Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-05-2014, 02:55 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(20-05-2014 02:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  So maybe there is a confusion of terms. I have said all along, and all of the IRS and other references support it, that the IRS differentiates between barter between businesses and barter between private individuals. The former is taxable, the latter not.

Maybe there confusion of terms. How are you defining "business" vs "individual"? I am using the legal definition: a business is a c-corp, s-corp, llc, partnership, or dba. An individual is a private party filing a 1040 schedule C. The IRS rules ARE clear than an individual MUST report barters on his schedule C.

Perhaps you are using the word 'business' in a less literal way to mean that anybody who mows lawns on a regular basis is a 'business'. I will grant you with that definition it IS a gray area, since, if you're neighbor's sick and you mow his lawn 1 time, that's not a barter, but once once become systematic and do it repeatedly in exchange for other things from your neighbor, then it IS taxable whether you have a business or not.

(20-05-2014 02:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  Before you so dishonestly changed your OP, I answered the question. The answer was, and is, that you were wrong about the taxes on private transactions and that rendered you question meaningless.
When you removed the basis of your question, it wasn't worth answering.

No, I ONLY removed the excuse you were using to evade the question. The basis of my question was a discussion about the nature of rights and when doing good things for each other goes from being something society should encourage into something that should be punished. THAT was the base of my question. Quibbling of arcane irs tax code had NOTHING to do with my OP.

(20-05-2014 02:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  Whatever credibility you had left here is now completely gone. You have show that you not only can't admit error, you lie to cover it up.

You keep calling me a liar. I fully disclosed that I edited the OP to remove the reference to the tax code since that's what you were using an excuse to not answer it. That is NOT lying. It is calling your bluff that the reason you wouldn't answer the question was because you disputed one aspect of tax law.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 03:09 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(20-05-2014 02:55 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(20-05-2014 02:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  So maybe there is a confusion of terms. I have said all along, and all of the IRS and other references support it, that the IRS differentiates between barter between businesses and barter between private individuals. The former is taxable, the latter not.

Maybe there confusion of terms. How are you defining "business" vs "individual"? I am using the legal definition: a business is a c-corp, s-corp, llc, partnership, or dba. An individual is a private party filing a 1040 schedule C. The IRS rules ARE clear than an individual MUST report barters on his schedule C.

Wrong.
Self-employed people file a Schedule C because being self-employed means you are running a business.

Quote:Perhaps you are using the word 'business' in a less literal way to mean that anybody who mows lawns on a regular basis is a 'business'. I will grant you with that definition it IS a gray area, since, if you're neighbor's sick and you mow his lawn 1 time, that's not a barter, but once once become systematic and do it repeatedly in exchange for other things from your neighbor, then it IS taxable whether you have a business or not.

Again, there is no gray area. If you are generating income by running a lawn-mowing business, you file a Schedule C. If you just mow people's lawns out of the goodness of your heart or in exchange for them plowing your driveway, you are not engaged in a lawn-mowing business. No Schedule C, no reporting.

If the fellow who plows your driveway runs a plowing business, he declares the value of the lawn mowing as income.

Quote:
(20-05-2014 02:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  Before you so dishonestly changed your OP, I answered the question. The answer was, and is, that you were wrong about the taxes on private transactions and that rendered you question meaningless.
When you removed the basis of your question, it wasn't worth answering.

No, I ONLY removed the excuse you were using to evade the question. The basis of my question was a discussion about the nature of rights and when doing good things for each other goes from being something society should encourage into something that should be punished. THAT was the base of my question. Quibbling of arcane irs tax code had NOTHING to do with my OP.

I don't care about your fucking question, I'm not avoiding it. But your question about party c interfering is rendered meaningless without context.

Quote:
(20-05-2014 02:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  Whatever credibility you had left here is now completely gone. You have show that you not only can't admit error, you lie to cover it up.

You keep calling me a liar. I fully disclosed that I edited the OP to remove the reference to the tax code since that's what you were using an excuse to not answer it. That is NOT lying. It is calling your bluff that the reason you wouldn't answer the question was because you disputed one aspect of tax law.

And you should not have edited the OP and changed its substance. That is dishonest. If you wanted to change or clarify it, then re-ask it.

