Milossarian, you don't have enough brain cells for GD.

[RTFirefly]

He walks, he talks, his SN combines two Catch-22 characters who combine about as well as oil and water.

He's also wilfully ignorant, repeatedly resurrecting arguments that have long since been refuted, and bringing up new ones that show that he hasn't actually thought before posting.

Friends, he calls himself Milossarian, and to call him an ignorant turd is to insult honest cow pies everywhere.

he lists his occupation as 'newspaper reporter', but I can't imagine him doing more in-depth reporting than interviewing the local big-shots, and putting their words in standard newspaper-story form for publication.

His latest intrusion into an issue I actually know a bit about is the latest Estate Tax thread. Milo's worried about the fate of people whose families have owned vacation homes that have become so valuable that they're subject to the Federal estate tax. If there's a 'problem' that's crying out for Federal intervention (estate tax repeal), the consequences of having your property being worth too much has to be first on your list, right?

("Help, Daddy's house is worth $2M! I'll never be able to afford the estate taxes, and will never be able to live there! Instead, my sister and me will be forced to split $1.7 million! Woe is me - I need the Feds to change these cruel laws!")

Let's not even mention an Election thread that Bricker started, that was doing pretty well, until Milo stuck his nose in with a gratuitous slam at liberals on an issue that had been hashed and rehashed, his position refuted, and the refutations unanswered, in multiple election threads back in November and December. Since I clobbered him pretty good in that thread (and I apologize to all concerned for getting Pit-worthy in GD; I should have taken it here directly), we probably don't need to more than wave at that one.

Or consider SuaSponte's current Pit thread about Dan Burton's investigation of the Clinton pardons. The issue was being debated in a rational, intelligent, and spirited manner (the thread really belonged in GD), until Milo jumped in with a personal attack on one of the debaters, accusing said poster of turning a blind eye to anything negative that Clinton had ever done. As usual, his slam was so far off base that it could've been picked off from center field.

Anyhow, if this thing called Milo has a brain, I haven't seen evidence of it. I'm sure he's a nice enough guy in MPSIMS, and may even be able to handle IMHO on a good day. But in GD, our intrepid reporter demonstrates his lack of ability to connect thoughts in any meaningful way.

Milo, why don't you stick to the kiddie pool, 'K? You're not ready for even the shallowest GD threads.

[minty green]

Hey RTF? My assessment of the guy is fairly similar to yours: Milo's basically a dittohead who doesn't spend a whole lot of effort checking out the facts before posting, then posting repeatedly. But basically, so what? It takes all types to make a GD thread interesting, and I don't think that that being a knee-jerk conservative necessarily makes the guy worthy of a Pit thread.

That said, I loved your estate tax posts, and I bet he still thinks the Supreme Court ruled for Bush because Gore was trying to change Florida law.

[techchick68]

RTF,

I am keeping my big mouth shut with this, NOT. I think you know enough about me to know how I feel about things like taxes...which is the main reason I am replying. I would jump into the estate tax thread but at the moment I would just be a Pit thread waiting to be unleashed so I will confine my thoughts here.

Look, my father worked his fucking ass off for his wealth, something he wants to pass on to me and my brothers. Something that he is doing now as we speak rather than wait for the "death tax" to take effect. He is doing so legally and in a way that cuts our losses as his children with whom deserve his hard earned work not some welfare bitch or skid row man who does not want to live like a regular human....we are his kids, he wants this to go to us, that's pretty self explanatory (sp) we are his god damned kids, if he felt us unworthy he'd choose other means by which he'd have his monies go to when he died. I must also mention that I have explained elsewhere that he gives back to the community more than you or I make in a year....no need to completely rehash things.

I have seen it with families in my own community, a family has to pay a death tax with a small business man who dies, he may make a shit load of money through his business but for God's sakes the man died, his family ended up having to sell the business to Hugh M Woods if I remember correctly just to keep the place afloat, this place has been pretty much since around our city began. Crissey Fowler Lumber was a name-stay in our city. It was a business that you that cared about, that was strong in it's belief that customers were the first and foremost but they had to sell out to the bigger guys because their family could not have kept it with the "Death Taxes".

I am sorry but if it weren't for those God damned "death taxes" Crissey Fowler Lumber, that has been around pretty much since this city began, would have been able to survive and remain a family business as they wanted it to be, much of which so-called-liberals forget, family business is what this country is based on. Now it's all a bunch of big corporate conglomerates (sp) and liberals and conservatives alike look at it as some good thing I guess.

Well, sorry as a Libertarian, I see that very wrong that a man or woman who brought about jobs, a meaningful representation within the community, a family that has worked together to make a fortune should not have to suffer because of some ridiculous tax code that gives a double whammy to those that have lost a person who has worked very hard to make a living and try to make things easier on his or her children.

I find this "death tax" to be completely inhumane for if one achieves greatness not only in the business community but in the family, one should not feel that if he or she dies that all the work done is for not. Why should anyone achieve the levels of being wealthy and providing jobs, giving back to the economy in many many ways with this attitude? Why? So some poor slob can reap the benefits of your father, my father, of what I achieve in my lifetime? If my business makes that level and I have to die knowing that my beneficiaries are only allowed a portion of what I make if I make millions, then FUCK IT, I don't want anything to do with it. I would rather sit on my ass and collect welfare or other forms of social benefits because that's what it comes down to RTF.

One does not achieve things by sitting on their ass excepting, in the scenario with regards to welfare and handouts. A family that has achieved wealth should not be penalized because of one man or woman's work. A family should be encouraged to carry on the tradition, one that I am more than willing to take on myself as one that will be taking on a large amount of inheritance when my father passes on. This is not only a tradition but a work ethic that seems to be lost amongst the Liberal people and most recently the Conservatives as well.

Because one is wealthy does not make one a lazy man or woman, actually just the opposite. He or she has presumably provided jobs for those that can't think past their noses. I know for a fact my father's business provided jobs for convicts in half way houses, his business gave lost people a place to work, okay for shitty wages but hell they got a sense of belonging, working and many went on to bigger and better things. His place of business also gave many Vietmanese immigrants (sp) a job to make a life here. My father, and yes I am taking this death tax very personally, offered a lot of people without opportunities a lot of opportunities. Okay so some other person could have offered that for them but I presume they would be a wealthy business man as well.

If we want to keep the smaller businesses going then we need to eliminate the fucking "death tax," for many business people offer a lot to the local community that provides money to afford housings, food, clothing, cars and the other things we so cherish to make it through the day.

So with this I say "Fuck the God Damned death taxes" as it means your work is not worthy and many times more lose than win when this happens with family owned businesses.

[SPOOFE]

My guess? RTF's just strokin' his ego again.

You can still look at yourself in the mirror, right? That's the important thing.

[SPOOFE]

In other words... you're making a mountain out of a molehill, over what amounts to simple disagreements in philosophy.

(If I was cruel, I would have left it at my first post.)

[techchick68]

Hey SPOOFE, wanna meet behind the barn later? Hear we can make some music with some very common human tools.

Ah hell, I haven't flirted with you in a while...

