[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

....and read some of your archival posts. LOL!

You're much more of a moron than I thought!

All from:

Message-ID: 3bb228c5.128457781@news

"The facts are that capital punishment enjoys strong support among
the Americam people. You call it barbarism and wish to give up those
rights to democratic self rule in favor of UN policy. Explain
exactly how favoring UN Policy over democratic self rule with regard
to capital punishment is not in opposition to democracy? "

Answer: civil rights should not be voted upon. Most civilized nations
understand that. We used to. Further, there have been *far* too many
cases where the convicted, and executed, individual has been proven to
be innocent either by post-execution confessions by others, or DNA
evidence, or other means. saying 'oooops' does little to rectify that.

Even further: morons like you get to vote. There is currently no IQ
requirement for voting.

This is also why voting on gay marriage is a weak-assed position.
bigoted people (like you) skew the results.

Triggering WW3 doesn't seem to me to be "effective"

"Or it may be the only truly effective course of action."

Let's see some of your 'logic' here, toopid. LOL! Moron.

And this absolute nugget from:

Message-ID: 3bb3604a.72013734@news

" I'm a dunderhead because your analogies don't hold up to scrutiny
even in your context. Casting insults does not change the fact that
your argument is faulty - you're failure to demonstrate otherwise and
resort to insults is capitulation."

No wonder you have not answered my recent questions regarding your
'logic.' It's exactly as I've said: you've capitulated. You simply have
no rational answers for your very flawed 'logic.'

The other options are that you're a hypocrite, that you are suffering
from some disease or mental malady (a position that I'm beginning to
suspect), or a moron.

Thanks for your advice about reading your posts, toopid! I can see now
that you aren't the little dunderheaded man I thought you were after
all! And you aren't insulting at all to others!

When you bravely bail from an argument, or when you try to bravely take
your imaginary moral high road, or when you bravely make up yet another
definition for military retirement, it's because you've so thoroughly
whipped me with logic!

I believe I'll read some more of your 'gems of wisdom.' They're pretty
funny.

LOL!

Moron.

[Clyde Slick]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! a scris:
...and read some of your archival posts. LOL!

You're much more of a moron than I thought!

All from:

Message-ID: 3bb228c5.128457781@news

"The facts are that capital punishment enjoys strong support among
the Americam people. You call it barbarism and wish to give up those
rights to democratic self rule in favor of UN policy. Explain
exactly how favoring UN Policy over democratic self rule with regard
to capital punishment is not in opposition to democracy? "

Answer: civil rights should not be voted upon.

Sure they should be votr]ed upon. Society
needs to define exactly what are civil rights.


Most civilized nations
understand that. We used to.

We have always had discourse and public decison making on
civil rights.slavery, suffrage, employment discrimination,
governmental powers, voting rights, etc.

Further, there have been *far* too many
cases where the convicted, and executed, individual has been proven to
be innocent either by post-execution confessions by others, or DNA
evidence, or other means. saying 'oooops' does little to rectify that.


btw, I am opposed to cap punishment, for that reaqson. Otherwise,
its the morally correect thing to do, were we perfect at
deciding guilt.

Even further: morons like you get to vote. There is currently no IQ
requirement for voting.

This is also why voting on gay marriage is a weak-assed position.
bigoted people (like you) skew the results.


So, you are opposed to democracy, out of fear of
those who would not agree with you.
You are sounding like an old line Commie to me!

[Clyde Slick]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! a scris:
...and read some of your archival posts. LOL!

You're much more of a moron than I thought!

All from:

Message-ID: 3bb228c5.128457781@news

"The facts are that capital punishment enjoys strong support among
the Americam people. You call it barbarism and wish to give up those
rights to democratic self rule in favor of UN policy. Explain
exactly how favoring UN Policy over democratic self rule with regard
to capital punishment is not in opposition to democracy? "

Answer: civil rights should not be voted upon.

Sure they should be votr]ed upon. Society
needs to define exactly what are civil rights.


Most civilized nations
understand that. We used to.

We have always had discourse and public decison making on
civil rights.slavery, suffrage, employment discrimination,
governmental powers, voting rights, etc.

Further, there have been *far* too many
cases where the convicted, and executed, individual has been proven to
be innocent either by post-execution confessions by others, or DNA
evidence, or other means. saying 'oooops' does little to rectify that.


btw, I am opposed to cap punishment, for that reaqson. Otherwise,
its the morally correect thing to do, were we perfect at
deciding guilt.

Even further: morons like you get to vote. There is currently no IQ
requirement for voting.

This is also why voting on gay marriage is a weak-assed position.
bigoted people (like you) skew the results.


So, you are opposed to democracy, out of fear of
those who would not agree with you.
You are sounding like an old line Commie to me!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Clyde Slick wrote:
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! a scris:
...and read some of your archival posts. LOL!

You're much more of a moron than I thought!

All from:

Message-ID: 3bb228c5.128457781@news

"The facts are that capital punishment enjoys strong support among
the Americam people. You call it barbarism and wish to give up those
rights to democratic self rule in favor of UN policy. Explain
exactly how favoring UN Policy over democratic self rule with regard
to capital punishment is not in opposition to democracy? "

Answer: civil rights should not be voted upon.

