mnealtx 0 #126 August 24, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteImpossible to answer that which only leads to fallacy. Yes, we're all aware that any situation in which the union doesn't save the day is a fallacy to you. Again, The King of the Eloquent Prose hits back with another pop fly condescending rhetorical reply. His swing is weak. The crowd is not impressed. It's another out for the King's team. Mike, I repaired your error. QuoteMy original reply was to only only hire what was needed. That is a very common practice in siding. Immaterial. The question didn't ask who you'd hire, it stated that you have 2 existing crews. And I answered accordingly, concerning two crews. No, you didn't. You made up an entirely new scenario instead. Thanks for proving the point.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #127 August 24, 2011 QuoteNo, you didn't. You made up an entirely new scenario instead. Thanks for proving the point. Honestly, I expected nothing less than your typical condescending, rhetorical reply. You are the King. It is clear that you are incapable of writing a proper argument to support your complaint. Why am I not surprised?"...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #128 August 24, 2011 QuoteIt is clear that you are incapable of writing a proper argument to support your complaint. A proper response rebuts the argument as given. It doesn't make a new one up out of thin air - your usual gambit.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #129 August 24, 2011 QuoteA proper response rebuts the argument as given. Condescending rhetoric cannot be considered to be a proper rebuttal. Your style of debate is lacking the skill of a third grade playground argument. I have yet to see you compose a full paragraph in order to support any argument. I can only conclude that you lack even the most elementary skill to complete such a simple task. Your use of age old rhetoric only serves to support my argument that you have no argument. One would be better to debate points with a wall. I expect your rebuttal will be more of the same. It is, however, the most you are capable of."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #130 August 24, 2011 QuoteQuoteA proper response rebuts the argument as given. Condescending rhetoric cannot be considered to be a proper rebuttal. Truth, as above, is, however. QuoteYour style of debate is lacking the skill of a third grade playground argument. Says the man who can't rebut without changing the argument to support his point. QuoteI have yet to see you compose a full paragraph in order to support any argument. Just shows how badly your 'arguments' suck. QuoteI can only conclude that you lack even the most elementary skill to complete such a simple task. See above, re: changing the argument. QuoteYour use of age old rhetoric only serves to support my argument that you have no argument. One would be better to debate points with a wall. Speaking of...planning on rebutting the China thing, or are you going to continue to run from it? QuoteI expect your rebuttal will be more of the same. It is, however, the most you are capable of. It's all your attempts at an argument rate.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #131 August 24, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteA proper response rebuts the argument as given. Condescending rhetoric cannot be considered to be a proper rebuttal. Truth, as above, is, however. QuoteYour style of debate is lacking the skill of a third grade playground argument. Says the man who can't rebut without changing the argument to support his point. QuoteI have yet to see you compose a full paragraph in order to support any argument. Just shows how badly your 'arguments' suck. QuoteI can only conclude that you lack even the most elementary skill to complete such a simple task. See above, re: changing the argument. QuoteYour use of age old rhetoric only serves to support my argument that you have no argument. One would be better to debate points with a wall. Speaking of...planning on rebutting the China thing, or are you going to continue to run from it? QuoteI expect your rebuttal will be more of the same. It is, however, the most you are capable of. It's all your attempts at an argument rate. I contend that one liners do not support an oppositions claim. You have given support to my claim. You constant use of the one line rhetorical reply is my proof. Your never ending support is greatly appreciated. Please continue to entertain us. I expect nothing more. Anything less would be disappointing."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grimmie 179 #132 August 24, 2011 Quote Quote Dick Cheney is such a great American! What a patriot. Yup, that's about all you've got left in regards to any argument. When I see Cheney on TV blabbing all of his BS it makes my skin crawl. He's a war profiteer that has made a living fleecing America. Not unlike many other politicians. In my opinion he's one of the biggest traitors to ever grace Washington, ever. And as far as arguments. I have a lot left, but don't find it's necessary to debate. You have your views, I have mine. Besides, I throw something your way, you throw it back, and everyone else waltzes in and battles.Back to the regularly scheduled usual changing of minds efforts... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #133 August 24, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Dick Cheney is such a great American! What a patriot. Yup, that's about all you've got left in regards to any argument. Coming from the King of the Eloquent Prose, that is funny. Considering that the extent of much of your replies consist of nothing more than condescending rhetoric. Another case of the irony meter exploding"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #134 August 24, 2011 QuoteA group of 16 of France's wealthiest people have signed a petition asking the French government to raise their taxes. The group call for a "special contribution" targeting the rich. The petition, published on the website of weekly magazine Le Nouvel Observateur, says: We are conscious of having benefited from a French system and a European environment that we are attached to and which we hope to help maintain. The group includes Liliane Bettencourt, the billionaire heiress of L'Oreal; Christophe de Margerie, the head of oil giant Total; Frederic Oudea of bank Société Générale; and Jean-Cyril Spinetta, president of Air France KLM SA. This follows US billionaire Warren Buffett's call to increase taxes on the super-rich: I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them... Most wouldn't mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering. The French signatories may get their wish -- President Nicolas Sarkozy is looking at altering tax exemptions for the wealthy. The backlash from Republicans against Buffett indicates that his wishes are less likely to be fulfilled. http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/08/france-taxes-petition-richstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #135 August 24, 2011 How soon we forget: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDD5tDzNDwo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mirage62 0 #136 August 24, 2011 I have a direct simple question for Amazon, Dreamdancer and Kallend (of course anyone else is more than free to answer) From a stand point of SALARY per year. WHAT is rich? Just a number. PLEASE no "in New York 150k isn't rich" because if the Fed tax code is changed they aren't going to ASK where you live. This would be the group of people you would support taxing more. I'm being serious and would like a serious answer within the term I framed it with. If any of the above would answer that question we can run the number and see how much it would bring in provide you would say how much MORE you would tax them. I believe you will have to go below 100K and that won't be enough. We have to raise taxes AND cut spending (Military, S.S. Med Care.....)Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #137 August 24, 2011 QuoteWe have to raise taxes AND cut spending (Military, S.S. Med Care.....) Funny, that's exactly what the Democrats have been saying. Be careful, you'll get labeled if you keep talking like that. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #138 August 24, 2011 you could have a wealth tax instead of/as well as an income tax. how about a 'robin hood' tax on banks and the financial market? an increase in capital gains tax? salary isn't the end of and be all of 'wealthy' (if your only income is a salary you're very unlikely to be 'rich') stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #139 August 24, 2011 QuoteI have a direct simple question for Amazon, Dreamdancer and Kallend (of course anyone else is more than free to answer) From a stand point of SALARY per year. WHAT is rich? Just a number. PLEASE no "in New York 150k isn't rich" because if the Fed tax code is changed they aren't going to ASK where you live. This would be the group of people you would support taxing more. I'm being serious and would like a serious answer within the term I framed it with. If any of the above would answer that question we can run the number and see how much it would bring in provide you would say how much MORE you would tax them. I believe you will have to go below 100K and that won't be enough. We have to raise taxes AND cut spending (Military, S.S. Med Care.....) No shit Sherlock.... Perhaps returning our tax structure to where it was when Clinton left office.. before your great Economist who did such a stellar job with every form of business or government entity he ever touched came to power. When he rewrote the tax code to benefit his family and good ole boy buddies he took us to the same place he took all those business ventures he ever touched. I work around people who make mid 6 figures every day... they are not rich..but they do have disposable income that are not hurt by a bit more taxation. The upper management... has done far far better with many millionaires and billionaires created around here. I think you will find most of them realize that helping others to succeed has enriched many of them financially as well as morally. There is something to be learned from that.. if only the GOAT FUCK STUPID.... would actually listen and learn Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #140 August 24, 2011 QuotePerhaps returning our tax structure to where it was when Clinton left office.. Ah, the magical Clinton years.... where 18% of those making less than 5k/year were taxed. Yup, that's gonna help the poor a lot! QuoteWhen he rewrote the tax code to benefit his family and good ole boy buddies Is *that* why they ended up paying more of the total tax bill? To benefit them?