How Much More In Taxes Do Liberal Want Me To Pay?

[Mr. P]

My undercover source says, “The foundation estimates that in 2005 Americans gave $260.28 billion. However, $0 will go to food banks, it is being secretly diverted to a special Bush/Chaney bank account, allowing thousands to starve in the US.”

Show me the bodies!

 

[catatonic]

This just in;

Hamburgers at fast food restaurants are laced with mind controlling drugs. I know this to be fact. An industry insider has revealed the infromation to me, some guy who works at Joe's Flop and Burn Burger Shack told me so.

Resume thread.

I so don't care about correcting red states rule's blatantly self-serving short-sided statistics that understand nothing.

I so do care about discussing this stuff MtnBiker said. If that's all he's aware of I know way way more about all that stuff. But I strongly feel it's best not to talk about it ever except in private or if your rights are actually violated and I will generally try to avoid it. My only concern is whether mind control influences presidential elections or leads people to suicide. Since that is extremely important to the fabric of society, I feel justified in discussing it. So yes, Diebold is irrelevant. There was mind control used in various forms by the Republicans to sway voters. I only hope Democrats will wise up and use it too. As for inducing suicide, I have no idea one way or the other if that happens.

 

[Mr. P]

I so don't care about correcting red states rule's blatantly self-serving short-sided statistics that understand nothing.

I so do care about discussing this stuff MtnBiker said. If that's all he's aware of I know way way more about all that stuff. But I strongly feel it's best not to talk about it ever except in private or if your rights are actually violated and I will generally try to avoid it. My only concern is whether mind control influences presidential elections or leads people to suicide. Since that is extremely important to the fabric of society, I feel justified in discussing it. So yes, Diebold is irrelevant. There was mind control used in various forms by the Republicans to sway voters. I only hope Democrats will wise up and use it too. As for inducing suicide, I have no idea one way or the other if that happens.

:rotflmao: I just can't argue with a psyco. :rotflmao:

 

[red states rule]

I so don't care about correcting red states rule's blatantly self-serving short-sided statistics that understand nothing.

I so do care about discussing this stuff MtnBiker said. If that's all he's aware of I know way way more about all that stuff. But I strongly feel it's best not to talk about it ever except in private or if your rights are actually violated and I will generally try to avoid it. My only concern is whether mind control influences presidential elections or leads people to suicide. Since that is extremely important to the fabric of society, I feel justified in discussing it. So yes, Diebold is irrelevant. There was mind control used in various forms by the Republicans to sway voters. I only hope Democrats will wise up and use it too. As for inducing suicide, I have no idea one way or the other if that happens.

Since when do liberals want to debate facts?

 

[catatonic]

Alright. Here goes it.

Here's just the bare bones skeleton summary. I actually did pull it right out of my ass after a night of no sleep recently, yet if any step in it can't be overwhelmingly demonstrated on the Internet or by the appropriate source, I highly feel this argument can be adjusted slightly and virtually all conclusions will be the same. I have lots to back up each step, and I have a lot more up my sleeve after this.

industrial revolution occured -> population increased -> population got more dense -> denser population required denser resources there to live -> denser population also has less ability to generate basic resources internally -> intellectual resources are generally-speaking limited the same amount (yes I know they're unlimited but practically speaking they can be made at a finite accelerating rate)-> denser population must therefore live more off of rural areas as business to sustain itself -> people in rural areas can make business off urban areas the same as vice versa -> denser population must be more organized than rural areas to successfully gain their money -> denser populations are more professional and distribute the necessary network over a more determined nature -> people have less control over who they associate with as a matter of life and death and less intimacy to say, "Hey I need $5999 to get through the year." -> everyone is more professional from the street babbler to the corporate ceo (more schizophrenia too, another detriment to finding work and very expensive to treat) -> less resources means less safety nets -> people starve if not for more organization -> they demand liberal government, the more dense the more liberal -> they never get it due to average of voters, which causes massive damage, and conservatives in rural areas complain about too much government which is relatively like an unfair speed limit sign or taking down a crucifix on the highway to them -> dense population is underfunded in organization and government, allowing more crime, also allowed by inherently knowing a smaller percentage of the population -> the government must be more underground -> the government must use more deception in its running candidates to win, and more deception to run government (as everyone must use more deception call it professionalism if you would like. It may not be deception it just has to be the natural force sucking the rural areas dry of money when they are no more or less inherently intelligent) -> denser populations mean more money thrown at paralyzing the intellect of elected officials to overwhelm them on deciding issues -> less intimacy means less voter knowledge to judge -> also its like there is more density in the government itself, allowing more crime thereby -> the people at the bottom thank their lucky stars for the government as it is all that keeps them alive, and can't understand why libertarians and conservatives want them dead -> George Bush has nerves of steel! -> Kofi Annan!!. Government corruption I believe is mathematically balanced with corporate corruption as well as individual corruption, all just a function of what it is. -> the corruption is inherent in the size and agreed to by voters, it's just that they drive the size of their government by population density. -> As population density grows in variance, and it always does, the ever denser populations will be more left in the dark in terms of having enough government -> which, having nothing at all to do with Malthus, is why more and more will starve.

