Are you typing with your eyes open? Or are you like...using the Force? You stated that I posted that the quality of education in this country had something to do with the war in Iraq, when these sentiments never came out of my mouth, or my computer in this case. Next time that you try to have a logical, adult debate with logical adults, try having one in the room with you, because you sure are not making it on your own.

And the next time that you want to put words into someone else's posts, make sure that person only reads as well as you do so you don't get caught.

Dumbass (I believe my level of education, and especially deductive reasoning, is spot on with this so babble all you want about whether or not it has to do with Beavis and Butthead.)

---
When life hands you lemons, throw them at someone. Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

I explained the course of the discussion, and you can go back over the posts to verify it. In asking how a choice between Republicans and Democrats is a choice between a war and "giving money to the poor", I wondered if you meant cutting public funding for education, since I couldn't think of much else that applied. You still haven't offered a good explanation of what does make that argument make sense. Calling names doesn't fix that.

You clearly meant to refer to the war in Iraq, because when I thought you typed the deaths of "hundreds of thousands" you obviously meant "hundreds or thousands" because you corrected me. What else could you have been referring to, in the context of choosing between a Republican and Democrat?

I ask again, if you weren't referring to education (for example) what else is being "taken from the poor" by Republicans? It's easy to answer. And if you don't believe this statement is true, and I am mistaken, it's easy to correct by you saying "I don't believe the Republicans are taking money from the poor. You misunderstood me. Here is what I meant:.."

I copied and pasted your quote directly. Here it is again, since it seems to make you so defensive:

How does a war in Iraq (to which you are so obviously referring) take money from the homeless? How is the government "fundamentally corrupt"? Someone's been watching too much Michael Moore.

You still haven't responded to any of my questions or points.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Uh oh. You mentioned the word "child" in a previous post. Which means in Makk's twisted mind..

child = semi-direct correlation to education, because children go to school to get educated.

quote:

---

I explained the course of the discussion, and you can go back over the posts to verify it. In asking how a choice between Republicans and Democrats is a choice between a war and "giving money to the poor", I wondered if you meant cutting public funding for education, since I couldn't think of much else that applied. You still haven't offered a good explanation of what does make that argument make sense. Calling names doesn't fix that.

You clearly meant to refer to the war in Iraq, because when I thought you typed the deaths of "hundreds of thousands" you obviously meant "hundreds or thousands" because you corrected me. What else could you have been referring to, in the context of choosing between a Republican and Democrat?

I ask again, if you weren't referring to education (for example) what else is being "taken from the poor" by Republicans? It's easy to answer. And if you don't believe this statement is true, and I am mistaken, it's easy to correct by you saying "I don't believe the Republicans are taking money from the poor. You misunderstood me. Here is what I meant:.."

---

I see...so because *you* said it, that means that *I* said it too? You do realize that we are not the same person...right?

See now here is where that education thing comes into play again. You'll notice a little squiggly mark in there. You've hit that key many times. It's right next to the M key (thank god it isn't next to the R or F otherwise you'd REALLY be in trouble). It's called a comma. When someone places a comma in a sentence with a list of things, it usually denotes a separation. I did not say that the war was taking money away from the poor. I said that the current government put us in the war and that the current government was helping the rich get richer, thus money was not going into the hands of the poor.

Ok, I think here is where your brain farted. I never mentioned education and tax cuts or budget cuts or anything else. *niteowl* is the one that mentioned that and much like you and I, he and I are not the same person. You did not assume I was talking about education anywhere in your posts to me because in your posts that were directed toward me, you don't mention even one time education, until you dragged my butchered name into a post I had nothing to do with.

I haven't offered a good explanation of that argument because I didn't make the argument in the first place.

Congratulations, this is the first one you got right. Well, *mostly* right. I didn't have to correct you on what I 'meant' because I said it quite plainly. It isn't as if I said one thing and then claimed to have meant another, like someone else who shall remain NaMeLeSS.

