Backspin by AnthonyT

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:

Your problem is that you are starting from the false assumption that the rich pay little or no taxes under the current system.

Certainly, I'm NOT starting from that assumption. But you certainly seemed to be starting from the assumption that the bottom 95% of us pay NO taxes whatsoever.

I'm aware that the rich pay some rather high income taxes - if you can prove that any of that money is actually INCOME. That's the rub - it tends to get squirreled away through loopholes and blind trusts until there is no income that can be recorded without the use of forensic accountants.

So you take a CEO who's getting $175 million a year in salary, bonuses, and incentives. Do you suppose he's actually paying the income tax on that entire amount?

And you do have it right on one point - a flat tax would take a higher percentage of disposable income from the poor and middle class - but only when they spent their money. If you have, say, a flat rate of 10-12% on goods sold (I currently pay 8.25% sales tax on most things), the poor and middle class won't really feel that much of a pinch, AND the rich will have reason to keep the tax rates in check, because they are also paying that same percentage on the things they buy. 10% on a new Honda isn't going to kill me - figure the gubmint takes about $2000 on that purchase; extrapolate that to the 10% tax on a Bugatti Veyron 16.4 (at $1.2million list price), and you see why the rich won't want the tax rate going any higher than that. They have a vested interest in looking out for the poor, at least a little bit, because what they sow, so shall they reap.

The poor also won't have too big a bitch about it, because they can't point at the rich and say they aren't paying their fair share. If they buy something, they pay. They pay the same percentage of the price that the poor would pay. If the rich want to buy more expensive things, then they'll pay more in actual dollars in tax, but the percentage of the price will stay the same.

Buy a house in the Hamptons? 10% goes to Uncle Sam. Buy a time-share in Aspen? 10%. Buy a crack-house in the ghetto? 10% Rent a car? 10% Buy a Pinto? 10% Buy an Aston Martin? 10%

THAT is what I'm proposing. For the record, I have no issue at all with paying my taxes. No one wants to see taxes increase, but I can say that I don't see how we're going to spend our way out of the hole we've dug without raising taxes at least a bit. At some point, we have to start paying down that massive deficit and our national debt, or we will continue to see our dollar devalued and our debt load increasing, until we are no longer ABLE to pay it down. We have to start somewhere, and it seems to me that if the rich and poor are in it for the same percentages, it will be more fair to all involved.

The best part of the idea is that it encourages a bit more frugality. It's not going to stop me buying food, or shoes, but it might make me think twice about buying that third, fourth, or fifth car just to have as a weekend toy. Right now, I have six cars, which is at least four more than I have any need for. Several of them are rarely driven.

Will it work? Who knows... it'll probably never get the chance. But it would be nice to see someone try. What we've got now surely isn't doing much good...

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 28, 2008 3:58 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
You are right he did.

However, your assertion that rich people spend less of their disposable income is absolutely absurd.

I have no disposable income as my income is too low. My brother has the means to buy $14000 plasma screen tv's - so who do you think would pay more tax in either a flat income tax or flat sales tax situation?

Under a flat sales tax system anyone who spends $14,000 on a TV will pay the same amount in taxes whether they pay with cash or max out their credit card. The point I like about the flat sales tax is that after buying basic necessities, everyone is able to control their own tax rate. A rich person could live modestly and pay the exact same taxes as a poor person. If a rich person buys a mega yacht they'll pay mega taxes. It would definitely reshape our economy by penalising spending and encouraging savings. This might be a good thing as long as you don't build yachts or other high ticket items for a living. Clinton's luxury tax decimated the boating and high end car companies until it was repealed.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 28, 2008 4:09 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Your problem is that you are starting from the false assumption that the rich pay little or no taxes under the current system.

Certainly, I'm NOT starting from that assumption. But you certainly seemed to be starting from the assumption that the bottom 95% of us pay NO taxes whatsoever.

I'm aware that the rich pay some rather high income taxes - if you can prove that any of that money is actually INCOME. That's the rub - it tends to get squirreled away through loopholes and blind trusts until there is no income that can be recorded without the use of forensic accountants.

