On 10/14/2016 1:32 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:
Muggles laid this down on his screen :
On 10/14/2016 9:37 AM, Sterling Archer wrote:
Muggles used his keyboard to write :
On 10/14/2016 7:15 AM, Sterling Archer wrote:
Muggles used his keyboard to write :
On 10/13/2016 6:38 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:

I don't want to see Clinton or Trump to become president, there
is no
lesser evil between the two of them.

I guess you're caught between a rock and a hard place, then, huh?
Yes, the nation as a whole is certainly in a bind with these two
candidates. Personally, I will vote for a non-evil candidate, they
will
not win, but this isn't a football game.

If fewer people were seduced by evil and personal self-interest, the
nation would not be in this predicament.

I understand how you feel.

My problem is I can't stand Hillary. She believes she's entitled to
"rule" the stupid masses, and because she's a woman she should win the
first presidency. I'm a woman and I wouldn't vote FOR her if they PAID
me. I can't stand people who demand something because they feel
entitled to it.

OTOH, Trump is a different sort of candidate. He's raw, human, says
what's on his mind EVEN if it comes out wrong. I don't care if he
talks
like a man with other men behind closed doors, and I don't care if he
tried to avoid paying taxes, either, because any smart person TRIES to
avoid paying taxes! He's entitled to donate or not donate to charity
when and if he wants or doesn't want to, and he's entitled to believe a
certain someone isn't a war hero, too.

When it comes down to it, he's said "some" things along the way that I
do agree with, and I like how he will tell the powers that be to shove
it. He's not a career politician and I don't expect him to come across
as one, either. It's time career politicians be challenged, and when
those people get nervous and so vocal about their own parties candidate
it makes me wonder WHY?? After all, it was the people who voted IN the
candidate, not the career politicians.

Is he or Hillary going to win? I've no idea, and I'm not inclined to
believe political polls because those results can be tweaked based on
the poll samplings.


Thanks for sharing.

smile Thanks for being polite and not slamming me! Politics makes
people behave strangely, sometimes.

You stated your opinions in a cordial fashion, there is no reason to
slam you for doing that.

TY!

--
Maggie

On 10/14/2016 1:41 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:

Once again, you cannot refute the methodology for calculating the odds
which have been presented,

I've studied analytics for a while and just I'm curious what methodology
for calculating the odds you're referring to?

--
Maggie

On 10/14/2016 2:12 PM, Neill Massello wrote:
Muggles wrote:

I'd like to see a 3 party system.

Yes, but in the American presidential system it's very hard to sustain a
third party that functions as a permanent competitor to the duopoly.
This system tends to be less responsive than a parliamentary one, so you
periodically get displacements, like the Republicans and Whigs in the
1850s, or hostile takeovers like today's Trump phenomenon. (The Brits

I don't really see anything about Trump that even remotely resembles a
"hostile takeover". Don't you think that's an exaggeration? The people
voted for him, so he's a legitimate candidate of the Republican party.

are also having troubles, as evidenced by the fact that almost all of
their pols in almost all their parties were clueless about Brexit.)

Bottom line: both parties are in trouble because they can't capture and
hold an electoral majority sufficient in size and duration to get
anything done. Democrats shouldn't gloat over the Republicans' current
troubles: they're next. Whoever wins the Presidency in three weeks,
things will be *very* rocky in the coming years.


Things have been rocky every since 9/11, so it's not like "rocky" is
going to be breaking news.


--
Maggie

On 10/14/2016 9:17 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 10/14/2016 08:14 AM, Muggles wrote:
I'd like to see a 3 party system.

I'd like to see a 7 or 8 party system. There is a great Danish TV
series, 'Borgen':

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borgen_(TV_series)

The parties are fictional but they do reflect the views real Danish
parties. There are three major parties, but a major party usually
doesn't have enough seats to form a government on their own so they need
to do a lot of wheeling and dealing to round up enough of the smaller
parties. Nobody gets everything they want but they have to pick what's
really important to them.



I'll have to take your word on that one.

--
Maggie

On 10/14/2016 9:28 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Neill Massello:
Yes, but in the American presidential system it's very hard to sustain a
third party that functions as a permanent competitor to the duopoly.
This system tends to be less responsive than a parliamentary one, so you
periodically get displacements, like the Republicans and Whigs in the
1850s, or hostile takeovers like today's Trump phenomenon.

