Why can't liberals comprehend the difference between "extending current tax rates" and "giving a tax cut"?
Yesterday on the Sunday talking head show Face the Nation, the host Bob Schieffer had as his guests Republican Senate Whip Jon Kyle and Democratic Senate Whip Richard "Dick" Durbin. Every time Bob brought up the issue of "extending" the bush era tax cuts for all Americans, he kept referring to it has "cutting the taxes on the rich". Senator Kyle constantly kept correcting Bob. I'm not sure if Bob Schieffer was having a senior moment or was he purposely trying to distort the issue. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that if there is a proposal to reduce the tax rats further then they already are, then that would be called "pushing for a tax cut". That isn't the issue however. I looked at Schieffer's facial expression, when he repeated what Kyle said about wanting to extend the current tax rates. It was like Schieffer thought Kyle was lying or something. Durbin also referred to the extension as a tax cut. A lot of liberals in the media who are passing themselves off as journalists are doing the same thing as Bob. They are running with the DNC talking points saying that "republicans want to either cut taxes for the rich or only extend them for the rich". As I said so many times, so much for journalistic integrity.
posted by Alpha Conservative Male at 11:13 AM
37 Comments:
The Obama tax increases will go down in history as the biggest economic blunder of the millenia.
How come all the idiots that champion taxing the rich fail to see that a lot of the politicians they re-elect year after year are rich.
How about we vote a salary decrease for all Senators and removal of all retirement pensions for politicians.
If your personal income is over 250k then you have a reason not to approve of the presidents campaign pledge. If your personal income is lower than 250k, or you're one of the 9.8% unemployed, you're wishing on a star.
The republican defense (aka, talking point) for extending the Bush tax rates for the richest Americans is that "lower tax rates creates jobs." The Bush tax rates have been in effect for almost "10 YEARS", and yet job losses are still mounting. Thus, there is absolutely no evidence that lower taxes for rich people creates jobs!
Joe Conservative "The Obama tax increases will go down in history as the biggest economic blunder of the millenia."
It looks like Obama has caved in his staunch opposition to supporting tax cuts for all Americans Joe. His kooky base isn't going to like that at all. On the flip side, republican will support the extension of unemployment benefits "without them being paid for", that will erk fiscal conservatives.
Sojournelove "How come all the idiots that champion taxing the rich fail to see that a lot of the politicians they re-elect year after year are rich."
Sojournerlove "How about we vote a salary decrease for all Senators and removal of all retirement pensions for politicians."
The vast majority of liberals are stupid and are easily manipulated. You're right Sojournerlove, most democrats in congress are rich. Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, Rockafella, Rangel and others aren't exactly counting nickel and dimes like the rest of the masses. They play their constituents like a bunch of grade A suckers. These same people who claim to be looking out for the "working man" are the same people who hang around snobbish elite liberals in San Fran and New York City, fly on private jets and live in gated communities away from joe six pack they claim to be just like. You can't really blame them but so much though. If I didn't have any moral and I knew my voters were dumber then a box of rocks, I would probably play the class warfare game as well.
p allen "If your personal income is over 250k then you have a reason not to approve of the presidents campaign pledge."
First off his just gaved on his pledge. Second, why should any group of citizens be singled out aka discriminated against in having their taxes increased at all? It is such a farce believing that people who make over $250k a year are rich. Try living off $250k a year in New York City, San Francisco, Boston, Washington DC and other cities and see how far that so called "wealth" will get you. Class Warfare is for people who think on emotion and not with common sense. Liberals love to put groups against each other and benefit off the friction. People like Hitler, Castro, Chavez and other dictators came to power using that same method of divide and conquer.
p allen "If your personal income is lower than 250k, or you're one of the 9.8% unemployed, you're wishing on a star."
Wishing on a star? Hell, I thought they were wishing on "HOPE AND CHANGE" allen. lol Remember the whole "HOPE & CHANGE" thing allen? Doesn't it seem like a distant memory now?
p allen "The republican defense (aka, talking point) for extending the Bush tax rates for the richest Americans is that "lower tax rates creates jobs." The Bush tax rates have been in effect for almost "10 YEARS", and yet job losses are still mounting. Thus, there is absolutely no evidence that lower taxes for rich people creates jobs!"
