Jump to content

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Well what do you think she meant with this comment to the Washington  Post?

Unless you're going to claim Doctor Who works for AOC and went back in time to post this, it would seem this slang definition makes more sense than your weird fantasies.

1068703536_ScreenShot2019-01-18at6_02_22pm.thumb.png.743f2cfcd1c78480cbb421a6b36b0149.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

How much will it take for you to shut the fuck up and never post here again Mis Raz'r Jib? That was fun.

One of the few things you posted I agree with.  It is however the only (legal) entity that has the power to send people with guns to bend you to it's will.

Posted Images

6 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Maybe in Australia in America where AOC is from it has a much  different meaning.   She is pretty hip,  worked as a bar tender 10:1 she was referencing this 

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=run train

Where did you think I got the definition from, dip-stick? Go ahead, scroll down. And that definition makes a lot more sense than your interpretation given she is a progressive. Makes sense to my kids too, but then again, I'm not an old white guy so buried up my own ass I can't grasp the fact that she might mean something that makes sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, weightless said:

 

6 hours ago, Hard On The Wind said:

It's getting hard to be The Onion.

Went to check on some Koch-$pon$ored propaganda and what do I see?

This:

AOCReason.jpg

She outranks "More" now!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Where did you think I got the definition from, dip-stick? Go ahead, scroll down. And that definition makes a lot more sense than your interpretation given she is a progressive. Makes sense to my kids too, but then again, I'm not an old white guy so buried up my own ass I can't grasp the fact that she might mean something that makes sense.

Sure thing 

There are 7 definitions listed 1-5 have to do with sex.  The last 2 including the one you cherry picked have to do with gaming IE XBOX PLAYSTATION ect. 

She is a young millennial from the Bronx   Everyone she would know from her neighborhood, to school, from the bar she tended,  to her current pals  knew what she meant and it had zero to do with gaming  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Joker said:

Sure thing 

There are 7 definitions listed 1-5 have to do with sex.  The last 2 including the one you cherry picked have to do with gaming IE XBOX PLAYSTATION ect. 

She is a young millennial from the Bronx   Everyone she would know from her neighborhood, to school, from the bar she tended,  to her current pals  knew what she meant and it had zero to do with gaming  

 

Unless you're one of her homies, HOW WOULD YOU KNOW?

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Joker said:

Maybe in Australia in America where AOC is from it has a much  different meaning.   She is pretty hip,  worked as a bar tender 10:1 she was referencing this 

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=run train

I certainly have only heard the "work on" definition.  Just don't use the word "fanny" in Australia

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:
1 hour ago, The Joker said:

Oh please.  Ask any millennium. Google it.

Better yet just pretend Trump said it 

 

BC or AD? I'm picking 10th millenium BCE. So ogg....

Are years, in spans of 1000, sentient?

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

What the fuck? There's no such thing as an error here. It's intentional. It's gotta be. If you admit that people can make errors your whole bullshit edifice of picking apart AOC will collapse Private Pansy.

Not sure if that is English,  I'll say this working with Millenials words and statements that I would never say in public are common and not always meant in an offensive manner.  They are just part of their vocabulary 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Joker said:

Not sure if that is English,  I'll say this working with Millenials words and statements that I would never say in public are common and not always meant in an offensive manner.

 

Do tell.  I am thinking of the "N word", but that is hardly part of the millenial lexicon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Or the UK - much different than the US connotation. 

My wife is from the UK and her name has been shortened to "Fanny" and she is known by this name.  May be a localized thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Laker said:

My wife is from the UK and her name has been shortened to "Fanny" and she is known by this name.  May be a localized thing.

On my first trip to the UK - I rented a bike to go ride with an internet forum motorcycling buddy.  His wife is from Pennsylvania.  Anyway - I had a fanny pack to carry my wallet/stuff - and when we went to leave Aitch's place, I asked Mary if she saw my Fanny pack.  She got red faced, AItch started laughing, and informed me that to them, the fanny was in front, and not a polite thing to say in mixed company, and that the phrase "fanny pack" was a vulgar connotation for rough intercourse. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

On my first trip to the UK - I rented a bike to go ride with an internet forum motorcycling buddy.  His wife is from Pennsylvania.  Anyway - I had a fanny pack to carry my wallet/stuff - and when we went to leave Aitch's place, I asked Mary if she saw my Fanny pack.  She got red faced, AItch started laughing, and informed me that to them, the fanny was in front, and not a polite thing to say in mixed company, and that the phrase "fanny pack" was a vulgar connotation for rough intercourse. 

Interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

On my first trip to the UK - I rented a bike to go ride with an internet forum motorcycling buddy.  His wife is from Pennsylvania.  Anyway - I had a fanny pack to carry my wallet/stuff - and when we went to leave Aitch's place, I asked Mary if she saw my Fanny pack.  She got red faced, AItch started laughing, and informed me that to them, the fanny was in front, and not a polite thing to say in mixed company, and that the phrase "fanny pack" was a vulgar connotation for rough intercourse. 

So I guess Ocasio is going to fanny pack the progressive agenda.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Joker said:

Sure thing 

There are 7 definitions listed 1-5 have to do with sex.  The last 2 including the one you cherry picked have to do with gaming IE XBOX PLAYSTATION ect. 

 She is a young millennial from the Bronx   Everyone she would know from her neighborhood, to school, from the bar she tended,  to her current pals  knew what she meant and it had zero to do with gaming  

My god, you are a thick one aren't you? Millennials play computer games dipshit. All the fucking time. Common phrases, memes, and other cultural touchstones (such as sayings) come from that too. You even chose a source that said exactly (word for italicised word) what I said. You just don't know when you've fucked up and should bow out.

Which do you think makes more sense - a progressive saying they're going to gang-bang their own agenda or a progressive saying they're going to go to work together on their agenda (to which there is competition)? Try, if you can, to put your sick fantasies about Pelosi out of your head and use common sense. If you have any.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As an old white guy that don't game, and ain't all that woke, it's beyond ridiculous to suggest she meant that the way brother Kavanaugh might have. She meant to kick some ass, not grab some ass.

Whose suck puppet is this Joker?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

As an old white guy that don't game, and ain't all that woke, it's beyond ridiculous to suggest she meant that the way brother Kavanaugh might have. She meant to kick some ass, not grab some ass.

Whose suck puppet is this Joker?

Looks and smells like Coors Light.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

As an old white guy that don't game, and ain't all that woke, it's beyond ridiculous to suggest she meant that the way brother Kavanaugh might have. She meant to kick some ass, not grab some ass.

Whose suck puppet is this Joker?

The root of the phrase is still a gang bang.  The fact that someone uses it in a non-sexual content doesn't change that.

Kinda like saying "You fuckin' with me?"  It's just crude. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The root of the phrase is still a gang bang.

Not sure; The last few years I taught the language was changing so fast I couldn't keep up. I would use a phrase I though was current and the kids would tell me it didn't mean what I intended and not to use it anymore. Usually accompanied by laughter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Saorsa said:

The root of the phrase is still a gang bang.  The fact that someone uses it in a non-sexual content doesn't change that.

Kinda like saying "You fuckin' with me?"  It's just crude. 

I’m an old guy and I knew immediately that it meant gang bang.  It’s meant gang bang since the 60’s.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Saorsa said:

The root of the phrase is still a gang bang.  The fact that someone uses it in a non-sexual content doesn't change that.

Kinda like saying "You fuckin' with me?"  It's just crude. 

Circulating fake nude photos of her is pretty crude, too, don't you think?

The quote's from her comment on that, specifically.

I was surprised and I was annoyed because it was a new tack. They’ve been for a very long time focusing on taking quotes out of context or manipulating them or making it seem as though I said things that I didn’t say. This was different in that it was an outright fraudulent thing. You can tell that they’re getting into hysterics because now you’re getting into my actual body, which is definitely crossing a level, definitely crossing a line.

 

I also think it’s encouraging because this is my sixth day in Congress and they’re out of all their artillery. The nude is supposed to be like the bazooka. You know, like, “We’re going to take her down.” Dude, you’re all out of bullets, you’re all out of bombs, you’re all out of all this stuff. What have you got left? I’m six days into the term, and you already used all your ammo. So enjoy being exhausted for the next two years while we run train on the progressive agenda.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Saorsa said:

The root of the phrase is still a gang bang.  The fact that someone uses it in a non-sexual content doesn't change that.

