Lucky...

you're the one bringing up conspiracies. I just pointed out that you're being inflexible and narrow minded. But once I realized that was because you're a democrat, I get it now. How about this instead: Yes... you're right. I'm sorry. How uncaring of me. I feel horrible. You were right all along. Is that better? I don't there was ever a tax conspiracy, it's the dellusion of the RW that the gov is out for rich people. I'm very open minded, evidence of that is found with my stance on taxes and that I don't just automatically think the gov is out to get us. Your bretheren think that, I assume you probably do to at least a degree. I realize that whenever money moves, it's taxed; if a person holds and moves more money, they get taxed but only becuase they are moving the money, not because they hold the money.

now I'm concerned about your health too. You're awfully cranky this morning. Couldn't sleep well? you wanted to specify "money". It's called "Income Tax" Look up there at the title. I was being more general. Simply pointing out where you were being a little narrow in your viewpoint. Narrow view, and inflexible. Oh wait... my bad... you're a Democrat. That's par for the course. I get it now. I understand why you're cranky now too. Likely the rain that's been going on in Zimbabwe. Bad weather can have a range of effects on people. You'll feel better after it clears up. The fact that you take my profile as litteral and correct explains volumes. I get it, did a long time ago; you cannot argue that taxes are not applied to income/money, so you try to argue that by me saying, "money" that was different than saying, "income." The money to which I was refering was the income. 9 pages of everyone else getting it but you isn't a defense. So, you agree that Income (money) is taxed, not people, right? Great, then quit whining as if there is a conspiracy against certain people.

...which never should have taken place in the first place because it was orchestrated by the Republican effort to destroy him personally for completely political reasons. As I just said. As you just read. What part "fuck that, and the horse, too" do you pretend to not understand? It is nice to know you think sexual harassment is so petty. ""fuck that, and the horse, too" If you want to insult me, then do it. But don't pussy out and hide behind a vaguely veiled PA. Lying about sex/harrasssment and lying about murder/world crimes have in common 1 thing: lies. Other than that, they are worlds apart. I still find it entertaining how you pretend to be in teh middle, run to defend the conservative side, then when called on it, run back to the middle and repaet until it becomes nauseating.

ok... glad you came around. but really... you shouldn't let me get to you so much. bold and caps? wow... someone needs better sleep I think. Came around????? The only dispute we had was that I was genralizing money as income, you wanted it specified. Certain things should be moot, esp in thread entitled, "Half of U.S. pays no federal income tax." The money to which I was refering to was the income, glad to see you are now at the same place everyone else was at the start of this thread, 9 pages ago.

Indeed. Which is why we have laws requiring driving tests before a driver's license is issued, rules of the road, restrictions on alcohol sales, alcohol prohibited rules in many public areas, registration of cars and trucks, mandatory insurance, vehicle inspections, vehicle-free zones etc. Nice of you to point out that there's NO DIFFERENCE between the two activities, one of which is heavily regulated for the public good, and one of which is not but obviously should be. Thanks

What the story doesn't say is that he was a P.D. washout turned detention officer, Arpaio's finest. A real Barney Fife. Altho I'm for the passage, I wouldn't carry one of my arms concealed unless I had a need. I don't have a CCW. A month ago I saw an idiot 20 YO kjid wearing a Ruger P85 (POS 9mm throw away) on his hip. We were in a grocery store. It made all uncomfortable. All it does is to draw police attention, criminals attention and make most feel, "why the fuck do you need it?" True, but that is open carrying, which I agree is a really bad idea. If everyone can see you are carrying a gun, it makes other people very nervous, and you become a target. I'm sure there are many people out there who could take a gun off my hip and kill me before I turn around. There is no reason to open carry out in public, leave that for the police. I much prefer that many people are carrying, but nobody knows who is. If the bad guys know who has a gun, it really takes away the best advantage that citizens have. I'm for the signing of this law, even though it may or may not be a good idea. Basically, nothing will change, if a person feels they neeed to carry a gun, they will get a CCW or just do it w/o that. I don't think a thing will be different pre-law vs post.