Since you seem to be so big on semantics, I never said 'taken from the poor'. I said, well you cut & paste so efficiently that I'm sure you're aware of what I said. Since you're also so big on everyone except yourself making sense with their points and arguments, I'll indulge you. I am not "poor", yet I am also not middle class. I do not own my own home, I do not have any kids, I do not have a vast spiderweb-like network of investments spread out all over the electronic universe. And I don't know anyone in high flying political circles. I have a decent job, I pay my bills, and I pay my taxes. I am a mostly upstanding member of the community. However, since I'm not contributing to the already overpopulated earth, and I cannot afford to knock down more trees and dig up more land to build my own home, I get no tax breaks. So, I pay my taxes and I go to work every day like a good little American. I shop, I pay more taxes. And then I get to look forward to getting back 26.7% of the taxes I paid the year before. So you ask me how is that the Republicans taking away from 'the poor'? Well, last time I checked, it was the Republicans that were in control of the government. The IRS is a government agency. Therefore the Republicans are taking MY money directly FROM ME. And since there are millions of other "me's" paying taxes as well, I really doubt that it takes the government 73.3% of MY money to not fix the roads I drive on every day, to not pay the teachers that teach my neighbors' children what they don't learn every day, fund 3 year old intelligence that Tom Ridge swears is still threatening our country, as well as a miriad of other things it DOESN'T go toward.

I was not referring to this, I was referring to you saying that I was saying ANYTHING about education.

I stand by my original remark:

DUMBASS

---
When life hands you lemons, throw them at someone. Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

Can't we all just get a long little doggie?

---
I was gonna send a robot back in time, but I got high.

I see...so because *you* said it, that means that *I* said it too? You do realize that we are not the same person...right?

I just asked if you meant the war in Iraq somehow is a blow to public education. I'm assuming you are admitting that no, it's not.

See now here is where that education thing comes into play again. You'll notice a little squiggly mark in there. You've hit that key many times. It's right next to the M key (thank god it isn't next to the R or F otherwise you'd REALLY be in trouble). It's called a comma. When someone places a comma in a sentence with a list of things, it usually denotes a separation. I did not say that the war was taking money away from the poor. I said that the current government put us in the war and that the current government was helping the rich get richer, thus money was not going into the hands of the poor.

They aren't helping the rich get richer, they are helping the rich on their tax burden. What money, I ask for at least the third time, is "supposed" to be going to the poor that isn't going? What is the acceptable level of money (I ask again) that they should be getting that they aren't? What is wrong with people growing their income levels? How is that a blow to the poor? Doesn't that mean they move up into higher income brackets, and proportionately pay more taxes sooner?

Ok, I think here is where your brain farted. I never mentioned education and tax cuts or budget cuts or anything else.

Then what do you mean by "the rich get richer"? What do you mean by "taking money from the poor"? It's hard to understand what you are mentioning, if not tax cuts. Please clarify.

I haven't offered a good explanation of that argument because I didn't make the argument in the first place.

So you admit there is no connection between a war in Iraq and money being "taken" from the poor. Thanks. That wasn't so hard, now was it?

quote:

---

quote:

---

You clearly meant to refer to the war in Iraq, because when I thought you typed the deaths of "hundreds of thousands" you obviously meant "hundreds or thousands" because you corrected me.

---

Since you seem to be so big on semantics, I never said 'taken from the poor'. I said, well you cut & paste so efficiently that I'm sure you're aware of what I said. Since you're also so big on everyone except yourself making sense with their points and arguments, I'll indulge you. I am not "poor", yet I am also not middle class. I do not own my own home, I do not have any kids, I do not have a vast spiderweb-like network of investments spread out all over the electronic universe. And I don't know anyone in high flying political circles. I have a decent job, I pay my bills, and I pay my taxes. I am a mostly upstanding member of the community. However, since I'm not contributing to the already overpopulated earth, and I cannot afford to knock down more trees and dig up more land to build my own home, I get no tax breaks.

---

No, you didn't. The first time that you connected anything involving me and education in this discussion (not including your terrible Little Orphan Annie lack of public television) was when you claimed that I had made any statement at all on the subject, which I had not. You did not ask me anything at all. You stated that I had expessed an opinion when I had in fact done nothing of the kind.