Big cities sell nothing but information. (What else comes out of them and that doesn't come in?) They buy legal goods from small towns, slap on information, and sell it back. They are completely at the mercy of the red areas. They sell information to small towns.

Now you can argue the statistics, but the fact that all the most densely populated areas vote liberal is undeniable. The reason is pretty well established by this argument, if they can't get more organization they can't sustain themselves because they inherently have less resources internally and less intimacy, and more and more will starve. One solution is for a president to run a campaign of big government for big cities and small government for small towns. I feel he'd/she'd get elected in a landslide. But if you can't do that, please realize that the big cities are the ones where the people suffer. Massively insufficient government is a humongous problem. Minorly overgoverning is just a minor inconvenience. So if we can't reach a compromise, I urge you to vote liberal for the sake of the real sufferers. Go to downtown Detroit, LA, NYC, Chicago, or Las Vegas and you'll see.

Oh, and this I believe is the one and only reason I will accept for why any liberal hates Wal-Mart. Nothing else accounts for it. Because they compete against big cities, to help those rural areas who both need and want absolutely no help, to damage those urban areas who both need and want the profits desperately. Liberals don't derive their living from communism. They have to be capitalists too. And Wal-Mart competes against liberals.

 

[catatonic]

Since when do liberals want to debate facts?

Since when do conservatives want to debate relevant facts?

If you would care to comment on whether you think the top 0.1% suffer more or the bottom 0.1%, and whether you think increasing the suffering on earth is a worthy example set by your role models, I'd be glad to acknowledge and discuss your less important facts. But since we can't even agree it's good to alleviate suffering, what good are facts? Your facts are totally one-sided and self-suffering. All they do is try to quantify one group of people's suffering, with no objective way of quantifying it or comparing it. Try something more relevant.

Do the largest sufferers in the world complain? A good question for you all.

 

[catatonic]

:rotflmao: I just can't argue with a psyco. :rotflmao:

You son of a bitch! You accepted Mtn. Biker's comment without question, but when a liberal brings up the same topic, you just can't argue with a psycho. Nor can you spell psycho.

Why don't you just say, "I just can't argue with you successfully," and leave the psycho part for the asylums to decide?

 

[catatonic]

And I have a friend that went out one day and offered 10 homeless people a month's rent, a week's worth of clothes, and enough food to last until his first paycheck, but they turned him down because all this came with the condition that they work for him. They all turned him down.

Exactly! Quite common! Which shows they are not looking for handouts they don't need or charity they don't need, which proves many points I've been trying to make already! Yet if someone offers to pay a billionaire's taxes, they are all over it. And yet many people are starving.

I've stated I'm in extreme poverty myself. Do I beg? No. Would I accept a handout... at least for me not if the cash was filthy, but the homeless are more principled than I am. When those scams from Nigeria hit the e-mail, I didn't yet know they were scams, and yet I turned down the millions of dollars on principle alone, because the money was filthy in the scam scenarios.

And regular people are also similar to the homeless in this regard. I've got 3 computers, 2 working and one with working devices like a zip drive. I've tried giving the extra ones away to the people around me, but never suceeded. Just a part of life that people don't always accept what they don't need even if free.

However, for the record, I feel those homeless people should have taken your friend up on the offer.

 

[MissileMan]

Exactly! Quite common! Which shows they are not looking for handouts they don't need or charity they don't need, which proves many points I've been trying to make already! Yet if someone offers to pay a billionaire's taxes, they are all over it. And yet many people are starving.

I've stated I'm in extreme poverty myself. Do I beg? No. Would I accept a handout... at least for me not if the cash was filthy, but the homeless are more principled than I am. When those scams from Nigeria hit the e-mail, I didn't yet know they were scams, and yet I turned down the millions of dollars on principle alone, because the money was filthy in the scam scenarios.

And regular people are also similar to the homeless in this regard. I've got 3 computers, 2 working and one with working devices like a zip drive. I've tried giving the extra ones away to the people around me, but never suceeded. Just a part of life that people don't always accept what they don't need even if free.

However, for the record, I feel those homeless people should have taken your friend up on the offer.