[Danielinthewolvesden]

Originally posted by techchick68

I have seen it with families in my own community, a family has to pay a death tax with a small business man who dies, he may make a shit load of money through his business but for God's sakes the man died, his family ended up having to sell the business to Hugh M Woods if I remember correctly just to keep the place afloat, this place has been pretty much since around our city began. Crissey Fowler Lumber was a name-stay in our city. It was a business that you that cared about, that was strong in it's belief that customers were the first and foremost but they had to sell out to the bigger guys because their family could not have kept it with the "Death Taxes".
[/b]

Sorry TC, but you are dead wrong. And mathematically dead wrong. Let us take "Fowler lumber" as an example. And Pa Fowler kicks off, leaving his widow & kids. Now- how much was the business worth? Let us say 4 million dollars. That is a VERY big "small business". First of all- 50% goes to widow Fowler- tax free. Now that leaves 2mil. 675K of that gets excluded as it is a "family owned business"- that leaves some 1.25M. $650K of that is the basic exclusion- that leaves 600K, with estate taxes on that of some $182,000- which could be easily paid off thru a loan on the 4 million dollars in equity- maybe some $1500/mo. That is small peanuts on a business that has a net worth of 4 million. Or- sell off 200K (5%!)of the assets, leaving a 3.8 million dollar business.

Now- if Pa Fowler was a sharp cookie, and had two kids- he could have given each them a 10K share of the business for every year. Say- 20 years, thats another 400K excluded- so the estate would only pay "death taxes" on 200K- or maybe 50K in taxes (petty cash). If Pa Fowler was sharper- he could have left 60% of the business to his wife- and NO estate taxes. Or, he could have also paid a sharp estate tax attorney- and unless his estate was large indeed- no taxes.

Sorry, TC- but it won't wash- the figures do not lie. Unless "Fowler Lumber" was worth HUGE megabucks- AND Pa Fowler was not sharp enuf to hire a good tax expert. And if the "small business" you are talking about had a net worth of some 20 million dollars- we have kinda stepped out of the "small" business category, now- haven't we?

Now, I have said this soooo many times before that now I am gonna have to do it in all caps:

FAMILY OWNED SMALL BUSINESSES ARE NOT BEING SOLD OFF TO PAY THE ESTATE TAX!

Nor are "family farms". It ain't happening- period. We have had some half dozen tax experts (and i am one of them) come on this board & explain this over & over. It is not opinion- it is mathematical fact. You can go down to the freaken IRS yourself- get the pubs- and figure out the math with a $5 calculator. You want my free-for-nothing guess what happened to "Fowler lumber"? It was up to it's eyeballs in debt- Pa died without a will-it went into probate- and the Lawyers took some huge chunk- maybe a couple hundred thou- and they survivors could not keep a "barely about water" business afloat anymore. It happens all the time. But- in that case- not one thin dime in "Estate" taxes. OK?

Now- it sounds like your dad is doing the smart thing- and giving his kids some 10K a year- and that is what you are SUPPOSED to do.

[techchick68]

Sorry DITWD

FAMILY OWNED SMALL BUSINESSES ARE NOT BEING SOLD OFF TO PAY THE ESTATE TAX

Please then to consult our local Crissey Fowler Lumber company and tell them why they had to sell their shares to a larger company? It was all over the fucking local news. The reasons where all over Channel 5/30, I doubt they have the news story anymore, but they are http://www.koaa.com . The family of Crissey Fowler Lumber had to sell because the couldn't pay the god damned estate taxes a substantial lose. Get with it buddy, if a company can't pay the taxes or the loses, they fucking sell the company.

Look, if you want to look further into the estate taxes and the fact that it fucks up smaller businesses then I am more than willing to get you in contact with the local news agency that reported as such and the family that has had to deal with such.

Look DITWD I don't bring this shit up because it suit's my fancy but if you want proof, then I will get it for you if I can. It was a big God Damned topic in our city. If I weren't concerned about my own inheritance, I could give a shit, along with the fact I have had a mother die, in which Uncle Sam was more than mighty upon what I got rather than what I lost. Oh yeah, Mr. US Government wanted their own God damed share of my mother's death. I paid taxes on property she owned, and all I got was a measly $70 check from 15-18, a total of $1680 bucks yet she worked more than 30 years and paid into the social security system. That's only $1680 bucks my friend, you know and I know by looking at that with 30 years in the system she paid far more into that. FUCK THIS shit.....God, if you want to get your panties in a wad DITWD then look at those that paid in the system and people who are beficiaries (sp) don't get shit in return....my Dad regardless if he was wealthy or not should have been a recipient, okay me, of all that my mother put in the fucking system. My brother was over 18 so all the surplus that my mother put in goes to some white haired bitch I have no idea who she is.....but I am my mother's dauther.

Look DITWD, you are playing with fire when it comes to a woman that has had death at a very intimate level and the reason my father is doing things as he is doing them now, to help us kids avoid taxes in the future.....if you wish to debate the issue further I consider you a fucked duck because I know why my dad is doing what he's doing now....God Damned if one of you men were smart enough (sorry guys, I am directing this at DITWD) you'd latch on to me cuz you'd know you'd be set for life..... and I am not fucking around....

I just get pissed when I KNOW that a family business had to be sold because of the fucking tax placed on the deceased....God this pisses me, pardon me God.

[techchick68]

Now- it sounds like your dad is doing the smart thing- and giving his kids some 10K a year- and that is what you are SUPPOSED to do.

Ummm DITWD, I am worth far more than that, Daddy, if you want to call him that, gives us far more than the $10K that is standard but it's within some IRS guidlines where we take fewer tax cuts. I can say I am worth at least $230,000 at this moment afer just a few years ( three maybe), possibly more not only with that investment but with what I own as well, I don't keep up on it all like my brothers, they are better investors than me. Oh and I have 18 years more to go on just his basic investment within the family.

You can do $10K every year tax wise for free but this can't apply to my father so we get a percentage every year and yes there are taxes involved, pay them every God Damned year. Which is why he is doing this the way he is doing it all but it's an overall smaller tax rate than if he died now....so we are a part of a family partnership rather than when he dies (God I hope not). If he dies we stand to lose a god damned large sum.....why because he was wealthy? Because he provided people with jobs? Why because he gave a lot people a place to start? I think that's bullshit! He gave many a dream to start on and I know for a fact a few have followed through on that dream and are kicking ass in life, so should I have to suffer taking a considerable amount because my daddy died tomorrow? Because the government feels that my daddy made too much money? I find this a Republican and Democratic way to make a buck.....but a Libertarian would see it as an opportunity to work with the person to work within the community and make it a better place.

Anyhow, fuck this idea of taxing a wealthy person because he or she has made money. What contribution has the weakest made? Can he or she honestly say that he or she has sat back and wished for the wealthy to live an long healthy life?

If the wealthy are expected to carry 80% of this nation financially then I expect they respect people like my father. As they say, 20% carry this nation financially, so if you want to be a true American then respect the 20% that are wealthy and pay taxes for the things you all seem to hold so dear. Without them we are fucked in the mud.