I know next to nothing and I'm definitely not the brightest bulb on the
tree....

Having said that...

Seems to me like the Repubs are going to take some *serious* gas this
time around and I wonder if splitting off a new brand might be more
feasible that cleaning up an old, soiled-beyond-recognition brand.

I have to wonder if it might be logical for the Republican insiders to
sort of "retire" the Republican brand by just leaving it to the Trump
supporters and start a "Third Party"... that won't really be a third
party... more like the new dominant challenger to the Dems.

Then they could just let the old "Base" people wither away in their own
little world where they will become comparable to the Libertarians or
The Socialist Party USA...... and the new WhateverTheyCallIt party could
go on as an actual conservative party - what with actual fiscal
conservatism, actual aversity to risk, and so-forth.

Yeah, not a snowball's chance....

But it did come to mind......


The kids graduating college now will be taking over the future soon enough.

--
Maggie

On 10/14/2016 9:38 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Muggles:
OTOH, Trump is a different sort of candidate. He's raw....

That may be the understatement of the day..... -)


I think he missed an opportunity with the tax thing.

Instead of saying how smart he was to not pay taxes, he could have said
something like:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Yeah, I didn't pay any taxes for all those years. Because I'm so
smart?.... Well I *am* terribly smart, in fact I am probably one
of the smartest people in the world..... but that was not the reason.

The reason was that I had tax lawyers working for me.... and they
didn't even have to be especially smart tax lawyers: any competent tax
lawyer could have gotten me out of paying taxes all those years.

The reason for all that is that the tax system is corrupt with
exceptions for special interests: each exception bought and paid
for from your congressmen. My tax guys just took advantage of
what a bunch of rich people like me paid off the congress to implement.

Vote for me and I'll put a stop to that nonsense."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I still wouldn't vote for him, but he would have gotten my attention in
a positive way instead of making himself look worse.


Ya know ... some things we're supposed to be able to figure out
ourselves, don't you think? Isn't it a logical conclusion that everyone
does whatever they can do to NOT pay taxes, so why would it be any
different for Trump to do that too?

--
Maggie

Muggles wrote:

I don't really see anything about Trump that even remotely resembles a
"hostile takeover". Don't you think that's an exaggeration? The people
voted for him, so he's a legitimate candidate of the Republican party.

And "management" fought him tooth and nail. Some of them still are. The
Republican Party had an asset, tens of millions of voters, for whom it
was doing nothing. Zero return, unless you count the song and dance
before every election.

Things have been rocky every since 9/11, so it's not like "rocky" is
going to be breaking news.

A Presidential impeachment in 1998, a litigated election in 2000, two
Presidents being checked with Congressional turnovers after two years.
The political chaos began building before 9/11 and is arguably worse
today than in the ten years immediately following it. The terrorist
problem was just one of the things that revealed that our political
class possesses a fatal combination of arrogance and incompetence.

On 10/14/2016 09:33 PM, Muggles wrote:
The kids graduating college now will be taking over the future soon enough.

That's what we thought in the '60s. Our generation will take over and it
will be better. Instead we got two Clintons, a Bush, and other assorted
neo-conservatives, gypsies, tramps, and thieves.

On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 22:25:54 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 10/14/2016 1:41 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:

Once again, you cannot refute the methodology for calculating the odds
which have been presented,

I've studied analytics for a while and just I'm curious what methodology
for calculating the odds you're referring to?

I was able to find a pretty thorough explanation of the process on the
quoted website and the websites from which the data is amalgamated.
These folks are wagering real money, I have no doubt they have parsed
the data every which way from Sunday. I also have no doubt they are
correct in their predictions, but that is a personal opinion.

On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 22:35:30 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 10/14/2016 9:38 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Muggles:
OTOH, Trump is a different sort of candidate. He's raw....

That may be the understatement of the day..... -)


I think he missed an opportunity with the tax thing.

Instead of saying how smart he was to not pay taxes, he could have said
something like:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Yeah, I didn't pay any taxes for all those years. Because I'm so
smart?.... Well I *am* terribly smart, in fact I am probably one
of the smartest people in the world..... but that was not the reason.

