43- Kelsey Bjarnason (cola): "Funny how you simply don't bother
reading
the posts that rip your entire thesis to bleeding gobbets of putrid
excrescence. Maybe some day you'll learn how to support your position,
instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and humming, hoping
it'll
all go away."
44- Ku Karlovsky (cola): "You repeatedly chastise others for ad
hominem
attacks while in the same sentence make your own ad hominem
attacks.You
make silly claims and then avoid the subject of your silliness. You're
a
liar and a hypocrite and you always have been."
45- Lars Trager: "Yes, you are stupid."
46- Lefty Bigfoot: "Okay, I tried to put up with it for a long time,
but
the few times you post something worth reading just aren't worth it
anymore. *plonk*"
47- Liam Slider (cola): "Maybe he's responding to the fact you've been
an annoying little fuckwit lately. You started out with the pretense
of
trying to be fair, but lately all there is from you in COLA is
trashtalk
about Linux and you acting every bit the troll."
48- Linonut (cola): "Snit is a Tholenoid."
"Indeed. Snit may be the first retraction of my general killfile
amnesty. The volume of cavilling, whining, foot-stomping,
back-tracking, goal-post shifting, and petulance generated by that
effete candy-ass beggars belief".
49- Lloyd Parsons: "Well, I don't know if Oxford is the most
cretinous,
I would think that would be reserved for Snit! ;-)"
50- Mark Kent (cola): "The problem with someone like Mr Glasser is the
same as it is with Mr Wong, even if he were to be honest now, it would
be impossible to determine where the honesty starts and the usual
dishonesty ends. In my primary school, one of the teachers was very
keen
on proverbs, and I recall her going over the "cry wolf" story.
Mr Glasser could "cry wolf" over and over now, and I would not come to
help him with his sheep, because I do not know any way of determining
if
he's ever telling the truth, or indeed, if he ever has."
51- Mayor of R'lyeh: "The fact is that he's probably pulling it to
this
post since its all about him and he managed to make me think about him
today. A friend of mine has a toddler. I went over to her house and
videotaped her kid doing a bunch of cute toddler stuff then burned a
DVD
of it for her. While we were watching the DVD her kid got mad. He got
mad because we quit making him the center of attention and made that
kid
on the tv the center of attention. He even ran up to the tv and tried
to
block our view of it. That's how Snit lives his whole life."
52- Michelle Ronn: "The real topic here is that one someone refutes
your
"facts", you run away and ignore them. Refuting your "facts" is easily
done in this case. I did it, and you ignored it. "
53- Mike: "Nonsense. I never see you "advocate" anything. All I see
you
doing is engage in endless semantic arguments with everyone.
You're the TholenBot of CSMA. BTW, that's *not* a compliment!"
54- Mike Dee: "I will no longer accuse you of lying here. Instead I
can
only say that you are a complete and delusional kook that happens to
inhabit CSMA for the time being. That you are unaware of how deranged
you actually behave further reinforces this notion. Please seek
professional help."
55- mmoore321: "Snit is a human car-accident and we are all
rubbernecking. We know it is bad form, but yet strangely curious.
Treat
him the same way, look but just keep moving on."
56- Mojo: "Actually, these facts piss everybody off because they are
off-topic, unnecessarily confrontational, extremely boring and clearly
show that you are crying out for attention."
57- Mr. Blonde: "Lastly, I can't help but comment on the fact that
your
obsession with Sandman has actually grown since you claimed to KF him.
Killfilling someone generally implies you're ignoring that person, yet
you piggyback onto virtually every reply to him here and and check his
website's validation status more often than most people check their
e-mail. These are not the actions of a mentally balanced individual."
58- MR_ED_of_Course: "Seriously, spend half a day at any pre-school or
kindergarten and see if the kids there can't teach you a thing or two
about social behavior."
59- Muahman: "Ummm, dude you post 1000 posts a day. 999 of them are
trolls, if anyone here has issues it's not me."
60- Nashton/Nasht0n: "Oh for crying out loud, if I wasn't convinced
that
snit is a total loser, and I rarely call people losers, I certainly am
now. Why bother responding to his stupidities anyway?"
61- New Bee: "Honest and honorable? You? You've either got a wry sense
of humor, or you're completely nuts. Either way you're just a waste of
time, and you've done more than anybody to make this group a cesspool.