Sure they should be votr]ed upon. Society
needs to define exactly what are civil rights.

Not by popular vote, which is too volatile.

Most civilized nations
understand that. We used to.

We have always had discourse and public decison making on
civil rights.slavery, suffrage, employment discrimination,
governmental powers, voting rights, etc.

Correct, to a point. They have been debated in Congress, then ratified
by state legislatures. Kind of like it says in Article 5 of the
Constitution, back in the days when we had one that government
followed.

Further, there have been *far* too many
cases where the convicted, and executed, individual has been proven to
be innocent either by post-execution confessions by others, or DNA
evidence, or other means. saying 'oooops' does little to rectify that.

btw, I am opposed to cap punishment, for that reaqson. Otherwise,
its the morally correect thing to do, were we perfect at
deciding guilt.

When that day comes, we can open another discussion on it.

Even further: morons like you get to vote. There is currently no IQ
requirement for voting.

This is also why voting on gay marriage is a weak-assed position.
bigoted people (like you) skew the results.

So, you are opposed to democracy, out of fear of
those who would not agree with you.

No, I am for following our Constitution. You know, like Article 5. I am
not for amending the Constitution based on a popular vote.

I am also against a popular vote for the civil rights of minorities.
That is known as the 'Tyranny of the Masses.'

From a non-profit group's website:

"The amendment is inconsistent with the spirit of the Minnesota
Constitution. The basic framework of our state's Constitution, and
particularly its Article I Bill of Rights, is to guarantee the rights
of citizens, not to restrict the rights of minorities. Amending the
Constitution to put the rights of a minority to a popular vote is
inconsistent with the intent of the Constitution and with Minnesota's
civil rights tradition. Since 1948, Minnesota has been in the forefront
of support for civil rights protections when then-Minneapolis Mayor
Hubert Humphrey called upon America to "get out of the shadow of
states' rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of
human rights."

http://www.mncn.org/opposition_to_ma..._amendment.htm

I have yet to see a State Constitution that advocates refusing or
stripping rights from a minority. That runs exactly counter to what the
US stands (or stood) for.

Here are some other ways to look at democracy, all of which are very
true unless we're very careful about it:

*********************************************
Other ways to look at "Democracy": Democracy - more honestly called
"mobocracy" - is a political system based upon the concept that the
majority always rules... ...because they outnumber the minority, and
can beat them up.

Never doubt this: "Democracy" is rooted in pure brute force:

Every "fundamentalist" blue law imposed on a minority with differing
beliefs assumes that the unbelievers will be forced to obey.

Every majority election of a politician forces unwelcome
"representation" upon someone whose views that politician diametrically
opposes.

Democracy assumes that three illiterate morons are somehow wiser than
one Einstein-level genius... Simply because there are more of them;
they outnumber him, and can force their wills upon him.

Democracy says it is acceptable to take money or property from a
nonconsenting individual because he is outnumbered, a minority.

Democracy in its purest form is best illustrated by the robbery of a
helpless little old lady by a gang of thugs. It must be okay: The gang
"majority" out-voted the woman.

According to James Ostrowski: Democracy is nothing more than the
numerous and their manipulators bullying the less numerous. It is an
elaborate and deceptive rationalization for the strong in numbers to
impose their will on the electorally weak by means of centralized state
coercion ...

http://www.semperliber.org/Glossary.htm

************************************************** ******************

You are sounding like an old line Commie to me!

I am sounding like someone who understands that it is very dangerous to
have the majority in the form of a popular vote decide rights for a
minority. Debate is a good thing. Passion and emotion are not
necessarily a good thing. A representative republic like the US elects
representatives to make those decisions. People get mad that things
don't happen fast enough in Washington, but in some cases those
time-delays allow for thorough examination of issues and the thoughtful
debate that you say I do not want. That's where that type of debate
belongs, not in the world of one minute long political TV ads paid for
by PACs.

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

...and read some of your archival posts. LOL!
You're much more of a moron than I thought!

One of my favorite Scottie implosions was when he complained that people who
don't earn as much money as he does aren't pulling their fair share of the
tax load. Sad to say, he wasn't joking. Scottie never jokes, come to think
of it. But his point seemed to be that a waiter who earns $30K is a
freeloader, or something, whereas a middle-management drone who earns $80K
is a highly productive member of society. Needless to say, it's not absurd
to reduce his argument to a sweeping dismissal of minimum-wage laborers.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

Answer: civil rights should not be voted upon.

Sure they should be votr]ed upon. Society
needs to define exactly what are civil rights.

I know it's been a while since you were forced to learn anything new, but
see if you recognize this preamble:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

Do we need a latter-day vote on those heretical words, Art?




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...