The reason was that I had tax lawyers working for me.... and they
didn't even have to be especially smart tax lawyers: any competent tax
lawyer could have gotten me out of paying taxes all those years.

The reason for all that is that the tax system is corrupt with
exceptions for special interests: each exception bought and paid
for from your congressmen. My tax guys just took advantage of
what a bunch of rich people like me paid off the congress to implement.

Vote for me and I'll put a stop to that nonsense."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I still wouldn't vote for him, but he would have gotten my attention in
a positive way instead of making himself look worse.


Ya know ... some things we're supposed to be able to figure out
ourselves, don't you think? Isn't it a logical conclusion that everyone
does whatever they can do to NOT pay taxes, so why would it be any
different for Trump to do that too?

Taxation is not supposed to be a cat and mouse game. We elect
representatives to spend the treasure of the nation in a fashion we
approve of. Resultantly, paying federal taxes is a form of
patriotism. Paying millions of dollars to attorneys that help you
find every skinny loophole to evade your patriotic duty is distasteful
and slimy. Additionally, making contributions to corrupt politicians
in an effort to influence the law and rule making process is just as
unpatriotic as not paying any federal tax.

Some people attempt to spin Trump's behavior with regard to taxes as
being smart, I deem it as being conniving and self-serving without
regard for the nation as a whole.

Admittedly the federal tax system is an abortion which needs to be
abolished and replaced with a national consumption tax. However, for
any person to make many millions of dollars a year and pay nothing in
FIT is a travesty.

Per Stormin' Norman:
These folks are wagering real money,

To me, that is the critical factor... the wisdom of the market, the
wisdom of crowds and all that....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Galton (scroll down to
"variance and Standard Deviation")
--
Pete Cresswell

Per Neill Massello:
A Presidential impeachment in 1998, a litigated election in 2000, two
Presidents being checked with Congressional turnovers after two years.
The political chaos began building before 9/11 and is arguably worse
today than in the ten years immediately following it.

Somewhere I got the impression that there is a legitimate school of
thought in political science that says out type of democracy is not
sustainable - but the parliamentary form of democracy is.

The cite all the USA-type democracies that have fallen by the wayside
and then describe certain unusual situations/events that have enabled
ours to persist beyond it's time... the implication seeming to be that
our time has come.

I wish I could cite, but the name escapes me.

Maybe Greater Minds Than Mine can supply a link.
--
Pete Cresswell

On 10/15/2016 10:02 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
To me, that is the critical factor... the wisdom of the market, the
wisdom of crowds and all that....


The wisdom of crowds that brought on the dot-com bubble? Or the tulip
bubble for that matter. Mass hysteria is a hell of a way to run a country.

On 10/15/2016 12:26 AM, Neill Massello wrote:
Muggles wrote:

I don't really see anything about Trump that even remotely resembles a
"hostile takeover". Don't you think that's an exaggeration? The people
voted for him, so he's a legitimate candidate of the Republican party.

And "management" fought him tooth and nail. Some of them still are. The
Republican Party had an asset, tens of millions of voters, for whom it
was doing nothing. Zero return, unless you count the song and dance
before every election.

"Management" doesn't have anything to do with the vote of the people who
actually are the ones who make that choice. Why "management" thinks
they have any right to tell the people who we can elect as a party
candidate is sheer hubris, and a sign that it's time to find a way to
replace that "management".


Things have been rocky every since 9/11, so it's not like "rocky" is
going to be breaking news.

A Presidential impeachment in 1998, a litigated election in 2000, two
Presidents being checked with Congressional turnovers after two years.
The political chaos began building before 9/11 and is arguably worse
today than in the ten years immediately following it. The terrorist
problem was just one of the things that revealed that our political
class possesses a fatal combination of arrogance and incompetence.




--
Maggie

On 10/15/2016 12:27 AM, rbowman wrote:
On 10/14/2016 09:33 PM, Muggles wrote:
The kids graduating college now will be taking over the future soon
enough.

That's what we thought in the '60s. Our generation will take over and it
will be better. Instead we got two Clintons, a Bush, and other assorted
neo-conservatives, gypsies, tramps, and thieves.

Every generation has similar problems, I think.