And I call you a liar because you keep lying. I am going to have to agree with cjlr that it seems you don't even see it or understand what you do.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
20-05-2014, 03:16 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(20-05-2014 02:16 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(20-05-2014 01:19 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  When have you ever asked me to justify anything? You've done nothing but spew a tirade against what you think I represent, and never actually payed attention to what I've actually said. You're so busy arguing with your personal delusions, you haven't actually asked my to justify anything; you've just attacked what you think I'm trying to argue for.
Huh? Read the OP. What is it? It's a series of questions I've been begging you to answer. I'm pleading you with you to share you're opinion. I will ask again: "PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTIONS IN MY OP. I WANT TO HEAR YOUR OPINION. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK." How can you reply like you did above given what's happening now?

You brought up the other thread, it is the other thread where you constantly misrepresent what I say to attack what you think I said; all the while throwing around false equivocations. I'm not terribly interesting in this OP, because you've already show yourself to be a delucsional twit that's willing to rewrite history to suite your needs.


(20-05-2014 02:16 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(20-05-2014 01:19 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Your position on firefighters? The evidence you profited up in defense showed that you were completely oblivious to the fact that private firefighters still get paid by public funds generated by taxes on the public. FAIL.
I never said otherwise. I said that because the fire fighters were motivated by a profit, to deliver a better service at a lower price, they innovated. You acknowledged that perhaps the government-run fire departments should copy their innovations. But you run from the obvious question: Out of all the thousands of fire departments in the US, how come it's only the minuscule handful that are privatized that are pioneering these innovations which you think the rest should follow? And then, after admitting that the private fire departments did a service by showing the public ones how to run more efficiently, your conclusion is we should get rid of all the private fire departments and have only public ones, thus ensuring there will never be any further innovations. Why are you attacking the one tiny minority that is doing the most to advance the field for the rest!?

I've highlighted the bullshit you made up yourself, so that others can see how you are arguing with stawmen.


(20-05-2014 02:16 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(20-05-2014 01:19 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You never explained how even less regulation would have prevented the West Texas fertilizer plant explosion.
I have a million times. You don't like the answer so you choose to block it out. IF the government did not grant the owners of the Texas fertilizer plant full, blanket immunity from any liability for their actions so long as they follow certain regulations and pay tiny $30 fines, then, without a corporate umbrella, the owners would have had to be much more careful since they would PERSONALLY be responsible for the destruction they did to that poor town.

Right, so let's not regulate to prevent the explosion; let's just allow the survivors (if there are any) to sue them into non-existence? Not very proactive, is it?

But for the record, the town of West is suing.

"The city of West, Texas, accuses Adair Grain, which operated as the West Fertilizer Company, of negligently storing ammonium nitrate on its grounds before the April 17 blast. It also accused Illinois-based CF Industries of selling West Fertilizer about 200 tons of the compound without investigating whether the plant could store it safely."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/24/justice/te...explosion/

So obviously neither the fear of a lawsuit, nor the owner's own Libertarian values, did anything to prevent the disaster.


(20-05-2014 02:16 PM)frankksj Wrote:  BECAUSE of your regulation and granting them an umbrella of immunity, they cannot be held accountable. The town has dead bodies and massive destruction, the townfolk cannot get compensated for their losses, and the owners of the fertilizer plant get to hop in their private jet and fly to a new town to start all over again. That is the system you're defending.

No, that is the system I want to fix, and that you would rather just destroy in favor of no regulation.


(20-05-2014 02:16 PM)frankksj Wrote:  The regulation and corporate umbrellas are by and for the business owners.

Yeah, that needs to stop.


(20-05-2014 02:16 PM)frankksj Wrote:  It benefits them that, even though they're humans like the rest of us, they're given a piece of paper, articles of incorporation, which grants them superhuman powers so they are no longer responsible for their actions--that meaningless piece of paper is responsible--not the human beings making the decisions. They just need to negotiate with (ie pay off) your regulators. They only trick lemming voters into thinking it's for their best interest.

All issues that need to be addressed. I find your solution of throwing all government intervention out the window to be less than compelling.


(20-05-2014 02:16 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(20-05-2014 01:19 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You claimed that Robber Barons get a pass because they give us a few libraries and Universities, and then made wild claims about how all of the top Universities were founded by business tycoons; only to have history of Harvard and MIT throw in your face to show everyone how full of shit you are.
I'm not surprised that you didn't watch Friedman's video.

I did, but I wasn't terribly impressed.


(20-05-2014 02:16 PM)frankksj Wrote:  He so thoroughly shot down that absurd myth using logic and reason. As he pointed out, if the era of robber barons was one of an oppressive aristocracy exploiting the masses, then why were millions and millions of people leaving their homes and families behind to huddle into overcrowded boats and head for Ellis Island where a statue of liberty awaited them promising 'Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free'.