That's not semantics, semantics is you claiming that income is taxed, not money when the money to which I refer is income-based money, just as with the thread title. Yes, a car, a vacation or money in a lottery is all considered to have a monetary value. If that value creates an eligible pool to be taxed by way of it's size amount then it gets taxed and the person who gets to enjoy it must pay part of that pool of money to the gov. OK, and?????? GOOD!!! Then I see we're on the same page. The money to which I refer is the income money. Winning a prize has a money value, income via labor is income money, capital gains income is money. I don't see where you're trying to get by attempting to call income and money as different things in this argument. The argument is this: PEOPLE ARE NOT TAXED, THE POOL OF INCOME/MONEY IS. If a given person earns/wins/whatever, if a person acquires money or items worth money, that money is taxable. If that same person earns nothing the next year, that person owes nothing because he/she earned nothing. SO what changed, what caused that person to be taxed one year and not the next has zero to do with the person; everything to do with the money.

This thread is about income tax, so you are taxed as a no-interest savings account. Withholding is just that, a savings account from which to pay your taxes at the end of the year. You can adjust that by changing your witholding or just let it accrue and get a huge refund. Again, if you earn more, you have a higher pool of money, that pool gets taxed. You take the year off, you pay no taxes and are now elegible for EIC, etc. So the person isn't taxed, juist the money - as in aeverything finacial; follow the money,not the person. Because of the graduated scale. The tax bar is not flat and ascending, it's a curve. It's just a way of collecting more from those who have more. At teh same time, we have a lot of tax writeoffs and an ultra-low employee tax scale. I don't care if you get the money form 15 diff sources, when there is a collection of $$$, that collecction of $$$ gets taxed, regardless of who's name is attached to it. Only people get charged with a crime, not animals or any other substance can be charged. If there is a pool of newly acquired money, a person is attached to it and has the burden of paying taxes, and the luxury of being able to enjoy it. I realize we all hate taxes, tell me, how would you pay for things if not taxes? The top 20% hold 93% of all cash, tell me, where are you able to get the $$$ from a lovely society that distributes their wealth so disproportionately? Looking at taxes as money being taxed, not a person is like understanding that auto, home, etc insurance is leagalized corporate gambling; it's a different approach but true. If taxes were about people, then a given set of people would be taxed constantly, but as it is, a pool of money is taxed and the perosn who holds it matters not. Taxes are not personal, they're procedural.

If he leads over a 10T increase, which is his own rosy estimates, you bet. Health care and cash for cars are two examples. C4C was 3B of a 787B stimulus + a 700B bank bailout; can you keep it relevant? Seriously, make a real argument. WHat is that, 2% of the sum total of both? Become relevant. HC isn't paid for yet, hasn't become part of the US infrastructure, tax structure, etc. Again, CAN YOU BE RELEVANT WITH YOUR ARGUMENTS? And if he leads to over a 10T increase. Fuck all the IF's in the world. If Obama runs the debt 5T he will be a hero, he will have averted the 2nd coming of the GD, took the 2nd worst economy ever and spun it around, brought jobs back, HC to 30M people, etc. Let's contrast that with the job of your hero you are in denail of, GWB took the end of the longest growth period and ran the fucker into the ground, got involved in 2 wars w/o cause and in general watched as the country went to fuck chanting, 'tax cuts, my friends.' So it may cost Obama 5T to spin it around, but don't fear, the pathetic American public will elect another Republican turd who will bring us back to the GWB glory years. ONE MORE TIME, you avvoided the questions, here's the post again; I'll even enumerate the questions: Reagan created 3T in new debt????? OK, so history isn't your stromg suit. Reagan basically trippled the debt of 900B as he took office to that of 2.7B as he left, he created what was a hair under 2T. The debt has incr 2T under Obama, about 1/2 of that is due to the virtual record low receipts, others are stimulus and war spending. Answer this w/o runing or misdirecting: 1) Do you blame Obama for the debt increase? 1A) If so, what would you have done differently? 2) You do know that even w/o the stimulus that the debt would have grown based upon what he inherited due to insanely low tax receipts? 3) The mess Clinton inherited was at least stable with the pig out of control for 4 years, GHWB had the mess turned around, but not profitable yet. Clinton got it profitable. The mess Obama inherited was in full freefall, but you think it's intelligent to blame Obama huh? If you need clarification, I would be glad.