[milroyj]

Unless "Fowler Lumber" was worth HUGE megabucks- AND Pa Fowler was not sharp enuf to hire a good tax expert.

Why should Mr. Fowler have to be "sharp enuf" to hire a good tax expert? This is another example of why the death tax is unfair, IMHO.

[techchick68]

Why should Mr. Fowler have to be "sharp enuf"

#1 with the tax code you can't hardly live without knowing the God Damned things.

#2. With a Tax code that towers over most men, volumn wise I think we have come up with a conclusion as to why things need to change....not just for a Libertarian but for a human. Good God can anyone actually tell us how tall the tax code stands in volumns and why it is so? I know it's been done, very recently but sheesh I am "Joe Schmoe" I don't expect to know what the hell is up with it all.....

[Arjuna34]

It's not always that easy, Danielinthewolvesden. My boss's mom had to sell her husband's business at a huge loss to pay the taxes. Sure, in a month or so, she might have been able to swing a loan (although with the head of the business dead, it wouldn't necessarily be easy), but the IRS came after her within two weeks of his death demanding taxes based on their valuation of the company- there was no time to raise the money, even if she could. Also, there were few hard assets in this business.

My boss now takes out enough life insurance to cover the taxes in case he dies ....


Arjuna34

[Freedom]

Hey there Techchick.

You know, I'm pretty damned romantic and caring.

5'9, 185_{athletic build}, long brown hair_{I'm happy to cut to please of course}, libertarian.....

Of course you would have to act quick, I'm getting married in April.



And DITWD.....

My understanding is that a 20 million net worth company is considered a small business. You have to get up around 100 million and have hundreds of employees to even qualify as medium sized one.

[Freedom]

RT....?


What's up man? I was expecting some real incendiary stuff from Milo that set you off.


I'm going to have to cast my vote with the "mountain out of a molehill" theory.

[Milossarian]

Hey, do you people mind? Go talk about the estate tax in GD! Can't you see RTFirefly is trying to flex his intellect and flame dumb ol' me?

He walks, he talks, his SN combines two Catch-22 characters who combine about as well as oil and water.

I wasn't aware that they had to "combine well." I just thought they were two cool, interesting characters from one of my favorite books.

You're right. I should have let you pick my user name. But I wasn't then aware of your abilities to always be right and think for everyone else.

He's also wilfully ignorant, repeatedly resurrecting arguments that have long since been refuted, and bringing up new ones that show that he hasn't actually thought before posting.

"Repeatedly resurrecting arguments that have long since been refuted" = "refusing to agree with about a half-dozen people who march in lock-step along their own partisan ideology."

But I'm the partisan dittohead. Just me. Not you. Gotcha.

Show me where you've ever said a good thing about a Republican, little Firefly. Link it. Quote it.

I'll show you, oh, four or five in the past 10 days from me re: Democrats.

Ready? Go.

RTFirefly: "They should have continued to count the votes! Why did they stop counting the votes?"

minty green: "Yeah!"

wring: "Really!"

Stoid: "HIGH FIVE!"

Milo: "Because the vote-counting was partisan, subjective, illegal and Unconstitutional."

RT: "There goes that partisan idiot Milo again, repeatedly resurrecting arguments that have long since been refuted."

he lists his occupation as 'newspaper reporter', but I can't imagine him doing more in-depth reporting than interviewing the local big-shots, and putting their words in standard newspaper-story form for publication.

Slandering my work performance, sight unseen, RT? Pretty fucking low. I may have underestimated just how self-important you are in your own head.

Want to have a dick-sizing contest? Email me all the statewide awards you've won from your peers for your work, and I'll do the same. M'kay?

(I imagine you'll run from this like a little shrinking violet, just as you did my suggestion that we get together and you call me an "ignorant turd" to my face, and we just see what happens. Weak-wristed Internet geek.)

His latest intrusion into an issue I actually know a bit about is the latest Estate Tax thread. Milo's worried about the fate of people whose families have owned vacation homes that have become so valuable that they're subject to the Federal estate tax. If there's a 'problem' that's crying out for Federal intervention (estate tax repeal), the consequences of having your property being worth too much has to be first on your list, right?

("Help, Daddy's house is worth $2M! I'll never be able to afford the estate taxes, and will never be able to live there! Instead, my sister and me will be forced to split $1.7 million! Woe is me - I need the Feds to change these cruel laws!")

Way to stare into those partisan blinders and fail to grasp the problem at all.

Middle class and lower-middle-class families are having to sell homes that have been in their families for generations, because rich people have decided they are in an area that they want. The price gets driven up, the valuations get driven up, the taxes get driven up, and they have to sell.

The fact that you have no problems with this, that your attitude is "shut up, take the money, and be rich" only goes to your assholery.

Who are the poor and middle-class people that you want to help, then? Aren't these the people to whom you want to redistribute the rich's wealth?

You're a Democrat. I thought you cared about the little guy.

Let's not even mention an Election thread that Bricker started, that was doing pretty well, until Milo stuck his nose in with a gratuitous slam at liberals on an issue that had been hashed and rehashed, his position refuted, and the refutations unanswered, in multiple election threads back in November and December. Since I clobbered him pretty good in that thread (and I apologize to all concerned for getting Pit-worthy in GD; I should have taken it here directly), we probably don't need to more than wave at that one.

I'm only now recovering from that intellectual clobbering you gave me too, Master.

Or consider SuaSponte's current Pit thread about Dan Burton's investigation of the Clinton pardons. The issue was being debated in a rational, intelligent, and spirited manner (the thread really belonged in GD), until Milo jumped in with a personal attack on one of the debaters, accusing said poster of turning a blind eye to anything negative that Clinton had ever done. As usual, his slam was so far off base that it could've been picked off from center field.

My viewpoint expressed in that thread was far more middle-of-the-road and nonpartisan than that of many of your friends on The Left. As for my comments re: wring, it was a Pit thread, after all. I had never seen her say anything remotely critical about Clinton or any Democrat, and she claimed not to be one. She then responded and almost was critical of Clinton's Marc Rich pardon. Asked-and-answered, as far as I'm concerned.

As for my "slam" being "so far off-base," I invite her to do the same as I invite you: Point me to any comment that you've made here that is critical of a Democrat or complimentary of a Republican.

Uhh ... yeah. That's what I thought. You partisan ditto-heads, you.

RTF? When your ego and intelligence overwhelm the Chicago Reader offices like an out-of-control XFL blimp and you start running this place, then you can tell me where and how to post.

Now go masturbate in front of the mirror again. And don't forget the Windex.

[Freedom]

Stoid: "HIGH FIVE!"

I see that I am not the only one who has been scarred for life











_{nice flame BTW}

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by RTFirefly
Or consider SuaSponte's current Pit thread about Dan Burton's investigation of the Clinton pardons. The issue was being debated in a rational, intelligent, and spirited manner (the thread really belonged in GD)

I really gotta apologize for this. I still haven't gotten the whole "rant" thing down yet. It seems my Pit threads always turn into GD's. My bad.

