T1B

BSmack wrote:

The Whistle Is Screaming wrote:Can you say, Mafia?

Nah, the mafia isn't nearly as vengeful as the New York State GOP. And they aren't half as efficient when it comes to taking someone out. If Rudy should ever begin to look like the presumptive nominee, look for some shit about Giuliani Partners and Giuliani-Kerik LLC to hit the fan. No way that business was 100% above board.

B,
NY GOP ... Mafia ... what's the difference?

Singed,
Honest Al Di'Amato :D


I'm sure Guiliani has his ass covered so well (remember he was a DA) that it would never get back to him, but someone else certainly would take the fall.

Guiliani a long shot? s opposed to whom?

I wouldn't bet against him winning it.

Bizzarofelice wrote:

Mississippi Neck wrote: Sorry if you're distracted by political maneuvering and shiny baubles..most are not.

Nigga please. America loves karaoke shows, Jay Leno, Jessica Simpson and JibJab cartoons. They can be distracted by anything.

"Nigga please"?? Geez, you're real street..(please insert appropriate emoticon)


Just because one is distracted by Jessica's rack, doesn't mean one has forgotten the events of 9/11. Really..you're reaching... Either you really are that dim, or you're plain wrong and you can't admit your hyperbole. Take your pick slick.

Uncle Fester wrote:Guiliani a long shot? As opposed to whom?

As opposed to actual Republicans. Rudy is a philandering pro choice endorser of Carl McCall who would be a Democrat almost anywhere else in this country save New York City. Don't think that all that baggage and more won't be used against him in the 08 primaries. Movement oriented conservatives already see Bush as a sellout. How pissed do you think they would be if Rudy and his liberal New York ideas dominated the platform?

I wouldn't bet against him winning it.

My guess is that he's angling for a job somewhere. A nice coushy job that will be hand delivered to him in exchange for getting the hell out of the way when the time is right.

Mississippi Neck wrote:"Nigga please"?? Geez, you're real street..(please insert appropriate emoticon)

It seemed to be the most appropriate response. Some dumb bitch has a scarecrow he's attacking so I felt the best way to put that to a halt was "Nigga please". Maybe in your neck of the woods it isn't heard very often.

Just because one is distracted by Jessica's rack, doesn't mean one has forgotten the events of 9/11.

I guess it is your contention that it will be in history books and thusly not forgotten. Hyperbole... maybe. I just think that 9/11 must have been forgotten for:
1) the Taliban to be growing in southern Afghanistan.
2) Osama still walking around.
3) the memories of 9/11 being mixed up with all kids of unrelated events.


Mix in a proper ellipsis while you're at it. Illiterate bitches throwing out the term "dim" are amusing.

As opposed to actual Republicans. Rudy is a philandering pro choice endorser of Carl McCall who would be a Democrat almost anywhere else in this country save New York City. Don't think that all that baggage and more won't be used against him in the 08 primaries. Movement oriented conservatives already see Bush as a sellout. How pissed do you think they would be if Rudy and his liberal New York ideas dominated the platform?

The next election will not be strictly about Democrat vs. Republican, conservative vs. liberal. Those terms have lost their meaning and the lines have blurred. We have a so-called "conservative Republican" president who has grown our government bureaucracy, spent money faster than Zyclone at a steakhouse, and used his idiot rhetoric to set off the biggest immigration boom in our history.

Meanwhile, the Democrats are getting a lot of mileage bashing him, but what alternatives do they offer? How do they propose dealing with the situation in Iraq or with Islamic facism? It's much easier to settle back into Daily Show style cynicism and make snide remarks than it is to propose actual solutions to problems. The 60s style liberalism that some Democrats are still stuck on seems quaint and hopelessly out of date given the World's problems. The Democrats are currently shapeless and without form, fractured to the core by all the different groups.

Conservatives used to believe they had the higher philosophical ground over liberals ("Strong defense, lower taxes, smaller government). We've seen how that bullshit plays out as Dubya and the Republican congress take a dump on our collective heads.

That's why the next president will be an amalgam, a middle-of-the-road, politically fuzzy mix of this and that. A Jesse Ventura-style outsider with no strong ties to either party could take the next election in a cakewalk. Rudy Giuliani fits that description perfectly.

Uncle Fester wrote:The next election will not be strictly about Democrat vs. Republican, conservative vs. liberal. Those terms have lost their meaning and the lines have blurred. We have a so-called "conservative Republican" president who has grown our government bureaucracy, spent money faster than Zyclone at a steakhouse, and used his idiot rhetoric to set off the biggest immigration boom in our history.

