Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
BigGovernmentIsGood
Participant[quote=ucodegen]
You know, on a side note, I am getting the impression that briansd1 and BigGovernmentIsGood have the same identity behind them. There is a lot of similarity, including posting/presenting styles. It would be a way of creating a throw-away identity should Rich Toscano decide to implement ‘the edict‘.It is possible to check using the IP address of the machine taking those logins. This info will be in the web-server’s access logs.[/quote]
Believe it or not, there are people in this world who share the same philosophy but who do not share your philosophy. And no, I’m not on welfare, food stamps, or any other type of government assistance. My wife and I made a combined $220,000 last year.
There appears to be a large subgroup on this board who feels that taxes is the most pressing issue in the world. When someone makes a post about some issue of actual importance, the cognitive dissonance in the ‘taxes is everything’ subgroup causes them to either (a) accuse the poster of being on government assistance (b) ask for them to be banned for posting about something other than taxes or (c) to think that all of the handles posting about something other than taxes must be the same person. Can there really be more than one person out there who thinks about something other than taxes? Answer: Yes.
To me, issues like clean water, clean air, food safety and security, and enviornmental protections are way more important than the amount of taxes that I pay. My family and I have plenty of money after taxes to do the things that we want to do. Plus, money is replaceable. Plants and animals that aren’t replaceable are going extinct every day.
I apologize for posting about something other than taxes, uco, and for sharing the same philosophy as another poster that you disagree with. It must cause terrible cognitive dissonance for someone who can think about nothing other than taxes.
Participant[quote=ucodegen]
You know, on a side note, I am getting the impression that briansd1 and BigGovernmentIsGood have the same identity behind them. There is a lot of similarity, including posting/presenting styles. It would be a way of creating a throw-away identity should Rich Toscano decide to implement ‘the edict‘.It is possible to check using the IP address of the machine taking those logins. This info will be in the web-server’s access logs.[/quote]
Believe it or not, there are people in this world who share the same philosophy but who do not share your philosophy. And no, I’m not on welfare, food stamps, or any other type of government assistance. My wife and I made a combined $220,000 last year.
There appears to be a large subgroup on this board who feels that taxes is the most pressing issue in the world. When someone makes a post about some issue of actual importance, the cognitive dissonance in the ‘taxes is everything’ subgroup causes them to either (a) accuse the poster of being on government assistance (b) ask for them to be banned for posting about something other than taxes or (c) to think that all of the handles posting about something other than taxes must be the same person. Can there really be more than one person out there who thinks about something other than taxes? Answer: Yes.
To me, issues like clean water, clean air, food safety and security, and enviornmental protections are way more important than the amount of taxes that I pay. My family and I have plenty of money after taxes to do the things that we want to do. Plus, money is replaceable. Plants and animals that aren’t replaceable are going extinct every day.
I apologize for posting about something other than taxes, uco, and for sharing the same philosophy as another poster that you disagree with. It must cause terrible cognitive dissonance for someone who can think about nothing other than taxes.
Participant[quote=ucodegen]
You know, on a side note, I am getting the impression that briansd1 and BigGovernmentIsGood have the same identity behind them. There is a lot of similarity, including posting/presenting styles. It would be a way of creating a throw-away identity should Rich Toscano decide to implement ‘the edict‘.It is possible to check using the IP address of the machine taking those logins. This info will be in the web-server’s access logs.[/quote]
Believe it or not, there are people in this world who share the same philosophy but who do not share your philosophy. And no, I’m not on welfare, food stamps, or any other type of government assistance. My wife and I made a combined $220,000 last year.
There appears to be a large subgroup on this board who feels that taxes is the most pressing issue in the world. When someone makes a post about some issue of actual importance, the cognitive dissonance in the ‘taxes is everything’ subgroup causes them to either (a) accuse the poster of being on government assistance (b) ask for them to be banned for posting about something other than taxes or (c) to think that all of the handles posting about something other than taxes must be the same person. Can there really be more than one person out there who thinks about something other than taxes? Answer: Yes.
To me, issues like clean water, clean air, food safety and security, and enviornmental protections are way more important than the amount of taxes that I pay. My family and I have plenty of money after taxes to do the things that we want to do. Plus, money is replaceable. Plants and animals that aren’t replaceable are going extinct every day.
I apologize for posting about something other than taxes, uco, and for sharing the same philosophy as another poster that you disagree with. It must cause terrible cognitive dissonance for someone who can think about nothing other than taxes.
Participant[quote=ucodegen]
You know, on a side note, I am getting the impression that briansd1 and BigGovernmentIsGood have the same identity behind them. There is a lot of similarity, including posting/presenting styles. It would be a way of creating a throw-away identity should Rich Toscano decide to implement ‘the edict‘.It is possible to check using the IP address of the machine taking those logins. This info will be in the web-server’s access logs.[/quote]
Believe it or not, there are people in this world who share the same philosophy but who do not share your philosophy. And no, I’m not on welfare, food stamps, or any other type of government assistance. My wife and I made a combined $220,000 last year.