Then you revel in wallowing in your own filth."
62- Not Important: "I get this mental image of you and a sibling as
children in the back seat of the family car saying:
Mom, 'snits' touching me ...
and you responding much as you do now ...
I'm not touching you, you're touching me!
The problem is that by now you should've grown out of that type of
poke
and complain interaction with others. But, of course, you've haven't
learned how to interact with others in a more 'constructive' and
mutually beneficial manner even now."
63- OldCSMAer: "What's he been doing? Am I going to be sorry I
killfiled
him?"
64- OldSage: "What drives me nuts is your unrelenting ability and
desire
to argue on the head of a pin about the most trivial of things."
65- Oxford: "If you are using MT-Newswatcher:
Select offending Author, example Snit...
Go to the Filters Menu, Choose "Kill this Author"
Click "OK"
Then Repeat with each annoying Author of your choice.
Then to see your work...
Choose the Filter Menu again,
Then "Refilter Articles"...
Bam! No more boring, pointless bickering about nothing.
Enjoy!!!!!"
66- Patrick Nihill: "I mean, honestly, who would you rather discuss
something with; Dan, or someone like Zara? Or, for that matter, Snit,
for whom the work 'troll' seems so painfully inadequate?"
67- Pawel Wojciak: "Jesus Christ, snit... <plonk> "
68- PC Guy: "Forget it Snit, you're a waste of time. For someone who
talks about everyone else not being "honest and honorable" you appear
to
be the least honest and honorable of anyone here."
69- Peter: "I've never felt the need to use the filters in Newswatcher
but I thought Id try the Kill this Author.. option with Snit. Ten
seconds later and he's gone! Amazing."
70- Peter Bjorn Perlso: "Plonked for 60 days. Now stfu and take your
argument with sandman into the private room."
71- Peter Hayes: "True, but that removes Snit completely, and
someti...
err..... occasiona.... errrrr..... once in a blue moon he has
something
useful to say."
72- Peter Jensen (cola): "Where has he ever said that they were not
different windowing environments? Message-ID, please. Experience has
told me not to trust you on anything without backing evidence."
73- Peter Kohlmann (cola): "Snot is a hideous troll. Nobody is as
dishonest as that piece of unadultered garbage. There are csma posters
even more stupid than Snot. Oxford comes to mind. There are certainly
other csma posters who lie nearly as much. But no others are so intent
on trolling in whatever way possible as Snot"
74- Phil Earnhardt: "You're only interested in trying to get
superficial
snipes and extrapolate inappropriate conclusions."
75- Rapskat (cola): "For instance, your sig you reference a long
standing war you have going with some person from csma. It's like you
single out persons to target your attentions upon and then
continuously
berate them with constant barbs and goads to perpetuate their
acrimonious responses, which in turn you respond in kind, etc. ad
infinitum. Above all things, your affinity for Macs and your
overbearing
pompous nature aside, this is what convinces me that your primary
purpose for frequenting this and other groups is to troll."
76- RichardK: "Just killfile him already."
77- Rick (cola): "Snit, you are a liar. And an ignorant one. You trash
people that are trying their level best to cope with a horrendous
situation. And you do it without the slightest idea of what is going
on."
78- Rick G.: "Just to be plain here, I have no doubt that he is a
troll.
I am tolerant of his nature, not blind to it. However, as a troll, he
is
... somewhat clumsy."
79- Robert F.: "Um, perhaps you misunderstand. I don't care if you
quote
Mayor McCheese claiming the Earth is a flat plate perched on the shell
of a tortoise, I was merely pointing out that you run the risk of
looking ridiculous when you quote something patently stupid. If that's
your goal, you're on the right track, and more power to you."
80- Roy Culley (cola): "You appear to be in the latter category.
Starting crossposted threads for the simple purpose of hoping to
generate a flame war. If you truly want to learn more about Linux and
how it can help you and your supposed users why aren't you requesting
help from a more technical Linux newsgroup than an advocacy group?
As the old saying goes, those who can do, those who can't teach. Your
posts seem to confirm that saying IMHO."
