Your school isn't that respectable if your poor reasoning skills is any indication.
I have answered both, numerous times. Go find 'em. You aren't worth my time in answering multiple times.
Its too bad you didn't have a class that taught you basic principles of life. Why you can't comprehend that taking away $10 to someone who has $100 disproportionally impacts a person more than $50 to someone who has $500 is beyond me.
You and CD should work pool your intellect. Why, with that power, you guys could solve problems like the color of George Washington's white horse, how many sides are in a circle, and why birds fly. 
If you kept your mouth shut about things that you aren't knowledgeable, your post count would be in the teens.
As for 'academic murdering,' look just because your teacher wrote that on your paper last week, you don't need to try to be cool and use the saying. The only academic murdering on this site occurs when posts are littered with improper use of grammar, usually (and correctly) pointed out by Slim or APK
For the last time:
1) All I said is taxes disproportionally impact the poor because they have less money to absorb the payment in taxes which I described. You have spun your own interpretation. Arguments can be made that they are paying less in taxes and receiving the same services. I never disputed those. It was always the disproportional impact.
2) The 20 year comment was in response to the statement you made that 'so what if global warming causes me to lose a year of my life.' I was merely pointing out that under such a premise, if we presume that global warming is getting worse, your lineage would have more than 1 year loss. You don't have to agree that global warming exists or that it is getting worse. I was simply responding to your so what argument.
The problem (among many) with you is you dispute what is said and offer your own opinion as conclusion. Quite frankly, you just aren't smart enough to do that. 
The only academic murdering on this site occurs when posts are littered with improper use of grammar, usually (and correctly) pointed out by Slim or APK
Djbrow,I challenge you to link ONE post where I ever corrected anyone's spelling .........
If you cannot ,then I say to you what Rep. Joe Wilson called out to Pres.Obama ...
YOU LIE !
Djbrow,I challenge you to link ONE post where I ever corrected anyone's spelling .........
If you cannot ,then I say to you what Rep. Joe Wilson called out to Pres.Obama ...
YOU LIE !
You are denying ever correcting anyone's grammar or spelling? Seriously?
You are denying ever correcting anyone's grammar or spelling? Seriously?
Yes I'am denying it......as someone who is a very lame speller ..I sympathize with people, that are hooked on phonics...but no prob, I believe you are confusing me with someone else......
But, Djbrow I will truthfully have to conceed, that I did ask Mikael99 for a clearification on a word one time ........but it was not to correct his spelling, only to understand his use of the word .. and I feel my comment was pertinent and connected to his comment..
[ Quote originally Posted by Mikael99 ]
"Yeah and in the last 8 years before that we had a Republican president and a GOP majority some of time, who
A) Fought a war in Iraq that was motivated by a private revenge.
B) Gave taxcuts to the two % richest Americans.
C) Unfinanced spending (No republicans opposed)
Those tree effectively destroyed the US economy and lead the path to where Obama had to take over a country on the brink of ruin."
*****
[ Quote originally Posted by SarasotaSlim ]
What tree?
the Tree of Freedom?
No. I used to think you were just a liar. Now I think you just don't quite grasp when someone makes a point or articulates their position. Instead, you make your own interpretation because you don't understand. I do feel sorry for you. That is unfortunate.
I never said the poor pay more. I said they are more disproportionally impacted because they have less to work with in terms of finances. I can see how that was difficult for you to comprehend.
Just like when I responded to your ridiculous statement that "so what if I lose a year of my life due to global warming." I don't have any idea if your grandchildren will lose 20 years of their lives. Actually, I doubt that you will ever have the chance to procreate. But the illogical proposition of abivalence to having one year of your life reduced can lead to more serious consequences if one presumes that global warming could lead to the loss of a year, as you said.
It is probably best that you actually leave what other people type to be interpreted by people who actually comprehend, and worry about your own lack of abilities in articulating a reasoned and fact ladden response. In the meantime, I have something for you. Merry Christmas.
I don't think you should have any worries about how people perceive you from a distance.
As for your statements above, it is all about context. For all of my faults, one thing I never do is take one person's sentence out of a post and use that sentence to characterize their argument. Its called context. See if one of your teachers can explain that to you.
Both of the above statements were made in the course of debate, on taxes and global warming's impact respectively. I never said you believed global warming took one year from your life. I did say that argument creates a slippery slope when I responded about future ramifications. See the difference. I didn't articlulate your own reasoning and respond based on what I DECIDED YOU MEANT. You did.
Actually, you are the one who finds a need to respond to me.
But since you keep making blatant lies and misstatements, here you go, Billy.
https://www.covers.com/postingforum/post01/showmessage.aspx?spt=87&sub=100620248
post 19 and 20.
Here is what you wrote:
or maybe not polar bears survival but maybe you die at age 75 from all the smog instead of at 80 with no smog. but youre quality of life will be much better because you will have the luxuries of a fridge and a car and central ac. but you might die 5 years earlier. like i said, its a personal question with no correct answer
And here is what I wrote:
Let's say what you just said is correct. Perhaps it is only 5 years for us. Maybe its 10 for our kids, then 20 for our grandkids. Therein lies one of the arguments on global warming.
I never said your grandchildren would lose 20 years from their lives, did I Billy? In fact, I made it clear that I was responding to your statement.
As far as taxes, it is post 50 in this thread. It was simply referencing that the poor and middle class are paying taxes on things that disproportionally benefit those people that have vehicles, kids, live in the 'burbs. Are you disputing that, Billy?
1) Nice backtrack.
2) Presuming that is true, there are also a very high percentage of poor who are minimally benefited by better roads, better parks, better schools, better and more police and firemen, more and better airports, etc because they do not have money to spend on items or things that are used/receive protection/ by the aforementioned things.
2) Presuming that is true, there are also a very high percentage of
poor who are minimally benefited by better roads, better parks, better
schools, better and more police and firemen, more and better airports,
etc because they do not have money to spend on items or things that are
used/receive protection/ by the aforementioned things.
----------
yet many lower class citizens lives are subsidized in other ways...middle to upper pays for their welfare, food stamps, medicaid, SSI, public schools (since they pay very few to no taxes)
2) Presuming that is true, there are also a very high percentage of poor who are minimally benefited by better roads, better parks, better schools, better and more police and firemen, more and better airports, etc because they do not have money to spend on items or things that are used/receive protection/ by the aforementioned things.
----------
yet many lower class citizens lives are subsidized in other ways...middle to upper pays for their welfare, food stamps, medicaid, SSI, public schools (since they pay very few to no taxes)
Property taxes go towards public schools. Percentage wise, more income = children or more children, meaning that those with lower income receive a disproportionate benefit from their property tax.
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