--
Maggie

On 10/15/2016 8:23 AM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 22:25:54 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 10/14/2016 1:41 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:

Once again, you cannot refute the methodology for calculating the odds
which have been presented,

I've studied analytics for a while and just I'm curious what methodology
for calculating the odds you're referring to?


I was able to find a pretty thorough explanation of the process on the
quoted website and the websites from which the data is amalgamated.
These folks are wagering real money, I have no doubt they have parsed
the data every which way from Sunday. I also have no doubt they are
correct in their predictions, but that is a personal opinion.


Seriously, I have even more doubts about such "odds" the more I study
analytics.

--
Maggie

On 10/15/2016 8:43 AM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 22:35:30 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 10/14/2016 9:38 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Muggles:
OTOH, Trump is a different sort of candidate. He's raw....

That may be the understatement of the day..... -)


I think he missed an opportunity with the tax thing.

Instead of saying how smart he was to not pay taxes, he could have said
something like:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Yeah, I didn't pay any taxes for all those years. Because I'm so
smart?.... Well I *am* terribly smart, in fact I am probably one
of the smartest people in the world..... but that was not the reason.

The reason was that I had tax lawyers working for me.... and they
didn't even have to be especially smart tax lawyers: any competent tax
lawyer could have gotten me out of paying taxes all those years.

The reason for all that is that the tax system is corrupt with
exceptions for special interests: each exception bought and paid
for from your congressmen. My tax guys just took advantage of
what a bunch of rich people like me paid off the congress to implement.

Vote for me and I'll put a stop to that nonsense."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I still wouldn't vote for him, but he would have gotten my attention in
a positive way instead of making himself look worse.


Ya know ... some things we're supposed to be able to figure out
ourselves, don't you think? Isn't it a logical conclusion that everyone
does whatever they can do to NOT pay taxes, so why would it be any
different for Trump to do that too?


Taxation is not supposed to be a cat and mouse game. We elect

Oh, come on. Who do you know wants to publicize their tax returns?

representatives to spend the treasure of the nation in a fashion we
approve of. Resultantly, paying federal taxes is a form of
patriotism. Paying millions of dollars to attorneys that help you
find every skinny loophole to evade your patriotic duty is distasteful
and slimy. Additionally, making contributions to corrupt politicians
in an effort to influence the law and rule making process is just as
unpatriotic as not paying any federal tax.

Paying taxes isn't being patriotic. Waving the Stars and Stripes is.

Some people attempt to spin Trump's behavior with regard to taxes as
being smart, I deem it as being conniving and self-serving without
regard for the nation as a whole.

I don't know of ONE person who wouldn't pay LESS tax if they could find
the loopholes to accomplish that. Trump is no different. He's not
doing anything to avoid taxes that any one of us wouldn't also try to do.

Admittedly the federal tax system is an abortion which needs to be
abolished and replaced with a national consumption tax. However, for
any person to make many millions of dollars a year and pay nothing in
FIT is a travesty.


Why?? Those people generally provide a good many jobs because they have
more money to invest in the business.

--
Maggie

Per rbowman:
The wisdom of crowds that brought on the dot-com bubble? Or the tulip
bubble for that matter. Mass hysteria is a hell of a way to run a country.

But isn't that what elections are? (wisdom of the crowd)
--
Pete Cresswell

On 10/15/2016 11:51 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per rbowman:
The wisdom of crowds that brought on the dot-com bubble? Or the tulip
bubble for that matter. Mass hysteria is a hell of a way to run a country.

But isn't that what elections are? (wisdom of the crowd)



That is why we have (or had) a Republic, and not a democracy.

Stormin' Norman wrote:

Resultantly, paying federal taxes is a form of patriotism.

Please be a patriot: sell your computer (and anything else not strictly
necessary for survival) and give the money to the government.

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 11:55:50 -0700, Taxed and Spent
wrote:

On 10/15/2016 11:51 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per rbowman:
The wisdom of crowds that brought on the dot-com bubble? Or the tulip
bubble for that matter. Mass hysteria is a hell of a way to run a country.

But isn't that what elections are? (wisdom of the crowd)



That is why we have (or had) a Republic, and not a democracy.

Ben Franklin, paraphrased -- "we gave you liberty and it is up to you
to keep it". Words to that affect.

