Picture by: Unknown
-
-
Copy & paste this:
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous Lucky Number Seven | The Most Cowardly Tennis Player in the World Next »
» 206 comments
Leave a Reply
-
Recent Comments
Deelz on Crowd Pleaser Andrew Long on Vandals Cashing In Daniel Bell on Vandals Cashing In noname on I’m So Live imnotreallyhere on Time Travel Protester imnotreallyhere on GREECE imnotreallyhere on GREECE eddi on Does to Jets What it Does to… Lyerra on Haven’t They Heard of Ce… Clueless the amazing… on My Bad 
Cheezburger Company BlogPrint on Demand
More I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?
I Can Has Cheezburger? - Lolcats n Funny Pictures
Animal Memes: OCD Otter - Takes a Long Lunch
Lolcats - Lolcats n' Funny Cat Pictures
Yikes.
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies
Duuuuuude
Animal Capshunz - All of the Internet's Animals. Captioned
This Is the Cleanest My Car Has Ever Been
Animal Videos - Cute and Hilarious Animal Videos
Go To Your Room!
Animal Gifs - Cute and Hilarious Animal Gifs
Darth Maul And His Cat
Daily Squee - So cute your brain might explode.
Stripey Hoggies
Historic LOLs - Captioned Portraits of Yore
Roman Emo
My Food Looks Funny - Funny Food Photos
Turn on the Jets!
So Much Pun - Visual Puns and Jokes
Owlways and 7eva
ROFLrazzi - Lol Celebs and All That's Fab Funny in Showbiz
Good Guy George
Totally Looks Like - Stuff That Looks Like Other Stuff
Timothy Olyphant Totally Looks Like Cristian de la Fuente
Must Have Cute - See. Want. Must Have!
Darth Vader Kokeshi
If Style Could Kill - OMG Style!
Ring of the Day: Diamonds on my Grill
Lovely Listing - Strange Findings in Real Estate Listings
UFO Bathtub
![\"Quantcast\"/](\"http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-94wNw88f65Rhk.gif?labels=MTVN%20Digital%20Tribes\")
Yum, I like s’mores. (giggles) Okay all you Obama haters here’s your chance. Come and get him. We need a little…well big…flame war to cook up a good batch of s’mores
*warm hands over flame war*
Hmmm… so nice and warm. I think it’s hot enough for s’more toasting now.
how about i slap you in the face with a frozen pack of hot dogs?
Now now, that’s rude. You need to cook them first.
what you said is just plain rediculous
Says the guy smacking people with packs of frozen hot dogs.
granted its a subtle diplomacy tactic, but it has been proven effective
I think it’s about as subtle as an elephant on a trampoline.
I prefer rubber chickens for my diplomatic activities.
Followed up with scrambled eggs…?
Only if I’m hungry.
Which first… chickens or eggs?
Eggs, namely Utaraptor eggs. They’re spicy!
Eggs. Creatures were laying eggs epochs before chickens evolved.
But were they using eggs for diplomatic activities? And could they even conceive of a rubber chicken?
Well, yes, because I installed that into their genes. The entire point of the human race, their raison d’être, was to give me a self-sustaining set of targets to deploy rubber chickens against… for diplomatic purposes, of course.
… what, you thought all this was some kind of evolutionary process caused by natural selection weeding out substandard traits? Don’t be silly. You humans are the result of millennia of optimization for being hit on the head with a rubber chicken. Everything else has been engineered to keep you occupied and placid in between rubber chicken sessions.
well my dad always told me, when all else fails just throw an elephant on the trampoline, hasn’t failed me yet!
Is that a african or european elephant?
i prefer south american, they are a little harder to find but they REALLY drive the point home
South american? As in Mississippi?
i thought that went without saying
You see, Wahoo… every thing from Mexico to Panama doesn’t count.
What about Asian?
I dunno… did Hannibal introduce Asian or African Elephants to Italy in 218?
If I recall, Asian elephants were used more, since they were much faster and broke the lines easier.
How about, just once, you capitalize the word “I”?
Personally, being something of an English Geek, as well as a Psych Geek, I like to muse on the potential ramifications of failing to use a proper noun when referring directly to oneself.
I also remind myself that the manner in which an individual communicates is indicative of the effort they put into communication, while effort is indicative of how much they care, and how much they care about their message functions as a form of cap on how much I care. In essence, if they don’t care enough to make an effort while writing something, I don’t have to make an effort to care about reading it. You wouldn’t hug a person who hadn’t bothered to bathe in a year, would you? Same general concept, only the smell is primarily metaphorical.
I don’t know. I think it may be a style thing. I’m not sure I like it and it is harder to read waggle’s posts, but he is internally consistent. One of the rules of English is this: that once you know the rules you can break ‘em provided it serves a purpose. In waggles case, it appears to engender more of a reaction. Certainly Geary and Ingen are reading his posts.
Yes, although since he’s stopped responding to me in an amusing way, I may well consider ceasing to actually read his posts.
Well, that’s no fun. Trolls who aren’t amusing serve no purpose.
well i would more often igen, but unfortunately everytime i do i am apparently “frothing at the mouth” angry regardless of what i say, so i do not want to perpetuate that violent, angry image of myself
But it’s ok to smack people with frozen hot dogs? You are a strange little man.
you would propose i seriously injure them with a crowbar?? that is sick! you really need to lighten up some imnotreallyhere
I would never propose to you. That would be more Geary’s style of thing. I do apologize for calling you a strange little man. You are in fact a strange lower case man.
Hey, I have standards!
Sorry. Not really your kinda thing either. Maybe I should put him onto nailin.
You win forever for that last bit.
So… walloping people with mystery meat is quite calm and reasonable, but responding to critiques of your inability to type (I see you’re running with the goofy little “Igen” thing, by the way) is a sign of out-of-control rage?
Personally, I think you should go with the violent image. It’s better than the illiterate one.
I prefer literate and violent. My keenly-embraced Scottish/German/Norwegian ancestry gives me the perfect cultural and genetic excuse to hit people.