So you take a CEO who's getting $175 million a year in salary, bonuses, and incentives. Do you suppose he's actually paying the income tax on that entire amount?

And you do have it right on one point - a flat tax would take a higher percentage of disposable income from the poor and middle class - but only when they spent their money. If you have, say, a flat rate of 10-12% on goods sold (I currently pay 8.25% sales tax on most things), the poor and middle class won't really feel that much of a pinch, AND the rich will have reason to keep the tax rates in check, because they are also paying that same percentage on the things they buy. 10% on a new Honda isn't going to kill me - figure the gubmint takes about $2000 on that purchase; extrapolate that to the 10% tax on a Bugatti Veyron 16.4 (at $1.2million list price), and you see why the rich won't want the tax rate going any higher than that. They have a vested interest in looking out for the poor, at least a little bit, because what they sow, so shall they reap.

The poor also won't have too big a bitch about it, because they can't point at the rich and say they aren't paying their fair share. If they buy something, they pay. They pay the same percentage of the price that the poor would pay. If the rich want to buy more expensive things, then they'll pay more in actual dollars in tax, but the percentage of the price will stay the same.

Buy a house in the Hamptons? 10% goes to Uncle Sam. Buy a time-share in Aspen? 10%. Buy a crack-house in the ghetto? 10% Rent a car? 10% Buy a Pinto? 10% Buy an Aston Martin? 10%

THAT is what I'm proposing. For the record, I have no issue at all with paying my taxes. No one wants to see taxes increase, but I can say that I don't see how we're going to spend our way out of the hole we've dug without raising taxes at least a bit. At some point, we have to start paying down that massive deficit and our national debt, or we will continue to see our dollar devalued and our debt load increasing, until we are no longer ABLE to pay it down. We have to start somewhere, and it seems to me that if the rich and poor are in it for the same percentages, it will be more fair to all involved.

The best part of the idea is that it encourages a bit more frugality. It's not going to stop me buying food, or shoes, but it might make me think twice about buying that third, fourth, or fifth car just to have as a weekend toy. Right now, I have six cars, which is at least four more than I have any need for. Several of them are rarely driven.

Will it work? Who knows... it'll probably never get the chance. But it would be nice to see someone try. What we've got now surely isn't doing much good...

Mike

Great post Kwicko, can't really find anything I totally disagree with. Sounds like we agree on a lot more than either of us would like to admit.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 28, 2008 4:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Have you read one of Frem's posts?

I've read many of them. His are some of the most interesting posts, even when he's spitting hatred at me personally. And he's about as close as we have here to a real Marxist.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 28, 2008 5:22 PM

Quote:

Great post Kwicko, can't really find anything I totally disagree with. Sounds like we agree on a lot more than either of us would like to admit.

When it comes to where our money goes and why, you and I probably aren't all that different in our outlooks.

And I'll say this: The kind of tax I've put forward - and trust me, it's a raw plan, and there would still be lots and lots of details to iron out - isn't favored by either political party. The people who've come closest to it are Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee - and you saw how far it got them. It's a fair tax plan, to be sure, but it's also a political-suicide plan.

For whatever reason, neither side seems to be very much in favor of FAIR taxation for all; the Democrats want to soak the rich, and the Republicans want to stick it to the poor. In other words, no matter who you ask, it's always "the other guy" who should shoulder more of the tax burden.

Like I said, it'll likely never see the light of day. But it's still fun to imagine a more rational America.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 28, 2008 5:43 PM

I don’t think either side disputes where the tax burden is. Both sides tax the rich, but the dispute is in deciding how far we can milk that burden. When we take money from the rich we take potential investment in the economy, which cause the economy to slow, so the right balance of taxation and investment is a critical issue.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 28, 2008 6:36 PM

But when you take money from ANYONE, you take money from the economy. What are the po' folk going to do with their money, save it? Hell, no - they're going to spend it! Thus are created more demand for goods, and more jobs to meet that demand.

That's what I'm trying to get at is the fundamental disconnect between people on both sides. On one side, you have people who seem to be saying that "the 95% of Americans who don't contribute are a drag on the system", while the other side seems to be saying that "it's only because of that 95% of Americans that there's a system at all." Somewhere in the middle lies the truth. And I'd bet that we could get along longer without the top 5% than they could without the 95% - but we all still need each other to make it work smoothly.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 28, 2008 6:54 PM

FREMDFIRMA

ROFLMAO.