Kinda like saying "You fuckin' with me?"  It's just crude. 

Crude, yes. No debate about that. Still not saying what the right-wing pearl clutchers are trying to project on AOC. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2019 at 6:03 PM, Bent Sailor said:

Unless you're going to claim Doctor Who works for AOC and went back in time to post this, it would seem this slang definition makes more sense than your weird fantasies.

1068703536_ScreenShot2019-01-18at6_02_22pm.thumb.png.743f2cfcd1c78480cbb421a6b36b0149.png

I used that exact phrasing to describe what the fleet did to us when we over stood the second mark at BIRW in the 2nd to the last race of the week and took ourselves out of contention for a money spot after smoking everyone to the first mark. In 2005.

But I'm pretty sure you could also construe that as every other boat "had their way with us" too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

I used that exact phrasing to describe what the fleet did to us when we over stood the second mark at BIRW in the 2nd to the last race of the week and took ourselves out of contention for a money spot after smoking everyone to the first mark. In 2005.

But I'm pretty sure you could also construe that as every other boat "had their way with us" too.

Lucky you didn't get preggers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ishmael said:

Lucky you didn't get preggers.

Or PTSD. We were WAY ahead at the first mark and BAM! First to last and out of the running in one bad layline call1.

 

1 Which I did not make. I was too busy driving brilliantly in difficult conditions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, learningJ24 said:

The root of the phrase is still a gang bang.

Not sure; The last few years I taught the language was changing so fast I couldn't keep up. I would use a phrase I though was current and the kids would tell me it didn't mean what I intended and not to use it anymore. Usually accompanied by laughter.

Yep, and as an old guy you should recognize that those common phrases have a link to the past usage to grow from.

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

The majority of who?

Or, to more directly answer your question:  Voting Americans.

A new poll from The Hill and Harris X found that 59 percent of registered voters supported imposing a 70 percent tax rate on every dollar over the 10 millionth a person earns in a year. (Tax rates that apply only to income over a certain threshold are called marginal tax rates.) The idea even received bipartisan support: 71 percent of Democrats, 60 percent of independents and 45 percent of Republicans said they were in favor. In contrast, the Republican overhaul of the tax law that President Trump signed in 2017 — which decreased the marginal tax rate from 39.6 percent to 37 percent on married couples earning over $600,000 — has far less public support. A September Gallup poll found that only 39 percent of Americans approved of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been away for five weeks and come back to find more than 1500 posts on this topic. It boggles the mind. Here we have a rookie critter who is very good at getting publicity for herself and the right wingers have gone nuts.is it that they are threatened by someone under 30 (and a minority) who has the limited amount of real power she has? I thought that all the political shrinks would be kept employed for the next generation figuring out Trump. Turns out a lot of them can spend their time analyzing why these folks are so threatened by anyone who is not an older, white male.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

I have been away for five weeks and come back to find more than 1500 posts on this topic. It boggles the mind. Here we have a rookie critter who is very good at getting publicity for herself and the right wingers have gone nuts.is it that they are threatened by someone under 30 (and a minority) who has the limited amount of real power she has? I thought that all the political shrinks would be kept employed for the next generation figuring out Trump. Turns out a lot of them can spend their time analyzing why these folks are so threatened by anyone who is not an older, white male.

She makes heads explode.  A year or two ago that was considered presidential.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

I have been away for five weeks and come back to find more than 1500 posts on this topic. It boggles the mind. Here we have a rookie critter who is very good at getting publicity for herself and the right wingers have gone nuts.is it that they are threatened by someone under 30 (and a minority) who has the limited amount of real power she has? I thought that all the political shrinks would be kept employed for the next generation figuring out Trump. Turns out a lot of them can spend their time analyzing why these folks are so threatened by anyone who is not an older, white male.

