Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #330042 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-31 22:00 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-11-02 13:37 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 160 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-31 22:00 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 06:21 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 09:09 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 17:03 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 10:12 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 17:32 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 10:36 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 17:42 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 10:57 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 18:05 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 11:27 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 18:48 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 12:12 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 19:20 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 12:24 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 14:54 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 13:54 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 14:38 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 13:26 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 14:36 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 19:42 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 13:29 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 15:37 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 13:55 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 14:30 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 12:42 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 15:06 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 13:36 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 14:24 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 12:42 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 15:08 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 13:31 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 14:22 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 19:39 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 13:40 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 12:43 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 15:09 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 13:38 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 15:57 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 14:09 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 07:15 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 10:40 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 08:09 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 12:27 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 10:31 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 12:49 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 11:22 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 11:30 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 10:52 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-02 19:02 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 12:06 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 11:16 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 14:50 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 13:44 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 17:41 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-02 17:43 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 18:39 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 07:51 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 09:15 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 10:48 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 10:50 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 13:54 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-02 23:10 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 00:17 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 18:44 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 19:30 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 19:57 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 20:47 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 21:50 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-02 12:44 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 12:55 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 17:41 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 14:46 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 13:49 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-02 12:56 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 13:27 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 13:06 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-03 07:42 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 06:55 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-04 23:28 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 15:53 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 19:55 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 09:19 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 12:20 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 13:38 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 10:56 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 14:42 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 15:51 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 17:12 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-04 00:31 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 19:37 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 17:46 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 18:50 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 19:36 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 00:55 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 01:08 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 01:45 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 02:09 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 02:30 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 02:45 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 03:07 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 03:54 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 05:24 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-03 04:30 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 07:45 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 09:01 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 17:52 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 19:31 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 08:51 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 09:02 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 09:25 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 19:55 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 20:49 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 21:54 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 03:03 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 03:35 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 04:42 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 17:46 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 19:26 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 08:29 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 13:35 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 14:48 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-03 12:03 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 15:21 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 15:53 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 17:14 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 17:28 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 18:34 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 18:53 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-03 13:02 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 17:08 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-03 13:41 -0600