Sua

[magdalene]

Yeah, Milo, your username does kind of suck. I think you should change it to ThatLoudmouthedRepublicanWhoWon'tJustGiveInAndJointheLiberalDaisy-ChainAtTheirWeeklyGDOrgies.

And SuaSponte, yes, yes, you are a very bad boy.

[ElvisL1ves]

RTF? Milo loves this stuff. You're being an enabler with this thread.

Better to just give him a pat on the head and ignore him.

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by magdalene
And SuaSponte, yes, yes, you are a very bad boy.

drool.

Sua

[Monster104]

Elvis: I don't think Milo likes this stuff. I don't think he likes being attacked because he disagrees with Democratic viewpoints. Just because he is able to defend himself doesn't mean he likes being insulted.

[Falcon]

Originally posted by Milossarian
Want to have a dick-sizing contest? Email me all the statewide awards you've won from your peers for your work, and I'll do the same. M'kay?

(I imagine you'll run from this like a little shrinking violet, just as you did my suggestion that we get together and you call me an "ignorant turd" to my face, and we just see what happens. Weak-wristed Internet geek.)

Well hell, Milo.....I'll tell ya what. You come out here for the next DC dopefest in March. You can get together with RT, and I can have a private, erm, "dick-sizing" contest with ya.

(HEY, Sua and mags are flirting! I can too, dammit!)

[RTFirefly]

As for my "slam" being "so far off-base," I invite her to do the same as I invite you: Point me to any comment that you've made here that is critical of a Democrat or complimentary of a Republican.

Uhh ... yeah. That's what I thought. You partisan ditto-heads, you.

You mean like just the other day, when I referred to Clinton as...dammit, was it a 'sleazeball' or sleazebucket.' Or when I agreed that Bush's education initiative actually might be beneficial.

Or if you mean Republicans on this board, I've been going around telling people at Dopefests that Scylla is my hero. Not just for his 'goat porn' or 'so I was changing my baby's diaper' threads, but for his serious posts in GD as well. I'm also a big fan of Jodi, John Corrado, and other Republicans around this site.

I read The Conscience of a Conservative before I was in my teens.

You're right, I'm just a liberal dittohead.

As for my comments re: wring, it was a Pit thread, after all. I had never seen her say anything remotely critical about Clinton or any Democrat, and she claimed not to be one. She then responded and almost was critical of Clinton's Marc Rich pardon. Asked-and-answered, as far as I'm concerned.

Of course, that's 'claimed and then refuted', by anyone's standards but your own. After all, if her statements in the thread stood on their own, what did it matter whether she'd criticized Clinton anywhere else, except to Mr. Litmus Test? All you were doing was trying to attack her, rather than her remarks, by calling her a knee-jerk liberal.

You were wrong two ways: first, because she's not one, and second, because it was totally fucking irrelevant if her arguments were valid. Here's her post:

That's not how I recall it. Seems to me, that the Bush pardons of the IRan Contra folk came during the investigation and shortly after these same people had been ordered to testify. And, right after it was discovered that Papa Bush had kept written records during the time in question. The pardons effectively stopped the investigation by the special prosecutor, just before Casper Weinberger (one of the recipients) was due to stand trial, certainly before any/most of them had been convicted and/or served time.

OTOH, the pardons of both McDougal and Roger Clinton came after they'd served time.

And here's your response:

wring -

For somebody who claims to not be a Democrat, you seem awfully incapable of acknowledging, let alone denouncing, anything remotely negative that anyone from that party, particularly Clinton, did or does.

Come out of closet already.

So, how do you feel about the pardon of Marc Rich, particularly in light of the political contributions of his ex-wife to the Clintons and the Democratic Party?

Is there anything ethically troubling, as far as you are concerned, with accepting millions in political contributions from someone so closely connected to a person on whom you will be making a pardon decision? How 'bout who is represented by your White House attorney?

How do you feel about the 47 pardons that bypassed the traditional route of the Justice Department and went directly to the White House in the waning weeks of the Clinton presidency, resulting in little or none of the traditional Justice Department comment and recommendation before the pardon decisions were made?

How do you feel about the fact that the current Justice Department doesn't have any of the documents that were used in the review and decision-making on these pardons? They were apparently taken and no one knows where they are, though speculation is they were taken to Arkansas along with other documents for the Clinton Presidential Library.

Thoughts?

See if you can respond to any of those questions without making a reference to any Republican, living or dead, or using the words "Iran," "Contra," "Bush," or "Reagan."

Notice how you didn't suggest that any of her history might be incorrect; you just pounded her, incorrectly as it turns out, for never saying anything bad about Clinton. And then went into a McCarthyesque rant.

BTW, just to clarify things for you, what makes someone a dittohead of any persuasion is not whether they ever take a stand contrary to that of what's perceived as being 'their' side, but whether they're taking those stands without being able to articulate reasons for them, because someone told them that they were the right stands.

If you can find stands I've taken around here without fairly well-articulated rationales for those stands, let me know.

I imagine you'll run from this like a little shrinking violet, just as you did my suggestion that we get together and you call me an "ignorant turd" to my face, and we just see what happens. Weak-wristed Internet geek.

A bit homophobic, are we? Wrong place for it, bub. And, no, I don't believe duking it out settles anything except for who has the bigger muscles. This ain't the 'flexing muscles' board, this is the 'fighting ignorance' board.

Y'know, Milo, I'm 47 years old. It's been decades since I've been in a fight, and I'm certainly not going to seek one out now. That tends to be true of most people my age who work at a keyboard and computer screen, rather than with their hands. While you may feel that's sissified, I honestly don't care. If you must duke it out with me, download my photo off the People Pages, pin it to your pillow, punch the hell out of it, and get all gooey afterwards.

RTFirefly: "They should have continued to count the votes! Why did they stop counting the votes?"

minty green: "Yeah!"

wring: "Really!"

Stoid: "HIGH FIVE!"

Milo: "Because the vote-counting was partisan, subjective, illegal and Unconstitutional."

RT: "There goes that partisan idiot Milo again, repeatedly resurrecting arguments that have long since been refuted."

Nah. Let's try where you said:

In [the liberal] utopia, no one is personally responsible for casting their vote correctly. If they intend to vote for a particular someone, essentially, it doesn't matter what they do or don't do. Their "vote" should be counted.

And let's take this thread, which was one of several places I'd responded to this BS months earlier. Like so, back on Nov. 13:

if you put any burden on the voters for one side, but not for the other - no matter how trivial - it's going to affect the outcome. If we'd required every Bush voter in Palm Beach County to spell 'potato' correctly to have their vote counted (a task that any 7 year old should be able to handle), that would've probably knocked out a couple thousand Bush votes, and Gore would be the President-elect.

Yup, that looks like me and Stoid and wring exchanging high-fives, and calling it a refutation.

Middle class and lower-middle-class families are having to sell homes that have been in their families for generations, because rich people have decided they are in an area that they want. The price gets driven up, the valuations get driven up, the taxes get driven up, and they have to sell.

The fact that you have no problems with this, that your attitude is "shut up, take the money, and be rich" only goes to your assholery.

Who are the poor and middle-class people that you want to help, then? Aren't these the people to whom you want to redistribute the rich's wealth?