I've been paying taxes for 15+ years and I have yet to move into a higher tax bracket. I've moved up in the job market but still pay the same, if not MORE in taxes. I'm not making a lot more money, but I AM paying more taxes sooner. Meanwhile this 'heavy burden' that rich people supposedly have doesn't seem to be hurting their overall income level. The same can not be said for me and the people like me.

My entire point was the fact that you were attributing a comment to me that was not mine. Please pay better attention when you are making stupid comments.

As soon as you admit that you were trying to call me on a comment that I NEVER MADE, we can talk about what I may or may not have said, posted, thought, or meant.

This is just such a load of shit that I don't even know where to begin. People who have kids get to claim extra tax credits because of those kids. People who own homes get to take extra tax credits on that home. Someone I know paid less than $3,000 in taxes in 2003 and got back more than $7,000 because she has two children. That tax refund would have been even bigger if she owned her own home. When you own a home, you can claim your monthly payments as deductions. You do not get the same opportunity when you rent, no matter how much your monthly rent is. People who have kids also get to claim "Earned Income Tax Credit", something that people with no children cannot do. All these examples add up to them getting back money that was not their's to begin with. And I'm sure that the list gets longer when someone is already in a 6 or 7 figure income range and has a CPA prepare their taxes. They go out to lunch and throw back a few, then at the end of the year, claim that as a work expense, whether or not work was even mentioned. That is just one example but I'm sure you'll focus right in on it and say that now I'm for harsher alcohol laws and throw in something about gun control just for good measure.

Is there some setting you have on your browser that causes simple English to be translated into Moronese when you open it? I never claimed that this administration introduced the concept of taxes. I was pointing out that since this administration is in control of the country at this particular moment in time, they have the power if they so choose to not only cut the 'tax burden' of the rich, but also the 'tax burden' of the not so rich.

It's only the stupidest thing I've said because it ISN'T WHAT I SAID. I never said that this administration invented the IRS. Please. I would love for you to cut and paste where I said that. Please???

1-I'm not whining. 2-They may pay much larger taxes, but the percentage is the same. The difference is that they get to claim far more in deductions than someone like me does. The benefit therefore is much greater.

My argument was NEVER simply about the homeless, and I never claimed to BE homeless. My argument was an attempt to point out that you have your head planted firmly up your ass and I hope you never have the opportunity to breed. If you have done so already, I hope someone can slap your child(ren)'s mother(s).

And I'll give you a little more time to actually attempt to string together a coherent thought and also to make sure that when you make your next stupid comment, you are directing it at the right person.

Dumbass

---
When life hands you lemons, throw them at someone. Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

No, you didn't...blah blah blah

I just asked you that a few posts ago.

I've been paying taxes for 15+ years and I have yet to move into a higher tax bracket.

I thought you were just complaining about not getting tax breaks. I said people who get tax breaks can grow their wealth.

You're right, we need to keep the Republicans in office to lower taxes even more.

Having 50 to 60 percent of your income go to the government isn't a heavy burden? It sounds more like you are resentful of wealth than you are making a good argument against tax cuts.

My entire point was the fact that you were attributing a comment to me that was not mine. Please pay better attention when you are making stupid comments.

That was your "entire point"? What did you mean when you said "money that should be going into the hands of poor, homeless americans instead of going into the hands of the 'have's and have more's'"? What could that mean but that you want more taxes on the wealthy and more money given to the poor? I ask you for specifics on this, once again.

As soon as you admit that you were trying to call me on a comment that I NEVER MADE, we can talk about what I may or may not have said, posted, thought, or meant.

It's not that hard to clarify something if you think I don't understand what you meant. If you can't clarify it I can only assume you need the confusion to cover up the fact you didn't really know what your point was, or it was fundamentally flawed (like your "the IRS is part of the government therefore the Republicans take my money" argument).

This is just such a load of shit that I don't even know where to begin. People who have kids get to claim extra tax credits because of those kids.

You (as a lower-income person) are just as able (if not more) to have kids as those in a higher income bracket. It's not a tax credit limited to the wealthy, in any event. And it doesn't out-weight the costs of raising a kid for a year.