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 08:36 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 08:49 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 09:20 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 14:17 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 09:24 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 12:30 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 13:36 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 19:36 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 14:49 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 17:09 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 16:24 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-02 19:55 -0600
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-03 07:13 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-03 13:02 -0600
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-02 19:53 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-11-02 15:21 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 13:40 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-02 12:46 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 12:51 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 17:38 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 09:59 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 10:27 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-02 18:31 +0100
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 12:48 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 11:18 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 13:38 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 11:13 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 13:37 -0500
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 03:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sdfue0a.a8fe@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #330581 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 11/2/15, 7:45 PM, in article adfhue9q.3af@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 11/2/15, 7:30 PM, in article sfheu03.af8ve@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>> Newsflash, dumbass: The wealthy pay cash for their houses, they pay >>>>>>>> cash for their cars, and they pay their credit cards off every month. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No evidence all are doing this. >>>>>> >>>>>> Those who aren't are living beyond their means, and therefore are not >>>>>> "wealthy." >>>>> >>>>> Ah, in your world wealthy people never buy houses they cannot buy for cash. >>>>> Well, in the real world there is no evidence of this. >>>> >>>> People who think they are wealthy spend outside their means all the time. >>>> The wealthy do not, since there is no "outside their means." People only >>>> finance stuff that they cannot afford. For the wealthy, there is no "cannot >>>> afford." >>> >>> Ah, in your world wealthy people never buy houses they cannot buy for cash. >>> Well, in the real world there is no evidence of this. >>> >> Well, all I can say is go online to your county Register of Deeds and look >> for the existence of mortgages/deeds of trust on properties likely to be >> owned by what you consider to be "wealthy" persons. > > If you can show evidence that higher end homes - those in the 2 million > dollar range and higher, are almost always bought with cash I am open to it. > There could be plenty of people buying those homes who can't afford to pay cash for them. They would not qualify as "wealthy." > But as with most of your claims you just make things up as you go. > That's you making shit up. Like how the wealthy are taking advantage of all these "mortgage interest" tax breaks. Those are designed to help the *middle class*, not the wealthy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 03:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sfhjd83.a0a@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #330589 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 11/2/15, 8:07 PM, in article sdfue0a.a8fe@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >>>>>> People who think they are wealthy spend outside their means all the time. >>>>>> The wealthy do not, since there is no "outside their means." People only >>>>>> finance stuff that they cannot afford. For the wealthy, there is no >>>>>> "cannot >>>>>> afford." >>>>> >>>>> Ah, in your world wealthy people never buy houses they cannot buy for cash. >>>>> Well, in the real world there is no evidence of this. >>>>> >>>> Well, all I can say is go online to your county Register of Deeds and look >>>> for the existence of mortgages/deeds of trust on properties likely to be >>>> owned by what you consider to be "wealthy" persons. >>> >>> If you can show evidence that higher end homes - those in the 2 million >>> dollar range and higher, are almost always bought with cash I am open to it. >> >> There could be plenty of people buying those homes who can't afford to >> pay cash for them. They would not qualify as "wealthy." > > So poor people are now buying multimillion dollar homes. Um, yeah, THAT > makes sense. So in your mind, if someone is not "wealthy" then they are "poor"? You're dumber than I thought. > Heck, even the idea middle class people do is a stretch. > Upper middle class would finance it. Wealthy would pay cash. I remember laughing back in the seventies when Nelson Rockefeller described the "middle class" as people making a hundred thousand or so. This was at a time when the CEO of the largest manufacturing plant in my town had a salary of $115,000. >>> But as with most of your claims you just make things up as you go. >>> >> >> That's you making shit up. Like how the wealthy are taking advantage >> of all these "mortgage interest" tax breaks. Those are designed to help >> the *middle class*, not the wealthy. > > Because the middle class is buying multimillion dollar homes. Um, sure. > High-income != wealthy. If you can't afford to pay cash, then you can't afford it. > You really are just lost. > You are lost in a desert somewhere. Have you ever even met a wealthy person in real life? I have friends in my town whose families have been here for over a hundred years, and they own half the prime commercial real estate in town. They are collectively worth hundreds of millions. They *never* finance property. Why would they? They don't make their money by playing the interest rate game. They make their money from rent. And they certainly don't decide to finance their personal homes just because of a tax deduction. Most of them live in houses that were paid off three or four generations ago anyway.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 05:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhxjv83.0af@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #330592 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 11/2/15, 8:54 PM, in article sfhjd83.a0a@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > > ... >>>> There could be plenty of people buying those homes who can't afford to >>>> pay cash for them. They would not qualify as "wealthy." >>> >>> So poor people are now buying multimillion dollar homes. Um, yeah, THAT >>> makes sense. Heck, even the idea middle class people do is a stretch. >> >> Upper middle class would finance it. Wealthy would pay cash. >> >> I remember laughing back in the seventies when Nelson Rockefeller described >> the "middle class" as people making a hundred thousand or so. This was >> at a time when the CEO of the largest manufacturing plant in my town had >> a salary of $115,000. > > You can push whatever side issue you want: but you have no defense for > people getting housing assistance when they have mortgages on multimillion > dollar homes. > According to this: http://www.zillow.com/mortgage-calculator/house-affordability/ a salary of $377,936 is enough to afford a $2M house. That's not exactly what I would call "wealthy." Probably your typical doctor or lawyer salary, if that. Or a couple of married professionals. IOW, upper middle class. If not for the interest deduction, people other than the wealthy are not going to be buying these houses. That would put a big dent in the economy across the board, not to mention the tax base. And I'm just looking at this from the perspective of my area, where $2,000,000 buys a huge-ass house. That's average house price in some markets. Hell, when we were buying we watched a lot of HGTV and were amazed at these young couples fresh out of college shopping in the 800-900,000 range.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 04:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5b03005d-2acb-44a1-beb0-50d7d53329d4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #330595 |