“What do you mean, I can’t hit him? That’s being culturally insensitive and racist. I’m going to report you for oppressing me and my proud, violent ancestors.”
and back to the main reason i have been (and shall continue) to ignore, its always about grammar and spelling with you, i have better things to do with my time, i find it much more productive to be smacking people with frozen frankfurters
cold causes shrinkage
indeed it does, some lessons they cant teach you in school
Actually, they do, since they teach thermodynamics and the states of matter in school, as well as how temperature effects matter.
your high school teacher showed you his hotdog shrinkage in class geary? well i guess that explains much of your…condition
The reason it’s always about that is because, while the logical fallacies are adorable and the ridiculous arguments you make can be amusing, it’s your butchering of the English language that gives the easiest laughs.
In short, while you continue to type as you do, I will continue to be a fargin’ icehole.
correcting grammar gives you laughs? wow, i never realized how funny my 3rd grade teacher was till this moment, how she never did standup ill never know!
Well, really, it all stems from the idea that what you’re saying is worthless in a debate unless it’s put in the proper form for whatever language you’re using. So there’s the spiteful humor at your wasted effort.
Then there’s the fact that what you’re saying would be useless in a debate anyway, because it’s stupid, so that amuses me.
And then I just kind of enjoy picking on people that can’t type.
I don’t read his posts because of the poor punctuation, I read them because I like finding people frothing at the mouth and poking them in the face with a slightly pointed stick.
Eh… my own skills at style analysis point more towards it being laziness and disinterest than any kind of deliberate choice. Laziness is often internally consistent, because variation takes effort. I’m also not sure you saw some of waggle’s early posts, in which he outright states he’s being obnoxious to entertain himself. Deliberate choice of style is a possibility in that case, but style choice by means of laziness is still far more likely.
wait, a psych major who reads too much into things and over analyzes a situation? well THIS i never heard of!
You of all people should understand the concept of amusing yourself, waggle. Whether or not I’m right, and your opinion on the matter, are entirely irrelevant to the fact that you provided me a brief moment of amusement.
Bad idea waggle. If you’re mean to Clueless, she won’t give you any S’mores.
what would i care? i still have my frozen pack of hot dogs to whack people with!
It is rather quaint that your prosthetics bring you such great comfort.
what do prosthetic have to do with anything? is clueless missing limbs? if so then i apologize for smacking her with hot dogs
+1
(passes s’mores to Keshet, Mrs. Q, Geary, MacFeegal, Ingen, and Imnot)
I wonder where we could get some hot dogs to roast.
I wouldn’t get any from Waggle, I hear his wieners are an underwhelming experience.
Oooh, s’mores! *nosh*
(throws clueless’ pet dog into the campfire)
give him about 15 minutes in there and you should be good to go!
Let me guess, you stuck your parent’s keys into the electrical outlet a lot as a child.
wait, dont you get it? a HOT dog? get it? (i dont think he got it)
We got it, it’s just stupid.
i dont think you did
It’s a painfully obvious pun resting on the unproven assumption that Clueless owns a dog.
Oh, also it relies on the idea that the smell of burning dog-hair wouldn’t put everyone off their lunch from now until Christmas.
yes, but what i dont think you understand is she asked for a HOT dog, referring no doubt to the food product where i then took her dog and threw it into a fire thereby making it a different type of “hot dog” but sounding the same. man, some people just dont get jokes till you hand feed it to them with a spoon!
I got it about a year ago. You just beat your own joke (which was so obvious that the meaning time-traveled backwards in order to be gotten before it was said, thereby allowing the miraculous phenomenon of the joke being old before you even started typing it) to death with a shovel.
Hmmm…. Thanks Clueless!
Flame War Roasted S’mores are such a delightful snack on a cold morning.
*slips Clueless some chocolate rum balls*
shhhh… don’t tell anyone else. I only share them with people I like.
D:
psssst…. *looks around*
Here Geary! Enjoy! *passes cookie tin*
Interesting fact: One of the more common uses of a cookie tin in Iraq or Afghanistan is an IED. I’m not saying anything, I’m just saying.
I KNEW GIRL SCOUT COOKIES WERE WMDS! I KNEW IT!
Yay! *Noms!*
Mrs. Q Geary is underage. I better take a couple more of those rum balls just to protect him from over indulgence.
Awwww… there’s hardly any Rum in them AT ALL!! *crosses fingers*
*rattles tin* Um… Clueless… how many exactly did you take?
*stares deeply into nearly empty tin*
Why are the Rum Balls almost gone?
*pouts*
*takes the last of the rum balls*
I have no idea.
The rum balls are almost always almost gone.
Planning on pretending they’re the New York Yankees, then?
The only s’more Obama wants is s’more of the taxpayers’ money.
Which is why he keeps lowering taxes on the middle and lower class?
Unh? Isn’t he also trying to raise taxes on the “wealthy” and businesses. How else do you expect him to pay for Obama Care?
I suspect by eliminating the other war (since Iraw has been disengaged) and either curbing or outright ridding of the Bush Tax Cuts, since it’s technically not a tax increase, but rather re-instating taxes to normal.
Derp, Iraq, not Iraw, although iRaw sounds like a steak made by Apple
Actually the misnomer there is that the taxes prior to the “Bush Tax Cuts” were normal. Taxes like life spans are always growing or retracting. To me I would say the Bush Tax “Cuts” were actually just making the taxes normal and should not have a expiration date. I also don’t believe in the current tax system we have. Don’t raise taxes on the “wealthy” instead take away some of the loopholes put there so that the wealthy politicians, could get out of paying taxes. Best way to get around that, a flat tax. Oh and STOP the double dipping of Estate Taxes.
Flat taxes are inherently flawed. >.>
Why? No one has ever been able to explain to me how they are inherently flawed. I hear lots of “The Poor can’t afford it”, however I have a sick feeling everytime I think of people NOT paying into the system that they are benefitting from. I would think in a country where everyone loves to tout equality and fairness that everyone paying the same percentage is equal and fair. No special treatment and no punishment for success. Everyone chips in for the good of society, instead of expecting others to carry the load.
Because people in poverty need more of their income to survive, while people with more money need less of it to survive, which is why there’s a progressive tax rate, since it’s designed to take very little from the people who need ever cent, while taking a bit more from people who have more money than they know what to do with.