You know there is a difference between 'better' and 'good', right? Just because things were slightly improved, doesn't mean that it was as good as it could have been. There was no Social Security, so if you couldn't work (such as from a work injury, no OSHA yet either), then you couldn't earn a wage, then you couldn't eat. There was child labor, because it was cheap; they valued what labor a child could provide to the company over the child's own future. They also employed union-busting tactics to subvert workers seeking safer working conditions and pay.

Many (but not all) of the Robber Barons rather justly earned their misnomer.


(20-05-2014 02:16 PM)frankksj Wrote:  If it was all a scam and they were coming to a life of oppression, maybe you could have tricked a few early arrivers.

Yeah, because I'm sure they'd all just Tweet about it if it was all load of bills. Oh wait...


(20-05-2014 02:16 PM)frankksj Wrote:  But they wouldn't have been telling their families back in other countries that had strict government regulation and no "robber barons" to abandon everything and come.

Yeah, there was opportunity. Unfortunately many that did succeed decided it was in their best interest to burn the ladder behind them, rather than helping more people up it.


(20-05-2014 02:16 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Today, the US, for example, is begging people to come. The US offers EB-5 visas to anybody who, like those millions in the robber baron era, are willing to come and start a business. Once they employ 10 people, they get citizenship. The State Departments goal is to get 20,000 takers/year, but they usually only get a few hundred. During the robber baron era over 12 million came!

Pointless equivocation.


(20-05-2014 02:16 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Read about how the rest of the world saw this "robber-baron-era" as the land of opportunity, the chance for a better life, the French even sent the Statue of Liberty to celebrate it. This was when the American Dream, the house with a picket fence, was born, when everybody through hard work could get ahead.

A house and picket fence was a staple of the 'American Dream' of the post-war 1940's and 50's.


(20-05-2014 02:16 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Thus it is ABSURD when liberals say it was an oppressive era of tyrants and that today's system, where as poor people work harder they have LESS to live on, is so much better. Nothing tells you about a system than how people vote with their feet.

Things are both better and worse. We no longer have child or slave labor, we have social security, a minimum wage. The problem is that a lot of the advancements have been chipped away at by the free-market. The minimum wage doesn't adjust for inflation and hasn't been raised in almost a decade.

The problem is the unregulated free market, as things have gone consistently downhill since the mid 70's and the Supreme Court's recognition of corporations as people, and later that money was speech. Combine this with the further Republican hard-on for unfettered capitalism, and you see the top 1% walk off with 95% of the earnings.

How do they prevent this in the liberal democracies of northern Europe? They regulate the shit out of their markets and keep their corporations in check. You however are proposing the exact opposite.


(20-05-2014 02:16 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Now, will you PLEASE answer the questions in my OP? I promise NOT to criticize your answers. Any follow up will ONLY be in the form of questions asking for clarification. This is supposed to be a forum to exchange idea, not just throw insults at each other. OK?

Nope, you're too much of a disingenuous jackass to engage with any further.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
20-05-2014, 03:33 PM
Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
http://youtu.be/6TP50f3BAs0

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 04:21 PM (This post was last modified: 20-05-2014 04:25 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(20-05-2014 08:20 AM)frankksj Wrote:  So then if I mow my sick neighbor's lawn for free, then I too have hurt society, albeit on a smaller scale, because were it not for my act of charity the neighbor might have hired a professional gardener who would have paid tax. Correct? So, when your neighbor is sick and you help, you should feel guilty about doing so because you're actually hurting hospitals and schools?

Dafuq?!? That's like saying when I give ManlyGirl a foot rub in exchange for a blowjob I'm hurting society 'cause I couldda gone to the Bunny Ranch or an escort service which pay taxes on blowjobs and foot rubs. Yeah, I guess I couldda, but I'd end up with a fractured tibia, a broken nose and likely castrated. And then I'd actually be helping hospitals even more. Doesn't sound good for me though.

Some of your analogies feel ... Consider ... strained.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
20-05-2014, 04:41 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(20-05-2014 03:09 PM)Chas Wrote:  Wrong. Self-employed people file a Schedule C because being self-employed means you are running a business.

Since you claim it's not a gray area, that you have some black & white distinction, let's see if you're lying: Say I mow one neighbor's lawn in exchange for some service (like tutoring my won). You already said, it's not a business, and not taxable. Now as I start doing this barter with more and more neighbors, ultimately mowing 50 people's lawns and getting all sorts of things through this bartering, what is the formula you use to determine that it has suddenly become a business?