On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 12:24:45 AM UTC-5, owl wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > > On 11/2/15, 8:54 PM, in article sfhjd83.a0a@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > > > > ... > >>>> There could be plenty of people buying those homes who can't afford to > >>>> pay cash for them. They would not qualify as "wealthy." > >>> > >>> So poor people are now buying multimillion dollar homes. Um, yeah, THAT > >>> makes sense. Heck, even the idea middle class people do is a stretch. > >> > >> Upper middle class would finance it. Wealthy would pay cash. > >> > >> I remember laughing back in the seventies when Nelson Rockefeller described > >> the "middle class" as people making a hundred thousand or so. This was > >> at a time when the CEO of the largest manufacturing plant in my town had > >> a salary of $115,000. > > > > You can push whatever side issue you want: but you have no defense for > > people getting housing assistance when they have mortgages on multimillion > > dollar homes. > > > > According to this: > http://www.zillow.com/mortgage-calculator/house-affordability/ > a salary of $377,936 is enough to afford a $2M house. That's not > exactly what I would call "wealthy." Probably your typical doctor > or lawyer salary, if that. Or a couple of married professionals. > IOW, upper middle class. > > If not for the interest deduction, people other than the wealthy > are not going to be buying these houses. That would put a big dent > in the economy across the board, not to mention the tax base. Snit apparently doesn't understand percentages. Somehow when you purchase an expensive home, that interest deduction is magically making you money. If you buy an expensive home, do you get a bigger deduction? Sure. But you also pay more on your mortgage, and pay more property taxes. It's insane to think the wealthy are somehow getting an advantage in this area. And that's not even getting into the insanity that Snit thinks he's paying for people's business expenses somehow. Which, unless he is a total moron (not counting it out), he's obviously taking advantage of considering there are two businesses being run out of his home. Writing off some square footage and a computer is no different than writing off a lunch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 07:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b7903a67-147e-4fb1-bc36-f166be405cdb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #330618 |
On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 5:30:38 AM UTC-7, cc wrote: > On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 12:24:45 AM UTC-5, owl wrote: > > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > > > On 11/2/15, 8:54 PM, in article sfhjd83.a0a@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > > > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > ... > > >>>> There could be plenty of people buying those homes who can't afford to > > >>>> pay cash for them. They would not qualify as "wealthy." > > >>> > > >>> So poor people are now buying multimillion dollar homes. Um, yeah, THAT > > >>> makes sense. Heck, even the idea middle class people do is a stretch. > > >> > > >> Upper middle class would finance it. Wealthy would pay cash. > > >> > > >> I remember laughing back in the seventies when Nelson Rockefeller described > > >> the "middle class" as people making a hundred thousand or so. This was > > >> at a time when the CEO of the largest manufacturing plant in my town had > > >> a salary of $115,000. > > > > > > You can push whatever side issue you want: but you have no defense for > > > people getting housing assistance when they have mortgages on multimillion > > > dollar homes. > > > > > > > According to this: > > http://www.zillow.com/mortgage-calculator/house-affordability/ > > a salary of $377,936 is enough to afford a $2M house. That's not > > exactly what I would call "wealthy." Probably your typical doctor > > or lawyer salary, if that. Or a couple of married professionals. > > IOW, upper middle class. > > > > If not for the interest deduction, people other than the wealthy > > are not going to be buying these houses. That would put a big dent > > in the economy across the board, not to mention the tax base. > > Snit apparently doesn't understand percentages. That's an understatement (he's famous for it). Snit even had trouble differentiating between "a 100% lack of proof and a lack of 100% proof" (something Snit dreamed up when he decided to drag math into it). When he admitted that the "evidence" for his allegation that Bush is a "war criminal" contained "no proof", I told him it was an admission that it contained 0% proof. This blew all his circuits for years, in fact, I don't believe he ever did recover ;) > Somehow when you > purchase an expensive home, that interest deduction is magically making > you money. If you buy an expensive home, do you get a bigger deduction? > Sure. But you also pay more on your mortgage, and pay more property taxes. > It's insane to think the wealthy are somehow getting an advantage in > this area. > > And that's not even getting into the insanity that Snit thinks he's > paying for people's business expenses somehow. Which, unless he is a > total moron (not counting it out), he's obviously taking advantage of > considering there are two businesses being run out of his home. Writing > off some square footage and a computer is no different than writing off > a lunch. What do you expect from a guy who feels he's entitled to that money in the first place? https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.os.linux.advocacy/ZjlqRUWCfeY/mhvvr0FsDQAJ He often talks about "entitlement", yet, somehow... it doesn't occur to him that the way *he* pays for anything (and this assumes he is actually working and paying taxes, yeah... right<eyeroll>) is based on the gov't. over-dipping into pockets of the hard working, pockets that aren't big enough to feed/care for the ever growing number of people who consume but don't contribute. Many (most?) of these people ride the edge via those tax cuts, IOW... there would be no small business if not for the cuts, no home ownership for way too many. Snit, who is obviously living off the system, sees it as taking money out of his pocket because he has a (big) gov't centric POV. His answer is to 'tax the rich', but that isn't going to work because they just go elsewhere to open their businesses. Realistically, even if you taxed them 100% it wouldn't make the tiniest bit of a difference. I dunno about you but I've lived long enough to know that I don't want more gov't, I want more efficiency from what we have to see where we can shrink. We no longer manufacture many things we once did in this country and that's a huge problem. Our clock is ticking, unless we plan on following the Chinese model (by attrition) we need to decide if asking the Federal Gov't for every little f*cking thing in our lives is the right way to proceed. Personally, I don't believe it is. IMO it's ridiculous to talk about things like 'balanced budgets' (which are often fudged BS anyway) when the debt keeps climbing ever higher... when there are less than 3 people supporting every retiree... as opposed to the 16 to 1 ratio we started with. You can't hide this kind of sh*t, it's way past silly and it doesn't matter who is in the White House... and we all know it. If I'm sick of anything it's everyone pretending their guy is *the guy*, like it's a football game.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 09:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1aej7$jqa$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330595 |
On 2015-11-03 12:24 AM, owl wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 11/2/15, 8:54 PM, in article sfhjd83.a0a@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >> ... >>>>> There could be plenty of people buying those homes who can't afford to >>>>> pay cash for them. They would not qualify as "wealthy." >>>> >>>> So poor people are now buying multimillion dollar homes. Um, yeah, THAT >>>> makes sense. Heck, even the idea middle class people do is a stretch. >>> >>> Upper middle class would finance it. Wealthy would pay cash. >>> >>> I remember laughing back in the seventies when Nelson Rockefeller described >>> the "middle class" as people making a hundred thousand or so. This was >>> at a time when the CEO of the largest manufacturing plant in my town had >>> a salary of $115,000. >> >> You can push whatever side issue you want: but you have no defense for >> people getting housing assistance when they have mortgages on multimillion >> dollar homes. >> > > According to this: > http://www.zillow.com/mortgage-calculator/house-affordability/ > a salary of $377,936 is enough to afford a $2M house. That's not > exactly what I would call "wealthy." Probably your typical doctor > or lawyer salary, if that. Or a couple of married professionals. > IOW, upper middle class. > > If not for the interest deduction, people other than the wealthy > are not going to be buying these houses. That would put a big dent > in the economy across the board, not to mention the tax base. > > And I'm just looking at this from the perspective of my area, where > $2,000,000 buys a huge-ass house. That's average house price in some > markets. Hell, when we were buying we watched a lot of HGTV and > were amazed at these young couples fresh out of college shopping > in the 800-900,000 range. And they were approved for that mortgage too, especially if they were shopping for that house before or during 2008. Getting a mortgage back then was incredibly easy. In Canada, the bank would have rejected you and said that you can't afford it but their American counterparts didn't care. -- Charmed Tuna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 17:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhsnvue93.a0@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #330595 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 11/2/15, 10:24 PM, in article fhxjv83.0af@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 11/2/15, 8:54 PM, in article sfhjd83.a0a@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> ... >>>>>> There could be plenty of people buying those homes who can't afford to >>>>>> pay cash for them. They would not qualify as "wealthy." >>>>> >>>>> So poor people are now buying multimillion dollar homes. Um, yeah, THAT >>>>> makes sense. Heck, even the idea middle class people do is a stretch. >>>> >>>> Upper middle class would finance it. Wealthy would pay cash. >>>> >>>> I remember laughing back in the seventies when Nelson Rockefeller described >>>> the "middle class" as people making a hundred thousand or so. This was >>>> at a time when the CEO of the largest manufacturing plant in my town had >>>> a salary of $115,000. >>> >>> You can push whatever side issue you want: but you have no defense for >>> people getting housing assistance when they have mortgages on multimillion >>> dollar homes. >>> >> >> According to this: >> http://www.zillow.com/mortgage-calculator/house-affordability/ >> a salary of $377,936 is enough to afford a $2M house. That's not >> exactly what I would call "wealthy." Probably your typical doctor >> or lawyer salary, if that. Or a couple of married professionals. >> IOW, upper middle class. >> >> If not for the interest deduction, people other than the wealthy >> are not going to be buying these houses. That would put a big dent >> in the economy across the board, not to mention the tax base. >> >> And I'm just looking at this from the perspective of my area, where >> $2,000,000 buys a huge-ass house. That's average house price in some >> markets. Hell, when we were buying we watched a lot of HGTV and >> were amazed at these young couples fresh out of college shopping >> in the 800-900,000 range. >> > > You have dodged the initial point: why should I or you help someone buy a > multimillion dollar home? Why should we give people who do so any special > entitlements? Why should we give ANY home owner special entitlements? And I > ask this as a home owner with a mortgage. > Because home ownership is good for society. Because home ownership provides the tax base to support community services. Because home ownership provides a web of jobs related to construction, insurance, legal, repair, etc. > It is idiotic to help people with mortgages with housing assistance as we > whine about helping the disabled get basic housing. THEY have a need that > home owners, in general, do not. > Who is whining about helping the disabled get basic housing?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 19:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhsu83.a@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #330686 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 11/3/15, 10:52 AM, in article fhsnvue93.a0@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >>>> And I'm just looking at this from the perspective of my area, where >>>> $2,000,000 buys a huge-ass house. That's average house price in some >>>> markets. Hell, when we were buying we watched a lot of HGTV and >>>> were amazed at these young couples fresh out of college shopping >>>> in the 800-900,000 range. >>>> >>> >>> You have dodged the initial point: why should I or you help someone buy a >>> multimillion dollar home? Why should we give people who do so any special >>> entitlements? Why should we give ANY home owner special entitlements? And I >>> ask this as a home owner with a mortgage. >> >> Because home ownership is good for society. Because home ownership >> provides the tax base to support community services. Because home >> ownership provides a web of jobs related to construction, insurance, >> legal, repair, etc. > > Nobody is saying people should not own homes. The question is why give > people special entitlements just for owning a home with a mortgage? And why > have these entitlements be a larger financial benefit than we give the > disabled for their housing? > I just told you why. > I have no problem with helping people in need - but helping someone pay for > their multimillion dollar home is insane. > >>> It is idiotic to help people with mortgages with housing assistance as we >>> whine about helping the disabled get basic housing. THEY have a need that >>> home owners, in general, do not. >> >> Who is whining about helping the disabled get basic housing? > > We often hear of the poor being lazy and takers and the like. It is a > conservative mantra. > "We often hear of"... So no examples.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 08:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1ae0h$hh3$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330589 |
On 2015-11-02 10:22 PM, Snit wrote: > On 11/2/15, 8:07 PM, in article sdfue0a.a8fe@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >>>>>> People who think they are wealthy spend outside their means all the time. >>>>>> The wealthy do not, since there is no "outside their means." People only >>>>>> finance stuff that they cannot afford. For the wealthy, there is no >>>>>> "cannot >>>>>> afford." >>>>> >>>>> Ah, in your world wealthy people never buy houses they cannot buy for cash. >>>>> Well, in the real world there is no evidence of this. >>>>> >>>> Well, all I can say is go online to your county Register of Deeds and look >>>> for the existence of mortgages/deeds of trust on properties likely to be >>>> owned by what you consider to be "wealthy" persons. >>> >>> If you can show evidence that higher end homes - those in the 2 million >>> dollar range and higher, are almost always bought with cash I am open to it. >> >> There could be plenty of people buying those homes who can't afford to >> pay cash for them. They would not qualify as "wealthy." > > So poor people are now buying multimillion dollar homes. Um, yeah, THAT > makes sense. Heck, even the idea middle class people do is a stretch. Actually, that's more or less what happened and one of the reasons why there was a gigantic crash in 2008. You can pretend you're an expert as much as you want but my wife actually works in mortgages and needed to study the event as well and even wrote her thesis on it. Since there was and still is very little regulation in the American mortgage system, people with low or no salaries whatsoever could indeed go to a bank and ask for a mortgage to buy a house that was way beyond their means. They could claim that they were a doctor or a surgeon and would be approved and nobody would give a shit that their documentation was either non-existent or falsified. Such shenanigans were not permitted in Canada which is why we weren't hit as badly as you were. >>> But as with most of your claims you just make things up as you go. >>> >> >> That's you making shit up. Like how the wealthy are taking advantage >> of all these "mortgage interest" tax breaks. Those are designed to help >> the *middle class*, not the wealthy. > > Because the middle class is buying multimillion dollar homes. Um, sure. > > You really are just lost. If I base myself on what he wrote, he never said a word of what you just claimed that he said. -- Charmed Tuna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 09:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1na49f9t35mpx$.1wnv9xbogap70.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #330635 |