In other words, to punish success. Question for you: Let’s say you have an extra bedroom in your house (it’s a spare), therefore you have more bedrooms than you “need”. Should the government be allowed to force you to house a homeless person in that room, since you have more than you need to survive. People tend to forget money is not a community property, but it is someone’s personal property that they own, and EVERYONE doesn’t have a right to it. Hey do you have more than seven pair of underwear? Maybe you should give all the extra underwear you have to someone who needs it.
Did you ignore everything I said? It doesn’t ‘punish’ success, since it doesn’t actually limit or remove what they can earn. To get into a higher tax bracket, you’ll still be making WAY more than you were in the previous one, even with taxes. It’s simply that you have more to contribute, so you should contribute more.
I did read what you wrote, and I’m a firm believer that paying higher percentage on earnings is a punishment. Or it could be bias, you choose, but it certainly isn’t “kosher”. I noticed you completely ignored my questions about personal property. Does that mean you believe money isn’t someone’s personal property?
Let’s put it this way, if you’re not married, you pay more in taxes and insurance. Does this mean you’re being punished for not being married? Also, assume that the highest income tax rate is the standard rate, and all lower rates are a result of, “You need your money more, so we’re going to let you keep a big chunk of it.” Also, the wealthy don’t even pay much in income taxes, since they make most of it out of capital gains, which is only taxed at 10%. Mitt Romney makes as much in a day as the average American makes in a year, and pays less taxes on it, would you call THAT fair?
I’m going to preface this by saying I’m only playing Devil’s Advocate here – this is not necessarily what I believe the best option to be; consider it speculation. I think I’m also going to provide some actual math, because it seems a lot of people on both sides operate more on the level of abstract (high tax bad, etc) than actually looking at the mathematics involved.
It could be said that a higher percentage on taxes for those who are wealthy is not so much a punishment as an opportunity to show gratitude to the country that allows them the success they’ve achieved. All American wealthy types owe at least a portion of their success to the country that allows them to pursue their interests, through laws, rights/freedoms, being capitalist instead of communist, etc. It’s highly doubtful they’d be as successful on their own terms if they attempted it in a more economically controlling society, like a communist state… at least, without having massive contact with (and friends in) the government.
I don’t agree with the flat tax idea, necessarily, but we’ll start there. For the sake of the argument, we’ll take the following as givens:
1) It costs $20,000 to maintain a basic standard of living – food, medicine, housing, clothing, and other immutable necessities. No luxuries or emergencies.
2) Flat tax is 10% of income.
A person living at poverty level ($25,000) pays $2,500 in taxes. Subtracting the necessary cost of life leaves $2,500 left over for anything else. Not a lot.
A person living at wealthy level ($250,000) pays $25,000 in taxes. If the basic standard of living cost is applied, this leaves $205,000 for anything else; if the standard of life is adjusted to reflect increased quality demands (better food, better clothes, etc… after all, the wealthy earned better standard of life) by, say 500% across the board (up to $100,000 standard of life) that leaves $125,000. Not as much as $205,000, but also not a tiny amount – about half of their income remains as luxury funding.
A gradiated tax system would (if designed well) take into account the base line necessities which a person or family requires in order to live comfortably. This would be a portion of their income that is never taxed, as it is considered necessary for survival. Increasing what is considered untouchable to reflect the higher standards of the wealthy would serve at least as something of a “reward.” One possible method would be to determine a minimum cost of living value, then only tax income that is above that amount, adjusted by income bracket to reflect what is considered “comfortable.”
Is this fair? Well, that depends on what you consider fair. The wealthy have a lot more with which to support their country, while the poor need a larger percentage of their income just to continue living. “Fair,” in this case, would be to judge both the rich and the poor equally, by not making value judgments at all. Any subjective value judgments should be abandoned – taxes should be based on the mathematics of survival.
Personally, I don’t claim exemptions on my income taxes ever, and the government generally owes me money as a result.
By the way, the “gratitude” viewpoint actually came from my grandfather, who was a Republican, a CPA and IRS Tax Witness, and who earned a Purple Heart and Silver Star in WWII. Grandpa was big on patriotic duty, and he considered paying the taxes that fund the United States part of his duty. He used to say that if he could pay more of his non-earmarked income (say, into the National Debt) he would, because he felt it was his duty to support his country. He would also say that success is its own reward… expecting the government to “reward” you for being successful by lowering your taxes was being greedy. He was also an Expert Tax Witness in many trials in which the defendant was some ultra-wealthy businessman who got caught trying to evade his taxes by the IRS.
Food for thought…
I think what Geary and MacFeegle are completely missing is that someone’s money is their personal property. And just b/c someone had more personal property than someone else does mean they have to share with everyone, hence the whole term personal property. Do I think people need to pay taxes, sure. Do I think a progressive tax is the way to do it, NO! Until either Geary or MacFeegle answer my questions about an extra bedroom or extra clothing, I can not waiver from my thought process, irregardless of math. Math is great if it’s based off of sound principles. Unfortunately the principle that everyone is entitled to the same about of “luxury” money is not a sound principle, but a “social moral”.
Also you both seemed to miss where I said do away with the loop holes vice raising taxes. B/C if you raise taxes all you do is burden the middle class ho can’t afford high priced CPAs to hide their money.
Money they earned within a country. Taxes are like paying for using a store front, basically.
*shrug* Believe what you like, I’m not saying you’re wrong. You did indeed earn that dollar that’s worth a dollar because the government says it is, which you earned working at a job that requires government permits to operate, on land that is ultimately owned by the government. Your house that earned and go home to is also on land owned ultimately by the government, who has a significant say in what you can and cannot do there, and can and cannot own. Your car that you bought with your money requires government permits to be in operation, and your behavior while driving is also government mandated. Your right to be against the tax system is also a luxury permitted to you by the government – try voicing dissent in a communist or theocratic country. The majority of all material things you do, own, or interact with ultimately belong to the government in some form – they can certainly take them away, in which case they are no longer yours, are they?