Oh that's rich - ME a Socialist, or a Marxist ?

Like they said, do you even READ any of the stuff I post ?
Does any of it at all make it through that plastic bubble you insulate yourself from the real world with ?

Looka'here buddy...

I am sick of our taxes funding a bloated military mired in a mass force tactical doctrine obsolete since the end of the civil war, for one.

Let's see, there's the open fucking pit that is our intelligence agencies, enough of them that there's ridiculous redundancy and duplication of effort on top of which instead of protecting the american people they not only waste those resources committing acts of terror and harrassment against the very fucking people they're supposed to be protecting in the first place, and not only do it to the near exclusion of their supposed job, when they DO actually perform anything remotely resembling their original function, they act in such a fashion so counterproductive it further endangers their alleged protectees...

And let's not even talk about "Black" projects we the people, the supposed folk actually in charge, aren't even allowed to know about, much less vote against.

Add to that bailing out rich assholes who got their dicks in a wringer cause they made bad financial decisions.

Sending foreign aid to other countries when we're so bad off here, the primary recipient of which, a country-that-shall-not-be-named, has a habit of fucking us over EVERY CHANCE THEY GET as our politicos bend over and smile for it.

In general spending MY money to snoop on and irritate the populace with ridiculous petty nitpicks like whether they've properly sorted all their recyclables correctly in the bin...

A phony "war on (some) drugs" while at the same time subsidizing Big Pharma, that most notorious drug-pusher of all, wasting my money to eliminate corporate competition is what that has ALWAYS smelled like to me.

Then there's the heavily subsidized medical care industry, gah.. $750 for a fucking wheelchair ?
(I got mine at Harbor Freight for $135 out of pocket, fuck you very much invacare!)

Enforcing truely ridiculous "copyright" laws designed in fact to make us pay over and over for a product we never get to actually own.

Goddamn, I could go on for pages, but ain't no point to it, and don't it just bang the irony gong that the righties whine and whinge about socialists and leftists and all their social control programs....

While they puff themselves up in support of the military, or homeland security, or intel agencies, police, and so on, as if they were not (at least in my eyes) the same fucking thing ?

I don't want YOUR fucking money - I want to KEEP enough of mine to fucking live on, and not have to supplement it with work-for-barter just to put food on the goddamn table, you'd sound angry too if all you had to eat in the last three days was forty biscuits from those store-brand four-packs-of-ten cause that's all you could AFFORD to eat in spite of working 56hours on the clock (and about 10 more off, including auto repairs which would have cost several hundred dollars if done by an autoshop) last week.

Oh, and that 37% doesn't touch the fact that I pay for FUEL, you can imagine I am not fucking happy about that, with a nice chunk of every gallon being what...
Everyone together now... TAXES!

Then there's the Gov's little bites out of my utility bills, sales tax, and doesn't even touch the horror that is property tax.
(one reason my ass is getting just about forcefully drafted to city council, in fact)

And heaven forfend if I dare want a shot of rum to kick back with at the end of the day cause that comes with a nice bitchslap of excise tax based on what amounts to somebody elses fucking RELIGIOUS objection in the first damned place.

And all that shit, a very large part of it goes to enforcing dumbass rules and agendas that I not only do not agree with, but are downright inimical to all I believe if not me *personally*, you know, like invading my fucking privacy - which'd be torture for anyone assigned to do it, you ask me...

Oh yeah, and how do you THINK I feel about that whole faith based initiative shit, funneling tax dollars into religions who think folks that hold some of the beliefs I do should be burned at the fucking stake as heretics, think that makes me very happy - especially when it blatantly breaks the seperation of church and state ?

Since when have I ever fucking proposed one thing but actual, physical infrastructure that was worth spending a tax dime on - but nooo, the righties have all THEIR social agendas too, but don't seem to realize they're cutting into the same pie the National Socialists are when they go on proposing this shit on my tax dime.