Duh allen. The Bush era tax cuts did create the environment for private sector job creation. It wasn't until the oil hit $100 dollars a barrel that it put a halt on the economy. The sub prime housing market bubble burst slammed it into reverse. When the financial markets dried up, small businesses could access credit to fund their businesses, and that is when the lay offs started too happen. Raising taxes will only make the economy much worse then it already is.
Hope and change was Karl Marx and Engles' mantra when they wrote the Communist Manifesto while in France.
In short no.
Look at the kickback to Obama's allies in big education in the Dream Act.
CB;"Try living off $250k a year in New York City, San Francisco, Boston, Washington DC and other cities and see how far that so called "wealth" will get you".
Really??? Given the current state of the economy, along with record losses in 401k's, wall street, pensions, upside down property values, law-offs, ect... 250k ain't peanuts!
I wonder how the "MAYORS" of those cities are surviving?
Mayor Bloomberg of New York doesn't take (or need) a salary.
Mayor Newsom of San Fransisco makes $168,867 annually.
Mayor Driscoll of Boston makes $87,773.
Mayor Fenty of D.C. makes $200,000.
Mayor Villaraigosa of Los Angeles makes $205,661.
Even though they all might have other sources of income, those salaries are below the $250,000 proposed, and yet are hardly chicken feed!
Come on now Tyrone... Are you pulling down 250k a year? If you are, then I understand your opposition. If not, then whats your objection to a 4% - 6% tax increase on something you're only dreaming about? (ala, Joe the Plumber)
CB;"Duh allen. The Bush era tax cuts did create the environment for private sector job creation".
"ENVIRONMENT??" An environment always and inevitably reacts, and has effects on that which is in the environment. Yet somehow you believe that the Bush tax cuts had no effect on the present state of the federal deficit or the economy??
I understand that you're a right-wing hack, but don't pretend you're blind to the facts. Two "unpaid for" wars, deregulation of banks (since Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act), and tax cuts of $700 billion on the rich...there's your "environment."!
Thus, there is absolutely no evidence that lower taxes for rich people creates jobs!
There's at least as much evidence for it as there was for Obama's "saved Stimulus jobs". So in conclusion: The Bush tax cuts saved 10 million jobs in this recession. The Obama "porkulus" spending only saved 2 million jobs. As conclusive proof as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) was that Bush was 5:1 a better President than Obama.
p allen "Come on now Tyrone... Are you pulling down 250k a year? If you are, then I understand your opposition. If not, then whats your objection to a 4% - 6% tax increase on something you're only dreaming about? (ala, Joe the Plumber)"
No, I'm not pulling down $250k a year allen, but I also don't have a problem with those who are doing it either. Why do libs feel entitled to other people's money? Go out an earn your own you lazy bums!! Stop being human leeches,dam. The whole class envy bs is has gotten old real fast.
p allen ""ENVIRONMENT??" An environment always and inevitably reacts, and has effects on that which is in the environment. Yet somehow you believe that the Bush tax cuts had no effect on the present state of the federal deficit or the economy?? "
Genius, and I do use the word extremely lightly with you allen. Tax cuts don'ts cause deficits!! Liberals can never explain why
TAX REVENUES INCREASE EVERY TIME TAXES ARE CUT!!!
The deficits are created due to GOVERNMENT OVERSPENDING. It doesn't matter if the government takes in 5 dollars in extra revenue when the government is going to spend 10 dollars. There is still going to be a deficit even with the extra income coming in from the tax cuts. THIS IS SIMPLE COMMON SENSE!!!!! My mistake, I didn't mean to use common sense and allen in the same sentence. lol
Joe Conservative" There's at least as much evidence for it as there was for Obama's "saved Stimulus jobs". So in conclusion: The Bush tax cuts saved 10 million jobs in this recession. The Obama "porkulus" spending only saved 2 million jobs. As conclusive proof as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) was that Bush was 5:1 a better President than Obama."
If people like allen were running this country, our country would be a third world country in five years flat joe. I bet allen still believes in those "shovel ready jobs". With only 39,000 jobs created nationally for the month of November, there must not be a whole lot of shoveling going on.
CB;"TAX REVENUES INCREASE EVERY TIME TAXES ARE CUT!!!".