Personal ownership of anything that can be taken away by big men with guns is an illusion, PB, as is the monetary value of anything that can be bought or sold. Everything you “own” except your self, your thoughts, and your emotions, is a luxury provided to you by the world you live in. Basing a tax system on an emotional attachment to illusionary property (“I earned that money, it’s mine!”) invites far too many of the exact loopholes you dislike… so, yes, a flat tax rate is a good place to start, to ensure equality. But if you want to actually factor in what is “fair,” you’re going to have to either rely solely on impersonal mathematics, or open the door to the same subjective value-based judgments that spawn the problems you feel are plaguing the system now.
PS: If you want actual ownership of anything material, you kinda need to get rid of the government, who has the big men with guns, or be (or employ) an even bigger man with even bigger guns. That’s the only way to make the illusion a reality.
PPS: “Render Unto Caesar,” Nihilism, and an indirect call to revolution. Hmm. If I suddenly stop posting here, it’s probably due to the NSA having invited me ’round for a cuppa and cake. I’m sure you’ll all miss me terribly.
Thier house is also within a nation. Their clothes are bought within a nation. Your arguement holds no water until you can fully address the thought of why only money is the personal property that many liberals feel everyone is entitled to everyone elses. No taxes are not for using a store front. Taxes are so that everyone pays a share in order to have protection from invasion, protection from criminals, protection from fire, roads that function, and a functional government. Taxes are not to pay people NOT to work. Taxes are not a way to “share” the wealth.
Umm…ILPB, the government already taxes you for that extra bedroom as part of your property tax. The larger, more valuable your home is, the more you pay.
Actually MacFeegle the government DOES NOT own my land. I own my land. If the government owned my land then the 4th Amendment would not be necesarry. Also your car analogy does not commute as weel since I pay for use of said vehicle through registration and licensing fees (not taxes).
Also the glory of this Country is the belief in Personal Property. Hence the reason that me and my conservative buddies don’t like the tax system as written. It’s the government trying to take PErsonal Proerty and mandate it throughout the country “redistirbution of wealth”.
BTW it’s nice to have you back, ILPB! Hope you and your family are well.
The 4th Amendment was written in response to abuses of other laws by the government – it protects you from abuses of existing laws which essentially remove your right to property and privacy. Why would you need protection from the government by means of a government law if the government didn’t already have carte blanche in that area? The 4th Amendment is a limiter on government power, that’s all… and the government likes to ignore it, as we’ve seen.
As for your car, you’re paying money to the government to be allowed to operate your vehicle on government roads; calling it “fees” instead of “taxes” is semantics. You’re still paying the government to be allowed to use your car.
I don’t like the tax system either, but if you believe the “glory” of the USA is personal property, how deeply its hands are in your pocket is only a symptom, and should be treated as such. The systematic dismantling of our freedoms has been going on for a long time, on both sides, and the right to own things is just one of those freedoms. You and your Conservative buddies should be less concerned about your bank accounts and more concerned about politicians selling us all to corporations, enacting stuff like PATRIOT and ACTA, and generally putting the interests of politicians ahead of those of the people. If you have to stand in your doorway with a gun defending what is yours, you’re waiting too long.
Hi ILPB hug your family for me. It really doesn’t work to try to mandate social reform or justice through the tax code. The government has been trying to do so for years which is why our system is messed up.
The tax laws should be for raising money to operate the country. Now, we could do that with a flat tax. It won’t happen in our current political climate because a) it would result in a tax increase for the wealthy who make the laws or b) it would not generate enough money to run the country because the rate would be too low.
Your 13% flat tax would be lower than most middle class pay.
i promise i’ll be brief, since much of what i’d say was already covered in other people’s lengthy posts.
1. a 1% tax increase on someone who makes $10k only yields $100… but that might be the difference between having heat or not, or being able to pay rent, since at that low an earning rate everything is used. double the same increase on someone making $100k/year yields $2000… which is, if the person in question does not live lavishly, a minor inconvenience. it’s having to wait until next month to put a down payment on that boat, or having to go to key west for vacation instead of the bahamas.
2. the idea of “noblesse oblige” has been around for far longer than the united states –the very concept was based on the fact that, even hundreds of years ago, people acknowledged that the wealthy benefit more from society and therefore have more of a responsibility to that society. more luxuries means more ability to give back. also, if we’re talking traditionally, christianity as a religion also focuses clearly and consistently on the wealth = distraction from the important things, success = pride, sacrifice = holiness, hoarding wealth = damnation. (camle and the eye of a needle, sacrifice, and “give to caesar what is caesar’s” all interpreted for centuries in this vein).
3. this new rhetoric around “higher taxes = a punishment for success” is, at its core, complete crap. it’s basically saying that i should have more pity for the person who never has to make some pretty desperate decisions than i do for someone who cannot make ends meet. it’s pushed forward as an idea by people who are incredibly wealthy, who are not content with ten times what i make. many of the people most affected by the upper-tier tax increase propositions have more advantages than the average american, and have money to be spent on luxuries than the average american makes. to tax people on what they have left over after paying for a reasonable lifestyle would result in exactly what we have now — the poor who do not make enough to afford luxuries receiving some relief, while the wealthy who are more than able to compensate for it paying a little more.
@All American wealthy types owe at least a portion of their success to the country that allows them to pursue their interests, through laws, rights/freedoms, being capitalist instead of communist, etc.
That’s right PB! So stop complaining about our country going communist! After all you could be living in a communist country and then you couldn’t complain about it.
Just be happy with what your country *ALLOWS* you to do. And welcome back again!
@people acknowledged that the wealthy benefit more from society and therefore have more of a responsibility to that society
Well they do pay for EVERYTHING. Hey! We may have more of a responsibility to them.
Actually, itsy, the country is far, far, far, far, farfarfarfar FAR from Communist, seeing as laissez faire economics is still being attempted. Also, Wealthy people only pay for about one third of the federal tax income, the rest comes from businesses and the rest of society, and the fact that that much money is being put into the government by people who are typically taxed between 10% and 15% means that they simply earn disproportionately more than the rest of society.