A bunch of irrational kids in the peak of hormone production, competing for grades, a spot on the team and that hot bitch over there? I can't think of a better place to have everyone armed. School policy won't allow that; I GUARANTEE IT. Which means an idiot carrying one can't be arrested, just removed for good.

What the story doesn't say is that he was a P.D. washout turned detention officer, Arpaio's finest. A real Barney Fife. Altho I'm for the passage, I wouldn't carry one of my arms concealed unless I had a need. I don't have a CCW. A month ago I saw an idiot 20 YO kjid wearing a Ruger P85 (POS 9mm throw away) on his hip. We were in a grocery store. It made all uncomfortable. All it does is to draw police attention, criminals attention and make most feel, "why the fuck do you need it?"

I dislike ‘anyone’ that harms someone unnecessarily. You are defending the practice of incarcerating innocent people in order to wage a war that is built on false pretences, the murder of innocent people. That is immoral. You could say nothing or agree that innocent people should not be kept, but instead you either want to disagree with me, or you want to defend these actions. Once again you spout dribble in response to a post without reading it first. Nowhere did I defend Cheney, Bush, and/or Rumsfeld. Right, you do so indirectly, then sit in the middle and say, "what, me?" Go build a trailer you pseudo acft engineer.

If you click on the link on the first post, you will se a current Fox news article on this bush admnistration whistleblower,it is big news. The right wing neo cunts will just deny it for a couple of days, apathy will set back in, and back to business as usual after that, back to blatant corruption and war crimes. It s quite pathetic, no one has got a spine anymore. Too fucking scared to look stupid or 'out of line'. Weak as weak can be... Just go with the flow. Morons! those you protect will shit on you at the drop of a hat. Sure, they're called nationalists; this forum is full of them. Nazi Germany had them everywhere, or be shoved in a concentration camp, bad thing is that Americans don't have to be one to survive, they want to be one.

I know what Chaney's response to this would be: "Go Fuck Yourself" It would be very entertaining to me if they did make such a try. Which is what Saddam's position was, I wonder if the outcome could be the same??? They really have so much in common.

We can't afford to maintain the most expensive socialist organization in the country, especially where the main benefit is national pride. I recognize that doing away with socialism may be impractical in this modern world, although when downsizing to what we need for defense we could put former military members to work doing something productive using less expensive capital ($4.5B for an aircraft carrier, $2.1B per new bomber built, $112M per new fighter), like infrastructure repair or Obama care. You attributed that quote to Mike, it's Bill's quote. How does the military play into military pride? Just because you think it does doesn't mean it does. A well-run military does, but an oppressive one that practices torture and violates Geneva at every turn does not.....but that's just me. Other countries our size (Canada, Eh?) spend $20B a year to defend their countries while we spend $700B which is as much as the rest of the world put together. As long as we're not in the empire building business the excess is only about providing employment and having a bigger dick than the rest of the world. That's pride. And it's not worth $600B. You've had a paradigm shift, I agree with you, there is no enemy present and if there is in ref to the M.E. then the problem is not a military issue, it's more dimplomatic and homeland security-based. I fully agree with you and your data is correct. Again, what caused the paradigm shift?

You're right, sort of. Reagan created 3T in new debt, while Obama is on track to do 10 if he gets reelected. Reagan created 3T in new debt????? OK, so history isn't your stromg suit. Reagan basically trippled the debt of 900B as he took office to that of 2.7B as he left, he created what was a hair under 2T. The debt has incr 2T under Obama, about 1/2 of that is due to the virtual record low receipts, others are stimulus and war spending. Answer this w/o runing or misdirecting: Do you blame Obama for the debt increase? If so, what would you have done differently? You do know that even w/o the stimulus that the debt would have grown based upon what he inherited due to insanely low tax receipts? The mess Clinton inherited was at least stable with the pig out of control for 4 years, GHWB had the mess turned around, but not profitable yet. Clinton got it profitable. The mess Obama inherited was in full freefall, but you think it's intelligent to blame Obama huh?

Agreed. Threads like this and posters like those just make me more happy to be on the other side. We're happy to have you there, it's currently called the minority.

Don't you hate to be remninded of your party's abhorrent deeds? Maybe that explains your party's fall from grace, minimized to tapping under a shitter stall for cock. I am loyal to no political party, sorry to dissappoint you. So you'll just have to find another way to frame you PA's. I guess you did forget why Clinton was called to testify. How quickly we forget the misdeeds of our idols. You're conservative which means either Republican or Libertarian in denial of either/both.