(20-05-2014 03:09 PM)Chas Wrote:  If you just mow people's lawns out of the goodness of your heart or in exchange for them plowing your driveway, you are not engaged in a lawn-mowing business.

Ok, so in addition to bartering lawn mowing for tutoring, you just confirmed bartering for plowing services is also not a taxable business. What formula did you use to determine that bartering for tutoring and plowing services is NOT a taxable business? What about bartering for someone to sew me some clothes? What about providing home-cooked meals? Teeth cleaning? Hair cuts? Please, do tell me what formula you use to decide which of those barters is a harmless private transaction between 2 individuals vs. something else that we are hurting society if we don't pay a 3rd party for the privilege?

(20-05-2014 03:09 PM)Chas Wrote:  I don't care about your fucking question, I'm not avoiding it.

Of course you are. I can guarantee 100% that I know you well enough to know that even after you made the absurd claim that the above scenarios are not gray areas and that you have some pragmatic method for determining what's business activity and what's not. So you WILL evade those questions. You will never say 'Ok, you got me. I really don't have a formula for this. It is a subjective gray area.' Nope your only available option is to avoid the question so you can keep telling yourself that you really showed me a thing or two.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 05:09 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(20-05-2014 03:16 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Right, so let's not regulate to prevent the explosion; let's just allow the survivors (if there are any) to sue them into non-existence? Not very proactive, is it?

Well how's your system working out? Below is the chart showing radical improvement in workplace deaths BEFORE we had Osha. Since Osha, the pace of improvement has slowed down so Osha had to change the way they calculate workplace deaths to justify their existence. Your system is not working! This texas fertilizer explosion you claim regulation would have prevented happened while the plant was already regulated!!! Your regulation did nothing to prevent it.

[Image: work-deaths-pre-and-post-osha.jpg]

(20-05-2014 03:16 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  But for the record, the town of West is suing.

Yeah, but who are they suing? They are NOT suing the PEOPLE who actually decided to leave West a smoldering ruin for the sake of profit. They are suing a piece of paper; Adair Feed and Grain Co. That company IS of course nothing but a group of PEOPLE who caused death and destruction. But that piece of paper your beloved government gave them makes them immune from prosecution. They can take all their money and go elsewhere. And all city of West will get is a bankrupt piece of paper--a C corporation.

(20-05-2014 03:16 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  So obviously neither the fear of a lawsuit, nor the owner's own Libertarian values, did anything to prevent the disaster.

Of course he doesn't fear a lawsuit BECAUSE YOUR REGULATIONS GRANT HIM IMMUNITY! He is untouchable thanks to the corporate umbrella.

(20-05-2014 03:16 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  No, that is the system I want to fix, and that you would rather just destroy in favor of no regulation.

Wrong. Government created this situation where people can kill other people, like in West, Tx, and all they need first is to get a piece of paper from the government granting them immunity (corp articles). And you're just calling for MORE of the same. If you get your way, you will just keep getting MORE of the same.

(20-05-2014 03:16 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  All issues that need to be addressed. I find your solution of throwing all government intervention out the window to be less than compelling.

Well what period in the US saw the greatest improvement in worker safety? It was during the industrial revolution, where government did not intervene. Because when you have a thriving economy with full employment people have a choice where they'll work, and they will only work in companies that pay them fairly and keep them safe. But you think OTHER people are too stupid to look out for themselves so you need your regulation to save them from themselves. I will point out for the 100th time you NEVER say "These regulations are needed because otherwise _I_ will do bad things". Nope, it's ALWAYS other people. Always. To me, THAT is the epitome of pompous arrogance, insisting that YOU are somehow better than everyone else because, although YOU can take of yourself, those other poor pathetic saps would be hopeless without YOUR laws and regulations to guide them.

(20-05-2014 03:16 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(20-05-2014 02:16 PM)frankksj Wrote:  If it was all a scam and they were coming to a life of oppression, maybe you could have tricked a few early arrivers.

Yeah, because I'm sure they'd all just Tweet about it if it was all load of bills. Oh wait...

What desperation! Now who is rewriting history!? You're claiming that because they didn't have twitter back then they had NO way to communicate with each other? You're saying the US lured people with the offer of a better life, MILLIONS of people flocked here, and because they didn't have Twitter, they had no way to tell their family back home that it was all scam? They didn't have letters and postal service back then? No ships? No carrier pigeons? No messages in a bottle? So how the fuck did they cross the ocean and move to the US if they lacked any way to communicate?

(20-05-2014 03:16 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Things are both better and worse. We no longer have child or slave labor, we have social security, a minimum wage.

