Patterico's Pontifications

5/5/2008

Taxing the Rich: “We Just Want a Little”

Filed under: Economics,Education,Politics — DRJ @ 8:07 am



[Guest post by DRJ]

InsideHigherEd discusses a new way to tax the rich that has caused a rift among Massachusetts’ Democrats:

“With college endowments a favorite target for politicians in Washington, and many states struggling to find enough tax revenue to make ends meet, it’s almost a surprise that it took state legislators this long to start casting their eyes on colleges’ funds. But it’s perhaps not a shock that if the issue were to emerge anywhere, it would be in Massachusetts, home to the university (Harvard) whose nearly $34.6 billion endowment has become the poster child for higher education wealth.”

The sponsor of the proposal, Democratic Rep. Paul Kujawski, is concerned that private colleges accumulate wealth and contribute little to the local economy because of their tax-exempt status. Defenders point out that Massachusetts does not have to spend as much money on higher education as other states because of the presence of so many private colleges. They also object to treating entities differently based on their wealth.

[Note to Self: Remember this when liberals argue that the rich should pay more taxes.]

The measure failed but it would have affected 9 Massachusetts colleges: Harvard, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Williams, Boston, Amherst and Wellesley Colleges, Tufts University, Smith College and Boston University. During the debate, Democratic lawmakers asked some revealing questions:

“Why do we want to tax the poor all the time, but we let off the hook the richest of the rich?” said State Rep. Angelo Scaccia, a Democrat, said during the course of Monday’s debate, according to the Metrowest Daily News. “We’re not going to break them,” he added of colleges’ endowment funds. “We just want a little.”

The next time Democrats talk about taxing the rich, they should start with these 9 colleges in Massachusetts.

— DRJ

81 Responses to “Taxing the Rich: “We Just Want a Little””

  1. do you want to eliminate the budget deficit (as opposed to leaving a bankrupt nation to your grandkids) and if so, what do you suggest to achieve this goal?

    assistant devil's advocate (664c3f)

  2. Why do Liberals always “want a little” of someone else? Why not learn to make do with what you have or learn how to EARN more yourself?

    I do not know of one instance where Liberals have been able to tax themselves into prosperity. They may get one money hit, but then the money flees their jurisdiction.

    Any of these bozos remember the Federal Luxury tax, and what a net failure it was?

    PCD (5c49b0)

  3. Why do we want to tax the poor all the time, but we let off the hook the richest of the rich?

    Someone doesn’t know just how much “the rich” pay in taxes.

    do you want to eliminate the budget deficit (as opposed to leaving a bankrupt nation to your grandkids)

    Since our total debt to GDP ratio is lower than a whole lot of countries, I don’t think your premise that the US is going bankrupt is true.

    Steverino (6772c8)

  4. do you want to eliminate the budget deficit (as opposed to leaving a bankrupt nation to your grandkids) and if so, what do you suggest to achieve this goal?

    As Steverino points out, you have an assumption there that is not the only possible outcome. Even if it was, why not start by reducing the budget? Tie spending to how much you actually have (like regular people have to do to stay out of debt) and there won’t be a budget deficit. If you allow politicians to spend more than they have, it doesn’t matter how much revenue is generated… they’ll spend that increased revenue and more until someone reins them in.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  5. Tie spending to how much you actually have (like regular people have to do to stay out of debt) and there won’t be a budget deficit.

    Stashiu3 – A novel idea. We could idiotic programs like grants to study the mating habits of lesbian penguins in Oklahoma. There’s all sorts of waste and pork that nobody really wants to take a hard look at. The incentives for efficiency are perverse in many case. Success is frequently measured in terms of budget dollars and employees within a bureaucrat’s empire. Of course if you become more efficient, you risk losing both budget dollars and employees, reducing your empire and power, so who would want to do that. Plus government employees are typically very tough to fire. That’s why government has a bias towards growing over time as opposed to shrinking. Inertia baby!

    daleyrocks (906622)

  6. We could end programs

    daleyrocks (906622)

  7. “Why not learn to make do with what you have or learn how to EARN more yourself?”