I am sounding like someone who understands that it is very dangerous to
have the majority in the form of a popular vote decide rights for a
minority. Debate is a good thing. Passion and emotion are not
necessarily a good thing. A representative republic like the US elects
representatives to make those decisions. People get mad that things
don't happen fast enough in Washington, but in some cases those
time-delays allow for thorough examination of issues and the thoughtful
debate that you say I do not want. That's where that type of debate
belongs, not in the world of one minute long political TV ads paid for
by PACs.

How well does this work in Pelosi's tax the rich to pay the poor world?

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...
...and read some of your archival posts. LOL!

You're much more of a moron than I thought!

All from:

Message-ID: 3bb228c5.128457781@news

"The facts are that capital punishment enjoys strong support among
the Americam people. You call it barbarism and wish to give up those
rights to democratic self rule in favor of UN policy. Explain
exactly how favoring UN Policy over democratic self rule with regard
to capital punishment is not in opposition to democracy? "

Answer: civil rights should not be voted upon. Most civilized nations
understand that. We used to. Further, there have been *far* too many
cases where the convicted, and executed, individual has been proven to
be innocent either by post-execution confessions by others, or DNA
evidence, or other means. saying 'oooops' does little to rectify that.

Even further: morons like you get to vote. There is currently no IQ
requirement for voting.

This is also why voting on gay marriage is a weak-assed position.
bigoted people (like you) skew the results.

Triggering WW3 doesn't seem to me to be "effective"

"Or it may be the only truly effective course of action."

Let's see some of your 'logic' here, toopid. LOL! Moron.

And this absolute nugget from:

Message-ID: 3bb3604a.72013734@news

" I'm a dunderhead because your analogies don't hold up to scrutiny
even in your context. Casting insults does not change the fact that
your argument is faulty - you're failure to demonstrate otherwise and
resort to insults is capitulation."

No wonder you have not answered my recent questions regarding your
'logic.' It's exactly as I've said: you've capitulated. You simply have
no rational answers for your very flawed 'logic.'

LoL....I've yet to see you make a logical argument but
I have to confess....I don't read all your stuff.
Too long, too boring, too detached from reality.

When you really believe you have a valid argument to make,
then make it. I'm sure when you have real faith in your position you'll
consider it worthy and not need the bogus props of insults
and false claims of victory.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in
message ...


Shhhh! said:

...and read some of your archival posts. LOL!
You're much more of a moron than I thought!

One of my favorite Scottie implosions was when he complained that people who
don't earn as much money as he does aren't pulling their fair share of the
tax load.

Why do these simple concepts go over your head?
Actually it was Dave bragging that he didn't need to make much money
to provide for himself and have an enjoyable lifestyle so he
worked only 3 or 4 days a week by choice.

I was pointing out that his attitude was bit self centered particularly
since his tax burden was below that of the mean.

Sad to say, he wasn't joking. Scottie never jokes, come to think
of it. But his point seemed to be that a waiter who earns $30K is a
freeloader,

Dave was bragging how well he could live, without paying a full
share of the tax burden, so in essence he was taking advantage
of the progressive tax system and free loading.
Of course a public burden such as yourself doesn't see it that way.

ScottW

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in
message ...


Shhhh! said:

...and read some of your archival posts. LOL!
You're much more of a moron than I thought!

One of my favorite Scottie implosions was when he complained that people
who
don't earn as much money as he does aren't pulling their fair share of the
tax load.

Why do these simple concepts go over your head?
Actually it was Dave bragging that he didn't need to make much money
to provide for himself and have an enjoyable lifestyle so he
worked only 3 or 4 days a week by choice.

I was pointing out that his attitude was bit self centered particularly
since his tax burden was below that of the mean.

Sad to say, he wasn't joking. Scottie never jokes, come to think
of it. But his point seemed to be that a waiter who earns $30K is a
freeloader,

Dave was bragging how well he could live, without paying a full
share of the tax burden, so in essence he was taking advantage
of the progressive tax system and free loading.
Of course a public burden such as yourself doesn't see it that way.

Yes, this kind of thing, maybe brought about by an unwanted encounter
with the AMT.

Stephen

[George M. Middius]

MiNe 109 said:

Yes, this kind of thing, maybe brought about by an unwanted encounter
with the AMT.

I've been told that only a total dimwit gets caught in the AMT trap. On top
of that, Scottie is on salary. How feeble is somebody who's intimidated by
an accountant? ;-)





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in
message ...


MiNe 109 said:

Yes, this kind of thing, maybe brought about by an unwanted encounter
with the AMT.

I've been told that only a total dimwit gets caught in the AMT trap.

But you have no idea how?......lol.
Of course you believe everything you've been told.

On top
of that, Scottie is on salary. How feeble is somebody who's intimidated by
an accountant? ;-)

I've got news for you George.

Make over 100K and you have to do run the numbers in form 6251.
Make over 150K and you'll almost certainly lose some of your deduction
for state income taxes. No way to avoid it.

http://www.smartmoney.com/tax/filing....cfm?story=amt

ScottW

[paul packer]

On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 16:51:01 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in
message ...


Shhhh! said:

...and read some of your archival posts. LOL!
You're much more of a moron than I thought!

