Was Pitts right?
in [Golf]
|
From: David Laville on 17 Dec 2009 23:59 On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:27:07 -0800, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote: >If you want to show that "[you] prefer for [me] to leave [you] alone", >try not making gratuitous remarks about me. For Pete's sake, grow up and stop acting like a child. David Laville, G.S.E.M. The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
From: Alan Baker on 18 Dec 2009 00:02 In article <r03mi5p3ldcjnrarhv17gb969prjupfr71(a)4ax.com>, David Laville <dglaville(a)nospam.bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:27:07 -0800, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> > wrote: > > >If you want to show that "[you] prefer for [me] to leave [you] alone", > >try not making gratuitous remarks about me. > > For Pete's sake, grow up and stop acting like a child. LOL Ken claimed that he preferred to be left alone by me, but his actions prior to that belie that claim. How does that make *me* the child in this interaction? -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Chris Bellomy on 18 Dec 2009 00:11 Alan Baker wrote, On 12/17/09 6:26 PM: > In article <7f-dnVvv25AyV7fWnZ2dnUVZ_opi4p2d(a)supernews.com>, > Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: > >> kenpitts wrote, On 12/17/09 6:04 PM: >>> Why does the bottom half of tax payers pay almost nothing? And the top >>> 10% pays over 70%? >> Because the top 10% makes over 70% of the income. >> >> This has been another episode of "Simple Answers to Silly Questions." >> >> cb > > I think you should both supply some actual figures... I was being cheeky, answering one misleading statement with another. The truth is that as of 2005, the top 10% makes 45% of the income.* However, Ken completely ignores all other taxes, per the custom of the glibertarian. Payroll taxes are utterly regressive; sales taxes are regressive; the increasing reliance on fees and tolls and lotteries to fund local and state governments are regressive. The glibertarians don't count those. In any event, the whole discussion is sorta pointless. Progressive taxation, contrary to the whines of the rich, does not target any particular group of people. Rather, it taxes a specific action which is harmful to the economy -- the hoarding of money. Anyone who doesn't want to pay top marginal rates is free not to hoard. Pretty simple. cb *http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html
From: Chris Bellomy on 18 Dec 2009 00:13 kenpitts wrote, On 12/17/09 6:30 PM: > On Dec 17, 6:19 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: >> kenpitts wrote, On 12/17/09 6:04 PM: >> >>> Why does the bottom half of tax payers pay almost nothing? And the top >>> 10% pays over 70%? >> Because the top 10% makes over 70% of the income. >> >> This has been another episode of "Simple Answers to Silly Questions." >> >> cb > > Gee Chris. That is not correct. According to the source I cited. The > top 10% brought in 48% of the total adjusted gross income. I knew that. But the truth is that the top 10% doesn't pay anywhere near 70% of all taxes. They just pay 70% of the taxes you complain about. The regressive ones all seem to be just fine. And of course, Paris Hilton can get by just fine paying almost no taxes at all, having no need for actual income. So how do you feel about subsidizing Paris? cb
From: Chris Bellomy on 18 Dec 2009 00:15
Alan Baker wrote, On 12/17/09 8:20 PM: > In article > <748ccd33-1b10-49d2-a1e9-311f5a88a8be(a)d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, > kenpitts <ken.ptts(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Oh, look. Ken's whining for my attention again. >>>>>>>> Actually, I prefer for you to leave me alone. >>>>>>> If that were true, you wouldn't have had to write the next two >>>>>>> sentences... >>>>>>>> My bad for tweaking you. >>>>>>>> With apologies. >>>>>>> Sorry, Ken, but I no longer trust your word. You've admitted that >>>>>>> you're >>>>>>> willing to break it. >>>>>>> Your actions speak far more loudly. >>>>>> OK. Whatever. I like the new regime. Believe what you will. >>>>>> Ken >>>>> Golly, Ken! Thanks for giving me permission to believe what I want. >>>>> Here's a thought for you in return. >>>>> If you want to show that "[you] prefer for [me] to leave [you] alone", >>>>> try not making gratuitous remarks about me. >>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>> I admitted that I shouldn't have, but you said that you didn't believe >>>> me. >>> No, Ken. I don't believe you when you say one thing ("I prefer for you >>> to leave me alone."), but do another (make a gratuitous insult when I'm >>> not even conversing with you). >>> >>> >>> >>>> Uncle............... >>> I know, Ken... ...I know. Big mean old Alan expecting you to accept >>> responsibility for your behaviour like an adult would. How wrong of me. >>> >>> If you really don't want to continue this discussion, there's an easy >>> way: >>> >>> Don't reply. >>> >>> But then you'd have to end your little pity party, wouldn't you? >>> >> OK > > Why did you post this, Ken? > > You keep saying you "prefer...", blah, blah, blah, but your *actions* > don't match your words. > > If you really don't want his conversation to go on... > > -- Here's a thought! -- > > ...don't answer. Alan, I like you. I respect your intellect. But by playing these pedantic games, you don't exactly elevate yourself above what you criticize as far as you could, IMO. YMMV and probably does. Just a little honest feedback from little old me. cb |