Can you explain how someone who owns 3 computers and has access to the internet is suffering from "extreme" poverty?

 

[red states rule]

Since when do conservatives want to debate relevant facts?

If you would care to comment on whether you think the top 0.1% suffer more or the bottom 0.1%, and whether you think increasing the suffering on earth is a worthy example set by your role models, I'd be glad to acknowledge and discuss your less important facts. But since we can't even agree it's good to alleviate suffering, what good are facts? Your facts are totally one-sided and self-suffering. All they do is try to quantify one group of people's suffering, with no objective way of quantifying it or comparing it. Try something more relevant.

Do the largest sufferers in the world complain? A good question for you all.

Do you think it is fair for 25% of the producers to pay 84% of all Federal Income taxes?

 

[Mr. P]

You son of a bitch! You accepted Mtn. Biker's comment without question, but when a liberal brings up the same topic, you just can't argue with a psycho. Nor can you spell psycho.

Why don't you just say, "I just can't argue with you successfully," and leave the psycho part for the asylums to decide?

Why waste the time on a psycho? Is that better?

 

[catatonic]

If you feel I am an unreliable source, based on this thread I understand.
I stated 500,000 Americans are starving to death with no source, claiming the media won't cover it.
I stated the results of a secret agent who did a study on the homeless, and can't reveal his name.
I took off with MtnBiker's comment because I'm fascinated by that stuff, but stated I think it's unwise to talk about it over the Internet which I firmly believe.
So you have your right to think parts of this thread are fabricated, but I feel my justifications I gave are totally legitimate.
For the first two, you can ask those in the know, find out for yourself, or just apply reasoning. For the last one, it's just unwise to talk about it in public without extreme precision.
But if you have anything else you'd like me to back up, I'd be pleased to.

 

[MissileMan]

I took off with MtnBiker's comment because I'm fascinated by that stuff, but stated I think it's unwise to talk about it over the Internet which I firmly believe.

Dude! Your sarcasm recognition software is corrupted and non-functional...as a matter of fact, I'd say your hard drive needs reformatting! :rotflmao:

 

[Mr. P]

Dude! Your sarcasm recognition software is corrupted and non-functional...as a matter of fact, I'd say your hard drive needs reformatting! :rotflmao:

Yep, in this case it’s “Format c:” C being, Cerebrum.

 

[catatonic]

I reprogram myself each month by fasting, plenty of fluids, sensory deprivation and meditation and I'm two days late which can make my system a little corrupted. I can change just about any part of my personality I can define.

But why don't we ask MtnBiker if he was being sarcastic, if he wants to answer? What would be the point of bringing up mind control drugs in small restaurant chains out of the blue as sarcasm?

When somebody's sarcasm is the same as their comments, what is the point of distinguishing them?

 

[Mr. P]

I reprogram myself each month by fasting, plenty of fluids, sensory deprivation and meditation and I'm two days late which can make my system a little corrupted. I can change just about any part of my personality I can define.

But why don't we ask MtnBiker if he was being sarcastic, if he wants to answer? What would be the point of bringing up mind control drugs in small restaurant chains out of the blue as sarcasm?

When somebody's sarcasm is the same as their comments, what is the point of distinguishing them?

Leave MtnBiker alone. He is a real secret agent and very very Dangerous!
So far you have been very lucky. There are many more agents here too, I wouldn't push it, I promise they are watching.

 

[catatonic]

My first thread was on global warming, and like 4 moderators came in! lol!

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

I so don't care about correcting red states rule's blatantly self-serving short-sided statistics that understand nothing.

I so do care about discussing this stuff MtnBiker said. If that's all he's aware of I know way way more about all that stuff. But I strongly feel it's best not to talk about it ever except in private or if your rights are actually violated and I will generally try to avoid it. My only concern is whether mind control influences presidential elections or leads people to suicide. Since that is extremely important to the fabric of society, I feel justified in discussing it. So yes, Diebold is irrelevant. There was mind control used in various forms by the Republicans to sway voters. I only hope Democrats will wise up and use it too. As for inducing suicide, I have no idea one way or the other if that happens.

Holy shit, you are like the left wing version of RWA. I hope you stick around for a good while, and I am looking forward to the hilarious and inevitable clashes between you two. Cheers!

 

[MissileMan]

Holy shit, you are like the left wing version of RWA. I hope you stick around for a good while, and I am looking forward to the hilarious and inevitable clashes between you two. Cheers!

You mean a debate on whether it's "shiny side in" or "shiny side out" for a proper tin foil headwrap? :teeth:

 

[catatonic]

Sorry... the LWA doesn't exist.

Sorry... the movie Signs was crappy and unscientific.