One of my favorite Scottie implosions was when he complained that people who
don't earn as much money as he does aren't pulling their fair share of the
tax load.

Why do these simple concepts go over your head?
Actually it was Dave bragging that he didn't need to make much money
to provide for himself and have an enjoyable lifestyle so he
worked only 3 or 4 days a week by choice.

I was pointing out that his attitude was bit self centered particularly
since his tax burden was below that of the mean.

You're not seriously suggesting that people do or should work for the
government rather than themselves. That although 3 days a week pays
for all their needs, they should work the other 2 in order to put
themselves into a higher tax bracket and thus earn the government
greater revenue? Are you that patriotic/nationalistic? Do you never
take steps to minimise your tax burden come end of financial year?

Sad to say, he wasn't joking. Scottie never jokes, come to think
of it. But his point seemed to be that a waiter who earns $30K is a
freeloader,

Dave was bragging how well he could live, without paying a full
share of the tax burden, so in essence he was taking advantage
of the progressive tax system and free loading.

Is taking advantage of the progressive tax system the same as
freeloading? If he's paid his full share of tax according to the law
freeloading doesn't come into it.

Of course a public burden such as yourself doesn't see it that way.

You must know more about George than the rest of us. Care to spill the
beans? :-)

[Clyde Slick]

George M. Middius a scris:
Shhhh! said:

...and read some of your archival posts. LOL!
You're much more of a moron than I thought!

One of my favorite Scottie implosions was when he complained that people who
don't earn as much money as he does aren't pulling their fair share of the
tax load. Sad to say, he wasn't joking. Scottie never jokes, come to think
of it. But his point seemed to be that a waiter who earns $30K is a
freeloader, or something, whereas a middle-management drone who earns $80K
is a highly productive member of society. Needless to say, it's not absurd
to reduce his argument to a sweeping dismissal of minimum-wage laborers.



He forgot, we tax money, not people.

[Clyde Slick]

George M. Middius a scris:
Clyde Slick said:

Answer: civil rights should not be voted upon.

Sure they should be votr]ed upon. Society
needs to define exactly what are civil rights.

I know it's been a while since you were forced to learn anything new, but
see if you recognize this preamble:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

Do we need a latter-day vote on those heretical words, Art?



and they meant that literally, afa women went.
We've engaged this issue before, and we will do it again.
anyway, gays have as much right to marry a member of the opposite
sex as do straights.

[Jenn]

In article .com,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

George M. Middius a scris:
Clyde Slick said:

Answer: civil rights should not be voted upon.

Sure they should be votr]ed upon. Society
needs to define exactly what are civil rights.

I know it's been a while since you were forced to learn anything new, but
see if you recognize this preamble:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

Do we need a latter-day vote on those heretical words, Art?



and they meant that literally, afa women went.
We've engaged this issue before, and we will do it again.
anyway, gays have as much right to marry a member of the opposite
sex as do straights.

lol

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

Do we need a latter-day vote on those heretical words, Art?

and they meant that literally, afa women went.
We've engaged this issue before, and we will do it again.
anyway, gays have as much right to marry a member of the opposite
sex as do straights.

lol

Clyde wasn't joking, you know.







--

Lionella loves the Krooborg from afar. With mud on top.

[ScottW]

paul packer wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 16:51:01 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in
message ...


Shhhh! said:

...and read some of your archival posts. LOL!
You're much more of a moron than I thought!

One of my favorite Scottie implosions was when he complained that people who
don't earn as much money as he does aren't pulling their fair share of the
tax load.

Why do these simple concepts go over your head?
Actually it was Dave bragging that he didn't need to make much money
to provide for himself and have an enjoyable lifestyle so he
worked only 3 or 4 days a week by choice.

I was pointing out that his attitude was bit self centered particularly
since his tax burden was below that of the mean.

You're not seriously suggesting that people do or should work for the
government rather than themselves.

We already do..... there's a symbolic day of the year where the
average
US worker has made enough money to pay his tax burden and now
works for himself.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday/

That although 3 days a week pays
for all their needs, they should work the other 2 in order to put
themselves into a higher tax bracket and thus earn the government
greater revenue?

The exact opposite argument is made to impose progressive tax
rates on the wealthy.
When you have people working less in some part to avoid higher taxes
it certainly diminishes the argument for progressive tax rates.


Are you that patriotic/nationalistic? Do you never
take steps to minimise your tax burden come end of financial year?

Yes I do. But I'm consistently paying way more than my share.

http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/



Sad to say, he wasn't joking. Scottie never jokes, come to think
of it. But his point seemed to be that a waiter who earns $30K is a
freeloader,

Dave was bragging how well he could live, without paying a full
share of the tax burden, so in essence he was taking advantage
of the progressive tax system and free loading.

Is taking advantage of the progressive tax system the same as
freeloading? If he's paid his full share of tax according to the law
freeloading doesn't come into it.

First time I've ever heard anyone argue the law is the true
measure of fairness.