Geary: you’re right we are far from Communism b/c the majority of America beleives in personal property. It’s that some loud mouths on the left (and some quiet mouths on the left too) are spouting out about he 99% and how the 1% should pay for the 99% (it’s fair and equal *stifles laughter*) Anyone who believes someone else should take care of them or someone else (and the government is the mandater) has taken that wonderful step on the Red Cold Concrete Road of communism. Now if you think the governemtn should mandate companies, that’s the beautiful over gorwn with venus fly traps and red tape road of Socialism. I prefer the beaten down, tree root damaged sidewalk of Capitalism myself.
Who is running those businesses? Wealthy people are. 50% of our population do not pay any INCOME taxes. Also, the wealthy simply earn disproportionately more than the rest of society, because they work harder and are smarter than the rest of society which is something that should be rewarded not vilified.
Um… No. The point of the ’99%’ movement was that the average American is working 40 hour work weeks to earn in a year what they 1% earn in interest on their bank account, and through investments they hire people to manage, in a day, while the latter pays a LOWER tax rate than the former due to how absurdly low Capital Gains tax is, and how the 1%’s lobbying strength prevents it from being raised in any way, shape, or form.
@itsy: They do, however, pay payroll and sales taxes, and can still barely make ends meet.
“Actually MacFeegle the government DOES NOT own my land. I own my land. If the government owned my land then the 4th Amendment would not be necesarry. Also your car analogy does not commute as weel since I pay for use of said vehicle through registration and licensing fees (not taxes).”
I had this argument with some one else, I believe. Any property you have to routinely pay for isn’t ownership. I own my car. I own my tables, chairs, TV, bed. I don’t own my land, since I routinely have to keep paying taxes on it. Its not owned, its rented. Please don’t muddle the matters with the paper constructs (deeds, titles, writs, etc) of ownership.
License “fees”. Funny, that. In my particular county for registering those “fees”, the check is made out to the name of the TAX collector. Call it what is is, bro, rent and taxes. If you can’t physically walk away with it, its not yours. Some one else controls it, which means inherently your property is not your own. Heck, an entire army of litigants are employed in nothing but eminent domain to belabor the point that your land isn’t yours if its needed for something else.
TL;DR- the same thing I did living in an apt, I do living in “my” house, the only thing that changed was the size of the check and who I write it too. That isn’t ownership.
RuleofOrder: I love how you tell me not to cloud your argument with facts. That’s like a religious nut saying “B/C the Bible Says so, don’t cloud my arugment with scientific facts”.
If the State did own my land, as you state with eminent domain, then they would not have to compensate me for it. Legal definition of Eminent Domain: To exercise the power of eminent domain, the government must prove that the four elements set forth in the Fifth Amendment are present: (1) private property (2) must be taken (3) for public use (4) and with just compensation. These elements have been interpreted broadly.
Pirvate Property defintion: land not owned by the government or dedicated to public use.
Sorry man… I just can’t buy off on your arguments. Facts don’t allow it.
Well, let’s put it this way, would you be able to take the property surrounding your house and declare it its own country?
Geary: No I can’t, b/c I do not own that land. No could I declare myself my own country? Sure I could. But by doing so I would cut off myself from all ability to 1)work in the US (without proper Visa), 2) garner any protection benefits from the US and State Government, 3) Utilities without paying some sort of export tax, 4) Leave my property without the Awesomeness Where All Hot Chicks Must Wear Only Lingerie Country passport recognized by the US Government.
Why are hot chicks wearing Lingerie Countries?
It’s the name of the country I created when I borke away.
“And here comes Isabelle wearing a lovely England-Switzerland Two-Piece.”
“the wealthy simply earn disproportionately more than the rest of society, because they work harder and are smarter than the rest of society which is something that should be rewarded not vilified”
they are rewarded — at the end of the day, they still have far more than everyone else. so stop complaining that the rich are treated unfairly — even if they paid 50% more taxes than they do now, they’d still have far more than the average american.
the reason the wealthy people run the businesses is because they are wealthy due to thsoe businesses. not that rich people are inherently better at things than poor people are. they have had more advantages, often inheritance or use of contacts to land high-paying jobs after they use contacts to get into exclusive schools.
and, for the record, do you honestly believe that mark zuckerberg, kim kardashian, or paris hilton are hard-working individuals who need to be rewarded for their industriousness? really? do you really think they are smarter? do you actually think that the parent of one of my students, who works 70 hours a week, 40 at a factory and 30 driving a truck, then still has time to be a parent between shifts and the 4 hours of sleep he allots himself, makes less because he is lazy and stupid? or could it be that his parents were poor and could not afford college or even for him to not work to support the family?
http://www.cracked.com/article_15821_fun-size-countries-insane-histories-worlds-6-tiniest-nations.html
“If the State did own my land, as you state with eminent domain, then they would not have to compensate me for it” — as much as any breach of contract would need to be compensated for. In the process of your renting of the land, you have established income, the government will compensate you for the loss of income. If it was your land to begin with, how could they take it?
But, hey, you don’t have to believe me. Just stop paying taxes on the land you “own”, and when some one comes to remove you from it, just tell them you own it. “Its yours as long as you pay me for it” isn’t ownership, and that is the EXACT arrangement you have with the gov’t.
The idea that money is concrete personal property is flatly wrong. Money is an abstraction, a representation of economic potential energy – you can use the money to *acquire* personal property, but it is not your personal property itself, and as money in your wallet, it isn’t really doing anything. That is why the government can take a portion of your money but they can’t, say, take slices of your dresser.
“but it is not your personal property itself, and as money in your wallet, it isn’t really doing anything. That is why the government can take a portion of your money but they can’t, say, take slices of your dresser.”
Actually, government only gets to money when it is doing something. When you earn it, they get a slice. When you spend it, they get another slice. Invest it, and they will take a slice again. The only time they don’t take your money is when you keep it in your dresser.
Also, if money isn’t your personal property what would you do in this hypothetical situation? You just got your tax return check and cashed it. Now you have $1500 burning a hole in your pocket so you head to Walmart to see how big of a television you can get for $1500. Turns out you can buy a 55″ with money left over.
Situation A: When you go to pay for it, you realize someone took the $1500 out of your wallet. Do you file a police report for something that “is not your personal property itself”?