81- Sandman: "He is by far the most killfiled person in the -HISTORY-
of
csma. I've never seen someone so disliked, almost hated, in a news
group
before. He has the ability to turn just about any person against him
in
just a few posts. On usenet, trolls do this daily, but the funny part
with Michael is that I actually think he DOESN'T consider himself be a
troll - damn what -EVERYONE ELSE- is calling him. Obviously they are
wrong. Only Tholen himself can match this behaviour."
82- sav: "You really need to take a rest somewhere nice. Honestly,
even
the nutters who hang out down on Brighton seafront made more sense
than
this. You been doing drugs or something?"
83- Sean Burke: If you're dumb enough to respond to snit, you're
probably dumb enough to click on a spam attachment that promises to
remove smut from your harddrive."
84- ShutterBugz: "so snit-zel has some kind of problem expressing
anger,
i guess. he has to vent his frustrations in other ways. and he thinks
he's making sense: well the syntax is there and he figures he's pretty
smart. indeed, he tells us, he's done the personality tests and the iq
tests and he's okay! aaaaahhhhh, you see he's soooooooo well
adjusted."
85- Steve Carroll: "The only things we are sure about Snit is that he
has:
* a monumental reading comprehension problem.
* nym-shifted numerous times to avoid kill-files.
* built too many straw-men to count... some, the size of small cities.
* been labeled a disingenuous liar/troll(or worse) by the vast
majority.
* used numerous sock-puppets and admitted to it.
* stolen IDs and admitted to it.
* gotten booted off by ISPs for his behavior.
* twisted more context than all csma posters combined.
* made more unsupported accusations than all csma posters combined.
* virtually no life outside of csma."
86- Steve Mackay: "Just killfile Snit, the dishonest piece of elephant
dung, and all would go away. Sure, I got caught up in the "Snit
Circus",
but then the cotton candy began to sour, and CSMA begun to smell like
elephant dung."
87- Steven de Mena: "Sorry, you have now lost all credibility with me
for your rediculous argument regarding this."
88- Steve Travis: "Oh oh... Now look what we've done. Snit has lost
all
self respect and has sunk to the point of using words like 'asses'
when
referring to others. Oh, how could the morally superior snit have
fallen
so low.. Please take a moment out of your busy schedule to feel
embarassed for him. Or perhaps we should set up a fund to get him more
happy glue (and the appropriate plastic bags)."
89- Stuart Krivis: "You might as well just give up and plonk him then.
A
snit is a snit is a snit and always will be."
90- TheLetterK: "That is merely your perception, Shit. You're the one
lacking counter evidence, and your arguments basically amount to "I'm
right, nya nya nya." No matter how many examples someone points at to
demonstrate their claim, you blindly continue to insist that they
provide no evidence, or that the evidence given is irrelevant. Worse
still, you fall back on straw men and disingenuous quote mangling to
portray the argument in your favor. You are one of the worst trolls
that
inhabit CSMA, Shit. *Edwin* is more prone to fits of reason than you
are. "
91-Tim Adams: "I'd kill file you but then I'd miss the fun. you see,
you
never cease to amaze me at just how stupid you really are. Why just
the
other day I had a great laugh when I saw you, the king of liars (in
this
NG anyway) calling somebody else a liar."
92- Tim Crowley: "I don't know - I think you might have more
compassion.
Snit is sick. He needs help. This is the only way the poor sick fool
can
get attention. My fucking God, he's taken to hanging out with and
supporting racist pig fuckers like MuahMuah. It is true that no-one
likes him and those that pretend they do are just using him or don't
know him - but come on- it's not his fault. He's sick. Have some
compassion, eh? All these idiot trolls, Zara, Stew, Tommy,
MuaaaahMuaaah, and Snit - they are all so alike. I pity each and every
one of them"
93- Tim Smith: "No, he didn't, and there is no reasonable way you
could
actually believe he lied. You are purely trying to troll here."
94- Timberwoof: "*Plonk!*"
95- Tom Bates: "Do you have to turn any thread you post in into one of
your Circus acts?"
96- Tommy: "In case you did not get it, I think the moral was: Stop
polluting the world with your infantile and obsessive "writings". You
give Mac advocacy a bad name. If that was your goal you have
succeeded!
That also goes for all that bullshit on your website"
97- TravelinMan: "I still can't figure out what's wrong with Snit.
Most
people have him kill-filed and the few who don't mostly restrict their
responses to 'why don't you go away, no one wants you here'.