You're a Democrat. I thought you cared about the little guy.

To say that you have no appreciation of scale when it comes to problems, Milo, is a wee tad of an understatement. I'm sorry that this happens, but out of any hundred randomly selected problems that would force a family to relocate against their will, this is the one that people afflicted with the other 99 problems would love to have instead.

As I said in the thread itself:

As someone who grew up in the DC area, I've been hearing a variation on this lament for decades now: "we're retired, and on our limited incomes, we can no longer afford to pay the property taxes on the house we've lived in all our lives." Again, what that means is, you can sell the house, collect a pile of money, and retire to somewhere with a lower cost of living. I feel sorry for you, but not nearly as sorry as for people with more intractable problems.

You know, when the company of a company town gets bought up and closes its doors, and the people who've been living there for generations have to move elsewhere just to find work, those people I feel sorry for. I can't see a way for the government to preserve their way of life, but it should help them do so, a damn sight sooner than it helps people who are faced with the 'problem' that their home is worth too damned much money.

I reiterate: it's hard to get upset for the little guy who's forced to relocate, but is going to get a shitload of money in return, while there are still plenty of little guys in the world who are forced to relocate with nothing but a U-Haul full of personal belongings.

If that makes my commitment to the underdog a bit too weak for your liking, I can live with that.

Funny: conservatives usually give liberals a hard time about finding injustices behind every tree. Here, I prioritized injustices in a rather commonsense way, I thought, and even after seeing what I read, Milo still thinks - what? That I should consider the minor injustice done to those he knows to be more important than greater harm done to others? That I should be 'wildly indignant about nearly everything' (bonus points for catching the reference), and that I'm not truly a liberal unless any injustice, no matter how small, is worth going to the wall for? Damned if I know, because Milo's too muddleheaded to make his objections clear.

[RTFirefly]

Techie - I will gladly discuss your problems with my stand on the estate tax, in that thread, where I have already explained my difficulty in understanding why the FET, as presently constituted, would threaten any family business.

In a previous thread, a poster brought up an example of how, as he understood it, a small business would have to be broken up to pay the Estate Tax. One doesn't need to be a tax expert to see that one can pay the tax over nearly 15 years; all one needs is 10 minutes with the instruction manual to the Estate Tax return. And that one provision should be sufficient for pretty much all closely held concerns.

Obviously, I'm not privy to Crissey Fowler Lumber's financial info, or to its owner's estate tax return. But IMO, if someone's using that example to show how the FET kills family businesses, they need to make the numbers available to show how the mechanisms in the tax code designed to protect such businesses are insufficient.

And as far as the general fairness (or lack thereof) of the FET, again, I'd like to keep it in one place.

[SPOOFE]

RTF...

A bit homophobic, are we?

WTF?!?

Where the hell did that come from?!?

[RTFirefly]

SPOOFE - since you asked, I read the 'weak-wristed' comment as essentially identical to the classic 'limp-wristed' slur historically aimed at gay men.

Given that I see nothing wrong with being gay, I don't take it as an insult to be compared to gays. However, I get a bit ticked at those who reiterate the ancient suggestion that homosexuality is less than manly, as well as the general implication that there's anything wrong with it.

[Freedom]

Just to add some more confusion to the pot.....


I was just as surprised at the homophobic comment. Upon re-reading the section quoted, I was going to ask if this was what he was refering to:

little shrinking violet

The wrist part didn't even register on my homophobic radar.


I see nothing homophobic in Milo's post.


Man...

I hate it when two posters I like are at each others throats.

[Spiritus Mundi]

Well, Milo, I suppose I should at least congratulate you on being willing to back up your position in this dispute. It is more honorable than calling names and running away. Good for you. You gave as good as you got and have some people supporting your position, even.

You have also, again, made reference to resolving a dispute on this board with physical violence. I have no idea what the mods will say about that, but what I say is:

LOSER.
Trying to physically intimidate someone who disagrees with you on an electronic bulletin board is lame, cowardly, intellectually bankrupt, morally bereft, and fucking ignorant. That type of nonsense should have no place these boards, even in the PIT.

If you simply must strut about and rage about kicking ass I suggest buying some tights and trying out for WCW. That circuit has gotten lame enough recently that you might fit right in. Barring that, find a 4^th grade playground and start stealing ball. I'm sure one of the local schoolboys will be willing to satisfy your need to prove your machismo.

BTW--I make my living in front of a computer screen these days, too. So if it will help you sleep at night please just assume that should we meet I will also decline to test my prowess against your brobdinagian might. My poor, weak little wrists might get a boo-boo.

However, that will certainly not prevent me from expressing my opinion to your face.

Asshole.

[Stoid]

Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi


Asshole.

Jeepers! Is this my hero Spiritus saying this? Wow...that can only mean one thing...

[Spiritus Mundi]

Sorry to shock you, Stoid. It bothers me to see schoolyard bullying rear it's face on my favorite message board.

Hell, I didn't much care for it back in elementary school, either, but at least then folks had an excuse for acting like children.

[SPOOFE]

I read the 'weak-wristed' comment as essentially identical to the classic 'limp-wristed' slur historically aimed at gay men.

No offense, but that's a pretty lame interpretation, especially given the context of the original quote.

Weak-wristed: Weak wrists. Not strong. Deficient in physical strength.

In short, he was calling you a weenie.

Trying to physically intimidate someone who disagrees with you on an electronic bulletin board is lame, cowardly, intellectually bankrupt, morally bereft, and fucking ignorant.

Trying to physically intimidate someone who disagrees with you on an electronic bulletin board is lame, cowardly, intellectually bankrupt, morally bereft, and fucking ignorant.

I agree. However, it's no less lame than insulting someone's occupation just because you disagree with them. I see Milo's comeback to RTF's weak-ass taunt as perfectly appropriate.

[SPOOFE]

Oops... 'scuse the double-quote. I have no clue how that got in there.

Maybe I shouldn't post whilst blindfolded.

[Scylla]

I think it would be fair to assume that just about everybody who's participated in political threads has been hit with a cheap shot. I'd say that most of those people have also let their better judgement fly out the window on occasion, and pulled the trigger on a couple of cheap shots themselves.

In all fairness to Milossarian, there are a couple of posters who seem to bring out the worst in their Republican/Conservative debaters. After dealing with their crap, it's very hard to switch gears and deal with someone who is taking a liberal standpoint politely and reasonably. You're still used to dealing with the asshole, and it's tough to remember to be civil.

I've had to apologize for being a jerk to my liberal brethren after having come down with a nasty Stoiditis infection earlier. More than once.

[techchick68]

RTF,

Sorry to highjack your Pit thread but had I started talking about things in reference to that GD thread I woulda just ended up Pittifying (okay lame way to say it) the thread. So I figured, hell, since I read it here and I knew my responses would be less than civil I might as well keep it here!

Oh and Freedom....if you wanna meet me before your wedding, I am in Colorado. LOL, kidding.