Situation B: You pay for it, take it home and enjoy watching a movie that night. The next day when you come home from work you find that your television is gone. Either way you are out $1500, why does it matter if it was already converted into goods or not?
I accept the correction regarding the state of the money – inactive money is indeed not taxed, and I should have been a bit clearer in my wording.
Regarding the hypothetical scenario, as money is representative of the potential to obtain personal property, laws regarding theft are applicable to it in Scenario A. The thief in this scenario has deprived you of your ability to obtain property you had lawfully obtained the ability to obtain, and therefore, by the laws of our country, has done you a wrong.
In Scenario B, it’s the same thing, but replace “ability to obtain property you had lawfully obtained the ability to obtain” with just “property you had lawfully obtained.”
The key difference between this economic potential energy and the goods that result from the application of it lies not in the department of laws regarding theft, but in arguments regarding taxation.
Right, because lawful taxation is not theft, it’s government business. It’s lawful because the government says it is, and because if you refuse to pay taxes, police officers with guns and uniforms will throw you in a lawfully sanctioned prison.
This is, of course, entirely different from being mugged at gunpoint by someone who threatens to kidnap you up if you don’t fork over the cash. Muggers don’t typically have uniforms.
Well, yes, pretty much. From a cynic’s perspective, the key difference between muggers and the IRS is style.
That was, as I understand it, my grandfather’s view, too. Rather odd for a CPA in some ways, but he was big on honorable practices, and you really can’t take sides in terms of honorable taxation.
I’m just going to refer you to look at the tax rate during and after the great depression (mostly during FDR’s presidency) and then kindly ask you to stop talking as what we pay for taxes now is nothing in comparison.
I see this as more of a “Bill Clinton ain’t got nothin’ on ME! Bring on Lewenski!”
I doubt she’ll be back. It’s really hard to get melted marshmallow off clothing.
This would also work. “Obama joins Priesthood, and lets first alterboy touch his potato gun”.
Omigod! Now he’s gone from taxing to tithing the bejeezus out of us!
Considering tithes are typically set at 10%, I don’t think you understand the term ‘bejeezus,’ ignoring the fact that it isn’t a term.
Don’t get your knickers in a twist, Geary. And if Carl Spackler (Caddyshack) says “bejeezus” is a legit term, that’s good enough for me.
Eh, I didn’t find Caddyshack to be all it was blown up to be.
And you would know all about being blown.
Nailin – that was uncalled for.
I thought Nailin was uncalled for. Or did I miss something in my absence?
It was a joke, not an insult. Take a pill.
That was a joke. Take a horse tranq.
I agree Clueless….
but I think Nailin might have actually meant that as a compliment.
It’s true! I usually get leaf blower duty in the fall! :<
How can you tell if the leaf is male or female?
The females try to make me foreplay first.
And if you don’t, you better say very nice things to them afterwards.
OR ELSE.
See, that’s what I like about guys, it’s perfectly good etiquette to just fall asleep on each other. ;3
Nailin is obsessed with wiener.
Hey, we don’t want him either.
Itsy is an expert on weiner obsessions.
Considering that Jesus was anti-materialistic and encouraged Charity, while a great deal of the anti-taxes arguments are quite materialistic and motivated by Greed, “taxing the bejeezus out of us” is more literally true than you realize.
No, I don’t actually expect anyone without my warped sense of humor to find that amusing. I’m simply explaining part of why I can’t take tax arguments seriously.
“it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven” pretty much sums this up for me.
Interesting fact: apparently the Hebrew words for “rope” and “camel” are very similar… enough so that scholars believe that there was a mistranslation, and the original phrase was “… rope through the eye of a needle…”
Personally, I like “camel” better.
Maybe it’s a specific word for rope that’s similar. Camel is גמל which if I remember right is pronounced something like gimal and rope is חבל which might be hcabal or hcebal…it’s hard to tell without the vowels (and not having spoken the language in about 20 years).
Where’s Vikavid? He’s usually good for helping me sort out my Hebrew….Cynical Vegimite is too.
I wouldn’t know – I got my information from a Jewish instructor I had in college who I interviewed about modern Judaism for a sociology class. The two words you posted look similar enough to my non-Jewish eye that I could see a tired scribe working with bad handwriting messing up a transcription, which could then have been perpetuated until it became the “official” version.
For what it’s worth, four hours of interviewing my instructor gave me a better understanding of what it means to be Jewish, but I still feel as if I haven’t been so much cured of my ignorance of Judaism as shown that there’s a lot more to be ignorant of than most non-Jewish people think. The only rabbi I’ve been able to approach seemed like she had far more important things to do than put up with the cat-level curiosity of some guy who wasn’t likely to convert. That, and I think I’d have found her being an attractive, energetic young woman too distracting.
Oh, and yes… the fact that not all rabbis were dour old men or Mel Brooks came as a bit of a shock, too. I don’t claim to have never been culturally programmed, just that I’ve put a good amount of effort into breaking that conditioning.
Sorry, I was off tending to life. But yeah, without the cheat-vowels it’s hard to tell (for my non-fluent reading). And the second could just as easily be hceval/hcaval. That Beit part gets almost as tricky as the Pei.
… but wouldn’t it be aramaic, not hebrew, that would be important in that phrase, given its plac ein the new testament and not the old?
i’m not saying that bad translation doesn’t happen — the vulgate latin of jerome alone makes the idea of taking any edition of the bible as literal word-for-word truth as inane and ignorant as believing everything a politician says. the greek –> latin — > english transitions have left plenty of gaping holes to be filled in by nutjobs and imbeciles for generations. “screech owl,” anyone?
For Old Testament I tend to look at translations from Torah scholars for accuracy instead of translations into Greek and then Latin and then English by people who weren’t as familiar with the original text.
I was trying to remember/figure out how close the words were to each other in the language that I am familiar with that is close to what was spoken at the time to see if the theory about the switch in words holds water. From my personal experience learning Hebrew, I came to the conclusion that many of the places where the number 40 is used may have originally been “many” since those 2 words really are very similar in Hebrew.
