do you really think i expect to change someone's mind on here at this point

10/29/2008 3:14:02 PM

tke, i hate to break it to you, but you're not paying taxes.

I seriously doubt whatever remedial job it is that you have decided to undertake isn't paying you anywhere near enough where you'll actually have to pay taxes.

but i can say this for you. you should no the complete lack of self-worth that comes from hanging out with a group of people who refuse to work or look for work and rely on a check from someone else in order to survive and get by day to day, especially when a large component of the things they use are not, in fact, necessities.

how much are those dues to TKE again?

your willingness to make these attacks on terpball here i take it are inversely proportional to your willingness to actually say it to his face.

10/29/2008 3:14:09 PM

Quote :

"and i have paid taxes and are paying taxes"

Also, you go to a state school. You are using more tax dollars than you are paying in.

[Edited on October 29, 2008 at 3:20 PM. Reason : .]

10/29/2008 3:15:23 PM

dues i havnt paid in 3 years

dues that are cheaper than living in the dorms


...

and i should (k)no(w)

[Edited on October 29, 2008 at 3:16 PM. Reason : ]

10/29/2008 3:15:25 PM

Quote :

"and i have paid taxes and are paying taxes"

10/29/2008 3:16:08 PM

no one has to know

[Edited on October 29, 2008 at 3:25 PM. Reason : fixed]

10/29/2008 3:19:27 PM

my mistake

10/29/2008 3:20:34 PM

Quote :

"and i have paid taxes and are paying taxes"

Even though apparently you couldn't pass a remedial high school grammar class, and somehow still got into NCSU, I think I understand what you're trying to say here.

But in reality, I am the one who is paying taxes right now, and you aren't. That's right, I'm paying for whatever passes for "education" in your classes, and that kinda pisses me off.

(Because apparently you aren't really being educated at all)

[Edited on October 29, 2008 at 3:28 PM. Reason : ]

10/29/2008 3:27:39 PM

10/29/2008 3:43:12 PM

10/29/2008 4:05:05 PM

I'd call the last page and a half of this thread a train wreck, but then I'd be insulting train wrecks everywhere.

Did shultz really just let the world know he is in fact an ignorant racist and failed out of school kids at the same time?

10/29/2008 4:21:44 PM

I'm glad he finally revealed himself for what he really is.

10/29/2008 4:28:31 PM

10/29/2008 4:30:22 PM

who failed out of school?

ad hominem attacks give you no cred.

Have fun voting for a socialist, you naive fools.

10/29/2008 4:33:42 PM

You're going to rolleyes?

After you posted this on the last page:

Quote :

"and you should be more concerned with the folks on MLK more than me cause i have worked, i am working, and i have paid taxes and are paying taxes so why dont you go to the areas of porch monkeys that have never worked and are not working and talk to them"

I'd love to see you walk into any room at States campus and say that shit. Your little scrawny bitch ass would get fucked up on site. And that's before the women get done with you.

[Edited on October 29, 2008 at 4:34 PM. Reason : 're]

10/29/2008 4:34:18 PM

wow, tkeshultz is a racist fuck.

10/29/2008 4:34:32 PM

socialist or not, i'd still vote for the guy over mccain any day since they both have socialist tendencies and especially since the term socialist has been so egregiously thrown around so much over the past 20 - 30 years that it really doesn't have the meaning it once did.

10/29/2008 4:36:42 PM

^yes obviously you'd rather vote for the guy with MORE socialist tendencies, that loves associating with extremists, and wouldn't dream of vetoing the democratic led senate and congress. I mean its almost the same thing!!!

10/29/2008 4:41:26 PM

not racist

10/29/2008 4:41:27 PM

Quote :

"yes obviously you'd rather vote for the guy with MORE socialist tendencies, that loves associating with extremists, and wouldn't dream of vetoing the democratic led senate and congress. I mean its almost the same thing!!!"

no i wouldn't vote for the guy with the more socialist tendencies and that is why i'm not voting for mccain. mccain is the one who stopped his campaign to ensure we could definitely pass a bill that gave 700+billion to industries allowing us to buy into them. this is socialization of the market place. its a stronger form of true socialism- which acts as the transition stage to communism- rather than, say, creating a few social programs that will help benefit us all.

10/29/2008 4:45:19 PM

i want to make a formal apology to terpball


i have said some things that were ignorant, and not respecting the view of this board

10/29/2008 4:49:10 PM

no no no you have it all wrong.

obama's a socialist because he wants to raise taxes on rich people. Oh and give a tax break to not-rich people.

10/29/2008 4:49:20 PM

Apology accepted - I'd recommend you take "porch monkey" and such terms out of your vocabulary while you are attempting to have a serious and/or intelligent conversation though.