That would be a great take if you were talking about the general election. Trouble is, in a GOP primary, things like party identity still mean something. The best Rudy can hope for is to parlay a respectable 3rd place finish in some early primaries into a cabinet level appointment. And even that is entirely contingent upon his not being blown out of the water by scandal.

A genuine Goldwater conservative with a tough stance on illegal immigration should take the nomination and the election. It's still early enough to make one if we can't find one.

Maybe the nomination, but not the election. A Goldwater conservative will get trounced as badly as a George McGovern liberal.

I think the country is ripe for an independent who slams both of the established political parties and yet draws support from both sides. I saw Ventura do it here in Minnesota and the strategy worked perfectly.

mvscal wrote:

Uncle Fester wrote:Maybe the nomination, but not the election. A Goldwater conservative will get trounced as badly as a George McGovern liberal.

He would have a tougher time with the nomination, but I believe most people are fed up with hordes of illegals stampeding unchecked across the border, out of control spending and in your face Christian assholes.

You almost got it right. You're correct on the first & third points (especially the third), but people aren't necessarily tired of out-of-control spending. They're just tired of seeing Bush hand out tax cuts to the wealthy while expecting the rest of us to foot the bill for the war.

mvscal wrote:"The wealthy" are the ones paying the most taxes, idiot.

By what measure?

Bizzarofelice wrote:

I guess it is your contention that it will be in history books and thusly not forgotten. Hyperbole... maybe. I just think that 9/11 must have been forgotten for:
1) the Taliban to be growing in southern Afghanistan.
2) Osama still walking around.

Your first two reasons have nothing to do with the memory of 9\11. It has to do with the military decisions being made. Good grief, you are that dim.

Bizarrofelice wrote:Mix in a proper ellipsis while you're at it. Illiterate bitches throwing out the term "dim" are amusing.

Grammar smack? Sunk low enough? You're done...

mvscal wrote:"The wealthy" are the ones paying the most taxes, idiot.

Stealing someone else's money to pay your bills.

God Bless America...I guess...

Martyred wrote:Stealing someone else's money to pay your bills.

This thread is about the next prez. Leave the Dems out of it, everyone knows the voters will.



And it's stealing someone else's money to buy your votes, BTW.

Diogenes wrote:

Martyred wrote:Stealing someone else's money to pay your bills.

This thread is about the next prez. Leave the Dems out of it, everyone knows the voters will.



And it's stealing someone else's money to buy your votes, BTW.

It's commentary on the idea of a "failed state".
Being the moderator of the Theology Forum, you should be well familiarized with that concept.

Martyred wrote:

mvscal wrote:"The wealthy" are the ones paying the most taxes, idiot.

Stealing someone else's money to pay your bills.

God Bless America...I guess...

Worry about kanada....

Mississippi Neck wrote:Your first two reasons have nothing to do with the memory of 9\11. It has to do with the military decisions being made.

So those making the military decisions have forgotten about 9/11?



I usually don't dedicate that much time debating with junior high schoolers, nor those with merely a junior high school education.

Bizzarofelice wrote:

Mississippi Neck wrote:Your first two reasons have nothing to do with the memory of 9\11. It has to do with the military decisions being made.

So those making the military decisions have forgotten about 9/11?



I usually don't dedicate that much time debating with junior high schoolers, nor those with merely a junior high school education.

That's a wise move. That would be even more embarrassing than this thread for you.............................................................

Uncle Fester wrote:Guiliani a long shot? s opposed to whom?

Can't believe nobody has mentioned these two yet..

John McCain - Jeb Bush

Yeah, that's the ticket.

Jeb delivers the White House by assuring that the GOP carries FLA.

BSmack wrote:

mvscal wrote:"The wealthy" are the ones paying the most taxes, idiot.

By what measure?

By this one, dumbfuck.

And this one as well, super-dumbfuck.

Feel free to wave the "I'm a stoopid fuck" flag some more.

mvscal wrote:

War Wagon wrote:Can't believe nobody has mentioned these two yet..

John McCain - Jeb Bush

Probably because neither one of them stands a chance in hell of getting nominated or, if nominated, elected.

Why, praytell?

You said yourself that everyone was a longshot at this point, so what makes this Pres/VP pairing so unfathomable?

Personally, I'd love to see it. McCain/Bush has a nice ring to it. I'd be putting up a sign in my yard and a bumper sticker on my Chevy.

Diego in Seattle wrote:Americans haven't forgotten about 9/11....that'll take a generation to happen.