Matthew 19:24 is the verse when Christ talks to the “Rich Young Man”… and is bickered about by tons of folks trying to understand WTF Jesus was talking about.
Literalists freak out because it must mean that rich folks can’t be saved… so they make sure they live in towns with people wealthier than them so they feel holy.
Rich Liberals like to consider it a metaphor for spirituality… so they can keep all their crap.
Social Activist Liberals (like me) like to read it for what it is… that Jesus is telling some rich brat that keeping all his money is going to make it hard for him to be sincere about his faith. See, the more money and power you have, the harder it’s gonna be. So… you know.. decide what’s important to you: Faith or Cash. Then, live like that. Dig?
BTW – Matthew was written in Greek, but Jesus spoke in Aramaic… so getting picky about the words is kinda stupid ’cause the whole bloody thing was translated back and forth a few times before it ever even made it to Ye Olde King’s English.
Just thought you should know.
Not only that, but it was written many years after the events it describes, some of which may have happened differently or even have been made up.
But you have to remember these people believed they were recording the Word of God and that if they made any additions or subtractions they would go to hell. That is a pretty strong motivation to keep things accurate and I believe that it is accurate no matter how long it took to write it down. Tribal people used to keep their own recorded history in their memory and passed it down through stories. It was important to them to keep it accurate.
Itsy, my point here is that the Bible is not necessarily an accurate historical record. That makes it no less holy. That doesn’t require literal truth.
Why can’t I post anything here!? This is #3.
Ok, maybe the other 2 will show up someday… *sigh*
Are you using naught words, itsy? tsk, tsk
*note that words considered “naughty” by Word Press standards include peac0ck.
Try putting the links between parenthesis, it’s what I do to slip through now that the brackets are on the mod list.
It is the Aramaic. I have a Lamsa bible that was translated from the Aramaic and they talk about that verse in the foreward. The word for came does look like rope in Aramaic.
So… the original writer of Matthew wrote the wrong word??
Sorry. I’ve had waaaay too many discussions about “Infallible vs Inspired.”
*GASPS* Oh My G-d/ess(es)!!!
No, whoever translated it did according to the Lamsa edition of the bible. I’m no scholar but it does make sense when you look at it.
I like the part in the Bible where it talks about unicorns.
You are also obsessed with wieners.
Jesus had a wiener.
Too bad you don’t.
Yes, I do. It’s name is Oscar Meyer.
Good come back!
What’s up with Nailin’s avatar? Either he has an imposter, a twin, or he’s making lots of typos.
Taxes are NOT charity. Giving to charities on your own, not by force of government builds character. Letting the government take care of the needy is not what God had in mind when he asked for the 10% tithe. It was to build ones faith and it’s the only place in the bible where you are allowed to test God. That is you will be rewarded 10 fold if you tithe. With government taking more and more it severely hampers peoples abilities to follow that rule.
I work for a University.
We are a “not-for-profit” 501(c)3 corporation.
Not all “Charities” are “Churches” and your paradigm cannot be universally applied to this particular thread. Sry.
IOW – I would argue that paying taxes is an aspect of being a responsible citizen, should be enforced by government in order to protect and provide services for her people, and that people who have more resources should contribute more to the infrastructure that protects and serves those resources.
That is all.
Yes. I work at one University and my husband teaches at another University.
I’m one of THOSE liberals.
You may now hate me and disregard everything I have to say.
I don’t hate you…wait, did you say something?
She said “weiner.”
And your ears perked right up, didn’t they?
Oh, as if the ears were the only thing.
Well I was replying to this: “Considering that Jesus was anti-materialistic and encouraged Charity, while a great deal of the anti-taxes arguments are quite materialistic and motivated by Greed” So, I think it fits. I have nothing against taxes, but there is a limit and I don’t like the vilifying of the rich. There is no reason for it.
Yes, it is only justified to vilify the poor. They are sinners and their poverty is punishment for their wickedness.
Because we just have to vilify someone!!
There is a limit? To what? Grace? Compassion?
Exactly which version of the New Testament are you reading, Itsy???
Ah… but we’re not talking about the church. We’re talking about the State.
AND – it seems strange to me (and many atheists I know) that people who are so wealthy that they can afford tax shelters actually do LESS to support the infrastructure that made them rich.
I’m not trying to vilify the rich, I just think the tax structure is broken.
Taxes, at some point there are more people riding in the wagon then pulling it. That is a real problem.
Considering how few people are on unemployment and food stamps, I don’t think we’ve hit that point.
More now than ever before, especially food stamps. Even college kids can get them .
The shift of benefits away from the “jobless poor” and toward working families along with expanding eligibility do seem rather odd. However some of the shift in government benefits comes from the aging population, so seniors and the disabled.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/benefits-safety-net-163002159.html
That’s why when you give money to charity, to get tax credits. It’s like them saying, “Oh, you gave of your own volition, thank you, you don’t have to pay as much.” However, since there are puppet charities, you can’t directly count donations against how much one would pay to taxes at a linear, 1:1 ratio.
Also, since you’re apparently an expert on what God, a being that’s apparently both omniscient and omnipotent, thinks, enlighten us.
Geary, he lets us know what he thinks through his written word, also through the living word which was Jesus himself. Anyone can know what he thinks by reading the bible and/or accepting Christ as your savior.
Actually, according to the book, he told some guy, that guy then wrote it down, then a bunch of random priests decided to make the book bigger by writing in it. Even ASSUMING that God did do this, it doesn’t rule out the fact that the interpretations of God’s words would be ruled by prejudice, which was so strong at the time that nobody even thought of it as prejudice, misunderstandings, and some concepts being so beyond the prophet’s comprehension that they would have to be phrased in a way he could understand, all of which creates an almost entirely-encompassing margin of error. Also, since the New Testiment was written long after Jesus died, there’s likely plenty of errors and exaggerations there.
Also, West Borough Baptist Church did that, are they speaking God’s will, since they must know it by your logic?
Well don’t ask me then, you now I’m a Christian and what I believe. You believe what you want I’ll believe what I want. I’m not going to launch in to a whole Christian apologist diatribe here. Go to http://www.rzim.org/ and read you might like it.
First, just let me note that Atheism lacks even a book, right or wrong. At least Christians have a place to start. The 4 Gospels and Acts of the Apostles were written long after the events they describe, but most of the rest of the New Testament consists of letters written to one or another congregation/person about matters of faith. In other words, a lot of the New Testament is instructions in how to interpret it.
Those West Borough people demonstrate the difference between knowing what’s right and doing what’s right. Waving a bloody shirt is not restricted to fundamentalists either. Consider Cindy Sheehan.
^This.
It’s called a ‘Science Textbook’ ;3
Chritianity doesn’t deny science.
How can you learn a moral code from a science textbook? Show me a set of ethics that can be empirically proven. Demonstrate for me the Big Bang, proving that God was not the First Cause. Where were you when the universe came into being? I’ll accept a witness account, particularly if you have pics.
You never said a code of ethics, only a book. Besides, I’d trust a peer-reviewed scientific paper over a children’s story book any day. ;3
You know, of course that the smartest guys and best scientists of the day thought things like: the earth is flat; items with different weights fall at different speeds; and bleeding a patient is the best cure for some diseases. That’s what peer review does for you- everybody can be just as wrong, just all wrong the same way. Lemmings all agree on which way to go, also.
As far as that children’s story book goes, it contains a moral code with a test to see if an action is indeed moral. No science text I ever read did that. Yes, I did mention a book. You brought morality to the table when you asked whether the West Borough people knew the Word and were acting in accordance with it.
Besides, magnets are a miracle- you can’t explain that.
Well, those were driven by superstition and fanatical spirituality (though they didn’t think it at the time, just compared to today). Besides, most people who thought they were qualified were either philosophers, which anybody can be, or trained in school of practice, not schools of thought. Besides, many people did theorize and prove that geocentric/heliocentric ideas were wrong, it’s just that they usually got threatened by the church with indefinite house arrest until they renounced their ideas.
However, it’s a children’s book that doesn’t bother with situational things, it only states things blatantly and without true context. Would one, say, follow the Tenement of, “Thou shall not kill,” while someone is about to take an axe to their loved one?
I would dispute that anyone can be a philosopher. It is a rig profession requiring rigorous logic and attention to detail.
So, none of our scientists today can possibly have any wrong ideas about the universe and the way it works? And that would be because they have purged superstition (which would be mistaken ideas about the universe) from their thinking. Circular reasoning is circular.
In what way is the Golden Rule absolute? You know, the whole do unto others thing. Here’s another: render unto Caesar those things that are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are His. What about the one where he tells his disciples to forgive their brethren not 7 times, nor yet 70 times, but 70 times 7. How about the time He said His Father did not make man to serve the law, but the law to serve man? Incidentally, that answers your question about defense of one’s family.
The part of the Bible you are referring to is in the Old Testament. I am not aware of any Christian who even tries to keep all the Mosaic laws. There are injunctions against turning on lights and cooking on the Sabbath, cheeseburgers, lobster, pork, etc.
I know, at rough estimation, about 27 ways of temporarily or permanently disabling someone, Geary, without killing them. Most of them work just fine on someone with an axe, or a knife, or if I’m close enough to them, a gun.
Being a philosopher is not something anyone can do – it requires the ability to coherently set ideas into a cohesive format, and to be able to phrase them in a manner which is evocative and persuasive. Would you consider Dubya to be a philosopher? He certainly talked a big game about morality.
How much have you actually read the Bible? Actually sat down, set aside your preconceived notions, and read the text right there, not just skimmed it for more material to rail against? Regardless of if it’s “true” or not, the entire thing is ultimately a psychological and philosophical treatise, told by a people who had yet to develop the sophistication to set it in any form except that of a story. The majority of mythology from around the world is like that, if you pay attention… especially shamanic tales, which often predate the advent of actual priests.
Do I really need to go over all the ways that atheists mimic the religions they speak against? Or about how, when abstracted to a psychological level, there is very little functional difference between an atheist who doesn’t understand science, and a religious person who doesn’t understand belief, but who both claim some form of specious superiority on behalf of a world view they contribute nothing to? You’re allowing yourself to fall prey to hubris, Geary. Regardless of your opinions on people of faith and/or religion, you are not magically a more rational person as a result of your dismissal of “irrational” beliefs. If anything, the automatic denial of a possibility is an impediment to growth.
I do believe it was Galileo who said that the Bible was for determining how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. I think it is a mistake to limit any religion to just its origin stories and tales of phenomena. To do so anyway bespeaks a literalism and lack of imagination worthy of the more rigid fundamentalists. A friend of mine is Catholic and also a biologist, and not only does he not conflict those two things, he also doesn’t confuse them.
I’d just like to echo what pretty much everyone else has already said here – it is one thing to not believe in something, and quite another to take a hostile, dismissive stance towards it. In truth, religion is no more the enemy of science than it is the enemy of mathematics, and whether you take the Christian Bible (or the Koran, or the Vedic texts, or any other religious text) as a literal retelling of historical events or as a collection of metaphors and stories written to illustrate a point, the fundamental message remains the same – don’t be a prick.
I’ve actually managed to come up with an argument that has stymied 100% of all anti-religion atheists I’ve used it on:
I will accept that science is the only true explanation for the universe and life itself if science becomes capable of the immaculate genesis of human beings. By this, I mean the creation of a functional human from entirely inorganic origins. In theory, this would mean science must be capable of constructing, from pure atomic samples, a fully functional human zygote, then stimulate it into life and the processes by which a zygote eventually becomes a human being. That artificially generated human being must then be allowed to mature into an adult, then examined by experts in psychology and biology and determined to be functionally identical to humans produced by normal methods. Then, and only then, will I accept that life is a purely scientific process, and involves nothing which may in some form be thought of as a soul.
Right about when I start discussing the most likely methods of actually doing this is when the majority of atheists I’ve encountered tend to get glazed looks, on account of ultimately having a rather loose grasp of technology and physics. If I don’t like the atheist, or am feeling trollish, I might also point out that putting one’s full trust in something one doesn’t understand is irrational, and typically a sign of an unthinking religious person.
Geo-centrism was hardly superstition or fanaticism.