[VarlosZ]

Milo,
What RTF and others object to is the pointless partisan nature of your posts. You seem unable to attack a "liberal" position without including a "fucking liberals/Democrats" rant. Who the fuck wants to hear this? You wanna argue against the estate tax? Great. You wanna bitch about how Democrats are always trying to fuck you in the ass? Fine. The two don't belong in the same thread, however. To combine them is pointlessly aggressive to liberals and Democrats, making it basically impossible for them to concede any point to you or to admit any give in their arguments. When you post in this manner, it almost inevitably leads to two sides shouting past each other. It's very annoying. Please stop it.

I imagine you'll run from this like a little shrinking violet, just as you did my suggestion that we get together and you call me an "ignorant turd" to my face, and we just see what happens. Weak-wristed Internet geek.

Shut the fuck up.

[Nacho4Sara]

One quick comment:

He is doing so legally and in a way that cuts our losses as his children with whom deserve his hard earned work not some welfare bitch or skid row man who does not want to live like a regular human....

And then...

I know for a fact my father's business provided jobs for convicts in half way houses, his business gave lost people a place to work, okay for shitty wages but hell they got a sense of belonging, working and many went on to bigger and better things. His place of business also gave many Vietmanese immigrants (sp) a job to make a life here.

So...it's okay when money is given back to the "Vietnamese immigrants" working for "shitty wages" just for that special "sense of belonging" (which I'm sure they cherished) just as long as it doesn't come out of your pocket?

Do Vietnamese immigrants, convicts and "lost people" constitute "regular human[s]"? Or are they sub-human? Non-human? Un-human? Does this social strata allow any possibility for the "welfare bitch[es]" who do work, but do not make enough money to raise a family?

Just wondering.

Since this is all personal and whatnot, my mom, the reformed "welfare bitch" who spent ten years trying to raise her family out of the gutter and occasionally needed some government aid, extends a hearty "fuck you" for that stereotypical bullshit. Of course, she's worth no where near $230,000, so she must not be a "regular human." We'll have to wait until she finally gets that check for all the death taxes stolen from rich people, and then you guys can talk.

[Spiritus Mundi]

I agree. However, it's no less lame than insulting someone's occupation just because you disagree with them. I see Milo's comeback to RTF's weak-ass taunt as perfectly appropriate.

If you agreed then you would not think the implied threat of physical violence was "appropriate". Exactly what part of my post gave you the impression that I felt such boorishnes and thuggery to be "appropriate" on these boards? I realize that I used only a couple of profanities in my post, practically a love letter by PIT standards, but here's a clue: when I call someone a loser and an asshole it does not mean that I felt their behavior was "appropriate".

Sheesh! The things a guy has to explain around here.

And since you brought it up: RTFirefly did not insult Milo's occupation. He said that he doubted Milo was particularly successful/accomplished at his job. Since the job in question is one that is normally associated with a requirement for objectivity, diligence, observation, etc. that was indeed "appropriate" for a PIT rant. Insulting? Absolutely. A fair characterization? Probably not. Out of bounds for the PIT? No.

Equivalent to threatening physical assault? Not even close.

[techchick68]

Oh NachoSara, get off your high horse would you? My step-mom happened to have been on welfare at some point. I am not calling all those on welfare or those from an other country sub-humans. Boy you like to read into shit that aint there. I see it over and over again, guess you will make a good attorney if you continue to throw into the mouths of other people meanings that aren't there.

Oh and BTW, shitty wages for work that is less than skilled workers is not uncommon. My father's company provided many people many jobs that otherwise would be left to fend without any opportunity to better themselves and he offered a lot of opportunity to people including myself.

Sometimes you just tickle me.

[techchick68]

Oh and Sara, I forgot to add, my father's company was one of the top ten non-tech employers in this city. I friggin HATE it when people get their panties in a wad because my father worked his ass of for what he has. Oh yeah, the Jag sitting in his garage might give you a butt rash not to mention the Land Rover or the Lexus SUV.

He bought the company from my grand daddy, he brought it from about 10 employees to employing close to 300. If that is a terrible deed then I bow to thee and forgive that my father even considered employing people like the convict or the welfare mother looking for better opportunities....my step-mom was one of those.

[Stoid]

Originally posted by Scylla

I've had to apologize for being a jerk to my liberal brethren after having come down with a nasty Stoiditis infection earlier. More than once.

I cannot begin to imagine what this is supposed to mean. Scylla gets pissed off it me so he then acts like a jerk?

Originally posted by Freedom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stoid: "HIGH FIVE!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see that I am not the only one who has been scarred for life

Y'all are giving me WAY too much power over you.

stoid

[SPOOFE]

If you agreed then you would not think the implied threat of physical violence was "appropriate".

Why not? He responded to pompous boorishness with pompous boorishness.

I said it was an appropriate response to the OP's comments (slamming his job). I did NOT say that it was the best netiquette in the world.

? I realize that I used only a couple of profanities in my post, practically a love letter by PIT standards, but here's a clue: when I call someone a loser and an asshole it does not mean that I felt their behavior was "appropriate".

Are you simply unclear on my use of the word "However"? I didn't even imply that YOU found ANYTHING appropriate.

RTFirefly did not insult Milo's occupation.

Now you're just playing the silly semantics game. Read the fourth sentence in the OP.

He said that he doubted Milo was particularly successful/accomplished at his job. Since the job in question is one that is normally associated with a requirement for objectivity, diligence, observation, etc. that was indeed "appropriate" for a PIT rant.

So it's okay to launch a personal attack on someone because you disagree with them? Making fun of someone's occupation for the sole purpose of getting a rise out of them (I see no reason why RTF would even NEED to bring up someone's job... a person's board behavior should suffice) is a personal attack, no matter how you slice it. And you know what the general attitude about personal attacks is, don't you?

Equivalent to threatening physical assault? Not even close.

Oh, boy, now it's MY turn to play the semantics game. There WAS no threat of physical assault. If you read his whole sentence, you will note that Milo was simply making reference to RTF's "wussing out" in previous occasions.

"Threatening physical assault" indeed... ::snort::

By the way, Mr. Mundi, how much do you spend on oats a week?

[Danielinthewolvesden]

Originally posted by techchick68
Sorry DITWD

Please then to consult our local Crissey Fowler Lumber company and tell them why they had to sell their shares to a larger company? It was all over the fucking local news. The reasons where all over Channel 5/30, I doubt they have the news story anymore, but they are http://www.koaa.com . The family of Crissey Fowler Lumber had to sell because the couldn't pay the god damned estate taxes a substantial lose. that has had to deal with such.

Look DITWD I don't bring this shit up because it suit's my fancy but if you want proof, then I will get it for you if I can.

. Oh yeah, Mr. US Government wanted their own God damed share of my mother's death. I paid taxes on property she owned, and all I got was a measly $70 check from 15-18, a total of $1680 bucks yet she worked more than 30 years and paid into the social security system.
.if you wish to debate the issue further I consider you a fucked duck because I know why my dad is doing what he's doing now....God Damned if one of you men were smart enough
I just get pissed when I KNOW that a family business had to be sold because of the fucking tax placed on the deceased..

