You can prove that, of course, right?

And you don’t want that. Gotcha.

Can I have yours?

I thought you were doing a decent job of attempting the former, frankly. I certainly learned a few things from your earlier comments on this thread.

Stop being such a fucking sensitive delicate flower.

Ok, THAT was pretty funny.

Stop being such a fucking sensitive delicate flower.

When was the last time someone swore at you and called you stupid and through that behavior, caused you to change your mind?

We’re not interested in the futile effort of changing the minds of Jay, et al. We’re here to demoralize and humiliate them.

I have no problem with occasional cursing. But if we’ve learned nothing else from South Park, it’s that swearing loses its meaning when it’s repeated ad nauseum.

I have no problem with swearing. I do have a problem with people who purport to be somewhat reasonable or intelligent resorting to namecalling and swearing upon nearly any provocation. It detracts from the conversation and serves to undermine the intelligence of both the commenter and those who agree with the commenter.

When was the last time someone swore at you and called you stupid and through that behavior, caused you to change your mind?

Basically, I guess I’m saying that if someone can’t refute someone’s argument without calling them a fucking idiot, then maybe their debate opponent isn’t the only small-minded one.

What you do with your stimulus check this year? Did you cash it or send it back?

Obama is speaking specifically about income taxes. He will raise the taxes on the rich and give part of that money to the rest of us in the form of tax rebates. Those without enough income to tax will still get checks. You can call public assistance in the form of a rebate for income tax that wasn’t ever paid anything you want. That doesn’t change what it is though, public assistance. It’s making the welfare state bigger, it’s building public dependency and creating a welfare mentality which I can sadly see too many of you have already possess.

Creating a welfare mentality, that someone else will pay, is bad. It’s bad if Bush does it, It’s bad if McCain does it, it’s bad if Obama does it. Of the three mentioned I think Obama will do it the most. Almost all politicians do it but it’s been a long time since anyone was as blatant as Obama about trading handouts for votes.

We didn’t found this nation with The Declaration of Dependance, there’s no reason to live off public assistance.

Perhaps if you REALLY listen to him this time, you’ll get it.

but I won’t hold my breath.

AO, what you’re saying here is “Yes, I’m wrong, but I will choose to ignore that and proceed with my stupid point anyway.”

Now what term would you consider correct for giving tax refunds back to people who haven’t paid any taxes to begin with.

Well, Bush called his a “stimulus check”: “People who did not pay federal income taxes but who had earned income of more than $3,000 would get checks of $300 per individual or $600 per couple.”
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/24/economic.stimulus/index.html

“But there should be stigma attached to living off the dole.”

I don’t know AO. Anyone who can stretch one tax refund check to last 12 months of the year certainly has some awesome budgeting skillz.

In other words, not only are you twisting the definition of tax refund to mean “welfare,” you’re stretching it even further to suggest that receiving one tax refund check a year constitutes “living off the dole.”

And you are correct about one thing: There is no such thing as free money. Accordingly, the vast majority of American adults pay taxes of one sort or another, whether it’s in the form of income taxes, sales taxes, federal excise taxes etc. etc. etc. Every time you put gas in your tank you are pay a federal tax. No one is getting money without having paid taxes in one way or another.

Now what term would you consider correct for giving tax refunds back to people who haven’t paid any taxes to begin with. A rebate, a subsidy, welfare, the dole? What ever the term, it is taking money from the more prosperous and redistributing that money among the less prosperous.

Obama seeks to increase the size of the subsidy receiving portion of society. I call that increasing the size of the welfare state. Many here would disagree, perhaps the term subsidy state sounds better, less stigma attached to it.

But there should be stigma attached to living off the dole. Our nation can afford to provide for widows and orphans, but the able bodied? That is shameful. Some of you have no pride. Obama may very well win this election, the Republic will endure.

Remember the bumpersticker “Work hard, people on welfare are counting on your taxes “Everybody likes free money, too bad it doesn’t exist. I don’t see how many of you can have any self respect lining up to the public trough for your welfare money. If ignorance is bliss then undoubtedly many of you will be quite happy living in a larger welfare state.

Hell yeah!

I used to read his essays on economic and social/cultural issues with some pleasure, but he appears to have his heart set on becoming the Westbrook Pegler of this century. NOT an ambition to encourage, IMNHSO.