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,819 #141 August 24, 2011 Just take that statistics course and quit spouting your silly interpretation of the data.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #142 August 24, 2011 QuoteQuotePerhaps returning our tax structure to where it was when Clinton left office.. Ah, the magical Clinton years.... where 18% of those making less than 5k/year were taxed. Yup, that's gonna help the poor a lot! QuoteWhen he rewrote the tax code to benefit his family and good ole boy buddies Is *that* why they ended up paying more of the total tax bill? To benefit them? Yo... Bubba..... what was the deficit uner Clinton... or... Carter even before you TRICKLE ONists ( funny how your TRICKLE downists turned intoTRICKLING ON the American People) got our economy by the throat again???? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,819 #143 August 24, 2011 QuoteFrom a stand point of SALARY per year. WHAT is rich? In which year's $dollars? To account for the changing value of money, and that INCOME isn't an accurate measure of RICHNESS, I'd suggest we just say that the top 1% of WEALTH owners are rich regardless of whether they have any realized income or not. I also find it objectionable that unearned income is treated preferentially in the tax code.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #144 August 24, 2011 Quote Just take that statistics course and quit spouting your silly interpretation of the data. AS IF Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #145 August 24, 2011 Quote Just take that statistics course and quit spouting your silly interpretation of the data. Still can't rebut the numbers, eh perfesser?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #146 August 24, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuotePerhaps returning our tax structure to where it was when Clinton left office.. Ah, the magical Clinton years.... where 18% of those making less than 5k/year were taxed. Yup, that's gonna help the poor a lot! QuoteWhen he rewrote the tax code to benefit his family and good ole boy buddies Is *that* why they ended up paying more of the total tax bill? To benefit them? Yo... Bubba..... what was the deficit uner Clinton... or... Carter even before you TRICKLE ONists ( funny how your TRICKLE downists turned intoTRICKLING ON the American People) got our economy by the throat again???? Final Rep budget (FY 2007): 163B deficit. First Dem budget (FY 2008): 458B deficit. Second Dem budget (FY 2009): 1.2T deficit.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #147 August 24, 2011 QuoteI have a direct simple question for Amazon, Dreamdancer and Kallend (of course anyone else is more than free to answer) You won't get an answer from any of them. I've asked Dreamer multiple times what percentage the top 1% should be taxed..I get nothing. Welcome to the Nannystate blame-america redistribution entitlement crowd. When you show them IRS tax rate data they say "oh but that's not capital gains!" When you illustrate a corporation's community donations they say "of course it's a tax writeoff!!" When you show dollars paid in taxes they pretty much disagree and claim that the figures are skewed. Billvon is pretty much the only lefty on here that seems fiscally moderate/slightly conservative. That's probably because he is smart and has always worked hard for his money. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,819 #148 August 24, 2011 QuoteQuote Just take that statistics course and quit spouting your silly interpretation of the data. Still can't rebut the numbers, eh perfesser? I've explained why they are meaningless to the point you attempt to make. Not my fault if you can't understand. BTW, let's see that flag with 51 stars on it outside FBI HQ.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,819 #149 August 24, 2011 QuoteQuoteI have a direct simple question for Amazon, Dreamdancer and Kallend (of course anyone else is more than free to answer) You won't get an answer from any of them.. Just shows how wrong YOU can be.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #150 August 24, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotePerhaps returning our tax structure to where it was when Clinton left office.. Ah, the magical Clinton years.... where 18% of those making less than 5k/year were taxed. Yup, that's gonna help the poor a lot! QuoteWhen he rewrote the tax code to benefit his family and good ole boy buddies Is *that* why they ended up paying more of the total tax bill? To benefit them? Yo... Bubba..... what was the deficit uner Clinton... or... Carter even before you TRICKLE ONists ( funny how your TRICKLE downists turned intoTRICKLING ON the American People) got our economy by the throat again???? Final Rep budget (FY 2007): 163B deficit. First Dem budget (FY 2008): 458B deficit. Second Dem budget (FY 2009): 1.2T deficit. Gee how much of that deficit.. is because of the GOAT FUCK STUPID among you who put your Heo in office again? Or are you going to claim that had NO effect when you guys have bent the country over so soundly for so long Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