Its been argued that civil rights shouldn't be voted on as the
majority shouldn't dictate the rights of a minority yet this
is exactly what happens when the poor/middle class start
excessively taxing the rich. We've got propositions in Ca that failed
every time they were brought up....until they added a provision
that only people making over 1M a year would have to pay for it.
Suddenly it passes.



Of course a public burden such as yourself doesn't see it that way.

You must know more about George than the rest of us. Care to spill the
beans? :-)

AFAICT...he's a ward of the state.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...

I am sounding like someone who understands that it is very dangerous to
have the majority in the form of a popular vote decide rights for a
minority. Debate is a good thing. Passion and emotion are not
necessarily a good thing. A representative republic like the US elects
representatives to make those decisions. People get mad that things
don't happen fast enough in Washington, but in some cases those
time-delays allow for thorough examination of issues and the thoughtful
debate that you say I do not want. That's where that type of debate
belongs, not in the world of one minute long political TV ads paid for
by PACs.

How well does this work in Pelosi's tax the rich to pay the poor world?

So, (assuming that your generalization about Pelosi is indeed correct)
in your 'mind,' tax rates and civil rights are equivalent?

What a sad little man you are.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
paul packer wrote:

That although 3 days a week pays
for all their needs, they should work the other 2 in order to put
themselves into a higher tax bracket and thus earn the government
greater revenue?

The exact opposite argument is made to impose progressive tax
rates on the wealthy.

"Wealthy people work two days to pay for their needs and must work the
other three to put themselves into a higher tax bracket and thus earn
the government greater revenue."

Is that about it, toopid?

When you have people working less in some part to avoid higher taxes
it certainly diminishes the argument for progressive tax rates.

Anybody can choose to work three days per week, toopid. Anybody can
choose to make less money, toopid. Based on these tax laws, why are
people always trying to make more money?;-)

Clyde, toopid is actually the Communist. In his 'mind' everybody should
be paid the same, required to work the same amount, etc.

Are you that patriotic/nationalistic? Do you never
take steps to minimise your tax burden come end of financial year?

Yes I do. But I'm consistently paying way more than my share.

What exactly is 'your fair share'? How much more than your 'fair share'
are you paying?

Is taking advantage of the progressive tax system the same as
freeloading? If he's paid his full share of tax according to the law
freeloading doesn't come into it.

First time I've ever heard anyone argue the law is the true
measure of fairness.

Duh. If you've never heard anybody 'argue the law is the true measure
of fairness' then you still haven't. Learn to read.

Paul, do you still really think that toopid is not a moron? He's dumb
as a board.

Its been argued that civil rights shouldn't be voted on as the
majority shouldn't dictate the rights of a minority yet this
is exactly what happens when the poor/middle class start
excessively taxing the rich. We've got propositions in Ca that failed
every time they were brought up....until they added a provision
that only people making over 1M a year would have to pay for it.
Suddenly it passes.

Do you still want to vote on gay marriage, toopid? I mean, now that you
see that the same concept might affect you financially, that is?

toopid, tax rates shift and change. You have a basic civil right: move
to another area, or another country, where the tax laws/rates are more
in line with your attitudes.

Of course a public burden such as yourself doesn't see it that way.

You must know more about George than the rest of us. Care to spill the
beans? :-)

AFAICT...he's a ward of the state.

As far as [you] can tell? Based on what evidence? Or did you mean
'IATPSMSOOMAA'?*

* "I'm about to pull some more stuff out of my ass again"

Moron.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...
...and read some of your archival posts. LOL!

You're much more of a moron than I thought!

All from:

Message-ID: 3bb228c5.128457781@news

"The facts are that capital punishment enjoys strong support among
the Americam people. You call it barbarism and wish to give up those
rights to democratic self rule in favor of UN policy. Explain
exactly how favoring UN Policy over democratic self rule with regard
to capital punishment is not in opposition to democracy? "

Answer: civil rights should not be voted upon. Most civilized nations
understand that. We used to. Further, there have been *far* too many
cases where the convicted, and executed, individual has been proven to
be innocent either by post-execution confessions by others, or DNA
evidence, or other means. saying 'oooops' does little to rectify that.

Even further: morons like you get to vote. There is currently no IQ
requirement for voting.

This is also why voting on gay marriage is a weak-assed position.
bigoted people (like you) skew the results.

Triggering WW3 doesn't seem to me to be "effective"

"Or it may be the only truly effective course of action."

Let's see some of your 'logic' here, toopid. LOL! Moron.

And this absolute nugget from:

Message-ID: 3bb3604a.72013734@news

" I'm a dunderhead because your analogies don't hold up to scrutiny
even in your context. Casting insults does not change the fact that
your argument is faulty - you're failure to demonstrate otherwise and
resort to insults is capitulation."

No wonder you have not answered my recent questions regarding your
'logic.' It's exactly as I've said: you've capitulated. You simply have
no rational answers for your very flawed 'logic.'

LoL....I've yet to see you make a logical argument but
I have to confess....I don't read all your stuff.
Too long, too boring, too detached from reality.

Sure, toopid. There, there. It will all be OK...

toopid, you wouldn't know logic if you slept with it and got the clap.

