From: Chris Bellomy on
assimilate(a) wrote, On 12/17/09 10:03 PM:
> On 17-Dec-2009, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote:
>> Doesn't have to be a lie to be under false pretenses.
> yes because it implies deception,

Yes, but it doesn't make clear who deceived.

It's moot anyway, because the administration lied repeatedly.
It's in the history books now.

From: Chris Bellomy on
assimilate(a) wrote, On 12/17/09 10:09 PM:
> On 17-Dec-2009, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote:
>> There has been considerable reporting about the stovepiping
>> of intel through Cheney's office. I want to be precise about
>> this, though: *Cheney's* office.
>> But the links between Cheney and the doctored intel are
>> documented and proved.
> where? did quite a bit of the investigative
reporting, which probably explains why you never read it.
Nevertheless, if you want to get down to the details, those
are the archives to read. The reporting was quite thorough
and specific.

From: Chris Bellomy on
assimilate(a) wrote, On 12/17/09 10:15 PM:
> On 17-Dec-2009, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote:
>>> It should be zero.
>> So, you hate people who would succeed on their own merit.
> nice false dilema

So, you don't see a problem with forcing working people to
subsidize the Paris Hiltons of the world?

Next time I'll just name a random Kennedy, because working
people subsidize them, too, when there is no estate tax.

From: David Laville on
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:02:26 -0800, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)>

>> For Pete's sake, grow up and stop acting like a child.
>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?

Because you're acting like a child which by the way coincides with
your juvenile sense of reasoning.

David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
From: Alan Baker on
In article <DICdnUKRsNqMkrbWnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d(a)>,
Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote, On 12/17/09 6:26 PM:
> > In article <7f-dnVvv25AyV7fWnZ2dnUVZ_opi4p2d(a)>,
> > 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.

No, Chris. That usage of the term "regressive" is emotionally loaded and
I won't buy it.

> 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.

No, again. It simply takes money from those who have more of it. It
isn't anything particularly noble.

And "hoarding" is bullshit.

My father was a wealthy man. He became wealthy by building a successful
business that employs more than 150 people.

Did he get a lot more out it than any of them did individually? Hell,
yes! Is that wrong? Hell, no! He took the risks, he made it happen. The
wealth was the reward for creating a business that gave all those people
good jobs.

That's not hoarding: that's building.

Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia