patrick.net

thunderlips11 says

The decline is simple: Any country that has a large supply of young people disproportionate to the other age cohorts experiences crime waves, religious fanaticism, and other goodness.

Makes sense. Old people are too weak/sickly to bust a cap in yo' a$$.

zzyzzx says

Dan8267 says

I've circled total warfare spending and total welfare spending for your convenience.

Even if you are right, and I have my doubts about it since your source is a liberal one, you forgot to include how much of my state and local taxes go for local welfare programs.

1. I am right. This is a matter of fact, not opinion. The data is verifiable.

2. The Government Printing Office is not a "liberal" source. It is completely nonpartisan and apolitical. And really? This is coming from a guy who quoted Fox News. 'Nuff said.

3. The data is a matter of public records.

4. The lie from Fox News that welfare spending is far larger than warfare spending is talking about federal spending, not state spending.

5. If you want to see state spending or total spending including federal/state/local, once again, you should go to my source as it spells out the spending precisely. And warfare spending is still more than welfare.

6. Most importantly of all...

There comes a point when the best thing you can do to save face is to simply admit that you were fooled by the lies of Fox News and demonstrate that you have learned something and won't listen to their lies anymore. To express doubt that the lie is really a lie, is to tell the world that you are still so stupid as to believe the lie even after it has been thoroughly exposed.

It's understandable to be fooled by lying "journalists" once or even a few times. But you look retarded if you keep getting fooled by the same damn liars even though their lies have been exposed in such a painfully obvious manner.

So show the world that you are not retarded by boldly claiming: Fox News lied to me, and I fell for it. But now I am on to their manipulation, and I will not listen to their lies anymore!

That would make you look respectable.

edvard2 says

If there were anyone who 'should' be complaining about taxes, it should be me because about 30% of my income goes to paying taxes while I can almost guarantee a lot of those complaining about taxes are either paying very little, or no taxes at all.

I pay way more then 30% of my income to taxes. 30% might just cover federal income taxes for me.

zzyzzx says

I pay way more then 30% of my income to taxes. 30% might just cover federal income taxes for me.

And Warren Buffett pays a much lower %. Why do you think that is?

freak80 says

And Warren Buffett pays a much lower %. Why do you think that is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett

Buffett stated that he only paid 19% of his income for 2006 ($48.1 million) in total federal taxes (due to their being from dividends & capital gains), while his employees paid 33% of theirs, despite making much less money.

Actually I thought that his % was much lower because of income from tax free municipal bonds. Perhaps I was confusing him with someone else???

zzyzzx says

Buffett stated that he only paid 19% of his income for 2006 ($48.1 million) in total federal taxes (due to their being from dividends & capital gains), while his employees paid 33% of theirs, despite making much less
money.

So you acknowledge that Buffett is paying a significantly lower tax rate than you are?

freak80 says

So you acknowledge that Buffett is paying a significantly lower tax rate than you are?

Yes, of course!

Dan8267 says

5. If you want to see state spending or total spending including federal/state/local, once again, you should go to my source as it spells out the spending precisely. And warfare spending is still more than welfare.

Using your chart, welfare is 19 + 9 = 28% welfare, and only 13% for defense. And this is only at the federal level. At the state level there is almost no defense spending and boatloads of welfare spending. I'm sure that Obamaphones aren't in the welfare section of your pie chart either.

zzyzzx says

Yes, of course!

So who are the freeloaders? The "welfare bums"? Or Buffett and friends who do nothing but collect the profits reaped from the labor of the rest of us?

Welfare folks might be freeloaders, but at least they don't have the $ to buy politicians (and thus laws) to enslave us.

freak80 says

So who are the freeloaders? The "welfare bums"? Or Buffett and friends who do nothing but collect the profits reaped from the labor of the rest of us?

Someone who pays 25% federal income taxes and a bunch more for state income and property taxes is not my definition of a freeloader.

Nobody said they were.
If one is 'needy' due to being too 'lazy' to work, they should not benefit from government handouts.

Dan8267 says

SoftShell says

Full Definition of NEEDY


1: being in want : poverty-stricken

dead·beat noun \ˈded-ˌbēt\


1: a lazy person : a person who does not work

That's one of the problems with society today. Everybody wants to redefine words.

1. Those two definitions are not mutually exclusive.

So according to you almost 100% of the population does not work.
You'll have to provide your definition of 'almost' as the generally accepted meaning renders your statement blatantly false.