10/29/2008 4:51:36 PM

exactly. its so clear to me now. allowing people who work and pay taxes but make under a certain amount to keep more of their income and get credited $500 of that is wealth distribution. but when you have people who have reasonable discretionary income and want to make sure they keep more of their money, its sound economics and is in no way associated with welfare.

10/29/2008 4:51:54 PM

^^^lol, have you researched anything this election or just cherry picked it from this msg board?

lmao

10/29/2008 4:52:02 PM

cherry picking ignorant shit

10/29/2008 4:53:23 PM

i apologize, that was out of line

this not the admins saying this either

10/29/2008 4:53:48 PM

Heres why redistribution is necessary. the people being taxed don't need this money. Its disposable income that they might spend or might not. Meanwhile the vast majority of workers need all the help they can get so its only fair that the people who are benefiting from the system help the people that are being suppressed by the system. Its a great check to the main flaw of capitalism.

Economically speaking,its great because the people getting the tax breaks are almost guaranteed to spend this money that otherwise may not have been spent, thus it helps the economy and the rich end up getting it back. Everybody wins.

10/29/2008 5:01:31 PM

sorry


youre confused

10/29/2008 5:02:42 PM

Quote :

"Apology accepted - I'd recommend you take "porch monkey" and such terms out of your vocabulary while you are attempting to have a serious and/or intelligent conversation though."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2DxyAGzGxM

10/29/2008 5:18:07 PM

^ LOL

10/29/2008 5:29:51 PM

Quote :

"By the end of the week, he'll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten," Obama said."

do they have kindergarten in madrassas?

10/29/2008 6:45:55 PM

Of course they do, the earlier they can train future terrorists the better, don't you know that?

10/29/2008 6:57:38 PM

Quote :

"I think you also are looking to shallowly at the world "working harder" While the lawyer sitting at his desk may not be doing "hard work" laying bricks; physical labor is not the only aspect that makes a job hard. The lawyer had to make lots of sacrifices to get to his current position. He has to retain a lot of knowledge and has a lot of responsibility that requires a skill taht the market says is rarer than the ability to pick up a brick."

eh


i think this is the best thing posted in this thread....people on average seem to only value blood and sweat as work, if you arent sweating you didnt work hard

if you have to study 12 hours a day in a cardboard box of an apartment for 10 years just to get your foot in the proverbial door, is that not "hard work"?


now as far as the subtle diss towards physical labor at the end of the quote....i disagree with that, intellectual and physical work should be equally esteemed, but obviously their value to the economy will be different because...more people in the US can "pick up a brick" than there are people who can successfully defend OJ fuckin Simpson

10/29/2008 7:52:11 PM

I'll probably regret asking this but...

Quote :

" its only fair that the people who are benefiting from the system help the people that are being suppressed by the system."

Who is being suppressed and how are they being suppressed?

10/29/2008 9:12:50 PM

So apparently TKEshultz is a crazy racist.

Good to know, I suppose.

10/29/2008 9:12:51 PM

How come when the rich get richer and the poor get poorer no one calls it "redistribution of wealth"?

10/29/2008 10:29:24 PM

get real

10/29/2008 10:36:03 PM

<--- Real ... (why, are you making an argument?) ... wealth distribution is a curve. Changing the curve is not necessaraly a zero sum game. The income gap has increased by all measures, but no one has called that a "redistribution of wealth". When the money moves up the curve, people call it successful free market capitalism. When it moves down the curve they call socialism. Of course it's all based on that unquestioned assumption, "rich people work hard, and poor people are lazy". That's always the easy answer.

10/29/2008 10:44:40 PM

BoBo, that is not considered redistribution of wealth because no redistribution took place. The poor are not absolutely poorer today, they are just not as substantially richer compared to their predecessors as the rich are to their predecessors.

It is the case that the wealth that is driving the rich further away from their poor counterparts is new wealth, it was not redistributed, it was its initial distribution, and usually to the very people that created it. Now, Obama is happy that new wealth was created, he just objects that new wealth keeps acruing to the same individuals that happen to already have wealth. So he wants to take it from those that created it and give it to those he considers deserving.

And this rule is not without exceptions. A large number of this nations wealthy got their wealth through rent seeking behavior fuelled by the same Government Obama intends to make larger. And this wealth is almost never a new creation but take the form of rent seeking, usually fleecing the middle-class and poor through government contracts, corporate lawsuits, subsidies, regulations, and pork barrel spending to make themselves absurdly rich while at the same time making the rest of the citizenry demonstrably poorer through higher taxes, higher prices, and less choice.

[Edited on October 29, 2008 at 11:14 PM. Reason : .,.]