Yes- i would like some proof that "Fowler Lumber" had to be sold to pay off the ESTATE TAX. Unless it was a very LARGE "small business"- i have just shown it was in no way laible for ESTATE TAXES. yes- there could very well have been circumstances associated with Pa Fowlers dath (like probate) that killed the business. But not ESTATE TAXES. OK? And that is what we are discussing- not unreasonably high probate expenses, ot property taxes, or capital gains taxes or any of that stuff- estate taxes.

Next- you go on a long babbling rant about Social security- however- that has nothing to do with "estate taxes". Look- TC- I have no idea what started your strange vitrolic personal attack on me. I did nothing to you, and said nothing in any way which was a personal remark. I have nothing at all against you. It is my professional expertise that tells me that a business that a normal person would be able to justify as "small family owned"- cannot owe significant estate tax that would cause it to be 'sold off". If a Doctor tells you that smoking or eating fatty food is bad for you- do you go off on him? And it is not just me- it is every single tax professional who has posted so far. CPA's- etc. My opinion as a US taxpayer is that the Estate tax is a fair & reasonable tax- which opinion is shared by MILLIONS of my fellow americans. Do you hate all of us?

Now look TC- before you go off on me again- i was posting here only to "fight ignorance". I have nothing against you- or even agaist Milo (altho ....naw, why bother?). Why all the meaness & personal attacks? Please count to ten before you tear up your keyboard again, OK?

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by Scylla
I think it would be fair to assume that just about everybody who's participated in political threads has been hit with a cheap shot. I'd say that most of those people have also let their better judgement fly out the window on occasion, and pulled the trigger on a couple of cheap shots themselves.

Scylla:
_{you facist} I hope you _{reactionary cretin} aren't talking about me _{the most intelligent of god's creatures}. I personally would never sink so low _{unlike a fundie nutball like you} as to slap an opponent _{screwball is more like it} with a cheap shot _{the truth} in a political debate.
I respect the opinions of all _{even militia members like yourself}.

:GD&R:

[Nacho4Sara]

Techchick, I'm afraid you missed my point entirely.

You justify your father's wealth by saying he employed "Vietnamese immigrants" and "lost people." Well, shit, there's nothing wrong with that. I think the whole "sense of community" thing is hogwash - more like "ability to eat" - but that's beside the point. So it's great that your father gives back to the community. There's no shame in that.

But when money from your inheritance, after his death, has to go to helping "lost people" and giving back to the community, then it's all fucked up? How is that? Why it okay for some people to get his money, but "stealing" for others to recieve it? The only difference I can see between the two is that when it's your father's money, it's great, but the second it comes from your pocket, then it's all about those fucking welfare hos.

Seems kind of hypocritical to me, that's all.

[wring]

Coming into this one late. But my name certainly has been bandied about.

FTR. Milo and I have found ourselves to be on opposite ends of most issues (tho there was a freaky occurance where we were on the same side on a gun related topic.). But, that's not the point. I've disagreeed with any number of people. especially in the election threads, which admittedly got rather heated.

What I do recall is that I seem to recall having to use the phrase "Milo I've been polite to you, there's no need to be rude to me" more than once. And that gets tiresome. I understand Scylla's point, but allow me to point out to you Scylla, you will admit when you're changing your position, and, as often as you and I have been on opposite ends, I don't ever recall you resorting to name calling or rudeness. Curt, perhaps. Sarcastic fine. Rude -nope, and never the overt 'let's meet IRL and beat each other up' nonsense.

I don't have a similar recollection for any other poster, including those here who've lept to defend Milo, tho' I recall having spirited debates with each of them. Now, does this mean that all the rest (including those I agree with, and myself personally as well) never loose their tempers, get rude, resort to personal attacks? no. However, it seems to be a frequent occurance with Milo, which, frankly limits the debate. You end up getting side tracked onto the issue of 'is Spiritus really partisan ' ( Here ) instead of the real one.

Seems that he's decided that I, personally, am the standard carrying apologist for Democrats everywhere, never admitting a wrong. But, no, let's let Milo himself explain it -in the already referenced Pit thread, he comes in stating to me "For somebody who claims to not be a Democrat, you seem awfully incapable of acknowledging, let alone denouncing, anything remotely negative that anyone from that party, particularly Clinton, did or does. "

Odd position to take since I started this thread , and this one or my comments in his own thread on the topic of the pardon here

originally posted by wring:FTR: Did I agree with 100% of Clinton's stance, actions, policies? Nope. Do I agree with 100% of Bushes? nope.

What do I think of Clinton's pardon? well, from the information that's available, I probably wouldn't have done it. But then again, I was neither President nor in the room when the issue was discussed. I feel that he made a serious error in not consulting the Justice Department about it. But then again, pretty much any of his actions that contained the phrases "Lewinsky" and/or "cigar" probably were serious errors as well.

Yeppers, that's me, siding with Democrats and Clinton all the way. yea, and on all of the ballot counting threads where I said I didn't think that 'pregnant chads' should be counted, yep, I pulled that directly from the Democratic party line at the time. And the times I suggested to Stoid to cut back the party rhetoric, "Inaccuracy on either side does nothing to advance debate. sarcasm on either side does nothing to advance debate. " Here , yes, absolutely, I do nothing but 'high five' people arguing 'my side'.

Milo. A suggestion. If you feel your argument stands on it's merits, I suggest that you let it do so, instead of resorting to personal attacks and insults.

[RTFirefly]

So it's okay to launch a personal attack on someone because you disagree with them?

No. And I probably shouldn't have gotten this personal here anyway.

I have no problem with people arguing the conservative side of an issue, especially when they do it well. (And we have conservative GDers who can debate very well. At least three are in this thread. I enjoy debating them, because maybe they'll poke holes in my bad ideas.) I have problems with people on both ends of the spectrum (and in the middle, for that matter) using sloganeering and ad hominem arguments and thinking that constitutes a riposte, with using arguments that have already been repeatedly dismantled in recent debate (one of my particular beefs with Milo), and so forth.

[Spiritus Mundi]

SPOOFE: You and I do not agree. Can we at least agree on that?

me
Milo's implied threat of violence is antithetical to everything this board should stand for. When he initially stooped to this level (here) he was politely chastised by Gaudere. Frankly, I was amazed that after being told it was a no-no Milo would show the utter lack of class to bring it up again. Milo and I have disagreed before, and I have no great respect for the quality of his posts, but I have never before been forced to conclude he is an asshole. I do now.

Threatening violence over a bulletin board disagreement is rude, inane, and a sure sign of a boor. The first instance might be excusable, since it was provoked by an inappropriate direct insult in GD. Proudly calling attention to such boorishness at a later date, however, is a sure sign of an asshole.

you
Threats of violence are no different than personal insults.
Insulting someone's job performance, or insulting them at all to "get a rise out of them" is equally offensive. (aside from me: read the guidelines for the PIT lately?)

Okay?
There is no reason we must agree. I simply objected to the idea that you could agree with me that a behavior was inexcusable while in the next breathe declaring it appropriate. I agree, however I will now contradict your point. That is not agreement.