You do, however, know 'logic.' You're a 'logician.'

When you really believe you have a valid argument to make,
then make it. I'm sure when you have real faith in your position you'll
consider it worthy and not need the bogus props of insults
and false claims of victory.

And I'm sure that when you understand the questions that I ask you,
you'll actually answer one of them, rather than replying to all of my
posts that you don't read to tell me about how you don't read them.

in·sult (in-sult')
v., -sult·ed, -sult·ing, -sults.
v.tr.

To treat with gross insensitivity, insolence, or contemptuous rudeness.
See synonyms at offend.
To affront or demean: an absurd speech that insulted the intelligence
of the audience.

http://www.answers.com/topic/insult

Pointing out your stupidity is not an insult, toopid. An insult, as you
can see, means to treat with insensitively. Is it also insensitive of
me to say that grass is green?

Moron.

[Clyde Slick]

George M. Middius a scris:
Jenn said:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

Do we need a latter-day vote on those heretical words, Art?

and they meant that literally, afa women went.
We've engaged this issue before, and we will do it again.
anyway, gays have as much right to marry a member of the opposite
sex as do straights.

lol

Clyde wasn't joking, you know.


Marriage is no joking matter.
I suppose civil unions aren't, either.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Clyde Slick wrote:
George M. Middius a scris:
Jenn said:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

Do we need a latter-day vote on those heretical words, Art?

and they meant that literally, afa women went.
We've engaged this issue before, and we will do it again.
anyway, gays have as much right to marry a member of the opposite
sex as do straights.

lol

Clyde wasn't joking, you know.

Marriage is no joking matter.

I agree: there's absolutely nothing funny about marriage.;-)

I suppose civil unions aren't, either.

Are you religious, Clyde?

[dizzy]

ScottW wrote:

Dave was bragging how well he could live, without paying a full
share of the tax burden, so in essence he was taking advantage
of the progressive tax system and free loading.

You are mentally retarded. Get your brain fixed.

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
paul packer wrote:

That although 3 days a week pays
for all their needs, they should work the other 2 in order to put
themselves into a higher tax bracket and thus earn the government
greater revenue?

The exact opposite argument is made to impose progressive tax
rates on the wealthy.

"Wealthy people work two days to pay for their needs and must work the
other three to put themselves into a higher tax bracket and thus earn
the government greater revenue."

Is that about it, toopid?

When you have people working less in some part to avoid higher taxes
it certainly diminishes the argument for progressive tax rates.

Anybody can choose to work three days per week, toopid.

Lets all try it and see what happens.


Anybody can
choose to make less money, toopid. Based on these tax laws, why are
people always trying to make more money?;-)

Clyde, toopid is actually the Communist. In his 'mind' everybody should
be paid the same, required to work the same amount, etc.

More BS.


Are you that patriotic/nationalistic? Do you never
take steps to minimise your tax burden come end of financial year?

Yes I do. But I'm consistently paying way more than my share.

What exactly is 'your fair share'?

Fed tax budget/every working adult.

How much more than your 'fair share'
are you paying?

Not enough according to Pelosi.


Is taking advantage of the progressive tax system the same as
freeloading? If he's paid his full share of tax according to the law
freeloading doesn't come into it.

First time I've ever heard anyone argue the law is the true
measure of fairness.

Duh. If you've never heard anybody 'argue the law is the true measure
of fairness' then you still haven't. Learn to read.

Paul, care to tell me what this sentence means?


Paul, do you still really think that toopid is not a moron? He's dumb
as a board.

Its been argued that civil rights shouldn't be voted on as the
majority shouldn't dictate the rights of a minority yet this
is exactly what happens when the poor/middle class start
excessively taxing the rich. We've got propositions in Ca that failed
every time they were brought up....until they added a provision
that only people making over 1M a year would have to pay for it.
Suddenly it passes.

I knew you couldn't cope with your philosophy being applied here.


Do you still want to vote on gay marriage, toopid? I mean, now that you
see that the same concept might affect you financially, that is?

Will gay marriage affect me financially? Giving gays the same
marriage tax that I get might be a very minor benefit.

toopid, tax rates shift and change. You have a basic civil right: move
to another area, or another country, where the tax laws/rates are more
in line with your attitudes.

Is this a love it or leave it argument? Since you don't agree with the
war, when are you moving out of the country?

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...

I am sounding like someone who understands that it is very dangerous to
have the majority in the form of a popular vote decide rights for a
minority. Debate is a good thing. Passion and emotion are not
necessarily a good thing. A representative republic like the US elects
representatives to make those decisions. People get mad that things
don't happen fast enough in Washington, but in some cases those
time-delays allow for thorough examination of issues and the thoughtful
debate that you say I do not want. That's where that type of debate
belongs, not in the world of one minute long political TV ads paid for
by PACs.

How well does this work in Pelosi's tax the rich to pay the poor world?

So, (assuming that your generalization about Pelosi is indeed correct)
in your 'mind,' tax rates and civil rights are equivalent?