Just what would keep someone in this group with all of that animosity?
Must be some kind of severe mental illness."
98- Wally: "Because by your own admission "honor and honesty" are
nothing more than a "game" to you, as such not only do you wish to
define the rules, but no doubt you will also attempt to alter or bend
the rules when inevitably things do not go to your liking, for this
reason I doubt anyone would be foolish enough to play your game."
99- William R. Walsh: "Now, if you'll excuse me, and accept my sincere
apologies for this, PLONK! Feel proud about that. You're the first
person to be plonked from my new computer! :-) "
100- Woofbert: "*Plonk*"
101- zara: "Look - I'm not into combing through thousands of posts, to
prove what was said or not said - I leave stuff like that to people
without lives, like Snit. But it is assuredly, in the record. Ping
Snit
to do a search - you will flatter him, and give meaning to his tawdry
little life."
102- Znu: "I think your 'I'll go start a new thread to try to draw
more
people into the debate I'm currently having with Steve/Elizabot/etc'
tactic is fairly trollish."
103 - High Plains Thumper: "Well, for one who is trolling this
group, those were extremely poorly done examples, making problems
that do not exist except an invention of Snit's own mind."
104 - Geoff M. Fitton:
"The Prescott Computer Guy *still* showing how stupid he is...
What a mar00n".
105 - William Poaster:
"Good grief. If anyone's having a mental breakdown it's the Prescott
Computer Guy, Michael Snit Glasser. What a f#cked up mess he is'.
106 - Tattoo Vampire:
"In other words, in another attempt to troll, you made yourself look
like a
fool. Again".
107 -Mr. Blonde
"Lastly, I can't help but comment on the fact that your obsession
with
Sandman has actually grown since you claimed to KF him. Killfilling
someone generally implies you're ignoring that person, yet you
piggyback onto virtually every reply to him here and and check his
website's validation status more often than most people check their
e-mail. These are not the actions of a mentally balanced individual".
108 - CozmicDebris
"I'm done with your three year old games. The archives show my answers
and your
inability to process them. Keep posting your list and proving that you
are an
idiot troll. I will not address it any further- you being too stupid
to realize
and accept that is not my problem".
109 - WhoMe
"F michael IS a teacher, it's no wonder he's home more than he's
anywhere near a
classroom".
110 - spi...@freenet.co.uk
"The thought is probably to show everyone here just how bad a troll
snit is".
111- Carlo Coggi
"He must believe he is surrounded by 'trolls' ... in the groups he
trolls
in, that is.
I wondered if the idiotrollers like snit would reply to this thread.
Of
course, I didn't see his posts, only your reply".
112 - bobinv
"I learned some time ago how much better this group can be if you kill
file
Snit. I have never understood why more people don't do the same".
113 - Zaren Ankleweed
"And with that, Snit goes in the global killfile. No subject, no
author,
no nothing. Buh-bye".
114 - H
"Your crappy posts are still showing up in seperate threads, are you
doing this
on purpose to piss people off? I dont ever censor people cause that's
just
retarded but if you dont fix it I'm gonna have to cause I dont wanna
see your
name 40 times in a row. So uh, change your client or something".
115 - PeterBP
"Oh will you stfu".
--
RichL
Some German-Americans were as well, although the numbers pale in
comparison with Japanese-Americans.
Snit
on 10/29/08 2:06 PM:
...
>>> And *that* is what I meant when I said you were being "douchy".
>>
>> I asked you a question you, clearly, do not know how to answer.
>
>
> And anyone who can read your question can see that it's not answerable.
It is not answerable by *you*. Agreed.
The fact *you* cannot answer it, however, does not mean that others cannot
figure out what value they think low wage earners have for the economy.
Heck, not all people can make the same wage - nor should they. Jobs which
require less skill, risk, and responsibility are important to keeping a
society going - they are very important to the economy. I will go so far as
to say that if nobody was willing to take these low earning jobs the economy
would collapse - seems common sense. The fact you were not able to speak
about this at all is quite telling. Heck, it is not like this was a trick
question or one that required any in depth knowledge of macro economics.
As I said, though, I appreciate the conversation and believe I now
understand as much about your views as you are willing to share. To recap:
RichL
> On 29-Oct-2008, "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> GodHatesFez <Drone&Fag...@wackfag.com> wrote:
>>> Today's game: race baiting
>>
>> Not playing. Take it elsewhere.