She's only a minority in the fly over states.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

I have been away for five weeks and come back to find more than 1500 posts on this topic. It boggles the mind. Here we have a rookie critter who is very good at getting publicity for herself and the right wingers have gone nuts.is it that they are threatened by someone under 30 (and a minority) who has the limited amount of real power she has? I thought that all the political shrinks would be kept employed for the next generation figuring out Trump. Turns out a lot of them can spend their time analyzing why these folks are so threatened by anyone who is not an older, white male.

 They don't even seem to realize: the more they attack her, the stronger they make her.

Guess who's got herself a seat on the Financial Services Committee? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

“I do think that a system that allows billionaires to exist when there are parts of Alabama where people are still getting ringworm because they don’t have access to public health is wrong,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

We have 2 basic schools of thought.  One is that a billionaire gets to be a billionaire by taking wealth from the poor people in Alabama and others.  The other is that a billionaire gets to be a billionaire by providing society with a huge amount of desired goods and services which benefits a huge number of people such as those poor people in Alabama.  Further, if you made it such that the billionaire couldn't become a billionaire, the poor person in Alabama would be worse off, not better.   Even further, if we really wanted to set up a safety net for truly disadvantaged people that really can't take care of themselves, where do we get the wealth to do it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, frenchie said:

 They don't even seem to realize: the more they attack her, the stronger they make her.

Guess who's got herself a seat on the Financial Services Committee? 

 

Exactly.

One interesting thing I see thanks to her is the effect that Twitter has on the strawman fallacy. No matter how someone tries to argue against what she didn’t say, the record is right there. As long as she doesn’t start tweeting both sides of every issue, that should serve her well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:
11 hours ago, frenchie said:

 They don't even seem to realize: the more they attack her, the stronger they make her.

 

Does the same go for Trump?

To pretty large extent, yes it does.

Clearly the Red Hat MagAettes love him for making libby-rull heads explode.

But the cases are different in one key factor: President Trump is dishonest, and does not care about his constituents. Ocasio-Cortex is (apparently, so far) honest, and does.

-DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jzk said:

“I do think that a system that allows billionaires to exist when there are parts of Alabama where people are still getting ringworm because they don’t have access to public health is wrong,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

We have 2 basic schools of thought.  One is that a billionaire gets to be a billionaire by taking wealth from the poor people in Alabama and others.  The other is that a billionaire gets to be a billionaire by providing society with a huge amount of desired goods and services which benefits a huge number of people such as those poor people in Alabama.  Further, if you made it such that the billionaire couldn't become a billionaire, the poor person in Alabama would be worse off, not better.   Even further, if we really wanted to set up a safety net for truly disadvantaged people that really can't take care of themselves, where do we get the wealth to do it?

News flash, genius: There are in fact NOT "2 basic schools of thought" even giving credit to your view as a "school of thought" which should more accurately be labelled a school of poorly-thought.

The socio-economic system is not a zero sum game. IIRC you've said that yourself, why can't you seem to apply it here?

Did the billionaire start out naked in the woods, with nothing but sticks and rocks? Did -any- part of our socio-economic system play a part in his (or her, why are you such a chauvanist pig) becoming a billionaire?

Over the last decade, the wealth split in this country has grown faster than the rest of the world, and it's pretty dramatic in the rest of the world. Pretending we have a level playing field and the poor deserve to be poor is just greasing the skids.

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Clearly the Red Hat MagAettes love him for making libby-rull heads explode.

But that's not to say that they support Shitstain. Supporting Shitstain would be bad. Instead, they support the idea of supporting Shitstain which is completely different from supporting Shitstain, a distinction without distinction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

News flash, genius: There are in fact NOT "2 basic schools of thought" even giving credit to your view as a "school of thought" which should more accurately be labelled a school of poorly-thought.

The socio-economic system is not a zero sum game. IIRC you've said that yourself, why can't you seem to apply it here?

Did the billionaire start out naked in the woods, with nothing but sticks and rocks? Did -any- part of our socio-economic system play a part in his (or her, why are you such a chauvanist pig) becoming a billionaire?

Over the last decade, the wealth split in this country has grown faster than the rest of the world, and it's pretty dramatic in the rest of the world. Pretending we have a level playing field and the poor deserve to be poor is just greasing the skids.

-DSK

What part of my post is chauvinist?  