On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 08:51:20 -0500, Charmed Tuna wrote: > On 2015-11-02 10:22 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 11/2/15, 8:07 PM, in article sdfue0a.a8fe@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >>>>>>> People who think they are wealthy spend outside their means all the time. >>>>>>> The wealthy do not, since there is no "outside their means." People only >>>>>>> finance stuff that they cannot afford. For the wealthy, there is no >>>>>>> "cannot >>>>>>> afford." >>>>>> >>>>>> Ah, in your world wealthy people never buy houses they cannot buy for cash. >>>>>> Well, in the real world there is no evidence of this. >>>>>> >>>>> Well, all I can say is go online to your county Register of Deeds and look >>>>> for the existence of mortgages/deeds of trust on properties likely to be >>>>> owned by what you consider to be "wealthy" persons. >>>> >>>> If you can show evidence that higher end homes - those in the 2 million >>>> dollar range and higher, are almost always bought with cash I am open to it. >>> >>> There could be plenty of people buying those homes who can't afford to >>> pay cash for them. They would not qualify as "wealthy." >> >> So poor people are now buying multimillion dollar homes. Um, yeah, THAT >> makes sense. Heck, even the idea middle class people do is a stretch. > > Actually, that's more or less what happened and one of the reasons why > there was a gigantic crash in 2008. You can pretend you're an expert as > much as you want but my wife actually works in mortgages and needed to > study the event as well and even wrote her thesis on it. Since there was > and still is very little regulation in the American mortgage system, > people with low or no salaries whatsoever could indeed go to a bank and > ask for a mortgage to buy a house that was way beyond their means. They > could claim that they were a doctor or a surgeon and would be approved > and nobody would give a shit that their documentation was either > non-existent or falsified. Such shenanigans were not permitted in Canada > which is why we weren't hit as badly as you were. Pretty much. And then the originating banks would unload these mortgages to other banks and so forth playing a game of hot potato with the funds. When the people who shouldn't have been approved in the first place defaulted the bank who was holding the mortgage at the time got stuck with it. >>>> But as with most of your claims you just make things up as you go. >>>> >>> >>> That's you making shit up. Like how the wealthy are taking advantage >>> of all these "mortgage interest" tax breaks. Those are designed to help >>> the *middle class*, not the wealthy. >> >> Because the middle class is buying multimillion dollar homes. Um, sure. >> >> You really are just lost. > > If I base myself on what he wrote, he never said a word of what you just > claimed that he said. Say it isn't so? Can't be. Snit never does things like that. Welcome to the snit circus. See a pattern developing? I hope so. -- You Ain't The Biggest Fish In The Crotch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 09:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1ag01$r6s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330639 |
On 2015-11-03 9:02 AM, Big Fish in a Small Crotch wrote: > On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 08:51:20 -0500, Charmed Tuna wrote: > >> On 2015-11-02 10:22 PM, Snit wrote: >>> On 11/2/15, 8:07 PM, in article sdfue0a.a8fe@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>> People who think they are wealthy spend outside their means all the time. >>>>>>>> The wealthy do not, since there is no "outside their means." People only >>>>>>>> finance stuff that they cannot afford. For the wealthy, there is no >>>>>>>> "cannot >>>>>>>> afford." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ah, in your world wealthy people never buy houses they cannot buy for cash. >>>>>>> Well, in the real world there is no evidence of this. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Well, all I can say is go online to your county Register of Deeds and look >>>>>> for the existence of mortgages/deeds of trust on properties likely to be >>>>>> owned by what you consider to be "wealthy" persons. >>>>> >>>>> If you can show evidence that higher end homes - those in the 2 million >>>>> dollar range and higher, are almost always bought with cash I am open to it. >>>> >>>> There could be plenty of people buying those homes who can't afford to >>>> pay cash for them. They would not qualify as "wealthy." >>> >>> So poor people are now buying multimillion dollar homes. Um, yeah, THAT >>> makes sense. Heck, even the idea middle class people do is a stretch. >> >> Actually, that's more or less what happened and one of the reasons why >> there was a gigantic crash in 2008. You can pretend you're an expert as >> much as you want but my wife actually works in mortgages and needed to >> study the event as well and even wrote her thesis on it. Since there was >> and still is very little regulation in the American mortgage system, >> people with low or no salaries whatsoever could indeed go to a bank and >> ask for a mortgage to buy a house that was way beyond their means. They >> could claim that they were a doctor or a surgeon and would be approved >> and nobody would give a shit that their documentation was either >> non-existent or falsified. Such shenanigans were not permitted in Canada >> which is why we weren't hit as badly as you were. > > Pretty much. And then the originating banks would unload these mortgages to > other banks and so forth playing a game of hot potato with the funds. > When the people who shouldn't have been approved in the first place > defaulted the bank who was holding the mortgage at the time got stuck with > it. In the end, the American taxpayer had to pay for it. My wife actually worked for the Canadian wing of what used to be AIG. They had become incredibly resistant to taking on even a _slight_ risk with insuring mortgages simply because they were still being forced to pay for people who had never bothered to pay their mortgage on houses they could never have afforded. It was a sad situation but one created by banksters who should have been put in slimy dungeons for the part that they played like they were in Iceland. The economy would have suffered, but it would have created a greater base from which to move forward and rules would have been put into place to make sure that no such thing could ever happen again. Instead, the same lack of rules is driving the current American mortgage situation and it's just a matter of time before you suffer another such setback. >>>>> But as with most of your claims you just make things up as you go. >>>>> >>>> >>>> That's you making shit up. Like how the wealthy are taking advantage >>>> of all these "mortgage interest" tax breaks. Those are designed to help >>>> the *middle class*, not the wealthy. >>> >>> Because the middle class is buying multimillion dollar homes. Um, sure. >>> >>> You really are just lost. >> >> If I base myself on what he wrote, he never said a word of what you just >> claimed that he said. > > Say it isn't so? > Can't be. > Snit never does things like that. > > Welcome to the snit circus. > See a pattern developing? > I hope so. I have very little interest for being pulled into such crap. -- Charmed Tuna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 19:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n190io$2is$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330538 |