You just hate it when your own philosophy fails you, don't you?
What did they call it back in the days of our founding fathers,
taxation without representation. Think about it.

ScottW

[dizzy]

ScottW wrote:

What exactly is 'your fair share'?

Fed tax budget/every working adult.

Huh?

[George M. Middius]

dizzy said:

What exactly is 'your fair share'?

Fed tax budget/every working adult.

Huh?

http://wolfsdencrafts.com/uploads/ChickenFeed.JPG






--

Lionella loves the Krooborg from afar. With mud on top.

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


dizzy said:

What exactly is 'your fair share'?

Fed tax budget/every working adult.

Huh?

http://wolfsdencrafts.com/uploads/ChickenFeed.JPG


Substitute rent-boy for chicken feed and you'll
get some insight into the life of George.

ScottW

[paul packer]

On 10 Jan 2007 11:38:29 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:


Is taking advantage of the progressive tax system the same as
freeloading? If he's paid his full share of tax according to the law
freeloading doesn't come into it.

First time I've ever heard anyone argue the law is the true
measure of fairness.

Nobody would be stupid enough to argue that in an absolute sense. But
paying one's legal tax obligation is, or should be, a protection
against the charge of freeloading.

Its been argued that civil rights shouldn't be voted on as the
majority shouldn't dictate the rights of a minority yet this
is exactly what happens when the poor/middle class start
excessively taxing the rich. We've got propositions in Ca that failed
every time they were brought up....until they added a provision
that only people making over 1M a year would have to pay for it.
Suddenly it passes.

And why do you suppose that is? Jealousy? Or just the not
unreasonaable sentiment that those who can afford to pay should pay.

[paul packer]

On 10 Jan 2007 15:23:52 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:



Clyde Slick wrote:
George M. Middius a scris:
Jenn said:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

Do we need a latter-day vote on those heretical words, Art?

and they meant that literally, afa women went.
We've engaged this issue before, and we will do it again.
anyway, gays have as much right to marry a member of the opposite
sex as do straights.

lol

Clyde wasn't joking, you know.

Marriage is no joking matter.

I agree: there's absolutely nothing funny about marriage.;-)

I suppose civil unions aren't, either.

Are you religious, Clyde?

Is that a categorising question? I'm sure it wouldn't be, coming from
you. :-)

[Clyde Slick]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! a scris:


Are you religious, Clyde?

I am a devout agnostic.
I worship my uncertainties.

[paul packer]

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:07:53 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


First time I've ever heard anyone argue the law is the true
measure of fairness.

Duh. If you've never heard anybody 'argue the law is the true measure
of fairness' then you still haven't. Learn to read.

Paul, care to tell me what this sentence means?

I think he's saying that I didn't mean to imply that. And he's right.

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

only people making over 1M a year would have to pay for it.

Or just the not
unreasonaable sentiment that those who can afford to pay should pay.

Scooter is simply too stupid to understand that overpaid white-collar
workers are afforded all their opportunities by government-mandated
infrastructures. Without the power systems, communication systems, and
transportation systems, the economies of countries like the U.S. and Oz
would be more like those of Russia and Chad. Scottie probably thinks the
government should just print more money every time a new road or power
plant needs building.







--

Lionella loves the Krooborg from afar. With mud on top.

[ScottW]

paul packer wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:07:53 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


First time I've ever heard anyone argue the law is the true
measure of fairness.

Duh. If you've never heard anybody 'argue the law is the true measure
of fairness' then you still haven't. Learn to read.

Paul, care to tell me what this sentence means?

I think he's saying that I didn't mean to imply that. And he's right.

So what did you mean by
"If he's paid his full share of tax according to the law
freeloading doesn't come into it. "?

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

Ah, to be in sixth grade again, just learning to read at an adult level...

First time I've ever heard anyone argue the law is the true
measure of fairness.

Duh. If you've never heard anybody 'argue the law is the true measure
of fairness' then you still haven't. Learn to read.

Paul, care to tell me what this sentence means?

I think he's saying that I didn't mean to imply that. And he's right.

So what did you mean by
"If he's paid his full share of tax according to the law
freeloading doesn't come into it. "?

This has been explained to you in three separate posts by three
individuals. However, that doesn't mean you won't benefit from yet a
fourth attempt to hammer this simple idea into your ultradensium skull:


Scottie Terrierborg, you are a nitwit. Shut up and go to your room.


Does that help you understand? ;-)







--

Lionella loves the Krooborg from afar. With mud on top.

[Clyde Slick]

George M. Middius a scris:
Ah, to be in sixth grade again, just learning to read at an adult level...

First time I've ever heard anyone argue the law is the true
measure of fairness.

Duh. If you've never heard anybody 'argue the law is the true measure
of fairness' then you still haven't. Learn to read.

Paul, care to tell me what this sentence means?

I think he's saying that I didn't mean to imply that. And he's right.

So what did you mean by
"If he's paid his full share of tax according to the law
freeloading doesn't come into it. "?