"Threatening physical assault" indeed... ::snort::

Say that to my face and see what happens!
Yep -- that is an implied threat of physical violence,just like it was back in 4^th grade. Little Timmy wasn't confused about how to interpret it. Neither was RT. Neither am I.

Oh, and would you care to clarify your pithy postscript? It was entirely meaningless to me.

[Milossarian]

Geez! Go away for a weekend and get a Page 2!

FTR, my comments to RT were in no way intended to be homophobic or even a reference to homosexuality. They were a wimpiness reference. A reference to his feeling pretty damn confident in himself to be insulting and personally attacking behind his safe little computer keyboard.

Want to talk netiquette? Don't say something on a message board you wouldn't be prepared to say to someone's face. My "threats" are inferred. RT's attacks are rather blatant, I'd say. (Strangely, I was somehow able to sleep restfully last night, though. Huh.)

As the catalyst (or the straw that broke the liberal's back, or whatever) for this would appear to be my posts in the estate tax thread, let's talk about that.

I pointed out a scenario occurring where I live, in which people are losing their estates because of inability to pay taxes. Perhaps erroneously, I attributed that to estate taxes. Danielinthewolvesden, who apparently has some kind of a background that involves knowledge of taxes, pointed out that he doesn't believe this could be the case.

While taking exception to his assertion that my anecdote was an urban legend, I deferred to him - twice - on the point about it likely not being from estate taxes. In later posts, we seemed to reach a consensus that what I was talking about was probably rising property taxes as a result of skyrocking taxable valuations on these lakefront family estates.

So, what do some people think goes on in a debate thread, then?

(Although I would note that from what I was able to find on the Internet, the $675,000 exemption Daniel referred to was enacted in 1997 or 1998. I imagine, therefore, that only a few years ago, what I was referring to was, indeed, a result of an inability to pay estate taxes as well as property taxes.

I would also point out that a little family-run tool-and-die factory or something similar with about a dozen employees could easily have a value over $1 million, without necessarily making the owner "rich" by the objective criteria we all associate with that term. Well, some of us, anyway.)

RT's version of GD political debate is apparently something like this, or this. (Hint: Read until the liberal "we all agree and we're all so smart and witty" party is busted up by an indignant Republican or conservative in each.)

VarlosZ

What RTF and others object to is the pointless partisan nature of your posts. You seem unable to attack a "liberal" position without including a "fucking liberals/Democrats" rant.

A. Read from the links I've provided in this post, and then let's talk partisan and pointless. And hypocrisy.

B. Find a post where I use the phrase "fucking liberals/Democrats," and I'll send you $100.
There's enough to criticize about the liberal political philosophy without attacking them "just cuz," which you seem to be inferring I do. Bullshit.

Spiritus:

Trying to physically intimidate someone who disagrees with you on an electronic bulletin board is lame, cowardly, intellectually bankrupt, morally bereft, and fucking ignorant.

You are right. I apologize for not turning the other cheek on his repeated personal attacks of me. (I am being sincere.)

You do, understand, however, that those comments most assuredly have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with the fact that he "disagrees with me."

In fact, his personal insults and my very own Pit thread, stripped down, appear to be because I disagree with him. The Bricker thread where he "clobbered" me? He provided cites from the Supreme Court and elsewhere in defense of his opinion. I disagreed with his interpretation of them, or their worth independent of the larger goings-on. I provided cites from the Supreme Court and elsewhere in defense of my opinion, which he apparently rejected in similar fashion.

One of us then went on to be a faux intellectually superior, personally insulting asshole. Guess which one?

wring: I will probably always disagree with 90-plus percent of what comes off those typing fingertips of your's. But I would like to say, I am sure I have at times crossed the "curt and sarcastic" line with you in the past and entered the realm of being personally insulting, and for that I apologize.

I wouldn't, however, say I go out of my way to hurl "insults" at you (as distinguished from vigorously questioning your positions, worldview, etc.). Unless you consider being called a Democrat an insult. Which I can understand. (Kidding! A joke!)

[VarlosZ]

Milo:

Find a post where I use the phrase "fucking liberals/Democrats," and I'll send you $100.
There's enough to criticize about the liberal political philosophy without attacking them "just cuz," which you seem to be inferring I do.

Below is a sample of insults directed towards liberals or Democrats that had nothing to do with the topic at hand; Milo just felt like taking a free swipe at his political opponents. There were several instances of back-handed insults that were clearly implied but still not explicit, so they didn't get in. There were also several insults that were either more or less on topic or a direct response to an unfounded insult directed towards conservatives; they don't make the cut either. At least a couple of the quotes represented the first mention of general political ideology or affiliation in their respective threads. All quotes are since the new year.

I spent about two months in here knocking heads with Gore supporters who would make no such concession about a line being drawn.

In their utopia, no one is personally responsible for casting their vote correctly. If they intend to vote for a particular someone, essentially, it doesn't matter what they do or don't do. Their "vote" should be counted.

Can I get a ?

So, trying to sift through your typical, liberal, intellectual superiority complex. . .

How I got sucked into this exercise in futility with the MENSA Democrats High-Five Club again is to my own discredit.

And all Democrats are right. Always. About everything.

Buh-bye. [Obviously, Milo's being sarcastic.]

For somebody who claims to not be a Democrat, you seem awfully incapable of acknowledging, let alone denouncing, anything remotely negative that anyone from that party, particularly Clinton, did or does.

Hmmm for all the shit certain "vitriolic" Republicans get on this board, some of you Democrats sure seem rather classless in defeat. I thought you'd wait a little longer to show your true colors. Don't know what I was thinking.

Ready to go knee-jerk with your cries of "right wing vitriol?"

[Bush] was smart enough to beat the Democrats for president, wasn't he? And I thought you were all Mensa members.

. . . the air of moral and intellectual superiority your side likes to take, and your propensity for high-five parties when you agree with one another, can be sometimes deluding. But you libs really ought to take a moment to realize how ridiculously pompous and partisan you sound.

I can recognize and respect, however, that some are morally opposed to [abortion] (you liberals should try it sometime - giving respect and acknowledging the intellectual credibility of a viewpoint that differs from your's).

Wow, I didn't expect one of them intellectually superior liberals to come in and given the Sermon on the Mount so quickly.

All I'm saying is that maybe you should shy away from attacking "liberals" when attacking their opinion in any given post will do.

And Milo, what was your point about "hypocrisy"? If you mean to say that certain liberal posters do the same shit you do, I'm sure you're correct. I don't intend to defend them, and I'll be sure to get on their asses when their respective pit thread are opened. Are you referring to my posts on this board? I don't think you are, since the links you referenced contain no posts by me, but correct me if I'm wrong.

[Milossarian]

? I don't think you are, since the links you referenced contain no posts by me, but correct me if I'm wrong.

No, I am not.

But what, exactly, was your exercise in cutting quotes out of their complete context supposed to prove?

By your own qualifications before your little cut-and-paste bonanza, I count one post of mine that you then attach that meets your criteria (of not going on to be specific-issue oriented). Of course, in the manner in which you provide them, it doesn't appear that way. But that wouldn't help you make your point, now would it?

I'm flattered that you think I'm worth all that effort, though. ::bats eyes::