A pox on both your houses, I say, and may they burn merrily around you in festive colors once the Morlocks get sick of fighting over race, religion and culture, and start wondering who got em at each others throats like that in the first place.

I want my fucking money, hell, I want some fucking FOOD goddamn it.
YOU try doin the ramen noodle shuffle while busting ass 40+ hours and see how YOU fuckin like it....

And all the while the fucking Fed robbing the value of the pittance I DO have.

You and the rest of the Hard-Right warmongers are such hypocrites, pay for your own fucking wars for once, instead of robbing ME to finance them... you got some nerve calling anyone else a Marxist Socialista when you're so perfectly willing to shell out corporate welfare to the military-industrial complex.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 28, 2008 6:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
But when you take money from ANYONE, you take money from the economy. What are the po' folk going to do with their money, save it? Hell, no - they're going to spend it! Thus are created more demand for goods, and more jobs to meet that demand.

They don’t create more jobs to meet that demand. They just create demand. Those jobs are created by the rich people who invest in the economy, taking advantage of that demand. Poor people don’t have the resources to create jobs, not in the short run. In the long run, maybe, but in the here and now, it takes the resources of rich people.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 28, 2008 7:07 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Oh, just in case it wasn't so clear from the post...

Fuck raising taxes, start CUTTING shit.

Goddamn, it's shocking that no one else even brought that concept up yet.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 28, 2008 7:13 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:
"I'm an alcoholic!"
-Glenn Beck

Yes, take your economic advice from a drug addict with a $50-million salary, who sees dogs knawing the heads off little children.

Glenn Beck on acid:

Beck is paid $50-million to sell the sheeple on any candidate the elite globalists tell him to sell, and to demonize any candidate who would actually save USA.

Jew "Rush" Limbaugh is paid $700-million salary to do the same thing. Hence his need for 100 oxycontin a day.

Even local TV disinfobabes get $5-million/year in major cities.

We need salary caps for all talking heads - ASAP. $50,000/year.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:52 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Oh, just in case it wasn't so clear from the post...

Fuck raising taxes, start CUTTING shit.

Goddamn, it's shocking that no one else even brought that concept up yet.

It's a little late for that, after a near decade of Bushite fiscal irresponsibility, any incoming president will have to 'cut shit' AND raise taxes. Or they could be incredibly fiscally irresponsible, and drive the American economy and government into collapse by continuing chimpmans policies. If that's what you want, your best bet is probably McCain.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 29, 2008 1:46 AM

Quote:

They don’t create more jobs to meet that demand. They just create demand. Those jobs are created by the rich people who invest in the economy, taking advantage of that demand. Poor people don’t have the resources to create jobs, not in the short run. In the long run, maybe, but in the here and now, it takes the resources of rich people.

...and the demand of the poor people. Try building a factory just because you have the money to do so, and see where that gets ya. You don't respond to demand because you're rich; you're rich because you responded to demand and came out with a product for which there WAS a demand in the first place. It isn't a matter of "If you build it, they will come" - it's more along the lines of "if they come, you'd better build it - or someone else WILL."

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 29, 2008 1:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Oh, just in case it wasn't so clear from the post...

Fuck raising taxes, start CUTTING shit.

Goddamn, it's shocking that no one else even brought that concept up yet.

-F

Oh, hell, Frem - I figured that was pretty much a given. As Cit points out, due to the reckless spending habits of the past 8 years, President Obama (get used to it) is going to have to both raise taxes AND cut spending, JUST to try to get a tiny start on paying down our enormous debt.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 29, 2008 4:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
...and the demand of the poor people. Try building a factory just because you have the money to do so, and see where that gets ya.

Try building a factory if you’re poor. When you overtax the rich you take money from the economy that could be used to build those factories and create those jobs, but giving money to the poor will not build factories. It might help those that already exist, in theory, but there is a limit to how far that will grow the economy, eventually you have to have the rich people. And it's the rich people we tax, not the poor people.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 29, 2008 4:55 AM

I'm no expert, but I don't see why you have to protect teh uber rich and the financial dynasties for the sake of this nation.

