patrick.net

OK, I'll do one more response regarding CU, then it is all yours again...Dan8267 says

That's a big cry from interpreting legal corporations as "people" with all the same rights.

Above is just one more solid piece of evidence that (a) Dan has not read the CU decision and is doing nothing more than parroting talking an incorrect talking point from others, or (b) Dan is intentionally, like others, warping the meaning of words in a thoroughly dishonest way to make them fit his narrative and incite anger about his cause in others. I'll go with (a) in this case.

Thanks once again Dan for showing me and anyone else here who takes the time to read the actual CU decision vs. relying on talking points of others, that you simply don't know shit other than how to parrot others on this issue.

For a person who drops the vast majority of his opposition's points, Paralithodes is sure quick to claim victory.

No point in following dishonest or illogical people down their rabbit holes, especially when they use a combination of convoluted twisting of words to weasel out of acknowledging errors or inconsistencies, especially when the "vast majority of [your] points" were only sub-points about the least important three main points to begin with (I understand of course why you want to focus on that one - because you can dance around words and you can't answer the other points).... So... why not go back to the main points ... You were wrong about CU's conclusions, period. No amount of twisting, dodging, redirection, projection, attempted clever abuse of language and words, or attempting to focus on the minutia of the least important (the degree to which the ACLU or people in it - and you still get this wrong anyway) will change that. You were simply wrong about the facts of CU and you are neither man nor mature enough to admit it.

Dan8267 says

2. You don't have to be rich to pay a marginal rate of 33%, especially if you are single, have no kids, and no mortgage.

In that thread we were not discussing the marginal rate, we were discussing the net effective tax rate, and this was clarified in that very thread. It was YOU who was comparing Romney's NET EFFECTIVE FEDERAL INCOME TAX rate with your own, and you clarified to others, upon request, that you were referring to YOUR OWN net effective federal income tax rate, NOT your marginal rate.

Therefore, you are now 100% trapped in a lie (or utter ignorance) either way from that thread, and 100% trapped into dishonest misrepresentation now. No amount of filibustering, non-sequitur, 3-page novel you type in response will change this. Thanks again for these valuable clarifications of your honesty.