    Thats no way you run a government. Cut revenue, increase spending, and its bread and circus all around.

    stef (86f49e)

  8. This reminds me of Hillary and Barcky’s idea to punitively tax gas companies to reduce the cost of gas. When libs talk taxes, hilarity ensues.

    JD (5f0e11)

  9. The “rich” are single people with a taxable income over $31,850 and married couples with a taxable income over 63,700. At least, that’s what Senators Obama and Clinton apparently believed, when they cast their votes in favor of raising the current 25, 28, and 31% braclets by 3% apiece.

    Since both Senators Obama and Clinton have run on cutting taxes for the middle class, and they voted to raise taxes as noted above, what are we to conclude other than that they believe that being rich starts above those numbers?

    Unless, of course, we simply conclude that they are lying to us.

    Dana R Pico (3e4784)

  10. cutting revenue by increasing taxes coupled with increased spending is a take it to the bank guarantee if Hill or Baracky wins.

    JD (5f0e11)

  11. Dana – I will go with them being liars.

    JD (5f0e11)

  12. Anybody else read this

    [Note to Self:

    as

    [Note to Stef:

    EW1(SG) (84e813)

  13. yes stashiu, i agree that the process of eliminating the deficit begins with reducing the deficit. that means either raising taxes or cutting spending. that war we’re fighting is a substantial expense item on our ledger, will you join me in calling for a prompt withdrawal from iraq? what public services would you cut alternatively? while i’m happy to stiff the lesbian penguin people (#5), i’m sorry to have to tell you that this will close only a miniscule part of the gap.

    living within your means is a conservative value, individually and collectively.

    assistant devil's advocate (664c3f)

  14. Note to ada…
    Even though the Fed deficit/debt raw numbers are very high, as a percentage of the GDP, they are at comparable, historical levels.
    As to closing only a miniscule part of the gap, I am reminded of the wise words of Confucius (or whoever):
    A journey of a thousand miles starts with but a single step.
    If you refuse to take that first step, you will never accomplish your journey.
    Conservatives keep trying to take those initial steps, and the libs keep saying we have to do it in one great leap (that worked well for Mao, didn’t it?).

    Another Drew (f9dd2c)

  15. “Even though the Fed deficit/debt raw numbers are very high, as a percentage of the GDP, they are at comparable, historical levels.”

    What “historical levels” are you using?

    http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

    stef (aa57c9)

  16. Stef, that chart is solely of debt, not deficit.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  17. that war we’re fighting is a substantial expense item on our ledger, will you join me in calling for a prompt withdrawal from iraq?

    No, because that is keeping us from paying a much higher price here at home.

    what public services would you cut alternatively?

    How about blocking the use of any public money for benefits to illegal immigrants for a start? Banning “Pork Projects” would be a great second step. Public funds for the Arts is wasteful as well, government should not have a role in that. There are many areas feeding off the government that should be cut off. National Defense and ensuring our interests isn’t one of them.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  18. Stashiu3, killing Hillary’s ’08 earmarks will get us a good billion or so off the deficit.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  19. I would be fully in favor of eliminating tax-deductions for contributions to colleges with endowments over, say $500,000,000.

    half-way (9c2280)

  20. How about banning the use of government funds (at all levels) for any structure/project that is named for any living person (The Rangell Center for …, as an example)?

    Another Drew (f9dd2c)

  21. I’d like to remind you that at one time being a lawyer in Massachusetts was a hanging offense. Maybe being a Liberal legislator should merit the same “reward”?

    PCD (5c49b0)

  22. Massachusetts has a serious problem with tax exempt institutions like Harvard. Boston has a worse problem because of all the hospitals that have been there for a century. The combination of hospitals and universities really knocks the property tax as a revenue source. Of course, both Boston and Massachusetts have been big spenders for a century, too. One small observation: I 95 becomes a toll road about five miles into New Hampshire. Just before the first toll booth is a huge state liquor store. New Hampshire has no sales tax, even on booze. New Hampshire, at least until it got taken over by Democrats fleeing tax hell Mass, knew how to balance a budget. There is a long line of cars with Mass license plates getting off I-95 at that state liquor store every day. Then they get back on heading south again.