EVERY TIME?? That's got to be the "STOOOO-PIDEST" thing I've ever heard!!!
How in the sam hill can a "tax-cut" cause tax revenues increase in an economy that's constantly "LOSING" jobs and workers???? How can you collect taxes on people who don't have jobs? Furthermore, how in the hell can you cut taxes on "WAGES" that are not being earned?
In addition, there is no proof or evidence (empirical or otherwise) that shows that cutting taxes on rich people (mind you, or what ever your definition of rich might be) that has caused, or will cause employment figures to rise. Thus show proof, derived and proven by a legitimate economist, that shows an increase in employment when taxes are lowered on rich people...
Every economist and economic entity on the planet has shown that The cost of extending all the tax cuts over 10 years would have been $3.7 trillion.
Even a government surplus during the Clinton years was not enough to convince right-wing hacks on the effects of a sound tax policy. How about looking at some FACTS!!
The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton's fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries".
Thus, even though the government had debts, a surplus occurred under Clinton's tax increase's which "fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers".
CB;"No, I'm not pulling down $250k a year allen, but I also don't have a problem with those who are doing it either. Why do libs feel entitled to other people's money? Go out an earn your own you lazy bums!! Stop being human leeches,dam. The whole class envy bs is has gotten old real fast".
Weak argument Tyrone. If I was a millionaire, and you told me that, I'd say "right-on" bro.... now go get me a scotch and soda. The last thing I would want is for you to be rich like me. You know why? Because while you're fighting to keep my taxes low, I can concentrate on how I can continue paying as little as possible, while making sure you pay more!
I read this story a few month ago. Frank and Jamie McCourt have an estimated net worth of $1.2 billion. With an annual income of $108 million, they found a way to pay NO TAXES from 2004 through 2009. It's also known that most of McCourts business dealings have come at the tax payers expense.
If I were in the same position, I really don't know if I would do the same. However, I would be more that willing to put up money to support any group of average earning people (aka, middle and lower class earners) to protest any legislation that would make me pay more of anything.
Since you, and many others like you aren't rich, the last thing you should worry about is "other peoples money." If you're rich that's when you concern yourself with other people's money. Why...? Because you want as much of their money as you can get! If I'm a rich property owner, I'm not concerned about what you can't pay. My focus is on who and what will pay!! And as many of those who can and will pay!!!
As far as "class warfare", Tyrone from Baltimore should trying mingling as an intellectual equal with the Bush's or the Reagans, or even in the same circles as Rush Limbaugh. Although, don't be surprised when they ask you to serve them a drink, or park their car. For their sake, they want you right were you are, saying exactly what you're saying, and doing exactly what you do!!!
There's some shoveling going on all right, only it ain't got nothin' to do with jobs. ;)
Greedy businessmen took jobs to China and India. Those nations pat from 10 cents to 1.80 per hour
bringing the products back to America. Now we owe China. Insanity.
250,000 is not much money in 2010. If you own small business. By the time yu pay employees, rent, gas and electric, insurance and supplies. not much left
Hope and change was Karl Marx and Engles' mantra when they wrote the Communist Manifesto while in France.
Joe Conservative;" There's at least as much evidence for it as there was for Obama's "saved Stimulus jobs". So in conclusion: The Bush tax cuts saved 10 million jobs in this recession. The Obama "porkulus" spending only saved 2 million jobs".
There's no definitive way to accurately measure how, or if either Bush or Obama have "saved jobs." However, THIS CHART show the rate of "job losses" slowing under the Obama administration.
As far as the Bush tax cuts "saving" anything, the idea just doesn't add up. As reported in 2009, the Wall Street Journal shows that "President G.W. Bush, once taking account how long heβs been in office, shows the worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records.
The government records show that 3 million jobs were created during the Bush administration. Your records claim that 10 million jobs were saved. Let's do a little math...
10 - 3 = 7
Using the English Standard mathematics system, (don't worry about all those zero's, just use the "millions place"), that leaves seven. However, only 3 million jobs were created under 8 years of the Bush administration. Now take into account that Bush had the worst record since such record keeping began. Thus, it's totally impossible for 10 million jobs to have been "saved or created" under Bush. I'm sorry to inform you that your records are wrong.
