On 9/24/2012 12:44 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 9/23/2012 8:38 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/23/2012 5:47 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 9/21/2012 6:26 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/21/2012 6:17 PM, wrote:
On Sep 21, 2:27 pm, Hawke wrote:




This cite is especially for Dan. The liar that says I never cite
anything. So here's another cite for the guy who is so old and senile
that he forgets every time I give him one.


Hawke

If what you say was true, it would be one thing. But it is something
entirely different. I have not said you never cite anything. Go on
try to find where I said that.

What i did say was that I do not accept your statements unless you can
back them up with a cite.

In your fuzzy mind, you probably think I did say you never provide a
cite. But i did not say that and challenge you to find a statement by
me that says you never provide any cites.

I've said it frequently. Until this ****ty citation, he has never
provided one, and this one is worthless - it's to a 14 year old
statement by a Marxist columnist for Huffington Post that simply states
a lie:

A pure flat tax is inherently regressive, because the poor pay
the same percentage of their income in taxes as the rich.

The fact that the poor pay the same percentage of their income in taxes
as the rich is precisely why it *ISN'T* a regressive tax. Froomkin
should have been fired from the Post for making that bald-faced lie
alone.



I've provided cites on a number of occasions.

This is *THE ONLY* time you've ever provided one, and entirely
predictably, it's **** - steaming ****. Froomkin doesn't know his
****ing goddamned commie ass from his fleshy greasy face. A
proportional tax is *NOT* regressive - it's proportional.


Why is it that no one but you has taken exception to Froomkin?

The Washington Post took exception to the ****ing Marxist cocksucker,
you goddamned ****wit - they fired his ****ing ass.



You have no idea why?

Because he's too much of a Marxist lunatic even for the left-wing Post.


Like I said before, flat taxes put a greater burden on the poor than on
the rich. That satisfies the definition of regressive.

No, it *doesn't*, you ****ing cocksucker. "Regressive" has a very
specific technical meaning, and you don't get to **** around with the
definition. A "regressive" tax is one in which the tax rate falls as
the amount of the tax base rises. A proportional tax is one in which
the tax rate does not change with changes in the tax base, and a
so-called "progressive" tax - which has nothing to do with progress - is
one in which the rate rises as the base amount rises. It is perfectly
clear that mildly "progressive" taxes *also* put a greater relative
burden on the poor than on the rich - are you going to say that
"progressive" taxes are actually "regressive", you stupid illiterate
cocksucker?

You don't know what the **** you're blabbering about. You never do.