What part of our economic system played a part in the billionaire becoming a billionaire?  Isn't that already paid for?  Why do you need more from the billionaire for your system to work?  Is it because your system is financially insolvent?  

You think it is the billionaires that keep the poor poor?  Or is it government?    

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, jzk said:

What part of my post is chauvinist?  

 

The part where you're not even considering the possibility that any random billionaire might be a woman. Multiple times.

 

20 minutes ago, jzk said:

What part of our economic system played a part in the billionaire becoming a billionaire? 

The part where there's money.

 

20 minutes ago, jzk said:

What part of our economic system played a part in the billionaire becoming a billionaire?  Isn't that already paid for?

"Already paid for" does mean a free ride to me. Does it to you?

My car is all paid for. It needs maintenance, and gas stations are kinda stubborn about not giving me free fuel.

 

20 minutes ago, jzk said:

 Why do you need more from the billionaire for your system to work?  Is it because your system is financially insolvent?  

 

Google the word "maintenance"

Also you might want to consider infrastructure upgrades as technology improves and population expands. They're not free either.

And do you suppose that the fact IOUs from Uncle Sam are the world's most secure monetary instrument indicates a "financially insolvent" system?

-DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

Has anyone commented on the fact that all this Make America Great Again rhetoric is referencing a time when the tax rates were what AOC is presenting?

If not, consider it done. 

They were even higher, were they not?

I've said for some time that what we want is 1950s social policy, with modern tax policy that properly recognizes the entitlement of our Best Americans.  Thet thar's a ewtopia.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sol Rosenberg said:

They were even higher, were they not?

I've said for some time that what we want is 1950s social policy, with modern tax policy that properly recognizes the entitlement of our Best Americans.  Thet thar's a ewtopia.  

True - under Eisenhower the top was at 90%, of course we were paying for a war then. Oh wait, couple of wars never got paid for.  Oh well thanks to Reagan and his magic math of making everyone rich income inequality is the new patriotism. Just wait long enough and you too will be rich. But Wait! Don't answer yet! There's More! Soon to come you can also get the MAGA feeling for FREE! Just pay a separate fee.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What i don't like about the 70% plan is that it doesn't remove all the bullshit loopholes, it requires us to waste resources keeping track of millions that don't and won't ever pay taxes, and ride herd on cats who can hire smart cheaters.

My nontaxable, no deductions plan on the first million of income is much leaner, and I strongly suspect would be wildly popular with just folks. 

Make it simple, keep it simple.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we don't have the AOC plan *and* we have loopholes. Leona Helmsley was right. She only made the mistake of pointing it out.

Congress isn't going to fix loopholes. I remember taking Theory of the Firm way back when. The prof was a bit of a winger but some of his explanations rang true. He said the reason the minimum wage isn't indexed to inflation is that politicians want to be able to give their constituencies something. Indexing it to inflation would fix the problem but that doesn't get politicians elected. Same with ending loopholes. That doesn't get politicians elected.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, d'ranger said:
14 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

They were even higher, were they not?

I've said for some time that what we want is 1950s social policy, with modern tax policy that properly recognizes the entitlement of our Best Americans.  Thet thar's a ewtopia.  

True - under Eisenhower the top was at 90%, of course we were paying for a war then. Oh wait, couple of wars never got paid for.  Oh well thanks to Reagan and his magic math of making everyone rich income inequality is the new patriotism. Just wait long enough and you too will be rich. But Wait! Don't answer yet! There's More! Soon to come you can also get the MAGA feeling for FREE! Just pay a separate fee.

I wonder how many contributors to the "Build Tha Wall" gofundme came from the over-$100k/yr bracket? Seems likely to be a very regressive tax to me.

The "standard view" or Happy Dayz sitcom ideal of 1950s society never had much appeal to me, personally. On one hand, the only electric guitars available were all classics, good. OTOH the amps they had (while still considered classics) were not very loud and their effects outright sucked.

What the MAGAettes appear to want is not the phony-50s but an actual medieval society where they can burn witches, and their rightful overlords fuck their daughters, but they don't have to make any decisions or take any responsibility for themselves.

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

The part where you're not even considering the possibility that any random billionaire might be a woman. Multiple times.

 

The part where there's money.

