Was Pitts right?
in [Golf]
|
From: Alan Baker on 18 Dec 2009 00:46 In article <q55mi5d0vla715758ssv1872k0n8ggpvco(a)4ax.com>, David Laville <dglaville(a)nospam.bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:02:26 -0800, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> > wrote: > > >> 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? > > Because you're acting like a child which by the way coincides with > your juvenile sense of reasoning. Look up "circular argument" and "begging the question". -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Alan Baker on 18 Dec 2009 00:49 In article <DICdnXyRsNpokrbWnZ2dnUVZ_s5i4p2d(a)supernews.com>, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: > 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. I respect your right to hold that opinion, but I don't care. Ken wants to whine about how he'd "prefer" if I left him alone, but it's bullshit. > > YMMV and probably does. Just a little honest feedback from > little old me. And unlike many around here, feedback is always welcome. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Alan Baker on 18 Dec 2009 00:50 In article <DICdnXmRsNpTjbbWnZ2dnUVZ_s5i4p2d(a)supernews.com>, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: > assimilate(a)borg.org 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. > > cb No, that's specious. Not taxing someone's property again is not "subsidizing" anyone. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Chris Bellomy on 18 Dec 2009 00:52 Alan Baker wrote, On 12/17/09 11:44 PM: > In article <DICdnUKRsNqMkrbWnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d(a)supernews.com>, > Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: > >> 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. > > No, Chris. That usage of the term "regressive" is emotionally loaded and > I won't buy it. Sorry, but it's factual. Poorer people pay a far greater percentage of their income in those taxes and fees than do the wealthy. Period. >> 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. No it doesn't. It simply assigns a cost to making more of it. This is income we're discussing, not wealth, so what someone *has* is irrelevant. > And "hoarding" is bullshit. It is bullshit, which is why it needs to be stopped. Money being yanked out of circulation is exactly what has us in the mess we're in now. > My father was a wealthy man. He became wealthy by building a successful > business that employs more than 150 people. And he did it during a period of income taxes sharply more progressive than today's. But if his successful business employed only ~150 people, then he's not even part of this discussion. The real problem today is at the top 1%, and moreso at the top half of that 1%. > 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. I'm looking left and right and in the mirror, and so far I haven't seen anyone who has a disagreement with you on that. > That's not hoarding: that's building. Yes, exactly! cb
From: Chris Bellomy on 18 Dec 2009 00:56
Alan Baker wrote, On 12/17/09 11:50 PM: > In article <DICdnXmRsNpTjbbWnZ2dnUVZ_s5i4p2d(a)supernews.com>, > Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: > >> assimilate(a)borg.org 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. > > No, that's specious. > > Not taxing someone's property again is not "subsidizing" anyone. This whole notion of "taxing someone's property again" is specious. What happens when you use that money to buy something? It gets taxed again. When you used to hire somebody? It gets taxed again. When the guy you bought that thing from adds it to the bottom line of his business? It gets taxed again. You're just using scare words that have no real meaning when you go there. cb |