Between '02 when the Bush tax cuts took effect and '07, Bush created over 8 million jobs. Then the Democrats took control of both houses of Congress and it's been downhill EVER since.
The Democrats have ruined our economy. They drove us into the ditch. It's time for a PERMANENT change. They should NEVER be allowed near the keys of power again.
Joe;"Between '02 when the Bush tax cuts took effect and '07, Bush created over 8 million jobs. Then the Democrats took control of both houses of Congress and it's been downhill EVER since".
Do you get all of your statistics and information from a "blog?" (not just any blog, but one powered by the "free Blogger" which anyone can have)
So what you're telling me is that, one, the Wall Street Journal fabricated the information it posted as actual government figures. Or two, you're saying that the government fabricated it's own figures. Moreover, that the "Chez Gene" blog has the actual facts and figures... interesting...
I typically get my statistical information from outlets who source their stats directly from the government. Sometimes I'll get the stats directly from the government bureaus myself.
In July of 2003 the New York Times ran an article in it's business section outlining a lose of 2 million jobs since he had taken office.
But since you rely on "blogs" for your statistical information, take a look at Wikipedias chart. It shows;
2001β2005 Job Creation = +4.2 (million)
2005-2009 Job Creation = +1.9
That totals 6.1, and still about 2 million short of "Chez Gene." However, you stated "8 million" between 02' and 07'.
Let's assume that the Wiki total of jobs were added on a yearly basis. If we quarter the totals of both Bush terms;
2001β2005 (4.2 / 4 = 1.05)per/year
2005β2009 (1.9 / 4 = 0.475)
and add up the years 02' thru 07' that you claim 8 million jobs were created;
2002-2005 (1.05 + 1.05 + 1.05 = 3.15)
2006-2007 (0.475)
Total = 3.625
Hummm? Still way short of the 8 million claim? Oh well, you can't always trust Wikipedia anyway. I guess you better stick with "Chez Gene."
Ohhhhh nellie!!
You were wrong Joe! Bush created actually created 50 MILLION JOBS!!
The facts are Right Here.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha. Look at the "source" for Chez Gene's entry you were complaining about. Shazaam. It's none other than "The New York Times".
Grow up, p. anthony.
And as my post goes to show, just how many "jobs" Bush created depends upon "where" you draw the lines to start and stop the clock. And starting it AFTER the Clin-toon "recession" and ending it after the Dems take Congress makes a LOT more sense than the NYT's favoured methodology... which is, simply put... just "blame Bush".
Joe;"Bwah-ha-ha-ha. Look at the "source" for Chez Gene's entry you were complaining about. Shazaam. It's none other than "The New York Times".
Shazaam??? Wasn't that part played by Shaquille O'Neil??
I saw where the "graph" came from Joe. Your problem is that you didn't read what I said...
I typically get my statistical information from outlets who source their stats directly from the government. Sometimes I'll get the stats directly from the government bureaus myself.
Just to show you how writers can be opinionated, I went on to give you another article from the NY times. However my point is that you got your information from a "blog." Did "Chez Gene" source it's info directly from the government?? NO!
Snap!
The article from which "Chez Gene" obtained the graph is entitled "A Long Road Ahead in Regaining Lost Jobs". Either the link to the NY Times has been removed from the blog, or there never was one.
Crackle!
Perhaps you're seeing something in that graph that I'm not seeing.
There are two numbered points to the "projections" portion of the graph. The point numbered "1" clearly states "Moderate strong recovery as in the 1990's". Point "2" clearly states, "Weak recovery as in the 2000's". If the projection and hypothesis of the author draws a comparison of the "weak recovery" of the 2000's, where did you get the idea that 8 million jobs were created?
POP!
I wonder if those Rice Crispy guys have a blog?
Are you illiterate, p. anthony? The source was the BLS. The "projections" were from the Times. It isn't THAT hard.
*Poof*
That was the sound of your argument collapsing.
As for the 8 million, that's the trough to peak gain in the chart during the Bush era.
It's not that hard to read a graph p.anthony. Try doing it w/o the political spinners interpretations for a change. Maybe you can stop allowing yourself to be spoon-fed liberal pundit de jour misinformation that way. ;)
Joe;"Are you illiterate, p. anthony? The source was the BLS. The "projections" were from the Times. It isn't THAT hard".