    Mike K (f89cb3)

  23. Daleyrocks #5 pretty much said it. I mean, we had a budget surplus in 2000 and everyone immediately wanted to spend it (tax breaks counts as spending it). Some people would argue that spending it on large businesses to prevent a recession is a good idea. OK, but there didn’t seem to be any real drive to pay down the national debt.

    Is there ANY real reason to pay down the debt? I have asked some people and got no real answers. Anyone here have an answer? Would there be some really good benefit for the economy or nation as a whole?

    EdWood (06cafa)

  24. edwood, is there any real reason to pay down your credit cards?

    i propose the elimination of two classes of parasites. first, the public relations officers and media consultants. imagine an america where agency heads and responsible decisionmakers actually had to face the press and defend their actions in their own words. second, all the diversity/affirmative action commissars. the market will determine the appropriate amount of diversity.

    a constitutional amendment granting the president the line-item veto would go a long way toward curbing pork.

    assistant devil's advocate (664c3f)

  25. Bleh, a line item veto sure sounds like a good idea. But it goes against what the founders wanted as the major issue behind government: Government should be slow and inefficient.

    G (722480)

  26. ada- “is there any real reason to pay down your credit cards?”

    Now see, that’s exactly how I would think, on my own personal economic terms, but some people will say things like “we have the lowest debt to GDP ratio…” etc.etc. or say, “you have a 250,000$ debt on your house that you will carry for 30 years, is that going to destroy your life?” but no-body can seem to say exactly WHY it is inconsequential or bad for the US to carry debt.

    I can see why it would be bad for, say, Costa Rica, coz they need every dime they can get hold of to pay to keep up their constantly melting roads (rains all the time there, no enforcement on regs. on 18 wheeler weights), and a lot of their national income is still tied up in commodities like coffee and tropical hardwoods (moving away from that, but for now….), but maybe it’s not so important for us in the USA.

    EdWood (06cafa)

  27. ada- “is there any real reason to pay down your credit cards?”

    ada – You might want to pay down your own credit card debt, especially if you had to pay for a few no account employees you wanted to fire but couldn’t. You would feel the sting personally.

    The problem with the government is they don’t feel the money is their own and don’t feel the sting. The accountability is different. We’re just an amorphous blob of voters and taxpayers who can’t do shit to any individual bureaucrat or lawmaker unless enough of us band together. Count how many times that has happened.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  28. idiotic programs like grants to study the mating habits of lesbian penguins in Oklahoma

    A link for this? If not, yet another straw man in a long line of straw men.

    If we’re cutting the budget, let’s a) stop supplemental war appropriations, and b) end the war. That might save a few dollars, I’m guessing.

    DW 5000 (e072de)

  29. Here’s a good post from an economist on deficits, total debt, and their effects:

    Why The Debt Doomsday Is A Myth

    I’d recommend poking around his site, because he has several articles on this subject.

    Steverino (6772c8)

  30. How about banning the use of government funds (at all levels) for any structure/project that is named for any living person

    Seriously. How many more bridges does West Virginia need named after Byrd?

    X_LA_Native (9d319c)

  31. G wrote:

    Bleh, a line item veto sure sounds like a good idea. But it goes against what the founders wanted as the major issue behind government: Government should be slow and inefficient.

    They also thought that the franchise should be restricted to white male property owners, a wisdom which, had it been retained, would have prevented a lot of the problems we have today! 🙂

    Dana R Pico (3e4784)

  32. daleyrocks wrote:

    The problem with the government is they don’t feel the money is their own and don’t feel the sting. The accountability is different. We’re just an amorphous blob of voters and taxpayers who can’t do shit to any individual bureaucrat or lawmaker unless enough of us band together. Count how many times that has happened.

    If I don’t pay on my mortgage, the bank forecloses, and I’m out on the street; if we don’t pay our national debt, there’s no one who can foreclose on the country and kick us out.

    Dana R Pico (3e4784)

  33. The protestations of the liberals who “just want to take a little” bring to mind another character – the Don who Vito Andolini (pre-Godfather Corleone) killed.