And, as an aside, I did not 'preented' anything...

Dan8267 says

SoftShell says

Full Definition of NEEDY


1: being in want : poverty-stricken

dead·beat noun \ˈded-ˌbēt\


1: a lazy person : a person who does not work

That's one of the problems with society today. Everybody wants to redefine words.

2. Almost 100% of the population meets the definition of "lazy" you preented.

Again, it's not 'my' definition of lazy.
Take it up with Ms Merriam.

Dan8267 says

SoftShell says

Full Definition of NEEDY


1: being in want : poverty-stricken

dead·beat noun \ˈded-ˌbēt\


1: a lazy person : a person who does not work

That's one of the problems with society today. Everybody wants to redefine words.

3. Your definition of needy provides no means testing.

zzyzzx says

Someone who pays 25% federal income taxes and a bunch more for state income and property taxes is not my definition of a freeloader.

What about someone who makes the vast majority of their income from ownership of assets (including your labor) rather than productive work?

No, Marriage used to mean just one thing.
A modern day photoshop generated chart stuffed with left wing dogma constructed by the Maddow-O'donnell-MrEd trilogy during commercial breaks does not change history.

Dan8267 says

1. Marriage used to mean a hell of a lot of things.

freak80 says

What about someone who makes the vast majority of their income from ownership of assets (including your labor) rather than productive work?

Doesn't matter, they still pay income taxes just like everyone else. I know I will still be paying taxes when I retire (if I ever retire).

Dick jokes are being warehoused here.
http://patrick.net/?p=1229249
Try to keep up....

Dan8267 says

2. You cannot marry a canary under any adopted or proposed marriage equality laws. As for mating with your canary, well, I wouldn't be surprised if you were size-appropriate for that.

I never stated that.
Assumption Is The Mother Of All Fuckups.

Dan8267 says

3. Just because you want only men and women to have recognized marriages does not mean that there is any material secular difference between opposite-sex and same-sex marriages.

No, it's simpler to come up with a different word and not disenfranchise a billion marriages based on the original interpretation of the word.

Dan8267 says

Instead of immediately dispelling hundreds of thousands of laws and causing utter chaos on the federal, state, and local level, it makes much more sense simply to update the legal interpretation of the word marriage to include same-sex marriages.

zzyzzx says

Doesn't matter, they still pay income taxes just like everyone else. I know I will still be paying taxes when I retire (if I ever retire).

You don't care that the ultra-rich are paying a lower tax rate than you are? Why not?

Is it Stockholm Syndrome?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

I never said I had any religious beliefs.
You are simply becoming more hysterical as you try to defend the indefensible.
Assumption is the Mother of All Fuckups, and you are on a roll!

Dan8267 says

6. Whether or not your stupid, incorrect, religious beliefs say that homosexually is bad is irrelevant to the state and secular law.

SoftShell says

Marriage used to mean just one thing.

Which one of the Romney wives told you that?

Neither is there to discriminate against people married under the original definition of the word.
You disenfranchise billions by hijacking the word.

Dan8267 says

7. There is no legal justification to discriminate against homosexuals.

Whoa, how did this thread turn into a "gay war" thread?

I never suggested they were. That thought emanated from your mind, not mine.
My reference to 'marrying a canary' goes to the hijacking of the word "marriage". Once you attempt to redefine the word, the door is open for anyone to redefine it.
Words have meaning. People make decisions and perform actions based on word definitions. That's why it is important to preserve word definitions.
There's a billion sounds as yet undefined eminating from the mouth of humans. Pick one, or better yet, sew together a catchy phrase that means marriage between two men, or two women. It's doable if you try.
Don't be a dickhead and disenfranchise a billion marriages entered into based on the original meaning.
Dan8267 says

8. Homosexuality and bestiality are not the same thing. Suggesting that they are is both stupid and bigoted.

freak80 says

Whoa, how did this thread turn into a "gay war" thread?

One of Dan8267's posts a page back.

Someone 'dared' to disagree with Uncle Dan, and once he gets started it usually ends up here....
freak80 says

Whoa, how did this thread turn into a "gay war" thread?

So this thread appears to be a perfect example of how (relatively) trivial stuff distracts us from the formation of a global plutocracy that wants to enslave us all.

My two cents: voluntary homosexuality is better than involuntary homosexuality, a.k.a. getting f*cked in the a$$ by a permanent aristocracy.