>
> Ha ha ha ha! Typical white guilt ridden Obamite. If you DARE
> criticize him you are a racist. Funny how people who dog our next
> Vice President Sarah Palin are not sexist.
And funny how you assume that anyone posting to usenet is white.
> Osama Obama is falling apart. His lead has fallen to single digits.
> People are starting to see the foolishness of RAISING taxes when
> people and companies are broke.
Who's Osama Obama?
> Some of his staunchest supporters are waffling.
For instance?
> The Bradley Effect is going to save us.
The only thing that will save you is a decent education.
> You people in Detroit and LA better get ready for the violence when
> Barack HUSSEIN Obama is defeated
Latest state-by-state updates from CNN:
Indiana, previously categorized as "leaning toward McCain", is now
classified as too close to call.
Nevada, previously classified as "too close to call", leaning toward
Obama.
See ya in a week!
juanjo
the world I live in does not comport with the nonsense you are
spouting.
On Oct 29, 12:55 pm, "GodHatesFez" <Drone&FagS...@wackfag.com> wrote:
> On 29-Oct-2008, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
KK
> "KK" <_K...@furburger.net> stated in post
> 9C3Ok.20368$UD6....@newsfe07.iad on 10/29/08 1:22 PM:
>
>>>> Jesus, you're really trying to hammer that round peg into the square
>>>> hole on this one.
>>>>
>>>> Show me the specific words I said that you're claiming I didn't
>>>> explain.
>>>
>>> You really are not very good at defending or even explaining your
>>> position on income taxes. Frankly I wish you were better at it... it
>>> would make for a more interesting conversation.
>>
>> And since you're being a douche and trying a junior-high debate trick
>> to force me to answer questions you're not defining, I'm not playing.
>>
>> If you want to have a conversation, try to have one. Treat me like a
>> hostile witness and I'll respond accordingly.
>
> You stated you were against tax increases because you feel they are just
> like lowering someone's pay.
Not true. I mentioned the pay cut in response to someone mentioning a
high cost of living as a reason *against* lower taxes, which makes no
sense. I did not say I was "against tax increases because [they are like
lower pay]".
> We both agreed that this was true in the
> same way that any taxes on someone's income is like reducing their pay
> from what it would be without taxes. We also agreed that inflation,
> without equal increases in pay, is also like a pay cut.
>
> You then, when pressed,
I was not pressed. You repeatedly (and incorrectly) implied that I am
against taxation, and, weirdly, that if not I must be for lowering wages.
> acknowledged that you did not think taxes on
> income were the best way to tax, though you have not offered any
> alternatives (such as sales taxes or something else).
The two conversations I'm having with you are tedious enough without
adding another. You're not fun or interesting to talk to, and I have no
interest in starting another conversation.
> You have also
> been somewhat inconsistent if you are for or against government changes
> that lead to pay cuts: in the case of raised taxes you are against it
> but in the case of the reduction in pay caused by a stagnant minimum
> wage you are least seem to be *for* the pay cuts.
Again, the "pay cut" example was in response to another poster's using
inflation as a reason *against* a tax cut. I did not base my objection
to a tax hike on their practical similarity to a pay cut.
That said, I believe that the entitlement a person has to their earnings
is far stronger than the entitlement a person has to a minimum wage
that's indexed to inflation. So your comparison, while depending on a
statement I did not make, is still apples and oranges.
> I find it odd to be
> *for* pay cuts for lower income earners but against them for the
> wealthy.
I find odd the pretzel-like contortions you've attempted in order to
believe that's what I'm for or against.
> So you are for pay cuts for the low wage earner, or at least not
> particularly against them, but you cannot figure out what your views are
> on the value of the low wage earner for the economy as a whole.
I know what my "views" are but refuse to be bullied into answering a
vague question.
> I can accept these things and do not hold you in low regard for your
> views... we all have areas where we have beliefs but have not really
> thought through all the details.
I don't care a bit in what "regard" you hold me, or whether or not you
"accept" things I didn't state.
> I appreciate the conversation... but believe I have learned as much
> about your views on the topic as you are willing to share.
I hope that means you're signing off of it.