What I was responding to was the things you said you were "unable" to take advantage of. You said you can't buy equipment to tear up land and get tax breaks on that, or your can't get investments and (somehow) get tax breaks on that. You don't receive the extra income from these things, so why are you complaining about not receiving the tax breaks on income you don't receive?

The lower-incomed are not unable to take advantage of home ownership. Also there are property taxes and other costs that home ownership credits offset.

Are you just against tax credits to home owners because you yourself do not own a home?

Someone who gets more money back than they pay in taxes because of their dependent credits probably needs the money. Are you against them getting this money?

And again, I was responding to you whining about things you can't take advantage of in your economic situation. If you can't have kids, it's not an economic factor, it's a physical one, and the credit you receive won't outweight the costs of raising a kid.

Should there be a disincentive to own a home? You don't understand that there are property taxes and other costs associtated with home owning that counters this out?

That's right, it's a deduction on money you already have to pay. What is the point?

What is your point? How does you not owning a home translate into the Republicans taking your money?

The Republicans won't let you have children? You think the tax credits for dependents out weight the costs raising a child every year? That's insane.

You were talking about tax breaks for strip mining or owning investments. That's what I said would offer tax breaks on EXTRA money you were earning. I didn't criticize tax credits for children. And again, you're not taking into account property tax or other associated fees.

It's no one's fault you're not getting a tax credit for not having kids. Stop whining. No wonder you're a Democrat.

It really sounds like you're just angry at people who have higher incomes. Should they be taxed to the point they do as much whining as you?

Is there some setting you have on your browser that causes simple English to be translated into Moronese when you open it? I never claimed that this administration introduced the concept of taxes.

This is exactly what you said, word for word:

How is the Republicans giving you back your own money taking money from the poor?

Aside from that, the income tax still remains progessive, as it has been historically. The rich pay more taxes than the poor. How is this is Republicans taking money from the poor? How is the government giving you back your own money taking money from the poor?

The tax burden remains progressive. And the stimulation of higher income persons' dispensible investment income will result in much more effective investment growth than you getting an extra 350$ back you can spend on lottery tickets.

How is lowering the burden on those paying the highest percentage causing you undue grief?

It's only the stupidest thing I've said because it ISN'T WHAT I SAID. I never said that this administration invented the IRS. Please. I would love for you to cut and paste where I said that. Please???

Here is what you said:

The IRS wasn't taking YOUR money from YOU during the Clinton years?

quote:

---

quote:

---

The rich pay a much larger percentage of taxes with much smaller benefit. Stop whining.

---

1-I'm not whining. 2-They may pay much larger taxes, but the percentage is the same. The difference is that they get to claim far more in deductions than someone like me does. The benefit therefore is much greater.

---

Someone should retitle this thread to "Did Someone Mention Flogging the Dead Horse?"

I think it should be renamed to "Did someone try to have a discussion with Makk about politics, but instead ended up frustrated because he takes everything you type out of context and in some cases, outright lies about what you typed in previous posts?"

P.S. You still have yet to address my last post, Makk. Practice what you preach.

---
Think classy, you'll be classy.

Since I brought up budget cuts and the "effects" they have on everyone (not just the poor), here's a link which lists some of Bush's since he took office. Please note that each blurb is backed up with a verifiable link. You might be disappointed though Makk, I didn't see any links to any Fox News or New York Post stories.

http://www.wage-slave.org/scorecard.html

---
Think classy, you'll be classy.

All I can do is shake my head and sigh. MaKK (I just lovelovelove those alternating caps btw. I know I've said it before but it bares repeating). Since you seem to keep asking me for points that I continue to keep making which you continue to keep ignoring, I'll say it again and I'll be sure to use small words so you're able to follow along a little better. Unfortunately though, there is no bouncing ball to settle on each word as you read it so do your best. The ENTIRE reason that I got into this discussion in the first place was because of your inane statement that "All criminals are Democrats". I was not trying to make any new political statements beyond pointing out that that is quite possibly the most rediculous statement I've ever heard. I then went on to dig up historically void examples of Republican wrong doings in an effort to point out how silly it was for you to use examples of things that happened more than a decade ago to justify opinions you had about things going on today. Both of these seemed to have been lost on you. All you could do in response was say that you were being 'sarcastic' and then go completely off point by saying that by my logic (which I admitted in my ORIGINAL POST was flawed) made no sense when attributing current behavior to past politicians. You then dragged my name (well, MOST of my name) into a conversation I had nothing to do with and attributed comments and opinions to me which I had not made or stated. When I tried to point this out to you, you attempted to double back and claim you were talking about something else, all the while trying to get me to admit to something that I had no claim to in the first place.