No I'm not. But I beginning to think that you don't comprehend so well...
Again, I said;Just to show you how writers can be opinionated,
Doesn't that statement indicate to you that I knew the "projections" were from the NY Time writer? I used a NY TImes article also. I never stated that sourcing from a major news outlet was ill-advised. My point is clear...you used a blog as a source for government employment stats. Try using this blog for information on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
You should try getting information directly from the government's own sites. It's not the hard
Joe;"Maybe you can stop allowing yourself to be spoon-fed liberal pundit de jour misinformation that way"
Says the guy that get's his infomation from a blog! Not just any blog, but one that allows anybody to have one...totally free!
I like this Joe better than the one that calls people names and tries to insult people. Dramatic verbs are much more fun than insults!
"zing!"
You should try getting information directly from the government's own sites. It's not the hard.
Gee, I didn't know that I was only to believe what the government posted. That sounds like really good advice, p. anthony. Now maybe we can get rid of that nasty opinionated "fourth estate" media outlets like the NY Times, as the government tells the only "reliable" truth. And we certainly don't need those Wikileak a-holes.
Wow! You're a really brilliant guy, p. anthony. ;)
Joe;"Wow! You're a really brilliant guy, p. anthony".
Thank you Joe! Spread the word before my book comes out...
Joe;"Now maybe we can get rid of that nasty opinionated "fourth estate" media outlets like the NY Times, as the government tells the only "reliable" truth. And we certainly don't need those Wikileak a-holes".
I wonder why Tyrone hasn't done an essay on Wikileaks? In my opinion, the airing of corruption and incompetence is not the fault of Wikileaks, but of the individuals involved. It seems to me that we should be questioning the actions of the authorities, (which is a basic tenet of democracy) rather than "killing the messenger."
Moreover, in reading through most of the released "so-called secrets", I've yet to find one bit of information that would have a direct or a negative impact on the American public at large.
Hell, I like to know if there really is something to the government facility at Area 51! Where did HIV and AIDS really come from? Are all the records destroyed from the governments mind control experiments in Project MK-ULTRA? What are those secret rooms used for nine story's below N.Y. Grand Central Terminal? Has the government ever tested biological agents on foreign, or it's own population?
The release of information such as those poses more of a polarizing effect and the possibility of a "real" threat to the American public. Even more of a threat is the idea of "censoring" the press. (ala, Congressman-elect Alan West). The last thing you would want to do is ride the slippery-slope of crushing the rights of freedom of speech and the press.
I believe that the wiki leak person julllian assange is a piece of human garbage, and the people who support him aren't that far behind him. It is no surprise that amaerican hating liberals like Michael Moore and other rich liberals posted his bail and have him current residing in the lap of luxury awaiting to find out whether he will be expedited to Sweden to face rape charges. I've haven't really said anything about Jullian, because people who share my views on him have said more then I ever could about him. The U.S isn't the only county on the planet that has secrets in it's government, yet Jullian appears to only concerned about our government. So I don't see his in the light as the left do as some sort of crusader to bring transparency to the government. The problem with us knowing every single detail about our government's military and covert operations is that our enemies will also know what we know. Jullian is NOT a hero by the furthest stretch of the human imagination.
CB;"The problem with us knowing every single detail about our government's military and covert operations is that our enemies will also know what we know".
That's totally "ASS-BACKWARDS"!!! The so-called "enemy" already knows because the "secrets" being revealed, are what's happening to them!!
Have you read through any of the released documents Tyrone? The ones that are still available are here. Some of the links have been hacked, but a lot of the so-called "secrets" are mainly diplomatic information transfers and War Logs documenting the carnage of the Iraq and Afghan wars.
I've read through quite a few and have yet to find anything that could make "your or my life" as Americans any less safe. Furthermore, there's nothing that I've found in the "leaks" that any enemy of the U.S. shouldn't already know. Click the link and read for yourself.
I know that the leaks are a nightmare for U.S. politicians and officials, but hey, it was their policy screw-ups anyway. If you find something that you believe might cause the American public any harm, post it...
It seems to me that we should be questioning the actions of the authorities, (which is a basic tenet of democracy) rather than "killing the messenger."
"You should try getting information directly from the government's own sites. It's not the hard."