Don't be ridiculous. When comparing 2 systems you have to compare them at the same time. Will you accept that because 21st century North Korea has a higher standard than 18th century Sweden, THEREFORE, that proves North Korea has a superior system?! That's INSANE. Compare the 19th century "Robber Baron" era of no regulation in the US with other 19th century countries that DID have strong central governments that were heavily involved in commerce. When you compare apples-to-apples, people were FLEEING in droves countries that did it your way to flock to the unregulated robber baron era. Same thing recently when Hong Kong officially adopted a policy of 'positive non-intervention', where the government actively forces itself to stay out of the economy. Across the border was China, with a centrally managed economy, and all sorts of laws and regulations. People were willing to risk death to flee from your system in China to the libertarian paradise in Hong Kong. In one generation Hong Kong became the most densely populated territory in the world, the #1 harbor, #1 commercial airport, and #1 stock market by size, and went from a per capital income of $180/year to surpassing the US. IN ONE GENERATION.

(20-05-2014 03:16 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  How do they prevent this in the liberal democracies of northern Europe? They regulate the shit out of their markets and keep their corporations in check. You however are proposing the exact opposite.

I've already pointed out that the Scandinavians only accomplished what they did by keeping the jurisdictions small so the people are closer to the government and can keep better tabs on it. I have always advocated the same in the US. _YOU_ are the one who wants to go the other way, like Russia, with all the authority concentrated in a center thousands of miles away.


(20-05-2014 03:16 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Nope, you're too much of a disingenuous jackass to engage with any further.

Please, I plead with you to share your wisdom and answer a few questions. You find the time to type a very long diatribe ranting about everything I say, and then, when it comes to answering the question and actually telling us what you think, NOW suddenly I'm too much of a jackass to respond. Laughat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 05:14 PM
Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
[Image: -Gifkings.com1511.gif]

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes rampant.a.i.'s post
20-05-2014, 05:24 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(20-05-2014 03:16 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  How do they prevent this in the liberal democracies of northern Europe?

One more thing. If bigger, more centralized government is good, why the Scandinavian countries all choose to remain separate and autonomous? Why not consolidate and move decision making to a central authority?

Don't say we should be more like Scandinavia, but then say we need to accomplish it by doing the opposite. There's 11 countries with a population over 100 million. Many of them did concentrate and centralize power at the national level. Name one, please, that did not see their standards get worse when they did it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 05:43 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
You are completely delusional. Just about everything you said there is bullshit.

frankksj Wrote:This texas fertilizer explosion you claim regulation would have prevented happened while the plant was already regulated!!! Your regulation did nothing to prevent it.

Bullshit. They broke the regulations that would have prevented this.

frankksj Wrote:But that piece of paper your beloved government gave them makes them immune from prosecution.
...
f course he doesn't fear a lawsuit BECAUSE YOUR REGULATIONS GRANT HIM IMMUNITY! He is untouchable thanks to the corporate umbrella.

Bullshit. In the case of malfeasance, the corporate veil can be pierced and the officers, employees, even shareholders can be held accountable, criminally and/or civiily.

frankksj Wrote:Government created this situation where people can kill other people, like in West, Tx, and all they need first is to get a piece of paper from the government granting them immunity (corp articles).

Same bullshit as above.

frankksj Wrote:I will point out for the 100th time you NEVER say "These regulations are needed because otherwise _I_ will do bad things".

And for the 100th time, that statement is insane. What do you even mean by it?
Laws and regulations are intended to protect decent people from wrong doers.

frankksj Wrote:Well what period in the US saw the greatest improvement in worker safety? It was during the industrial revolution, where government did not intervene.

Right. It took unions to make that happen. That is what made the first strides in workplace safety, not employment opportunities. And you ignore the repeated recessions that occurred in that time. There were 17 of them between 1850 and 1920, each lasting a year or more.

frankksj Wrote:You're saying the US lured people with the offer of a better life, MILLIONS of people flocked here,

You are ignoring what conditions those people left. There was opportunity in the U.S., but it wasn't the workers paradise you claim. But it was a whole lot better than no opportunity or pogroms.

frankksj Wrote:I've already pointed out that the Scandinavians only accomplished what they did by keeping the jurisdictions small so the people are closer to the government and can keep better tabs on it.

Bullshit. They were entire countries.

frankksj Wrote:Please, I plead with you to share your wisdom and answer a few questions. You find the time to type a very long diatribe ranting about everything I say, and then, when it comes to answering the question and actually telling us what you think, NOW suddenly I'm too much of a jackass to respond.

Bingo! You got one right!

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: