1. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    28 Oct '05
    17 Jan '19 03:13
    @philokalia said
    FMF doesn't mind engaging in runaway speculation & jumping to conclusions when it advances his agenda of disparaging Christianity.
    I don't think sharing one's non-Christian beliefs or pointing to Christian assertions or claims that one does not find credible is "disparaging Christianity".

    I don't mind Christians engaging in runaway speculation and jumping to conclusions about the realities of life and of history in order to advance their theist or specifically religious agenda as long as it's up for debate and discussion.

    To characterize the dissent and different perspectives that arise in such debate and discussions as "disparaging" the beliefs of those disagreed with is little more than 'poisoning the well'.

    If this were a Christianity Forum, I would not be here.
  2. Joined
    14 Mar '04
    18 Jan '19 20:14
    @handyandy said
    Donald J. Trump
    Calling him a "celebrity" is an insult to those called celebrities. He is more like a CeleBRATy.
  3. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    16 Jan '19 01:301 edit
    @averagejoe1 said
    Finally////somebody to answer a few questions from a Neocon. You of course would like to have free college tuition? What if I have 1 child and you have 6 fine strapping sons. (I made a choice, a HUGE conservative word, to have only one because that is all i could afford).
    So, after college, your 6 sons are successful and they buy you a lake house, and you of course ...[text shortened]... r the same age children in Idaho??? Totally different. Let the States decide. 10th Amendment.
    "What if I have 1 child and you have 6 fine strapping sons. (I made a choice, a HUGE conservative word, to have only one because that is all i could afford)."
    This entire argument rests on a hilarious lack of basic human decency. You lose nothing because your neighbour sends his 6 kids to college. Your taxes don't go up, they stay the same. You simply base your happiness on someone else being miserable. That makes you a crappy person.

    What if i make 100k a year and you make 50k a year? Does that mean you are only allowed to drive half of the distance i drive on the roads my 100k paid for? How much road exactly are you entitled to, hmm?

    But let's take your dumb argument further. If you buy insurance against tornadoes and your house doesn't get hit by a tornado, do you get your money back? If you buy a gym membership and you only go workout one day, do you get your money back?

    " I make the right choices, my neighbor next door does not. I don't need Planned Parenthood and the abominable things that go in their back rooms, but he thinks he needs them. "
    Would you like a refund for the taxes you pay towards the fire department just because your house didn't burn down? If you get mugged and call the police, should you pay extra?
    You don't need everything taxes pay for. Some people use somethings and some use others. If you never visit a national park that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a fund for national parks.

    "Do you really think that your average citizen like me should pay for an abortion of someone who made a bad choice?"
    Yes. Because you might decide to break your leg on an icy december morning and somebody else would pay for that cast. And because it's better to pay for an abortion for someone who can't raise a child than have that child rob your dumb ass in 20 years because his parents couldn't raise him properly.

    "Have you heard of the govt (Me and 330M other people) providing Free Contraceptives? "

    "Get this now,,,,,,,they want me to pay for the recreational sex of other people. You can square that !!?!???!?!?"
    Yes. Because it's cheaper to give free contraceptives than to provide abortions or treat venereal diseases.

    "The main theme of all of the above is choices."
    if something is beyond your ability to ever afford, there is no choice.

    "You can rail on about safety nets for sick and unemployed, but I hate to tell you....they are already in place. "
    Insufficient and greedy corporate democrats and republicans are trying to defund them, effectively crippling them. The politicians out of greed and morons like you who vote for them out of stupidity and an inability to look out for your own interest.

    "How can they tell teachers what to teach in southern Mississippi and at the same time be able to prepare a program for the same age children in Idaho??? Totally different. "
    You are americans. You aren't texans and californians. Until highschool children should be thought basic skills to help them function in society. Ethic is the same in all states. Math is the same in all states. Science is the same in all states.

    "Let the States decide "
    Sure. Do that. Also let the richest states stop sending money to be distributed to the poorest states. Have the richest states limit immigration, if you don't want mexicans coming in and stealing your jobs, obviously a newyorker won't want a redneck from Arkansas who can barely speak English coming to his state and steal his job, leech his state funds while being barely trained. Have the richest states build walls around them, that's a popular endeavor these days.
  4. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    16 Jan '19 15:07
    @quackquack said
    If you want the economy to flourish don't make taxes so burdensome that those who have the ability to invest have no incentive to do so. The selfishness of those who continually ask for more from only those who already pay the most (in actual dollar terms and percent terms) is shocking.
    yes, because millionaires making more than 10 million per year would be so burdened having to pay 70% of that 11th and upwards million. What would they have left to feed themselves? Could it be the first 10 millions taxed lower than 70%?

    Who else is burdened i wonder? Could it be the nurse working 2 jobs living paycheck to paycheck? Could it be the florist employing one or two other people and barely keeping their businesses afloat? Could it be the 26 year old who cannot afford insulin for his diabetes and could use money from that 70% marginal tax on the uber wealthy?

    Nonsense. Fuk those guys, who cares about them. The real victims are the people making more than 10 million
  5. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    16 Jan '19 16:46
    @mghrn55 said
    One of my beefs about Socialist ideology is that they always make the wealthy the fall guy.

    If there is one question I always ask when any government proposes a tax hike, it is this.

    Why do governments give themselves a raise after a poor fiscal performance ?
    I've been through enough performance reviews in my life to know that my raise is proportional to my performance ...[text shortened]... best.
    And get vilified for it.

    Warren Buffett would tend to agree to a flat tax, I would think.
    "Why do governments give themselves a raise after a poor fiscal performance ?"

    "Why is this upside down with governments ?"
    Why do you think it is connected in any way?

    "And every time their feet are held to the fire, they make successful people in life the fall guy."
    No they don't, on the contrary.

    "A flat tax across the board would be a pretty simple solution, with some exemptions for those in lower income brackets."
    Why, because it's easier to calculate?

    "Quite simple really"
    That's not the point of taxes. You know what is even more simple? Every american pays 1 dollar in taxes. That's it. What could be simpler? You build some roads with that.

    "I ask anyone with moderate income.
    How would you feel if your take home pay had a 70% deduction lopped off up front ?"
    Don't know. Let me know if anyone, anywhere in the world proposes that.

    The Danes have about 50% and they are the happiest people in the world. They get education, healthcare, social security, infrastructure in exchange. They don't have the fear of going bankrupt if they walk into a hospital.

    "Instead they start with these ridiculous tax brackets and then introduce a series of tax deductions where everyone can reduce their tax load."
    Why ridiculous. Again, do you get scared if too many numbers get thrown your way?

    Tax brackets are based on the simple truth that a guy making 20k a year will hurt a lot more if you take 10% out of his paycheck than the guy making a million who pays 38%(if he doesn''t dodge them, ofc) or more in tax. Do a little math (scary) and see how much money does the first guy have left after tax and how much does the second?

    When you draw the line at the end of the year and see how many bridges need fixing for which you as a country don't have the money, who will hurt more if you increase their taxes by 1%? The first guy might starve. The second guy might have to delay buying a second audi.

    Also, please don't say trickle down economics, i would hate for us to stop being friends.

    "Almost as if tax avoidance has become a sport."
    There is a difference between stashing your millions in the caymans and getting a deduction to help you with keeping your 3 employee bakery floating.

    "And as always, the smarter members of a society play that game the best.
    And get vilified for it."
    Nobody vilifies them. Not unless they are paying off politicians to actively screw the poor.

    Stuff needs to get built so that everyone benefits, and you need to decide who you are going to ask for money. Is it the teacher? Or is it the billionaire? Also, the teacher is hurting, living paycheck to paycheck. He might even quit and you already have a teacher shortage. Will you cut his taxes? Or will you cut the billionaire's taxes even further?
    I beg you again, please don't say trickle down economics. There are fewer and fewer people that i can have a conversation with on this forum, i would hate to have to add another ignorant to the ignorant pile.

    "Warren Buffett would tend to agree to a flat tax, I would think."
    Don't know on what you base this statement and it's irrelevant anyway. He is one man, he is free to share his opinion with anyone who would listen but he should get one vote. Under US law, his vote can potentially be quite a lot "fatter" than the vote of a nurse or a construction worker.
  6. e4
    06 May '08
    17 Jan '19 13:50

    Continuing with the History of Chess we are now up to the 1950’s.

    Blog Post 410
  7. Joined
    14 Mar '04
    18 Jan '19 19:00
    @mudfinger said
    These people are piss-burnt and tiresome. Here's a few of mine, who are a few of yours?
    1) Tom Cruise
    2) Sylvester Stallone
    3) Anybody named Jenner or Kardashian
    You got something against men under 5'9"?
  8. SubscriberPaul Leggett
    Chess Librarian
    The Stacks
    21 Aug '09
    19 Jan '19 12:201 edit
    This is purely anecdote, but I work at Walt Disney World in Florida USA, and Tom Cruise visits often.

    He has a very positive reputation in that he is very modest and treats every Cast Member he meets with courtesy and respect.

    We see a incredibly huge number of celebrity types all the time, and of course we all share anecdotes and experiences. I have never met Tom Cruise personally, but I have been amazed at how often his name comes up, with a very positive story attached to it. He makes me thinkthat the person we see in the movies and on TV is a persona, but not the real "him".
  9. Joined
    07 Aug '12
    21 Jan '19 14:091 edit
    @torunn said
    I think we can easily do without all TV-celebrities who believe their personal dramas are important to anyone else outside their own families.
    I watched two episodes of the Kardashians to see what all the fuss was about. At every opportunity their expensive, rented skiing lodge name was advertised in print on the screen and as for the Kardashian conversations? What a load of pretentious nonsense as the women engaged in a lengthy chat about a boyfriend with dramatic close ups and the seriousness of someone receiving a diagnosis of a terminal disease. I also looked up images of Kim’s backside. It looked huge, flat and lardy in faded jeans; not something any young woman ever need aspire to.
  10. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    28 Oct '05
    15 Jan '19 23:47
    @philokalia said
    It doesn't really matter if you think it is an apt description...

    For instance, I know many people who would regard Islam as a heresy or as a totally false religion, but in the presence of Muslims, or even in a public context, would they ever disparage it that way? Of course not. They do not want to provoke anger or resentment in others.

    Surely, you understand that.

    In this context, why do you persist with the phrase?
    The term "torturer god ideology" gets right to the heart of the matter and calls a spade a spade. I don't think it disparages sonship's ideology; I think it encapsulates it accurately and candidly. If you feel anger and resentment, and if you are feeling frustrated by your unsuccessful efforts to modify the posting of others, then so be it.
  11. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    28 Oct '05
    16 Jan '19 00:44
    @philokalia said
    LOL, no, it's fine.

    I am actually just pointing out that you are socially obtuse and very rude.

    If a man was in Indonesia with a room of people you enjoyed and kept referring to Muslims as 'heretics' and calling it 'the Mahometan heresy,' etc., you would probably be sympathetic with the Muslims that felt bad and were angered about this, wouldn't you? And you aren't ...[text shortened]... , saying these things.

    There's a lot of impolite words people use to describe folks like this 😆
    I think the way that I post is fine.
  12. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    28 Oct '05
    16 Jan '19 13:00
    @philokalia said
    I bet it would be highly lauded in the Debates forum. 😉
    Who are you fixated on and stalking over there in my absence?
  13. Subscribermoonbus
    31 May '12
    16 Jan '19 13:50
    @wolfe63 said

    Lest we forget the possibility that the Brexit vote may have been influenced by the russians.
    As clearly demonstrated in the United States; the russian troll-farms have performed their putin-directed, propaganda-misinformation campaigns, rather competently. ...[text shortened]... owever, they are yet to harvest any significant "blow-back"... but, rest assured: It's in the works.
    Putin wants and hopes to regain for Russia some of the clout which the USSR once had when it was still a super power and lost. This he hopes to accomplish not only by building up Russia’s political and diplomatic might, but also by weakening the political and diplomatic might of Russia’s rivals on the world stage.

    As far as Putin is concerned, the Cold War never ended: he is pursuing it by other means now, which include disrupting democratic processes and fomenting division in the USA, UK, and Germany. Putin would like nothing better than to see the EU disintegrate into a heap of squabbling separatist nationalist far-right xenophobic states, and Brexit is a step in that direction.

    Trump is either a complete fool if he thinks Putin’s Russia is the ally of the West, or he is beholden to Russian interests and their lackey.
  14. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    22 Jun '04
    16 Jan '19 15:45
    @quackquack said
    Your rambling has nothing to do with reality and has more to do with the fact that you want others to pay for things that they should pay for.
    People will investment, despite the effort and risks, when they believe they have the ability to make profit. If you continually jack up taxes (on those who already paid the most) then investment will be curtailed. That means ...[text shortened]... ve from high tax states to low tax states. It is because crushing taxes make it unbearable to live.
    Actually the exact opposite is true; increased inequality leads to weaker aggregate demand and less Investment:

    A second argument centres on the popular misconception that those at the top are the job creators, and giving more money to them will thus create more jobs. Industrialised countries are full of creative entrepreneurial people throughout the income distribution. What creates jobs is demand: when there is demand, firms will create the jobs to satisfy that demand (especially if we can get the financial system to work in the way it should, providing credit to small and medium-sized enterprises).


    inequality leads to weak aggregate demand. The reason is easy to understand: those at the bottom spend a larger fraction of their income than those at the top.

  15. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    22 Jun '04
    16 Jan '19 21:45
    @quackquack said
    Your proposal would mean that people would keep almost half the marginal dollar (30% instead of 50😵. Perhaps you believe it's needed or fair but certainly it would dramatically effect where people earn money and what investments are made. It also would make lobbying and special tax breaks even more important.
    Actually, the typical business run by the top 1% employs very few people:

    The average company in the top 1 percent of income has $7 million in sales and 57 employees, according to the research. “If that firm has, say, a 10 percent profit margin to split between two owners, it’s enough to put someone in the top 1 percent category,” says Zwick. The businesses earning the most profits in the bulk of the top 1 percent were physicians’ and dentists’ offices, professional and technical services, specialty trade contractors, and legal services.

    Predictably in a country with a top heavy distribution of income, the biggest earners were those who service the wealthy:

    finance and insurance is by far the most highly represented industry among the highest earners,” find Guvenen and Kaplan, who looked at the 0.1 percent.


    Taxing these people at a higher marginal rate on income above $10 million would hardly have any effect on economic Investment or employment on its own and if the money was used to create badly needed public infrastructure and/or used to enhance human capital it would be greatly beneficial to the US economy.
Back to Top