 

"Already paid for" does mean a free ride to me. Does it to you?

My car is all paid for. It needs maintenance, and gas stations are kinda stubborn about not giving me free fuel.

 

Google the word "maintenance"

Also you might want to consider infrastructure upgrades as technology improves and population expands. They're not free either.

And do you suppose that the fact IOUs from Uncle Sam are the world's most secure monetary instrument indicates a "financially insolvent" system?

-DSK

Very specifically what part of my post assumes billionaires can't be women.  Like quote it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with AOC on taxing the rich - as are 75% of Americans 

That makes the KZK ilk the real radicals - not AOC 

And note that KZK's formulation assumes that billionaires have zero obligation to the rest of society . . 

which is a mean and idiotic Randian view which is even rejected by the many of US billionaires themselves . .  

(42% of upper income folks)   https://news.gallup.com/poll/182987/americans-continue-say-wealth-distribution-unfair.aspx

People get it, the US oligarchic Reich has created a country in which half of us cannot afford to live . .  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AJ Oliver said:

I'm with AOC on taxing the rich - as are 75% of Americans 

That makes the KZK ilk the real radicals - not AOC 

 

You and 75% of Americans are willing to take money from people that have more than you?  How shocking.

Why do you think you need to take money from other people just to "live?"  

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, jzk said:

You and 75% of Americans are willing to take money from people that have more than you?  How shocking.

Why do you think you need to take money from other people just to "live?"  

The Reich has no concept of solidarity - the idea that we are all in this thing together. 

Many of us, even me, give a lot more than we get - including through sailing . . 

Our Club has active programs helping the disabled, young, low income, minorities, etc. have access to our great sport. 

Do you do any of that? Somehow I doubt it. 

Humane societies help out those who need it - a kid going to school (K-12) costs us all around $ 150,000

before they ever pay taxes, then there are folks like my relative with autisism (not cheap to treat) 

I'm glad to help pay for all of that - and so should you if you have a shred of humanity. 

Spare us that John Galt bulls--t. 

I think you have a great future in that libertarian paradise, Somalia (with apologies to all the decent people who live there - they deserve better) 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Best Americans are entitled to pay a tax rate of 15%, or even much less.  The Best Americans are entitled to own the Congress.  The Best Americans are entitled to pay their employees something below living wage and have the rest of the rubes in society pick up the tab to keep those poor scum ready to go to work again the next day. They are entitled to it right up to the point where the masses realize that it isn't people to their left or right who have been fucking them, and stop focusing on hating the different people.  At that point, the Best Americans become less entitled and heads begin to roll.  Those proposing a system that avoids that point in time are trying to keep the peace.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

The Best Americans are entitled to pay a tax rate of 15%, or even much less.  The Best Americans are entitled to own the Congress.  The Best Americans are entitled to pay their employees something below living wage and have the rest of the rubes in society pick up the tab to keep those poor scum ready to go to work again the next day. They are entitled to it right up to the point where the masses realize that it isn't people to their left or right who have been fucking them, and stop focusing on hating the different people.  At that point, the Best Americans become less entitled and heads begin to roll.  Those proposing a system that avoids that point in time are trying to keep the peace.  

This is a big fucking lie.  

No one should work for less than they agree to.  And if they can't find a job that pays what they like, they should improve their skills.  One way to do that is to take a job making less that will teach them skills such that they can make more.

Are we talking about people with working legs and arms and half a brain?  97% of them command a wage higher than current minimum wage because they have skills that have value in the marketplace.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

fuck yeah, it's another geezer dumbass rambling about "skills".

Because we all know the way to make more than a living wage is to not have skills?

The reason that you don't make a living wage is big bad old white rich guys?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, jzk said:

This is a big fucking lie.  

No one should work for less than they agree to.  And if they can't find a job that pays what they like, they should improve their skills.  One way to do that is to take a job making less that will teach them skills such that they can make more.

Are we talking about people with working legs and arms and half a brain?  97% of them command a wage higher than current minimum wage because they have skills that have value in the marketplace.

Sol was talking about taxes and political ownership and you responded with your usual malarkey about wages.

Ya kind of missed the point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, d'ranger said:

Cut funding for education and acquire better skills.  It never ends.