    He explained to Vito that he only wanted to “wet his beak” with tribute from the theft Vito and his friends had committed.

    Happily, confiscatory taxes are a deal we publicans can refuse. I wish we would.

    Ed (f28e9a)

  34. DW – You ARE just another humorless lib, aren’t you?

    daleyrocks (906622)

  35. daleyrocks…
    DW’s on to something there, if we stop fighting against an implacable foe who wishes us dead, we won’t have to worry about the National Debt, for no one will be around to pay it down.
    Problem solved.
    And, stef…
    My data for historical levels of debt/deficit, come from the WSJ, and are for the years following WW-2, to date. Of course, if we just looked at WW-2, we’re in great shape now.

    It would be nice to take a bite out of the ND by running small surpluses every year (I’m talking less than $100B), which would decrease their significance as the economy expanded; and, boy, would it ever expand if the government was living within its’ means and letting the market roar.

    Individually, we each try to balance our debt obligations against our available income over a long-term. Unfortunately, long-term to the Federal Government (legislators) is the time to the next election. But, we have to get some kind of handle on this before the bills start rolling in for the un-funded obligations for SS & Medicare for the Boomers. To pay those bills will take more than everything the gov’t is projected to take in at today’s rates, which will cause huge tax increases on individuals and businesses to make up the deficiency in revenues.

    Another Drew (f9dd2c)

  36. “DW’s on to something there, if we stop fighting against an implacable foe who wishes us dead, we won’t have to worry about the National Debt, for no one will be around to pay it down.”

    – Another Drew

    Yeah! The TERRORISTS will hijack 300 million planes and fly one into every man, woman and child in the United States! It’ll be a catastrophe!!!!

    Leviticus (8c42b9)

  37. Yeah! The TERRORISTS will hijack 300 million planes and fly one into every man, woman and child in the United States! It’ll be a catastrophe!!!!

    The catastrophe is that you think that’s witty sarcasm. The truth is if they could, they would… or it’s equivalent. You’re not seriously denying that they want to kill us, are you? Or that terrorists exist? Or do you just agree with their aims and are against opposing them? It’s really hard to tell with you sometimes.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  38. In the Third Book of Moses, it is written:

    Yeah! The TERRORISTS will hijack 300 million planes and fly one into every man, woman and child in the United States! It’ll be a catastrophe!!!!

    Except, of course, that it didn’t take 3,000 hijacked jetliners to kill 3,000 Americans on September 11th, did it?

    This is why we fight the terrorists, of course, because they would like to obtain the means to slaughter thousands, if not millions, by more efficient means. That’s why, for example, we don’t like the idea of a state sponsor of terrorism like Iran building atomic bombs.

    Of course, if we simply surrender to them, and kowtow to their every demand, they’ll be less interested in killing us; killing your own slaves is rather wasteful!

    Still, from his writings, I’d have never thought that Leviticus would be particularly happy living under shari’a, either.

    Dana R Pico (d671ab)

  39. No comment needed!

    Another Drew (f9dd2c)

  40. Let’s give in to shari’a law which forbids the paying of interest, and let the Chinese try to foreclose on our outstanding debt against the Muslims.

    luagha (5cbe06)

  41. But to be more realistic about the national debt, it’s like this:

    If the US was a citizen, and he wanted to buy a house that cost the national debt, and there was a bank out there to make the loan, the bank would make the loan, because we’re a good bet. The problem is that unlike a homeowner, we aren’t paying off our principal at all – we’re continually taking out bigger loans.

    Instead of paying our interest and a little of the principal month to month and getting less in debt, we’re borrowing more on our credit cards month to month and not paying down any of the principal.

    luagha (5cbe06)

  42. And, when the President needs to do a re-fi, he gets 535 co-signers on the loan. 535 dead-beats that compel him to spend the monies that they have appropriated.
    What a country!

    Another Drew (f9dd2c)

  43. “Seriously. How many more bridges does West Virginia need named after Byrd?”

    Only one, the one he’s buried under.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  44. #29 Thank you Steverino! Nice link.

