On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:33:41 GMT, "Jennifer Wainwright"
<JenniferWainwright@no-spam> wrote:
>> I don't think that you have provided me with much logic to follow.
>
>OK, I'll go over it one more time. You made the statement "You some (sic)
>here in a cowardly fashion, unwilling to identify yourself...." From this I
>inferred that you had some problem with people using pseudonyms when they
>post. My point was that there is NO WAY for you to know whether or not
>someone is using a pseudonym, unless they give you more information in the
>body of their post. Do you follow it yet?
And why does that bother him? I ask because it's apparent he uses it
to duck real issues.
Example:
>> [Please understand...I have no serious problem with anyone coming here
>> anonymously, so long as he or she is civil and not looking to
>> assassinate the character of others.]
THe bottom line is he got handed his head. So to avoid that issue, he
picks this one.
----
_____________________________________________________________
/BitHead's Place: Political commentary from the REAL world. /\
/ http://home.rochester.rr.com/bitheads/ _/ /\
/Bit's weekly commentaries also available internationally: / \/
/ http://www.rightpoint.ca/ \ /
http://greysanctuary.com/columnists/bithead/index.asp /\
____________________________________________________________/ /
____________________________________________________________\/
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 03:43:26 GMT, "Jennifer Wainwright"
<JenniferWainwright@no-spam> wrote:
>
>".BitHead." <bithead@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:lr9nfvc1t69cjp0t62nqdktv34o7cred90@no-spam
>> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:48:47 GMT, "Jennifer Wainwright"
>> <JenniferWainwright@no-spam> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"John Carrick" <jcarr@no-spam> wrote in message
>> >news:dqrmfv0hrsiqm3n29rkr4h8jn1tk82hm2i@no-spam
>> >
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >> Do NOT talk to me now about the undeserving poor. They are a tiny
>> >> percentage of those who benefit from government programs.
>> >
>> >Do you have any actual facts to support this statement? Please give us a
>> >cite.
>>
>>
>> I wouldn't be holding my breath, were I you.
>>
>
>Well, what he lacks in actual facts, he more than makes up for in the sheer
>quantity of his opinions, stated as facts. We can't have everything!
(Shrug)
I suppose.
----
_____________________________________________________________
/BitHead's Place: Political commentary from the REAL world. /\
/ http://home.rochester.rr.com/bitheads/ _/ /\
/Bit's weekly commentaries also available internationally: / \/
/ http://www.rightpoint.ca/ \ /
http://greysanctuary.com/columnists/bithead/index.asp /\
____________________________________________________________/ /
____________________________________________________________\/
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
It was written:
> >> >> Do NOT talk to me now about the undeserving poor. They are a tiny
> >> >> percentage of those who benefit from government programs.
> >> >Do you have any actual facts to support this statement? Please give us a
> >> >cite.
> >> I wouldn't be holding my breath, were I you.
> >Well, what he lacks in actual facts, he more than makes up for in the sheer
> >quantity of his opinions, stated as facts. We can't have everything!
> (Shrug)
> I suppose.
Carrick is firmly on quicksand, as usual.
Ability to pay has only one thing going for it in theory, which is
its utilitarian advantage. In reality taxes based on ability to pay
are thinly disguised instances of envy and resent and pathological
desire to see others fall, or at least be injured, if only
economically.
Proportional (flat-rate) taxation lacks the confiscatory injustice
of progressive taxation, yet it also tends to be excessive and suffer
from the same problems.
Superior taxation is based on making those that benefit pay in
proportion to these benefits. Typical lying leftists define "benefit"
as being in the same society as others, subject to the same
government, and imply or actually have the stupidity or dishonesty to
state that one's wealth or income is defined as benefiting from
government and "society," rather than truthfully largely from their
own efforts, judgments, and decisions.
The objective of government taxation is to raise revenue alone; it
is not right to misuse taxation as a social engineering device or
other means of satisfying some leftists' sick desires or purposes.
Dave Simpson