Well, how much should education cost? Anybody can google "skills for higher wages" and pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

Just the way JZK has learned so much about economics from googling topics I suggest, like marginal rates and arbitrage and shinplasters.

We'd all be so-o much better off if we just depended on ourselves. I could build a much better car, for example, by digging up ore and smelting metal and learning how to forge an engine block and sewing animal pelts into finely crafted seats..... what luxury!..... instead of depending on the current socio-economic system to provide me a car in exchange for a pile of funny-colored paper. Fuck all that interdependency bullshit.

And THAT is why I shouldn't have to pay taxes to support all you other lazy dumbasses! It's obvious that poor people deserve to fuckin' starve!

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BillDBastard said:

Correct me if I am wrong here, but isn't school funding done at a local or state level?

Yes we have an education problem. Not sure there is a direct correlation to school funding. In any regard, we fail at preparing our next generation to be competitive in the workplace. No arguing that.

Yep, you're wrong. Federal contribution to elementary and secondary education is about 8 percent.

https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't just referring to fed money - the push has been for years to cut funds at all levels. Teachers buying supplies out their own pockets? Then there is the Robin Hood debacle - where rich districts give money to poor districts. Good idea, right? Well, the big problem in Houston is the poor schools are in deep trouble to the point the state wants to take over the district. Never mind much needed monies are taken from the district. 

Big government is not the problem despite Saint Ronnie, it's bad government. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

I'm with AOC on taxing the rich - as are 75% of Americans 

That makes the KZK ilk the real radicals - not AOC 

And note that KZK's formulation assumes that billionaires have zero obligation to the rest of society . . 

which is a mean and idiotic Randian view which is even rejected by the many of US billionaires themselves . .  

(42% of upper income folks)   https://news.gallup.com/poll/182987/americans-continue-say-wealth-distribution-unfair.aspx

People get it, the US oligarchic Reich has created a country in which half of us cannot afford to live . .  

Why stop at 75% of income?  That won’t change the status quo - billionaires will still be billionaires.  Millionaires will still be millionaires.

If you really want change, let’s just get on with it and start seizing wealth.  How are we going to do that?  And how much wealth should folks be allowed to keep?  Lots more questions, but let’s start with those two.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, J28 said:

Why stop at 75% of income?  That won’t change the status quo - billionaires will still be billionaires.  Millionaires will still be millionaires.

If you really want change, let’s just get on with it and start seizing wealth.  How are we going to do that?  And how much wealth should folks be allowed to keep?  Lots more questions, but let’s start with those two.

Apparently it somewhere south of a billion.

"It’s immoral how America’s economic system allows billionaires to exist,” ...Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, J28 said:

Why stop at 75% of income?  That won’t change the status quo - billionaires will still be billionaires.  Millionaires will still be millionaires.

If you really want change, let’s just get on with it and start seizing wealth.  How are we going to do that?  And how much wealth should folks be allowed to keep?  Lots more questions, but let’s start with those two.

Obviously not a believer in marginal utility.  What is being bought after 10 million a year? Power, pure and simple.  This is power being transferred to the billionaire by the people.  To whose advantage?  Definitely not the people.  BTW, I am sure you know that on a basis of amount paid out vs amount returned via various programs, that the billionaires are paying for things anyway.  I can't remember the exact number this year, but it is in the hundred thousand a year range before the amount you pay in taxes is greater than the cost of programs returned to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dog said:

Apparently it somewhere south of a billion.

"It’s immoral how America’s economic system allows billionaires to exist,” ...Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

I guess Oprah isn't on her Happy Holidays list?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, jzk said:

Because we all know the way to make more than a living wage is to not have skills?

The reason that you don't make a living wage is big bad old white rich guys?

Yes, that is true.  It has to do with power, not skills.  The return on capital is usually controlled by old white rich guys.  There is a heck of a lot more return on capital than labour.  High tax rates turn "power" capital away from the capitalist.  This "power" capital is (rogue, dead, casino) money as true capital can be written off taxes anyway.  So that brings about the high tax rates. You can have all the unique skills in the world and you will still be placed well below capital due to the return on capital vs the return on labour.

Link to post
Share on other sites