We remember it quite well, enough to know that Bush's attempt to link it to Iraq is a bunch of crap.

So you're saying you're not voting for Bush/Cheney in the next election? Thanks for that, Beavis.

mvscal wrote: All you have to do is sneak up behind him and scream, "MAO!!" and he'll shit his pants and collapse into a catatonic state.

Additionally, he's allied himself with the wrong crowd on the immigration debate and pissed off too many core Republicans by doing so. The last thing they want is a pro-open borders President. Count me among them. Bush has been bad enough in that regard. McCain actually seems like he'd be worse.

Nope, but I'm a realist and realize that 10,000 mvscals couldn't effectively patrol that border against *gasp* folks willing and able to work hard just trying to make a better life for themselves...and risk their freaking lives in the desert in the process.

They deserve admiration, not scorn.

If your only beef with McCain is the immigration issue, that's not much to quibble with. The next Presidential election won't be decided over that.

Jimmy Medalions wrote:

BSmack wrote:

mvscal wrote:"The wealthy" are the ones paying the most taxes, idiot.

By what measure?

By this one, dumbfuck.

And this one as well, super-dumbfuck.

Feel free to wave the "I'm a stoopid fuck" flag some more.

That's exactly what I thought. Your figures show percentage of total taxes paid, not percentage of individual income.

You do know the difference?

War Wagon wrote:If your only beef with McCain is the immigration issue, that's not much to quibble with. The next Presidential election won't be decided over that.

Locate your brain, man.

The border problem will be THE issue, Wagon.


I tell ya what, there are a whole lot of conservatives pissed the fuck off over the past 20 yrs of liberal presidential leadership.

McCain won't fly with conservatives.

No way, no how.

Uncle Fester wrote:I think the country is ripe for an independent who slams both of the established political parties and yet draws support from both sides.

Sin, Ross Perot.

BTW, TR says you're a dumbfuck.

BSmack wrote:
That's exactly what I thought. Your figures show percentage of total taxes paid, not percentage of individual income.

You do know the difference?

You truly are a dumbfuck.

Department of the Treasury wrote:The President’s tax cuts have shifted a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2004, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.

Thanks for being the board's resident chew toy.

Jimmy Medalions wrote:

BSmack wrote:
That's exactly what I thought. Your figures show percentage of total taxes paid, not percentage of individual income.

You do know the difference?

You truly are a dumbfuck.

Department of the Treasury wrote:The President’s tax cuts have shifted a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2004, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.

Thanks for being the board's resident chew toy.

The least you could do whilst calling someone names is to have a fucking clue as to what you are talking about. Tax share as a percentage of total taxes paid is NOT the same thing as percentage of income.

To Boldogenes:

On February 20, 1992, Perot appeared on CNN's Larry King Live and announced his intention to run if his supporters could get his name on the ballot in all 50 states. With such declared policies as balancing the federal budget and enacting electronic direct democracy via "electronic town halls," he became a potential candidate and soon polled roughly even with the major party candidates.

One reason Perot was so much more successful than typical third-party candidates was that he was allowed to participate in all three debates. At one point in June, Perot led the polls with 39% (versus 31% for Bush and 25% for Clinton).

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

Keep in mind that I live in a state where a pro wrassler rode the populist wave all the way to the governor's office.

Fester, also keep in mind that you live in a state that hasn't seen fit to elevate you to their governorship, which seems to me to be a fairly egregious oversight.

True.

But I'm holding out for the job of First Wizard Deluxe, retaining my balloon against the advent of a quick getaway.

BSmack wrote:The least you could do whilst calling someone names is to have a fucking clue as to what you are talking about. Tax share as a percentage of total taxes paid is NOT the same thing as percentage of income.

Let me get you a tissue, dumbfuck.

Clearly you don't read with any degree of effectiveness. If you did, you'd know what a dumbfuck you look like right now.

Jimmy Medalions wrote:Let me get you a tissue, dumbfuck.

That would be the most useful thing you could possibly do. At least then I could finish wiping up the remaining shreds of your credibility on this subject.

Clearly you don't read with any degree of effectiveness. If you did, you'd know what a dumbfuck you look like right now.

I read just fine. You're saying that as an overall percentage of income tax revenue, the top brackets contribute a larger share. That is a flawed and overly simplistic viewpoint that does not take into account individual tax burdens.

Watching you get pummeled is never a bad time.

mvscal wrote:"The wealthy" are the ones paying the most taxes, idiot.