10/29/2008 11:04:50 PM

listen, its really this simple. people who have above a certain income don't really spend any more of their money pass a certain point and they use that money for investments (not saying this is bad or isn't deserved) so that they can accumulate more wealth that can act as investments. People below a certain income will nearly spend all that they have. Which in a lot of ways is good because it helps promote the economy. if you have 200 million more people who can go out to eat 1 more night a week, buy a few more borderline necessities and further participate in exchanges of goods/services, that a lot of revenue generated. This will help expand the economy and in many ways will directly benefit those at the top of the scale because they likely own or work for the companies which are receiving these increase in "luxury" services. They will therefore also see a spike in income which in some ways will negate what they lost.

10/30/2008 10:01:32 AM

the other day one of our VPs was all, "hey Sru, do you want my comfy leather chair? i'm getting another one."

i was all, "yes sir - i guess we would call this 'trickle down ergonomics'!"

we both lol'd

10/30/2008 11:08:57 AM

Quote :

"listen, its really this simple. people who have above a certain income don't really spend any more of their money pass a certain point and they use that money for investments (not saying this is bad or isn't deserved) so that they can accumulate more wealth that can act as investments. People below a certain income will nearly spend all that they have. Which in a lot of ways is good because it helps promote the economy"

so we should reward those not responsible enough to save, and spend all they have, and then cry to the govt when theyre poor and in turn punish those responsible for saving


so spending money that is unearned and not their own is promoting the economy. all that does is encourage and allow irresponsibility

10/30/2008 12:16:33 PM

Quote :

" so we should reward those not responsible enough to save, and spend all they have, and then cry to the govt when theyre poor and in turn punish those responsible for saving so spending money that is unearned and not their own is promoting the economy. all that does is encourage and allow irresponsibility "

you're perception of what is stated above does not align with the reality of the circumstances and your derisive message is clearly formulated from either an unwillingness to accept the truths or incapability of doing so.

this in no way is rewarding those who aren't responsible enough to save. if you pay 8000 in taxes a year and get a check back for 500 you are being allowed to keep more of the income you have already made, and therefore is not delivering unearned money to those unwilling to save. it doesn't get much more clear than this.

saving is often times a matter of means. there is a certain amount of money that it takes to live and achieve certain things and anything above that is discretionary and provides you the means with which to save. if you do not make enough to save then you cannot really save. its that simple.

no one is being punished for saving. its not as if those people in the higher brackets are penalized if they save their money vs if they spend their money loosely. the tax is associated with their income and not with acquiring investments.

essentially this plan allows people to keep more of the money that they make, which, up until now, isn't something republicans typically argue against. and sure, some people who receive this returned amount from the money they made before will spend it, and that is good for everyone, but this will also grant them the means with which to save more, which is also good for everyone.

you're entire comment is out of line with reality, a true mix of disingenuous and erroneous logical fallacy.

[Edited on October 30, 2008 at 12:32 PM. Reason : s]

10/30/2008 12:32:01 PM

*carlface*

10/30/2008 12:32:19 PM

Quote :

"you're entire comment is out of line with reality, a true mix of disingenuous and erroneous logical fallacy."

i know big words too

10/30/2008 12:34:07 PM

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/obama-affinity-marxists-dates-college-days/

Quote :

"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully," the Democratic presidential candidate wrote in his memoir, "Dreams From My Father." "The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists.""

if it walks like a duck

quacks like a duck

and swims like a duck


ITS A FUCKING DUCK

[Edited on October 30, 2008 at 12:37 PM. Reason : ]

10/30/2008 12:36:23 PM

you can feel free to address my response to your statement and refute what you see as being inaccurate or you can continue to represent the right's disdain for intellectualism.

either way, i feel that further ad hominem that is demonstrated above will be involved.


*****
in fact, no need for you to respond to it, because i find it highly doubtful that you have a range of insight that would allow you to adequately evaluate the merits of what was stated above nor were your opinions you defend with such zeal formed by any sense of syllogism.

its no worries, LoneSnark or [user]prawnstar[/user] will be in here to defend through intellectual means your positions which you cannot support through your own devices.


[Edited on October 30, 2008 at 12:41 PM. Reason : ****]

10/30/2008 12:37:40 PM

Quote :

""In search of some inspiration, I went to hear Kwame Toure, formerly Stokely Carmichael of Black Panther fame, speak at Columbia," Obama wrote in "Dreams," which he published in 1995. "At the entrance to the auditorium, two women, one black, one Asian, were selling Marxist literature.""

10/30/2008 12:39:08 PM

Quote :

"n fact, no need for you to respond to it, because i find it highly doubtful that you have a range of insight that would allow you to adequately evaluate the merits of what was stated above nor were your opinions you defend with such zeal formed by any sense of syllogism."

nothing i can say will make you change your mind


nothing you can say will make me change my mind

however "intellectual" it may be


so ill let your savior do the talking

Quote :

"Obama's interest in leftist politics continued after he transferred to Columbia University in New York. He lived on Manhattan's Upper East Side, venturing to the East Village for what he called "the socialist conferences I sometimes attended at Cooper Union.""

10/30/2008 12:44:08 PM