However my point is that you got your information from a "blog." Did "Chez Gene" source it's info directly from the government?? NO!
Snap!
Corn-fuZed much??? lol!
I suppose the "quality" of YOUR source depends ENTIRELY upon whether or not what they say supports your opinion.
There was a tradition in the temple of Dodona that oaks first gave prophetic utterances. The men of old, unlike in their simplicity to young philosophy, deemed that if they heard the truth even from "oak or rock," it was enough for them; whereas you seem to consider not whether a thing is or is not true, but who the speaker is and from what country the tale comes. Plato, "Phaedrus"
Joe;"Wow! You're a really brilliant guy, p. anthony".
...Brilliant. But at the same time, not very "bright". ;)
Joe;"Corn-fuZed much???.
Ahhh...Yeah.. Do you think you've found a smoking gun or some kind of got'cha moment?
Joe;"I suppose the "quality" of YOUR source depends ENTIRELY upon whether or not what they say supports your opinion".
Joe, it's neither the "quality or quantity", it's the "source of the message."
Allow me to explain in very simple terms...
Do you know what typically happens when someone tells a story to one person, then that person tells the story to another, then another, etc...?
What happens is that the story becomes distorted. That's why writers use quotation methods (quote-en-quote), footnotes, source methods, and now, with the internet, Hyperlinks.
I, and I suppose like most, have a problem with using a "blog" as a source for pertinent information. Particularly a blog that has no reporters or journalist who can interview direct sources, and quote the sources directly with a degree of reliability. Really, how good is the "quality" of a story that has been reconstituted twice before it gets to you? Politicians already slice and dice monthly job reports to score economic talking points. Include a few months of job losses here, exclude some job gains there, or do it all in reverse, and everybody's "Corn-fuZed!"
Chez Gene is not a messenger, nor a source for reliable information, no more than your own blog is. If I need government stats and can't obtain them from directly from the government, I'd prefer to get the information, at the very least, from an outlet that has writers, journalist or a reporter who talks to government officials.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha!
The linked graph from "Chez Gene" was on the NY Time's website. Didn't you see the URL?
You were saying, again???
Joe, okay, show where on the graph that indicates 8 million jobs were created by Bush.
I'll wait...
Wow. And I thought Osmium was the densest natural element. You need "labels" and a NY Times spindoctor to read a graph?
Try using a little of your natural intelligence for a change p. anthony and FIGURE IT OUT. Who knows, after you master "graph reading" perhaps you can move on to Editorial pages... until then, best refrain from commenting anywhere but your diary.
You know what Joe? I play poker with my buddies from time to time. The strategy involves bluffing your opponent to get an edge in the game. Each player hides, uses subtle trickery and, basically lies in order to win the game. Thus, only when playing "GAMES" your opponent will use's tactics to have you "figure out" what they're trying to do.
Conversely, the key element to debating an issue is not "figuring out" your opponents position.
You really need to Learn how to Debate. Pay close attention to the 2nd and 3rd suggestions.
The idea is being able to prove your point. I'm sure I've "figured it out", as my point has now been proven.
The graph proves MY point p. anthony, and exposes you for the pea brain progressive critic you are. So take a "debating tip" from someone who knows, when you're right, argue the facts and when your NOT, argue about the messenger. AND your argument has been ALL about the messenger. Grow the 'f up.
There's nothing on that graph that indicates that Bush "created" anything. If it did you would have been more than quick (and happy) to point it out.
In addition, I've already stated that ad hominem attacks are senseless, and are an indicator of the lack of respect for yourself and your ideas.
Joe, a lie is a lie, and the truth is the truth. Lies often are told to cover up, or "out lie", over other lies. But there's no such thing as "out truths" of the truth. Therefore this debate (or whatever you want to call it) stands moot on the grounds that you can't prove your assertions. Simply put, I can't debate a lie, nor a liar.
Poppa' told me to never argue with liars or fools. When I asked why, he said; "Because if someone else is listening, they won't be able to tell the difference"!
Subject closed...
I take it back. You're far too stupid to even read a graph. I gave you FAR too much credit believing you had ANY analystic ability. Not only are you partially illiterate, you're completely innumerate. I won't misoverestimate you again.
Post a Comment
<< Home