Dumbfuck wrote:By what measure?

Jimmy Medalions wrote:Link to multiple government web sites which insert barbed wire plunger in Dumbfuck's ass.

Dumbfuck wrote:Your figures show percentage of total taxes paid, not percentage of individual income.

You do know the difference?

Department of the Treasury wrote:The President’s tax cuts have shifted a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income [i.e. taxpayers. In 2004, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.

You couldn't possibly be a bigger idiot than what this thread displays. In the future, I'd advise you to pull back and retreat at a far earlier time. We can do this for another couple pages if you'd like, but this won't get any better for you.

Dipshit.

Jimmy Medalions wrote:You couldn't possibly be a bigger idiot than what this thread displays. In the future, I'd advise you to pull back and retreat at a far earlier time. We can do this for another couple pages if you'd like, but this won't get any better for you.

I'd advise you to STFU and do something to repair the gaps in your USC "education" if that is the best you can come up with. Once again, if one person is making a billion dollars a year and paying 10% in taxes and 100 people are making 30,000 a year and paying 29%, the guy making 1 billion a year will be paying more total taxes, but a lower PERCENTAGE relative to HIS INCOME. This is why the statistics you are citing are complete fucking BULLSHIT.

Is it sinking in yet?

BSmack wrote:Is it sinking in yet?

July 14, 2006



Mr. Dumb Fuck
T1B BOARD BITCH
New York

Dear Mr. Fuck,

Reference is made to that certain thread entitled Ladies and Gentlemen: the next President will be, which was posted on theoneboard.com in early July of 2006. In said thread, it was suggested by a certain member that the current war is being funded by the wealthier citizens of the United States.

Your assertion that what matters most is the tax burden of the wealthy, as a percentage of their income, deserves additional discussion. In this regard, we'd like to commend you on your continued path toward board bitch status. At this juncture, allow me to connect the dots for you.

a. Rich people pay the most taxes
b. Rich people report the most income
c. The government collects most of their taxes from rich people (see a. and b. above, dumbfuck)
d. The government pays for the war with the taxes referenced in a. above
e. The government pays for the war mostly with money from the rich

To suggest that the tax rate of the rich matters more than the ultimate dollars paid by them only proves what a simpletonistic dipshit you are. Moreover, this argument proves that you are lacking in rudimentary concepts covered in a basic economics class at the junior college level.

The notion of the rich guy paying more taxes as a percentage of income clearly puts you in the DMVPed in Seattle camp- the Candadian mentality of big government, socialized everything and, of course, all those good handouts you get even when you're a piece of shit that contributes nothing to society.

With all this said, it's pretty clear that your current argument was a fallback position after getting your teeth kicked in on page 3. While irrelevant, it apparently has you believing that you've saved face and know what the fuck you're talking about. Believe me when I tell you this - nobody is buying it.

It's been a pleasure watching you get pummeled in another thread, and on a Friday no less. I'd ask you to continue in this thread, but it appears from reading others that you have some other unsuccessful irons in the fire at this time. Don't let me stand in the way of your unsuccessful ventures there.

Very truly yours and go fuck yourself,
JM

uuuumm, rack

Jimmy Medalions wrote:To suggest that the tax rate of the rich matters more than the ultimate dollars paid by them only proves what a simpletonistic dipshit you are. Moreover, this argument proves that you are lacking in rudimentary concepts covered in a basic economics class at the junior college level.

The notion of the rich guy paying more taxes as a percentage of income clearly puts you in the DMVPed in Seattle camp- the Candadian mentality of big government, socialized everything and, of course, all those good handouts you get even when you're a piece of shit that contributes nothing to society.

Tears Jerry. Tears.

Seriously, your utter stupidity is simply breathtaking. I feel like an intellectual Muhammad Ali, to your pathetic Uncle Tomming Floyd Patterson as I smack you upside the head asking you "WHAT'S MY NAME?".

The question is simply "Who pays the most taxes"? That's it. We all pay the same percentage of our tax bill and children's inheritance towards the war. And so far you have shown me nothing but hopelessly skewed data that amongst other things...

1. Completely ignores regressive excise taxes

2. Completely ignores regressive state and local taxes that are increasing as a direct result of federal unfunded mandates.

3. Completely ignores corporate tax rates. You are aware that many rich people incorporate?

So take your red baiting and shove it up your ass.

BSmack wrote:The question is simply "Who pays the most taxes"?

Precisely, dumbfuck. The answer is simply "the wealthy".

Learn to cut bait when you've got a white-hot poker shoved up your ass.