patrick.net

All of them. Next!

"All of them. Next!"

My hidden question was: Have you ever read it? Thanks for answering!!!!!

bob2356 says

4X says

….maybe we should bring vaseline and have em lube themselves before we enter their country. Last I remember when a war was won all the women were raped and the men were murdered. We havent done enough to shut them down, which is why they feel obliged to set booby traps and blow up our national landmarks. The Patriot Act does nothing to limit our freedoms, as I say we should follow suit with raping and murdering the men of the countries whom we have invaded. I am only speaking hypothetically, but in war these are tactics that put all the non-sense to rest. After a war is won the people need to be shocked with gruesome acts of violence else they will get all bold and start revolting like in Afghan and Iraq of today. Sadaam shut all this down with his helicopter gunships, we are attempting to shut it down with a panzy Patriot Act so we can spy….its just silly. We either should pull out or man up and start cutting down some people with our gunships until the suicide bombing stops.
Which is worse for the people of these countries…RAPE or the PATRIOT ACT?………I say only rape/pillaging will end this war.

That is the nuttiest most disjointed post I’ve ever seen. I might point out that the second largest terrorist attack on America was by a couple of redneck morons from Kansas. Gunships to Kansas anyone? Where in the don’t ask don’t tell army are you going to get volunteers to rape all these men anyway?

I was attempting to show that we are fighting the wrong war, laws dont apply to this situation because we cant fight a country which is lawless. Prior to our invasion, the people of Iraq refused to uprise because they knew Sadaam was willing to send his gunships in to gun them down. They have no fear of us because we are unwilling to do such a thing. What we need to do now is install fear in them, not attempt to befriend them and help them setup their government.

Paralithodes says

Looks like Tat’s voting record is to the right of mine! LOL! : Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Bush, McCain.

Anyone who voted for Bush, Mccain needs a reality check or a shot of pragmatism. Neither of these individuals are capable of making decisions based upon improving the welfare of the people. So I have to assume you are a millionaire with no concern for the common Joe the Plumber because Mccain, Bush, Republicans only want to deregulate and increase profits.

Social improvements are secondary if at all.

Paralithodes says

My hidden question was: Have you ever read it? Thanks for answering!!!!!

Are we playing "Wheres' Waldo?" Yes. Next!

"Are we playing “Wheres’ Waldo?” Yes. Next!"

Maybe I should have clarified... My "Thanks for answering" statement was due to the fact that by answering "All of them. Next," you made it very obvious that you did NOT read the bill. It is nothing to be ashamed of: Most people - on both sides - have not. But thanks again for making it clear!

"...because Mccain, Bush, Republicans only want to deregulate and increase profits."

LOL! Wouldn't increased profits increase tax revenue?

Paralithodes says

M you made it very obvious that you did NOT read the bill.

You made it very obvious that you are a degenerate spider that believes in molesting small animals with dental tools. You admitted it in "hidden code" but I like other smart people see it clearly. OK, now that we agree on the words I put in your mouth, you can justify your position. Do go on!

Paralithodes says

LOL! Wouldn’t increased profits increase tax revenue?

Ah the Laffer Curve talking point. It was a thin justification back during Reagan but the analysis of it never held water. Keep trying out your talking points though! Next you'll tell us wealth will "trickle down" if we simply hand over the remaining small part of our wealth not already held by the oligarchy. I love me some deregulation, here's what it led to when the chips were down:

Banktron

Yep all the Smartest Guys in the Room, who didn't need burdensome taxes and regulation..... suddenly decided they weren't tough and cold-hearted Darwinists, they ran to get a bailout.

"Ah the Laffer Curve talking point."

Oddly enough, I said NOTHING about adjusting tax rates....

Do you really deny that increased profits, at the SAME tax rate, would increase tax revenue????? Is there a different version of math that you use?

Judging solely on the evidence it doesn't appear that "decreased regulation" did anything except hand the keys to the liquor cabinet to teenagers. It sounds great when you come home and find your kid running around with thousands of dollars in hand.

Pop: "Great son, where'd you make that money!"
Son: "Oh dad I sold some fraudulent CDO to a bunch of pensioners, then once I'd unloaded that at a fat profit I use that money to buy short positions and credit default swaps on all the positions I knew were about to go south. What a bunch of suckers those old people are!"
Pop: "Say son, what about my MY retirement fund?"
Son: "Well Dad you are a sophisticated investor so any losses are strictly your problem. By the way there was a little fire, and the Porsche went into the lake, and it's really long story let's not go into it."