On 2015-11-02 7:44 PM, Snit wrote: > On 11/2/15, 5:36 PM, in article n18vea$v1u$1@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" > <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >> On 2015-11-02 7:08 PM, Snit wrote: >>> On 11/2/15, 4:50 PM, in article n18sna$n8i$1@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" >>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>> >>> ... >>>>>> So what gives them the right to rape women, to death in some cases, in >>>>>> the countries that accept and welcome them? >>>>> >>>>> Nobody said anyone had such a right, but your question implies they all do >>>>> this. That is absurd. >>>> >>>> <http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=096_1267472543> >>>> >>>> The "migrants" have turned Sweden into the rape capital of the world. >>> >>> Debatable: <http://wp.me/p1IsH7-2x> >>> >>> But even if true nobody is defending the "right" you claimed. Or, at best, >>> you have not shown it. >> >> "August 15, 2011" -- long before the "migrant" invasion. > > But, again, even if true you have not shown ANYONE defending what you > claimed. Nobody is saying anyone has the right to rape or kill. Read this <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape> Then this <http://sheikyermami.com/2011/04/the-rape-of-infidel-women-is-as-islamic-as-koran-sira-hadith/> >>>>>> If a poor person has to pay say 40% of their income in taxes, why the Hell >>>>>> would a rich person have to pay more just because he makes more money? 40% >>>>>> across the board seems fair and it's not the rich, white man's fault that >>>>>> someone is poor and didn't bother to get an education. >>>>> >>>>> The very wealthy pay LESS in taxes than the middle class. >>>> >>>> They pay higher taxes here than the poor would. In fact, the new >>>> government will increase taxes on the rich (the percentage they pay) to >>>> lower it for the middle class. However, they've always actually paid >>>> more because 40% of 200,000 is higher than 40% of 20,000. >>> >>> <https://goo.gl/vQvYHg> >>> >>> The very rich pay less in taxes than the middle class - and that is based on >>> what is counted as income, when the very rich get to take out many of their >>> personal expenses as "business" expenses and have then counted as not being >>> income, AND get to put a lot of their money in corporations which pay a >>> lower tax rate. >> >> Then the United States need to work on their taxation system. > > Agreed. Might not agree on the details, but I do agree. > > Actually I am torn on what a fair taxation system would be. I do think it is > absurd that some taxes are capped so you only pay on the first X dollars, > and think many business "expenses" are insane. Now, my question to you is how do you increase taxes levied on wealthy citizens and their business WITHOUT ensuring that they will leave your area of residence for greener pastures in places where they DON'T tax them as heavily. Either the whole world enforces such laws or nobody does. >>>>> And the wealthy get to count many of their living expenses as not being a >>>>> part of their income: their food becomes a business expense, their >>>>> entertainment too... even their housing gives them government support. A >>>>> rich person with a 2 million dollar home get more government support for >>>>> their house than a poor person is likely to see in all monetary sources. >>>>> Why should I pay a penny to help a rich man buy a house? Why should anyone >>>>> be paying to help ME with my mortgage? It makes no sense... unless I am >>>>> disabled or the like and even then I should not get a high end house. >>>>> >>>> I'd love to see evidence of this. >>>> >>> You need evidence for people getting to claim food and entertainment as >>> business expenses and for getting financial benefits for mortgages? >>> >> Food and entertainment I can see them claiming as business expenses. After >> all, my wife worked as an account manager and had to take a lot of clients out >> to dinner and pay for entertainment. > > Why did you have to? I just had dinner - needed it to keep up my energy to > keep working. Should I be able to claim that as a business expense? It was part of her job to entertain the clients. If she had to pay for her client's entertainment out of pocket, she would make less than she was making before she got the job. Getting their business is important for the company and they are therefore willing to pay for it. In turn, the government that is interested in making sure that the business remains in operation allows for such expenses to not be taxed. It seems unethical, but the job requires such things to be done and if she didn't do it, some other company would. >> It's clearly a business expense and I would not have tolerated her paying that >> out of our account. > > There are times I can see basic food as a business expense. You need to go > to a convention or the like... so BASIC food, much as the poor get BASIC > food. Maybe set the level to the same as people on food stamps get per meal. > That has been deemed enough to eat on so should work. > > As far as entertainment, people can pay for their own. Where obtaining and maintaining client relationships is necessary for the business to remain in operation, I disagree wholeheartedly with you. >> I am indeed curious about the financial benefits for mortgages. Considering >> how horrible the American mortgage system is (and still not scrutinized as >> heavily as in Canada), I'm sure that money is going into the wrong places. > > Here is info on it: <https://www.irs.gov/publications/p936/ar02.html>. > > Completely insane in my view - and I have a mortgage! > > It leads to the wealthy getting financial "incentives" to own their own home > that comes to more money than the median income of the country! It makes no > sense at all... yet the country focused on the tiny stipends the disabled > and the like get for their housing. -- Charmed Tuna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 20:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n193ni$a62$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330546 |
On 2015-11-02 8:05 PM, Snit wrote: > On 11/2/15, 5:55 PM, in article n190io$2is$1@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" > <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >> On 2015-11-02 7:44 PM, Snit wrote: >>> On 11/2/15, 5:36 PM, in article n18vea$v1u$1@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" >>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2015-11-02 7:08 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>> On 11/2/15, 4:50 PM, in article n18sna$n8i$1@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" >>>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> ... >>>>>>>> So what gives them the right to rape women, to death in some cases, in >>>>>>>> the countries that accept and welcome them? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nobody said anyone had such a right, but your question implies they all >>>>>>> do >>>>>>> this. That is absurd. >>>>>> >>>>>> <http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=096_1267472543> >>>>>> >>>>>> The "migrants" have turned Sweden into the rape capital of the world. >>>>> >>>>> Debatable: <http://wp.me/p1IsH7-2x> >>>>> >>>>> But even if true nobody is defending the "right" you claimed. Or, at best, >>>>> you have not shown it. >>>> >>>> "August 15, 2011" -- long before the "migrant" invasion. >>> >>> But, again, even if true you have not shown ANYONE defending what you >>> claimed. Nobody is saying anyone has the right to rape or kill. >> >> Read this <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape> > > Skimmed - did not see any such defense. Can you quote it? > >> Then this >> <http://sheikyermami.com/2011/04/the-rape-of-infidel-women-is-as-islamic-as-ko >> ran-sira-hadith/> > > Skimmed - did not see any such defense. Can you quote it? Sorry, was the wrong link for the second: <http://pamelageller.com/2011/12/fatwa-permits-muslim-soldiers-to-kidnap-imprison-and-rape-infidel-women.html/> < snip > -- Charmed Tuna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 21:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n197ge$ds5$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330565 |