You have blathered on for days (and pages) attempting to make yourself seem the more intelligent of any of us here, all the while digging yourself further into a deep well of idiocy. I am done with you. It was fun for a little while, watching you flop around like the fish at the end of the Faith No More video, but now I'm bored.

I hope you enjoy yourself, because that's the only person you'll be talking to from now on.

Dumbass

---
When life hands you lemons, throw them at someone. Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

So all your posts were supposed to prove Democrats aren't criminals? Ok I get it.

No, I said I was obviously joking about the Democrat comment (since Spankling said something to the effect that it amounted to election tampering) and that you couldn't assume a Republican would act like a historical Republican anymore than you could assume a Democrat in office would behave like Clinton.

The post I'm talking about is the one where you attribute the virtue of taking money away from the homeless to Republicans. You still, after much typing, haven't explained what you meant. You've bitched a lot about taxes though. Are you sure you aren't a Republican?

Also Republicans and Democrats got us into this war, so I don't know how you attribute the war to just Republicans.

Show me where I did this. I did ask, hypothetically, if you thought education was suffering because of the Iraq war, since someone brought it up. (In a "conversaiton" many people talk, not just you).

So you don't think education quality has anything to do with a war in Iraq, is that correct?

My first posts were pretty short, I've had to type a lot due to the length of your posts. Take a look in the mirror before you talk about blathering idiocy.

quote:

---

I hope you enjoy yourself, because that's the only person you'll be talking to from now on.

Dumbass

---

Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11

By the Independence Institute, no less. How more official can you get?

I may or may not be downloading the file, maybe or not maybe taking great pleasure in the fact Moore is receiving no money from me.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Hey Makk, have you actually seen Fahrenheit 9-11?

---
Think classy, you'll be classy.

Of course not. He believes what they tell him to believe.

---
"AthiestDiary, you rock." - MikeyG (I'm LOVED! HOORAH!)

I just told you I was downloading this version of the movie to watch. It's pretty good so far, it starts with a disclaimer by Michael Moore, endorsing the illegal download of the movie.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

---
Think classy, you'll be classy.

Bush threatens US!

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

Fox admits GOP full of racists

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

Wow that movie did a good job showing why the original has no documentation. Because almost all of the information presented is wrong or completely skewed! It also explains that Michael Moore, as a narcassist, is actually envious of George Bush. That makes so much sense, when you think about it! God bless the makers of this much improved "crock"umentary!! ;) ;)

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

I haven't seen Moore's latest pile, but one thing I noticed in "Bowling for Columbine" is that he can be flat-out shameless in taking quotes and isolated facts wildly out of context, sometimes even dropping them into different contexts when it suits him. That way, he can fall back on narrow claims of factual accuracy in order to defend his work, even when he is being quite deceptive. Failing that, he switches hats from "documentary film maker" to "satirist" in hopes that the jokey, jovial veneer will insulate him from serious criticism. Doesn't seem like he's changed much, judging from some of the reviews I've read.

---
I was gonna send a robot back in time, but I got high.

quote:

---

Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11

---

Michael Moore, whatever you want to call him, simply takes the propaganda tactics that politicians and the media have perfected over the years and turns it against them. Nothing more, nothing less.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

quote:

---

I haven't seen Moore's latest pile, but one thing I noticed in "Bowling for Columbine" is that he can be flat-out shameless in taking quotes and isolated facts wildly out of context, sometimes even dropping them into different contexts when it suits him. That way, he can fall back on narrow claims of factual accuracy in order to defend his work, even when he is being quite deceptive. Failing that, he switches hats from "documentary film maker" to "satirist" in hopes that the jokey, jovial veneer will insulate him from serious criticism. Doesn't seem like he's changed much, judging from some of the reviews I've read.

---