I know that in the movie industry small companies get together and assume varying parts of risk by investing...everybody stands to gain and to lose. I'm not sure why any other industry has to be different(or whether it is) on this point.

........

what we have in this country is defacto royalty though. The rich families stay rich, because they own the government. They are often invested in keeping the status quo, which is counter-progress.

Our country is no longer a meritocracy. Our upward mobility ranks below more "socialist" rival european nations. We have a soft caste system now.

In my opinion, that consolidation of wealth, that inheritance of it by people that did not personally earn it, is counter to our democracy. Money is power, and so long as that power is earned, and anybody can earn it, I guess that's somehow fair, but that isn't the country we live in.

I think its great that a person in this nation used to be able to start his own enterprise, become a multi- millionare and make his children's lives better with that money, with that opportunity. I'm not so sure I think its great that those same entrepreneurs solidified their lines forever in wealth for the rest of history.

I say bring back the estate tax.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 29, 2008 5:44 AM

On average a poor person in the US will be poor for less then 10 years. I grew up in poverty that most people I speak with today in this country can’t imagine. We ate beans and potatoes, because that was all we could afford. Yet despite that level of poverty we were still more affluent then the average poor in Europe. Today, I’m not poor anymore. I make what the Democrats would call upper class income, and from the time I was on my own to the day I become Middle-class (or upper class according to Democrats) was about 10 years. And I wasn't even really trying to get rich - I just went to school - I wasn't even thinking about entrepreneurship.

Yet, I hear a lot of people trying to convince me that the US is a bad country where people can’t prosper. Yet I’m living proof of the fact that we can. I’ve been all over Europe and I’ve seen what constitutes “middle class” there – and it’s pretty close to what we would consider “poor.” When I hear people tell me that people can’t prosper in the US, what I here are people who either haven’t thought this stuff all the way through, people who are too lazy to assert themselves or people trying to push a particular agenda. But they certainly aren't people accurately assessing the conditions in the US, at least not from my perspective.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 29, 2008 5:54 AM

There's not a country in the world where you cant go somewhere if you have the utmost drive and luck to go with it.

America is better than many, maybe most. But among developed countries it isn't ranking that impressively. Just because it is possible to get ahead in America does not mean that that mobility is as accesible to every American as it should be, as it is for people of other nations...

it's an ideal we built our nation on, and we are second rate. That cool with you?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 29, 2008 6:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
it's an ideal we built our nation on, and we are second rate. That cool with you?

I have no problem being second, if indeed we are, because what we have is good. I don’t believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Fixing our problems and improving our conditions does not mean lying to ourselves about our success and prosperity.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 29, 2008 6:04 AM

Well there you go

in this nation, I thought we used to have a problem with being second best.

That does explain why we still have such a disconnect when we argue on these boards in these times.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 29, 2008 6:21 AM

It depends a lot on what being “second best” means. Being second best among a list of developed nations isn’t going to bother me to much. There are a lot of things that one can get in the US that one can’t get in the UK. For instance, the house I live in today would be assessable only to people with a considerable degree of wealth in the UK, but the house that I could afford in the UK would probably be more then enough for me to live a comfortable life, and owning a large house isn't all its cracked up to be. The point is that while there may be differences between the developed nations, these differences often are not significant enough to be concerned with being second best.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 29, 2008 6:26 AM

In this case we're talking specifically about what second best is referring to.

You are fine with our waning upward mobility in this nation, even while other nations have improved beyond us in this area.

I like how our chants of patriotism are going to have to change over time.

"We're still the greatest country in the world!" "Well, we're still one of the great nations in the world!" "Well maybe we're just a good country, and in the world." "Well, we're alright."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 29, 2008 6:39 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Second best isn't so bad. Being 15th or 41st on a metric kinda' sucks.

***************************************************************
Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 29, 2008 6:45 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
got A's in Calculus I, II, III and Elementary Deferential Equations.

And I can kill a person in several different ways due to 25 years of martial art training, what do either of these things have to do with understanding simple arithmetic?

1+2=-2isall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 29, 2008 6:46 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The point is that while there may be differences between the developed nations, these differences often are not significant enough to be concerned with being second best.

I'm okay with the silver...

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 29, 2008 6:47 AM