On 2015-11-02 9:03 PM, Snit wrote: > On 11/2/15, 6:49 PM, in article n193ni$a62$3@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" > <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >>>>> But, again, even if true you have not shown ANYONE defending what you >>>>> claimed. Nobody is saying anyone has the right to rape or kill. >>>> >>>> Read this <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape> >>> >>> Skimmed - did not see any such defense. Can you quote it? >>> >>>> Then this >>>> <http://sheikyermami.com/2011/04/the-rape-of-infidel-women-is-as-islamic-as- >>>> ko >>>> ran-sira-hadith/> >>> >>> Skimmed - did not see any such defense. Can you quote it? >> >> Sorry, was the wrong link for the second: >> <http://pamelageller.com/2011/12/fatwa-permits-muslim-soldiers-to-kidnap-impri >> son-and-rape-infidel-women.html/> > > Would love to see a reputable source to back this... but keep in mind US > soldiers rape their enemies, too. Not defending it in either case. Yep, if it disagrees with what your beloved mainstream media says, it's not reputable. I should have looked for CNN or some other corporate-owned and controlled news agency to support my statements. God knows that they're objective. As for the American military partaking in unethical activities; those who do are punished very severely by the people in charge. Nothing in the religion they follow nor in the policies of the nation they serve suggests that they have the right to do what they did. Islam, nevertheless, sees no problem with raping "infidel" females of any age. -- Charmed Tuna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 03:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fshe80.af3@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #330587 |
Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > On 2015-11-02 9:03 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 11/2/15, 6:49 PM, in article n193ni$a62$3@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" >> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >> >>>>>> But, again, even if true you have not shown ANYONE defending what you >>>>>> claimed. Nobody is saying anyone has the right to rape or kill. >>>>> >>>>> Read this <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape> >>>> >>>> Skimmed - did not see any such defense. Can you quote it? >>>> >>>>> Then this >>>>> <http://sheikyermami.com/2011/04/the-rape-of-infidel-women-is-as-islamic-as- >>>>> ko >>>>> ran-sira-hadith/> >>>> >>>> Skimmed - did not see any such defense. Can you quote it? >>> >>> Sorry, was the wrong link for the second: >>> <http://pamelageller.com/2011/12/fatwa-permits-muslim-soldiers-to-kidnap-impri >>> son-and-rape-infidel-women.html/> >> >> Would love to see a reputable source to back this... but keep in mind US >> soldiers rape their enemies, too. Not defending it in either case. > > Yep, if it disagrees with what your beloved mainstream media says, it's > not reputable. I should have looked for CNN or some other > corporate-owned and controlled news agency to support my statements. God > knows that they're objective. > > As for the American military partaking in unethical activities; those > who do are punished very severely by the people in charge. Nothing in > the religion they follow nor in the policies of the nation they serve > suggests that they have the right to do what they did. Islam, > nevertheless, sees no problem with raping "infidel" females of any age. > Probably more US soldiers killed these days because of strict "rules of engagement" than because of any tactical screwup. Didn't I read recently about some US troops getting reprimanded severely after beating up some Afghan turd who repeatedly raped children after being warned against it. I guess they violated some Jane Goodall rule -- or maybe it was Federation, have to ask Jeb -- he's a Star Track expert.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 03:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sfdhvncuee03.a0@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #330588 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 11/2/15, 8:03 PM, in article fshe80.af3@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >>>> Would love to see a reputable source to back this... but keep in mind US >>>> soldiers rape their enemies, too. Not defending it in either case. >>> >>> Yep, if it disagrees with what your beloved mainstream media says, it's >>> not reputable. I should have looked for CNN or some other >>> corporate-owned and controlled news agency to support my statements. God >>> knows that they're objective. >>> >>> As for the American military partaking in unethical activities; those >>> who do are punished very severely by the people in charge. Nothing in >>> the religion they follow nor in the policies of the nation they serve >>> suggests that they have the right to do what they did. Islam, >>> nevertheless, sees no problem with raping "infidel" females of any age. >>> >> >> Probably more US soldiers killed these days because of strict "rules of >> engagement" than because of any tactical screwup. Didn't I read recently >> about some US troops getting reprimanded severely after beating up some >> Afghan turd who repeatedly raped children after being warned against it. >> I guess they violated some Jane Goodall rule -- or maybe it was Federation, >> have to ask Jeb -- he's a Star Track expert. >> > Let me know when Bush and Cheney face a war crimes tribunal. Until then we > KNOW that even the worst offenders do not face justice. > "War crimes" is a ridiculous term. It's a war. All wars have always been like that. Civilians get slaughtered. Guess what, civilians.. it's a war. It includes you too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 04:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <shgnc83.a0gfka@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #330591 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 11/2/15, 8:35 PM, in article sfdhvncuee03.a0@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 11/2/15, 8:03 PM, in article fshe80.af3@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>>>> Would love to see a reputable source to back this... but keep in mind US >>>>>> soldiers rape their enemies, too. Not defending it in either case. >>>>> >>>>> Yep, if it disagrees with what your beloved mainstream media says, it's >>>>> not reputable. I should have looked for CNN or some other >>>>> corporate-owned and controlled news agency to support my statements. God >>>>> knows that they're objective. >>>>> >>>>> As for the American military partaking in unethical activities; those >>>>> who do are punished very severely by the people in charge. Nothing in >>>>> the religion they follow nor in the policies of the nation they serve >>>>> suggests that they have the right to do what they did. Islam, >>>>> nevertheless, sees no problem with raping "infidel" females of any age. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Probably more US soldiers killed these days because of strict "rules of >>>> engagement" than because of any tactical screwup. Didn't I read recently >>>> about some US troops getting reprimanded severely after beating up some >>>> Afghan turd who repeatedly raped children after being warned against it. >>>> I guess they violated some Jane Goodall rule -- or maybe it was Federation, >>>> have to ask Jeb -- he's a Star Track expert. >>>> >>> Let me know when Bush and Cheney face a war crimes tribunal. Until then we >>> KNOW that even the worst offenders do not face justice. >> >> "War crimes" is a ridiculous term. > > It is an accurate term and many have called for them to be investigated. > They never will be, even though at least one international tribunal has > already found Bush guilty. > > The US even has deemed many of these acts to be war crimes when committed by > others. There is no reasonable doubt that Bush and Cheney engaged in war > crimes and did so in the name of their Christian deity. > >> It's a war. All wars have always been like that. Civilians get slaughtered. >> Guess what, civilians.. it's a war. It includes you too. > > Ah, so you have no issue with Muslims doing wrong as long as they see it as > a war. Got it! > > Oh, wait. That assumes some consistency with your views. That assumes you > are not granting Christians special entitlements you do not grant others. > > And your whole house of cards falls down again. > Nope. There's a difference in civilians being accidental casualties and their being targeted. We don't target civilians. They do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 17:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhsjd83.0@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #330594 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 11/2/15, 9:42 PM, in article shgnc83.a0gfka@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 11/2/15, 8:35 PM, in article sfdhvncuee03.a0@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 11/2/15, 8:03 PM, in article fshe80.af3@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> Would love to see a reputable source to back this... but keep in mind US >>>>>>>> soldiers rape their enemies, too. Not defending it in either case. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yep, if it disagrees with what your beloved mainstream media says, it's >>>>>>> not reputable. I should have looked for CNN or some other >>>>>>> corporate-owned and controlled news agency to support my statements. God >>>>>>> knows that they're objective. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As for the American military partaking in unethical activities; those >>>>>>> who do are punished very severely by the people in charge. Nothing in >>>>>>> the religion they follow nor in the policies of the nation they serve >>>>>>> suggests that they have the right to do what they did. Islam, >>>>>>> nevertheless, sees no problem with raping "infidel" females of any age. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Probably more US soldiers killed these days because of strict "rules of >>>>>> engagement" than because of any tactical screwup. Didn't I read recently >>>>>> about some US troops getting reprimanded severely after beating up some >>>>>> Afghan turd who repeatedly raped children after being warned against it. >>>>>> I guess they violated some Jane Goodall rule -- or maybe it was >>>>>> Federation, >>>>>> have to ask Jeb -- he's a Star Track expert. >>>>>> >>>>> Let me know when Bush and Cheney face a war crimes tribunal. Until then we >>>>> KNOW that even the worst offenders do not face justice. >>>> >>>> "War crimes" is a ridiculous term. >>> >>> It is an accurate term and many have called for them to be investigated. >>> They never will be, even though at least one international tribunal has >>> already found Bush guilty. >>> >>> The US even has deemed many of these acts to be war crimes when committed by >>> others. There is no reasonable doubt that Bush and Cheney engaged in war >>> crimes and did so in the name of their Christian deity. >>> >>>> It's a war. All wars have always been like that. Civilians get >>>> slaughtered. >>>> Guess what, civilians.. it's a war. It includes you too. >>> >>> Ah, so you have no issue with Muslims doing wrong as long as they see it as >>> a war. Got it! >>> >>> Oh, wait. That assumes some consistency with your views. That assumes you >>> are not granting Christians special entitlements you do not grant others. >>> >>> And your whole house of cards falls down again. >>> >> >> Nope. There's a difference in civilians being accidental casualties >> and their being targeted. We don't target civilians. They do. >> > OK, sigh: what is your support for the idea we do not target civilians? > Our official policy of not targeting them. Note that Doctors Without Borders were warned in advance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 19:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhsj03.apfe@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #330685 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 11/3/15, 10:46 AM, in article fhsjd83.0@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >>>>> Oh, wait. That assumes some consistency with your views. That assumes you >>>>> are not granting Christians special entitlements you do not grant others. >>>>> >>>>> And your whole house of cards falls down again. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Nope. There's a difference in civilians being accidental casualties >>>> and their being targeted. We don't target civilians. They do. >>>> >>> OK, sigh: what is your support for the idea we do not target civilians? >>> >> >> Our official policy of not targeting them. Note that Doctors Without Borders >> were warned in advance. > > I did not ask about official policies, I asked what could lead to the claim > that the US does not do so? It is a bizarre claim to say the least! I mean, > really, is this too hard of a search to see where the claim is, at best, > going to be very challenging to back: > <https://www.google.com/#q=us+targeting+civilians> > Collateral damage and/or lies and conspiracy theories. Do you know how many thousands of people would have to be in on these so-called conspiracies? There is no way all of them could keep quiet. Really, you are just lost.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 08:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1acn4$dti$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330588 |
On 2015-11-02 10:03 PM, owl wrote: > Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >> On 2015-11-02 9:03 PM, Snit wrote: >>> On 11/2/15, 6:49 PM, in article n193ni$a62$3@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" >>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>> >>>>>>> But, again, even if true you have not shown ANYONE defending what you >>>>>>> claimed. Nobody is saying anyone has the right to rape or kill. >>>>>> >>>>>> Read this <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape> >>>>> >>>>> Skimmed - did not see any such defense. Can you quote it? >>>>> >>>>>> Then this >>>>>> <http://sheikyermami.com/2011/04/the-rape-of-infidel-women-is-as-islamic-as- >>>>>> ko >>>>>> ran-sira-hadith/> >>>>> >>>>> Skimmed - did not see any such defense. Can you quote it? >>>> >>>> Sorry, was the wrong link for the second: >>>> <http://pamelageller.com/2011/12/fatwa-permits-muslim-soldiers-to-kidnap-impri >>>> son-and-rape-infidel-women.html/> >>> >>> Would love to see a reputable source to back this... but keep in mind US >>> soldiers rape their enemies, too. Not defending it in either case. >> >> Yep, if it disagrees with what your beloved mainstream media says, it's >> not reputable. I should have looked for CNN or some other >> corporate-owned and controlled news agency to support my statements. God >> knows that they're objective. >> >> As for the American military partaking in unethical activities; those >> who do are punished very severely by the people in charge. Nothing in >> the religion they follow nor in the policies of the nation they serve >> suggests that they have the right to do what they did. Islam, >> nevertheless, sees no problem with raping "infidel" females of any age. >> > > Probably more US soldiers killed these days because of strict "rules of > engagement" than because of any tactical screwup. Didn't I read recently > about some US troops getting reprimanded severely after beating up some > Afghan turd who repeatedly raped children after being warned against it. > I guess they violated some Jane Goodall rule -- or maybe it was Federation, > have to ask Jeb -- he's a Star Track expert. In the end, what we're seeing is that the world, for whatever reason, is sheltering Muslims and treating them like victims no matter whether they are or not. They rape in Sweden and either get no punishment or community service. They do the same thing in Austria where women are now buying rifles (the only weapon available) to defend themselves and we're calling them "islamophobic." They have a religion which allows and even encourages them to enslave, rape and exploit and the leftist idiots are still dumb enough to believe that it is the "religion of peace." They're not even worth debating with because the evidence AGAINST their beliefs is overwhelming. -- Charmed Tuna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web