Ummm....not quite correct. Bush has been in Canada since he left office... Canada is about as foreign as he better go, if you really call that foreign. http://hiscrivener.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/jesus-land.gif Facts aren't really that important to you, are they? If you have a point to make, make it. If not, keep teh ad hominem rhetoric going.

The diff is that on this side we provide data, not some FOX article.

I believe in it, just that the constitution doesn't specify that as a blank check. If the FF wanted that they would have just made the statement: "The right to bear arms shall never be abridged." They didn't, they made reference to militias and well regulation. Of course we can just ignore parts and the rest is clear. It must be hard thinking you're knowledgeable in so many areas and falling short in all of them. Failing to understand definitions like militia or regulated doesn't serve you well. There's really one big problem with removing any licensing on the CCW - you diminish the ability to measure success. We know that CCW permit holders are highly law abiding citizens, and with millions in the set, it's quite compelling, and quite devastating to Brady lies. But with no records of how many carriers there would be, you now go back to an environment where the NRA and the Brady fucks can make up data to progress their agendas. >>>>>>It must be hard thinking you're knowledgeable in so many areas and falling short in all of them. Last time I returned that volley I was warned and the other guy wasn't; I guess this, "rule thing" is also hard to grasp. >>>>>>>Failing to understand definitions like militia or regulated doesn't serve you well. For teh first time ever the term, "well regulated" (with or w/o the hyphen) was interpreted to mean, "well maintained" as in the slides greased. A very convenient interpretation that wasn't made for well over 200 years, then suddenly brought in; yet the people who support that ridiculous interpretation also hate the living constitution, another selective convenience. And a militia back in the 1700's had nothing to do with one today, so I believe it is my understanding of the FF that is correct. >>>>>>>>>There's really one big problem with removing any licensing on the CCW - you diminish the ability to measure success. Wait, wait, wait, the US Constipation is (insert hillbilly voice; AKA Republcian voice) what I fought and died fer. This Constipation is not sum exspermint, it's the real deal; how can we use it as some survey to measure success. Get it? You can't clammer; Const, Const, Const and then say.......you diminish the ability to measure success. Unless you say teh 2nd isn't what gives us the right to carry arms unabridged. >>>>>>>We know that CCW permit holders are highly law abiding citizens,... Or really good at being criminals. Remember, cop inductees are also law abiders at one point. >>>>>>>>>But with no records of how many carriers there would be, you now go back to an environment where the NRA and the Brady fucks can make up data to progress their agendas. So what, most data is skewed in the light that the purveyor wishes it to be. You can objectively extrapolate data, but data becomes adversary in many cases. Is this about data or the US Const, State Const or states rights to pass and enforce their own laws? Or is it a big survey game? You can't keep jumping out accross these lines of states rights, US Const, STate COnst, etc..... or can you?

Best yet, Hoover grew up poor, he was an elitist maggot. FDR grew up rich, he was humane and compassionate. Don't wait around for Hoover on money, he may be issued right after GWB. The garbage has a way of getting forgotten.

Can't you get it? There are liberal people who earn good money and don't subscribe to the elitist, maggotted inhumane BS. I guess you could call them the reverse-Uncle Tom's. Go watch Schindler's list and figure it out. The Nazi'z are played by modern-day Republicans. Sorry, some might find it has a sad ending, in a metaphorical sense.

Whether you accept that part of not, there's not doubt about the amount of red ink it took to get that result. Reagan would be envious. There's no comparison to fascist Ronny's inherited economy and Obama's inheroted economy. Unemp was 7.5% and stable as FR took office, it was 7.7% and screaming as Obama took office. The banking industry wasn't about to fold, Wall Street wasn't about to fold, the GDP was bla but not on death's door. 1/2 the bailout money was appropriated under GWB, all the payback, some 300B+ (ish) was realized under Obama as he wouldn't let the CEO's take massive bonuses unless they paid it back, somethiong GWB didn't require.

and this is incorrect. income is taxed. Yes, the money to whoch I refered was the income money, is it really neccessary to be that semantic? Or is it just in leiu of an actual argument against: MONEY IS TAXED, NOT PEOPLE.