There appears to be a large subgroup on this board who feels that taxes is the most pressing issue in the world. When someone makes a post about some issue of actual importance, the cognitive dissonance in the ‘taxes is everything’ subgroup causes them to either (a) accuse the poster of being on government assistance (b) ask for them to be banned for posting about something other than taxes or (c) to think that all of the handles posting about something other than taxes must be the same person. Can there really be more than one person out there who thinks about something other than taxes? Answer: Yes.
To me, issues like clean water, clean air, food safety and security, and enviornmental protections are way more important than the amount of taxes that I pay. My family and I have plenty of money after taxes to do the things that we want to do. Plus, money is replaceable. Plants and animals that aren’t replaceable are going extinct every day.
I apologize for posting about something other than taxes, uco, and for sharing the same philosophy as another poster that you disagree with. It must cause terrible cognitive dissonance for someone who can think about nothing other than taxes.
Participant[quote=FormerSanDiegan]
Great idea. Count me in.
A better idea would be to increase the $2.5 B to something like 50 Billion. That way, each job would be $200K. Then those in that 200K would fall into the top few percent of taxpayers, which can be used to raise additional revenue for more jobs under the program. Brilliant![/quote]
The cost of the program would be $2.5 billion and would result in the employment of 240,000 for a year. There must be some severe cognitive dissonance going on in your head if you just make up BS when you can’t deal with the actual facts.
Participant[quote=FormerSanDiegan]
Great idea. Count me in.
A better idea would be to increase the $2.5 B to something like 50 Billion. That way, each job would be $200K. Then those in that 200K would fall into the top few percent of taxpayers, which can be used to raise additional revenue for more jobs under the program. Brilliant![/quote]
The cost of the program would be $2.5 billion and would result in the employment of 240,000 for a year. There must be some severe cognitive dissonance going on in your head if you just make up BS when you can’t deal with the actual facts.
Participant[quote=FormerSanDiegan]
Great idea. Count me in.
A better idea would be to increase the $2.5 B to something like 50 Billion. That way, each job would be $200K. Then those in that 200K would fall into the top few percent of taxpayers, which can be used to raise additional revenue for more jobs under the program. Brilliant![/quote]
The cost of the program would be $2.5 billion and would result in the employment of 240,000 for a year. There must be some severe cognitive dissonance going on in your head if you just make up BS when you can’t deal with the actual facts.
Participant[quote=FormerSanDiegan]
Great idea. Count me in.
A better idea would be to increase the $2.5 B to something like 50 Billion. That way, each job would be $200K. Then those in that 200K would fall into the top few percent of taxpayers, which can be used to raise additional revenue for more jobs under the program. Brilliant![/quote]
The cost of the program would be $2.5 billion and would result in the employment of 240,000 for a year. There must be some severe cognitive dissonance going on in your head if you just make up BS when you can’t deal with the actual facts.
Participant[quote=FormerSanDiegan]
Great idea. Count me in.
A better idea would be to increase the $2.5 B to something like 50 Billion. That way, each job would be $200K. Then those in that 200K would fall into the top few percent of taxpayers, which can be used to raise additional revenue for more jobs under the program. Brilliant![/quote]
The cost of the program would be $2.5 billion and would result in the employment of 240,000 for a year. There must be some severe cognitive dissonance going on in your head if you just make up BS when you can’t deal with the actual facts.
ParticipantBrian,
Thanks for the information. It’s obvious that Whitman would have this person deported if she could. If Whitman is treating a loyal servant who worked for her for 9 years like garbage, imagine how she will treat the common California voter.
Hopefully California voters will have the good sense not to vote into office someone who would only represent the top 0.0001% of income earners while treating the rest of us like her own personal trash can.
ParticipantBrian,
Thanks for the information. It’s obvious that Whitman would have this person deported if she could. If Whitman is treating a loyal servant who worked for her for 9 years like garbage, imagine how she will treat the common California voter.
Hopefully California voters will have the good sense not to vote into office someone who would only represent the top 0.0001% of income earners while treating the rest of us like her own personal trash can.
ParticipantBrian,
Thanks for the information. It’s obvious that Whitman would have this person deported if she could. If Whitman is treating a loyal servant who worked for her for 9 years like garbage, imagine how she will treat the common California voter.
Hopefully California voters will have the good sense not to vote into office someone who would only represent the top 0.0001% of income earners while treating the rest of us like her own personal trash can.
ParticipantBrian,
Thanks for the information. It’s obvious that Whitman would have this person deported if she could. If Whitman is treating a loyal servant who worked for her for 9 years like garbage, imagine how she will treat the common California voter.
Hopefully California voters will have the good sense not to vote into office someone who would only represent the top 0.0001% of income earners while treating the rest of us like her own personal trash can.
ParticipantBrian,
Thanks for the information. It’s obvious that Whitman would have this person deported if she could. If Whitman is treating a loyal servant who worked for her for 9 years like garbage, imagine how she will treat the common California voter.
Hopefully California voters will have the good sense not to vote into office someone who would only represent the top 0.0001% of income earners while treating the rest of us like her own personal trash can.
-
AuthorPosts