This has been explained to you in three separate posts by three
individuals. However, that doesn't mean you won't benefit from yet a
fourth attempt to hammer this simple idea into your ultradensium skull:




Progressive income tax--- higher incomes are taxed at a higher rate
than lower incomes
Flat income tax--- all income is taxed at the same rate
Regressive income tax-- lowe incomes are taxed at ahigher rate than
higher incomes.
Scott's plan is a regressive tax. Basing taxes on per capita rahter
than on income results in the most radically regtressive tax possible.
if the tax burden is per capita (total budget /# of working people),
lets say the burden
iS $10,000 per capita, that is a $10,000 perperson tax, thit is, the
ve3ry first $10,000
annual income each person makes, goes directly for taxes, and any
income above that $10,000 is entirely tax free.

This, according to Scott, is the most fair and equitable distribution
of the tax burden.
First, one gets to pay his taxes, after that one gets to live, maybe!!!!

[ScottW]

George M. Middius wrote:
Ah, to be in sixth grade again, just learning to read at an adult level...

First time I've ever heard anyone argue the law is the true
measure of fairness.

Duh. If you've never heard anybody 'argue the law is the true measure
of fairness' then you still haven't. Learn to read.

Paul, care to tell me what this sentence means?

I think he's saying that I didn't mean to imply that. And he's right.

So what did you mean by
"If he's paid his full share of tax according to the law
freeloading doesn't come into it. "?

This has been explained to you in three separate posts by three
individuals.

The circular argument that conflicts

fair share isn't freeloading.
full share according to the law isn't freeloading
but full share according to the law doesnt equate to a fair share.

I know these little things don't trouble you as you pay no share.


However, that doesn't mean you won't benefit from yet a
fourth attempt to hammer this simple idea into your ultradensium skull:


Scottie Terrierborg, you are a nitwit. Shut up and go to your room.


Does that help you understand? ;-)

Restoring me to your killfile would help more.

ScottW

[ScottW]

Clyde Slick wrote:
George M. Middius a scris:
Ah, to be in sixth grade again, just learning to read at an adult level...

First time I've ever heard anyone argue the law is the true
measure of fairness.

Duh. If you've never heard anybody 'argue the law is the true measure
of fairness' then you still haven't. Learn to read.

Paul, care to tell me what this sentence means?

I think he's saying that I didn't mean to imply that. And he's right.

So what did you mean by
"If he's paid his full share of tax according to the law
freeloading doesn't come into it. "?

This has been explained to you in three separate posts by three
individuals. However, that doesn't mean you won't benefit from yet a
fourth attempt to hammer this simple idea into your ultradensium skull:




Progressive income tax--- higher incomes are taxed at a higher rate
than lower incomes
Flat income tax--- all income is taxed at the same rate
Regressive income tax-- lowe incomes are taxed at ahigher rate than
higher incomes.
Scott's plan is a regressive tax. Basing taxes on per capita rahter
than on income results in the most radically regtressive tax possible.
if the tax burden is per capita (total budget /# of working people),
lets say the burden
iS $10,000 per capita, that is a $10,000 perperson tax, thit is, the
ve3ry first $10,000
annual income each person makes, goes directly for taxes, and any
income above that $10,000 is entirely tax free.

This, according to Scott, is the most fair and equitable distribution
of the tax burden.
First, one gets to pay his taxes, after that one gets to live, maybe!!!!

I accept that people should be allowed to live first...so the basic
living wage should be tax free. Then pay your fair share.
Anything above that....you keep.

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

ScottW a scris:
Clyde Slick wrote:
George M. Middius a scris:
Ah, to be in sixth grade again, just learning to read at an adult level...

First time I've ever heard anyone argue the law is the true
measure of fairness.

Duh. If you've never heard anybody 'argue the law is the true measure
of fairness' then you still haven't. Learn to read.

Paul, care to tell me what this sentence means?

I think he's saying that I didn't mean to imply that. And he's right.

So what did you mean by
"If he's paid his full share of tax according to the law
freeloading doesn't come into it. "?

This has been explained to you in three separate posts by three
individuals. However, that doesn't mean you won't benefit from yet a
fourth attempt to hammer this simple idea into your ultradensium skull:




Progressive income tax--- higher incomes are taxed at a higher rate
than lower incomes
Flat income tax--- all income is taxed at the same rate
Regressive income tax-- lowe incomes are taxed at ahigher rate than
higher incomes.
Scott's plan is a regressive tax. Basing taxes on per capita rahter
than on income results in the most radically regtressive tax possible.
if the tax burden is per capita (total budget /# of working people),
lets say the burden
iS $10,000 per capita, that is a $10,000 perperson tax, thit is, the
ve3ry first $10,000
annual income each person makes, goes directly for taxes, and any
income above that $10,000 is entirely tax free.

This, according to Scott, is the most fair and equitable distribution
of the tax burden.
First, one gets to pay his taxes, after that one gets to live, maybe!!!!

I accept that people should be allowed to live first...so the basic
living wage should be tax free. Then pay your fair share.
Anything above that....you keep.

ScottW

Good!
You have progressed from slavery to permanent indentured
servitude.