Good points... Clearly anyone who seeks a profit is dishonest... And using your math, increased profits, even at the same tax rates, does not increase tax revenue....

"Decreased regulation" and "tax freebies" are not just kissing cousins, they are Siamese twins. I can't think of a deregulator that didn't also want tax freebies for the wealthy and the corporations. If any policy ever results in increased revenue, then the campaign starts to reduce taxes. Alan Greenspan was a master at misguided misdirection about this you should take notes:

Paralithodes says

Good points… Clearly anyone who seeks a profit is dishonest… And using your math, increased profits, even at the same tax rates, does not increase tax revenue….

huh?? What are you talking about? You are just making shit up now.

Vicente says

“Decreased regulation” and “tax freebies” are not just kissing cousins, they are Siamese twins. I can’t think of a deregulator that didn’t also want tax freebies for the wealthy and the corporations. If any policy ever results in increased revenue, then the campaign starts to reduce taxes. Alan Greenspan was a master at misguided misdirection about this you should take notes:

It does not make sense to discuss regulation in our economy, as if we are debating adding extra salt to pea soup. Regulations are not created equal.

The whole regulation vs deregulation argument is a smokescreen. A COMPLETE AND TOTAL LIE! The financial industry is much more regulated than it was 30, or even 10 years ago. Of course we dropped some very rational regulations, in lieu of a MOUNTAIN of regulations designed to add barriers to entry into the financial business. In fact, the Patriot Act, in a way, is the US government's way of regulating the money flow of THE ENTIRE WORLD. This legislation alone was revolutionary to how the world invests and manages money.

Paralithodes says

“…because Mccain, Bush, Republicans only want to deregulate and increase profits.”
LOL! Wouldn’t increased profits increase tax revenue?

Unfortunately the past 8 years of deregulation havent proven squat to support your statement. Lets see how the next 8 turnout then make that comment.

Paralithodes says

Good points… Clearly anyone who seeks a profit is dishonest… And using your math, increased profits, even at the same tax rates, does not increase tax revenue….

No, capitalists have to be held back from eating their young...you wouldnt understand that because you want to promote your Republican bs. Open your eyes and you will see that every corporation is interested in one thing...increased profits and market share.

Paralithodes says

And using your math, increased profits, even at the same tax rates, does not increase tax revenue

Funny thing is that profits don't exist in a vacuum. Microsoft's profits came at their customers' collective expense and the profits of some other vendor. To the extent Microsoft increased their customers' productivity, it was a win, but what matters is the *overall* wealth-creation of the system, not just how well the big winners scoop the table repeatedly.

Indeed. Racketeering can be very PROFITABLE, as can patent trolling, but it's a negative for real wealth.

"Funny thing is that profits don’t exist in a vacuum. Microsoft’s profits came at their customers’ collective expense and the profits of some other vendor. To the extent Microsoft increased their customers’ productivity, it was a win, but what matters is the *overall* wealth-creation of the system, not just how well the big winners scoop the table repeatedly."
And yet Microsoft in fact helped create an entire market! Millions of entrepreneurs were, are, and will be employed because of Microsoft helping make a market. You talk about the "overall" wealth creation of the system while accusing one of the largest players in helping create that wealth of something else! Perhaps you should contrast Microsoft with Apple, which never gained the market share that it perhaps should have because it did not want to compromise its margins.

"Open your eyes and you will see that every corporation is interested in one thing…increased profits and market share."
That's right. Are you suggesting that a company should NOT be interested in these things? What would happen if a company did not care about profits?

tatupu70 says

huh?? What are you talking about? You are just making shit up now.

It was a poor attempt at sarcasm. I've found that Vincente has a habit of putting words or positions in ones mouth - adding premises which were not stated, etc.

4X says

Paralithodes says

“…because Mccain, Bush, Republicans only want to deregulate and increase profits.”
LOL! Wouldn’t increased profits increase tax revenue?

Unfortunately the past 8 years of deregulation havent proven squat to support your statement. Lets see how the next 8 turnout then make that comment.

You mean that profits do not increase tax revenue? An incremental $1.00 of net profit does not add an incremental 15 to 39 cents to the tax revenue?