    EdWood (06cafa)

  45. “You’re not seriously denying that they want to kill us, are you?”

    – Stashiu3

    Setting aside the dead-end argument that “they” is a tiny group of crazy individuals… no. I’m not denying that “they” want to kill us. I’m calling Another Drew a moron (or at least a shameless exaggerator) for implying that if we stop fighting the War On A Concept the TERRORISTS will *be able* to kill us all. That’s bullshit, and you know it as well as I do.

    “Or do you just agree with their aims and are against opposing them? It’s really hard to tell with you sometimes.”

    – Stashiu3

    No, Joe McCarthy: I’m against stupidity in all its forms, not just yours. Why do you think I’m always calling out the Democratic Party as a bunch of retards?

    Leviticus (35fbde)

  46. We could eliminate a sizeable portion of the debt by cutting off all ‘aid’ to every country on earth. We still give them money, but make it payments (if we owe them anything) or a loan…

    Balance the books like they do in a corporation (assets vs expenditures) and this country would be in better shape without doing anything.

    [Note: if we’d cut the hell out of spending, we’d accomplish this too and it would be much better fiscally]

    Lord Nazh (899dce)

  47. Views from a shameless, exaggerating moron…
    I’m not saying they WILL kill us all if we stop fighting, just that they WANT to, and our chances of survival are a bit better when we resist.

    Those that deny the aims of our opponents are self-delusional, for they minimize the stated objective of the enemy of the very civilization that allows us to prosper.

    Another Drew (f9dd2c)

  48. Assume that terrorists release a dirty bomb in a metro area and 100,000 Americans die. Look at the big impact 9-11 had on the economy. Imagine the pain a major terror attack would incur. They don’t have to kill all of us. The way things are going with libs bending over backwards to kiss muslim butt and slowly institute sharia law, the country will be going in the wrong direction. Yes, it is so sad that the evil Bushitler has rounded up dissidents like Leviticus and stifled free speech. I see us in Iraq and Afghanistan and I don’t see attacks here since 9-11. Whatever money spent on fighting THEM over there would be far greater if we were suffering major casualties and property damage here. What would be a cost of a dirty bomb released in Manhattan or D.C. if the whole area were contaminated for very long time periods?

    madmax333 (8650f6)

  49. Madmax,

    Think if such a bomb took out many liberals like Leviticus, Levi, and stef in one shot. There would be change, and not like Hillary or O-Bomb-A desire.

    PCD (5c49b0)

  50. “We could eliminate a sizeable portion of the debt by cutting off all ‘aid’ to every country on earth.”

    How much you imagine this saving? And what do you count as ‘aid’? Is our presence in south korea ‘aid’? Iraq?

    stef (87fe55)

  51. Sometimes, when I get really down with the direction that our betters are taking us, I wish I could give our enemies a “Neutron Bomb” to take out DC –
    wipe out the vermin, and leave this wonderful monument to man’s folly.
    But, then I come back from the “Dark Side”, realizing that the only way to change things is to convince more people on “my” side that change is needed within the system that – though not perfect – is still the best hope for the continued prosperity and success of mankind.

    Another Drew (f9dd2c)

  52. Lord Nazh, I think you are under the impression that foreign aid is a lot larger than it actually is.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  53. “Think if such a bomb took out many liberals like Leviticus, Levi, and stef in one shot. There would be change, and not like Hillary or O-Bomb-A desire.”

    – PCD

    Yeah. The mean IQ of this country would drop by about 40 points, still skewed by the likes of DRJ, nk, and Patterico.

    Leviticus (43095b)

  54. And Pablo.
    I plead the 9th Amendment.

    Leviticus (43095b)

  55. Leviticus,

    I plead the 2nd Amendment.

    PCD (5c49b0)

  56. Good for you, I guess. What the hell are you talking about?

    Leviticus (43095b)

  57. I’m calling Another Drew a moron (or at least a shameless exaggerator) for implying that if we stop fighting the War On A Concept the TERRORISTS will *be able* to kill us all. That’s bullshit, and you know it as well as I do.