You don't update 'hundreds of thousands of laws'.
You simply enact one new law that states wherever 'marriage' is used in law, it can be substituted with 'Marriage/GayMarriage/MilfMarriage/CanaryLove', or whatever pushes your button.

Dan8267 says

Instead of immediately dispelling hundreds of thousands of laws and causing utter chaos on the federal, state, and local level, it makes much more sense simply to update the legal interpretation of the word marriage to include same-sex marriages.

SoftShell says

Someone 'dared' to disagree with Uncle Dan, and once he gets started it usually ends up here....

freak80 says

Whoa, how did this thread turn into a "gay war" thread?

Single guy living alone, doesn't want or like kids, yah I guess he might be a little sensitive on that issue ...

Quigley says

SoftShell says

Someone 'dared' to disagree with Uncle Dan, and once he gets started it usually ends up here....

freak80 says

Whoa, how did this thread turn into a "gay war" thread?

Single guy living alone, doesn't want or like kids, yah I guess he might be a little sensitive on that issue ...

Hehe. Since Nazis are not popular anymore Godwin's law now favors the "gay discrimination discussion" and racism as the new cul-de-sac for every discussion, no matter what the original topic was - I think it has even displaced the feminazi issue.

Quigley says

Single guy living alone, doesn't want or like kids, yah I guess he might be a little sensitive on that issue ...

Oh come now, he's probably 100% hetero, except for his subscription to Buff Boys magazine.

A good subservient mail-order bride and he'll pipe down.

There should be absolutely no restrictions on gun ownership.

Abortion on demand.

If I marry my canary, then eat the resultant eggs is it considered abortion or breakfast?

God is real! And he's a Republican!

(now we have all three...God, Guns, n' Gays!)

SoftShell says

If I marry my canary, then eat the resultant eggs is it considered abortion or breakfast?

Life begins at constipation.

Dan8267 says

There comes a point when the best thing you can do to save face is to simply admit that you were fooled by the lies of Fox News and demonstrate that you have learned something and won't listen to their lies anymore. To express doubt that the lie is really a lie, is to tell the world that you are still so stupid as to believe the lie even after it has been thoroughly exposed.

That was your out, but you double down on a clearly wrong position.

zzyzzx says

Using your chart, welfare is 19 + 9 = 28% welfare, and only 13% for defense. And this is only at the federal level. At the state level there is almost no defense spending and boatloads of welfare spending. I'm sure that Obamaphones aren't in the welfare section of your pie chart either.

1. The chart shows welfare spending is 9%, not 28%. It cannot be clearer.
2. The chart is for all spending federal, state, and local as it clearly states on the top.

3. There are no such things as Obama phones. The program you hypocritical conservatives bitch about, the SafeLink program, was started in 2008 under the George Walker Bush Administration. You know, this asshole.

So blame Bush for that $2.1 billion a year spent on Bush phones.

4. Bushphones aren't a part of the Welfare program. They are paid for by Universal Service Fund and are not at all funded by the income tax.

5. But at least one can make the case that Bush phones alleviate poverty and make it more likely the poor will get jobs. Compare that to the tens of billions of dollars wasted on the F-35 fighter or the half a billion spent on tanks the army doesn't want for fighting the Soviets in 1982. People in the Warfare industry are the biggest welfare queens.

Nonetheless, I have no problem getting rid of the Bushphones. However, as I've shown once again, all the expenses you mentioned are utter fucking insignificant compared to the tax payer money wasted on the warfare industry. Unless you're willing to slash that budget, you are a hypocrite regarding government spending and taxation. And so far, you keep dodging what really is wasting our taxpayer dollars.

zzyzzx says

freak80 says

So who are the freeloaders? The "welfare bums"? Or Buffett and friends who do nothing but collect the profits reaped from the labor of the rest of us?

Someone who pays 25% federal income taxes and a bunch more for state income and property taxes is not my definition of a freeloader.

He most certainly is if he has produced no wealth and has acquired his income by siphoning off the labor of others.

SoftShell says

So according to you almost 100% of the population does not work.

Obviously not. You decided to define "lazy" as "not wanting to work" rather than "not willing to work". Your mistake, not mine. I'm simply demonstrating that when it comes to making legislation, you must define your terms specifically and accurately. Put some thought into it or your legislation will not do what you intended. This happens all the time.