    Show me where your quote appears. You can’t. Your comments are consistently dishonest and misleading, frequently mis-stating what others have said in order to set up strawmen for you to knock down. If you believe having a problem with that is stupid, so be it. It says more about you than it does about anybody else.

    No, Joe McCarthy: I’m against stupidity in all its forms, not just yours. Why do you think I’m always calling out the Democratic Party as a bunch of retards?

    I don’t know, maybe because you believe anyone who doesn’t think exactly as you do is stupid? You make statements with unsupported assumptions and resort to name-calling when confronted by your own words. You insert other unsupported assumptions such as, “tiny group of crazy individuals”, prefaced by a conditional, “Setting aside the dead-end argument” trying to put it off-limits. Sorry, your framing of the discussion doesn’t suit me. I prefer honest discussions.

    Finally, you might want to learn a bit more about McCarthy before trying to use his name as a put-down. Just sayin’

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  58. “Lord Nazh, I think you are under the impression that foreign aid is a lot larger than it actually is.”

    I didn’t mean to imply that YEARLY foreign aid was that large (in these type numbers, billions is small); the cumulative aid is however large.

    We owe money to countries that we give aid to. And have been for years.

    Lord Nazh (899dce)

  59. “And what do you count as ‘aid’?”

    Aid as in monetary aid to various countries on this planet. (sorry didn’t see your comment earlier)

    We give more than anyone to everyone 🙂

    Lord Nazh (899dce)

  60. “Finally, you might want to learn a bit more about McCarthy before trying to use his name as a put-down. Just sayin’”

    – Stashiu3

    Such as…?

    Your framing of my knowledge doesn’t suit me. I prefer accurate depictions of my knowledge.

    Leviticus (68eff1)

  61. I won’t bother taking the time to educate you until you start making honest comments in the first place. If you’re going to ignore the specific examples I already gave in an attempt to derail the thread, you can do it without me.

    Demonstrate some knowledge and we might be able to have a discussion.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  62. “…accurate depictions of my knowledge…”

    But, of course, that would require your therapist to violate doctor-patient confidentiality in the process of affirming what most of us just suspect.

    Another Drew (f9dd2c)

  63. “I won’t bother taking the time to educate you until you start making honest comments in the first place. If you’re going to ignore the specific examples I already gave in an attempt to derail the thread, you can do it without me.

    Demonstrate some knowledge and we might be able to have a discussion.”

    – Stashiu3

    Whatever. Cop out if you want. I’ll even let you pretend that it’s for a good reason.

    Leviticus (b6a18b)

  64. Whatever. Cop out if you want. I’ll even pretend you’re not still ignoring your mis-quote and mis-statement of the point and trying to focus attention away from it.

    Actually, I won’t. Answer the point or admit you lied. Since I don’t expect you to do either, don’t complain when others take your drivel less than seriously. You can’t answer without showing yourself to be stupider than you accuse everyone else of being.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  65. Leviticus,

    I am making fun of you with sarcasm. You are too dense and agenda driven to have a debate with. You can’t admit any truth that ruins your world view.

    PCD (5c49b0)

  66. If the Massachusetts Legislators want to raid a pile of money that they haven’t touched before, what about the Heinz-Kerry billion? Why don’t they take their little piece from there?

    PCD (5c49b0)

  67. “Answer the point or admit you lied… You can’t answer without showing yourself to be stupider than you accuse everyone else of being.”

    – Stashiu3

    Hmmmm. If I don’t answer, I admit I lied… and I can’t answer without showing myself to be stupider than I accuse everyone else of being. Since “honest discussion” is your big thing, do you always debate your opponents on such “honest” premises? Typically, when one issues an ultimatum, one offers at least one (relatively) positive outcome, but whatever…

    *sigh*

    OK. If we’re going to square off, let’s restate the exact argument, for the benefit of the audience and so each of us knows where the other is coming from.

    I assume (and please correct me if I’m wrong) that by my “misquote” you refer to comment #45, where I accuse Another Drew of “implying that if we stop fighting the War On A Concept the TERRORISTS will *be able* to kill us all”. You then say “show me where your quote appears”, and accuse me of setting up strawmen.

    Newsflash: I NEVER QUOTED ANYONE. If anyone’s setting up strawmen here, it’s you: you’ve accused me of “mis-quoting” Another Drew when I never purported to do so in the first place, and used that as a frame of reference for the remainder of the discussion.

    DRJ or Patterico: could one of you step in to referee this thing, by any chance? I want an objective third party on hand to tell Stashiu3 that his accusations are misplaced.

    Leviticus (b987b0)

  68. I put your quote in bold type. There is no “(relatively) positive outcome” to be had if you were going to be honest, but it’s a situation you put yourself in.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  69. So… you’re accusing me of mis-quoting… myself?

    Well, in that case (insofar as you asked me to show you where “my quote” appears – “I can’t”, apparently [hint: I can, now that you’ve clarified your ambiguity]): “my quote” (according to your definition of “my quote”) is in number #45. There. I showed it to you.

    Now: could you make a legitimate, sensible point that indicates that the TERRORISTS will *be able* to kill us all, since that seems to be your contention?

    And, for future reference: *….* denotes emphasis, not quotation. They have other marks to denote quotation: they’re called quotation marks.

    Leviticus (602b9a)

  70. Well shoot and tarnation. You are right, those are asterisks and not quotation marks. I was absolutely wrong.

    It looks like bifocals are going to need changing to trifocals after all. No (other) excuse for my error and I respectfully apologize. Not agreeing with your point is no excuse for my own error.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  71. I wandered by after all the fireworks were over and I’m glad to see you resolved your disagreements respectfully. That’s why I value you both and your comments.

    DRJ (a431ca)

  72. I HATE screwing up… I really do. I try to be careful, but Leviticus was absolutely right to get upset. That I put quotation marks on my own comment shows it was my own careless error. Asterisks changes the entire context, which I should have picked up on when he put “implying” in bold type. Stupid mistake on my part and I made myself look like an idiot… not the first time, and probably not the last.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  73. I understand eye issues. Instead of choosing a neat style, I had to choose a cell phone with big numbers because they are easier to see. On the plus side, I saved a lot of money.

    DRJ (a431ca)

  74. On the plus side, I saved a lot of money.

    *snort* I understand completely. Unfortunately, I wasn’t kidding about the trifocals… but I’ll definitely save on frames since I have no sense of style anyway.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  75. “Well shoot and tarnation. You are right, those are asterisks and not quotation marks. I was absolutely wrong.

    It looks like bifocals are going to need changing to trifocals after all. No (other) excuse for my error and I respectfully apologize. Not agreeing with your point is no excuse for my own error.”

    – Stashiu3

    Oh Jesus. I’m sorry. I thought you were accusing me of making a comment I hadn’t made; that’s why I was getting so pissy. On the other hand, I can see why you were getting so frustrated: you thought I was ignoring obvious quotation marks and attacking you because I was backed into a corner.

    Yikes. My dad has a saying for situations like this: “That’s how wars get started.”

    Sorry.

    Leviticus (ed6d31)

  76. No need for you to apologize, the fault is entirely mine. I’m glad you finally made my error clear to me (after several worthy attempts… sometimes I’m slow) and thank you for accepting my apology.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  77. No problem. Thanks for being graceful about the whole thing.

    Leviticus (ed6d31)

  78. The whole “apology” thing, that is.

    Leviticus (ed6d31)

  79. Stashiu3…trifocals…
    Been wearing those for too long now. But, I’ve found that getting “computer glasses” with just the mid-range correction on the entire lens is easier on my eyes when doing computer work – as long as I don’t have to write too. Using the tri’s induced a lot of neck strain as I was constantly bobbing my head to find the sweet-spot in the lens.

    Another Drew (f9dd2c)

  80. Oh yes, DRJ instead of actually going after greedy bastard oil companies and other devil’s spawn of Republicans, let’s go after institutions of higher learning that DO give back to the community –> It’s called educated graduates, you retard. Rethuglicans are such idiots sometimes.

    Michael (b99c61)

  81. Did somebody take a shit and forget to flush?

    Icy Truth (5bcf70)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1090 secs.