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 13:13:06 -0600, (Neill
Massello) wrote:

Stormin' Norman wrote:

Resultantly, paying federal taxes is a form of patriotism.

Please be a patriot: sell your computer (and anything else not strictly
necessary for survival) and give the money to the government.

Yep, just check the box on the tax form and give the government all
the money you desire. Paying taxes has nothing at all to do with being
a Patriot. They get from me what they have coming by law, nothing else
and nothing more.

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 13:13:06 -0600, (Neill
Massello) wrote:

Stormin' Norman wrote:

Resultantly, paying federal taxes is a form of patriotism.

Please be a patriot: sell your computer (and anything else not strictly
necessary for survival) and give the money to the government.

Riddle me this, if no one pays their Federal income tax, how do you
propose paying for the national defense and dozens of other programs
you would deem necessary?

You confuse paying taxes in a democratic republic with all property
belonging to the state in a communist government.

On 10/15/2016 12:50 PM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 13:13:06 -0600, (Neill
Massello) wrote:

Stormin' Norman wrote:

Resultantly, paying federal taxes is a form of patriotism.

Please be a patriot: sell your computer (and anything else not strictly
necessary for survival) and give the money to the government.

Riddle me this, if no one pays their Federal income tax, how do you
propose paying for the national defense and dozens of other programs
you would deem necessary?

You confuse paying taxes in a democratic republic with all property
belonging to the state in a communist government.


so do a number of our politicians and bureaucrats.

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 19:50:54 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

Riddle me this, if no one pays their Federal income tax, how do you
propose paying for the national defense and dozens of other programs
you would deem necessary?

Riddle me this, ever see a tax law repealed? Why do you still pay a
federal tax for the debt of the Civil War? Curious minds and all.

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 13:01:15 -0700, Taxed and Spent
wrote:

On 10/15/2016 12:50 PM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 13:13:06 -0600, (Neill
Massello) wrote:

Stormin' Norman wrote:

Resultantly, paying federal taxes is a form of patriotism.

Please be a patriot: sell your computer (and anything else not strictly
necessary for survival) and give the money to the government.

Riddle me this, if no one pays their Federal income tax, how do you
propose paying for the national defense and dozens of other programs
you would deem necessary?

You confuse paying taxes in a democratic republic with all property
belonging to the state in a communist government.


so do a number of our politicians and bureaucrats.

I agree with you. Those politicians should be voted out of office by
those they represent.

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 13:07:50 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 19:50:54 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

Riddle me this, if no one pays their Federal income tax, how do you
propose paying for the national defense and dozens of other programs
you would deem necessary?

Riddle me this, ever see a tax law repealed? Why do you still pay a
federal tax for the debt of the Civil War? Curious minds and all.

Your comment is non sequitur to the question I put forth.

How does the nation pay for all of the federal programs mandated by
our elected representatives if people do not pay their federal taxes?
How does the nation service the interest on the national debt if
residents do not pay federal taxes?

Just as serving the country in the armed forces is patriotic, so is
paying to sustain the nation we have created through our elected
representatives.

Many people feel only the dumb schmoes pay taxes, but the "smart" guys
evade taxes and fly around in private 757s which are subsidized by the
dumb schmoes. This is an absurdity.

I say again, paying taxes is a form of patriotism, especially when one
has the means to help support the nation.

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 12:36:08 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 10/15/2016 8:23 AM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 22:25:54 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 10/14/2016 1:41 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:

Once again, you cannot refute the methodology for calculating the odds
which have been presented,

I've studied analytics for a while and just I'm curious what methodology
for calculating the odds you're referring to?


I was able to find a pretty thorough explanation of the process on the
quoted website and the websites from which the data is amalgamated.
These folks are wagering real money, I have no doubt they have parsed
the data every which way from Sunday. I also have no doubt they are
correct in their predictions, but that is a personal opinion.


Seriously, I have even more doubts about such "odds" the more I study
analytics.

Then you should probably not become a bookie......

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 12:08:07 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per Neill Massello:
A Presidential impeachment in 1998, a litigated election in 2000, two
Presidents being checked with Congressional turnovers after two years.
The political chaos began building before 9/11 and is arguably worse
today than in the ten years immediately following it.

Somewhere I got the impression that there is a legitimate school of
thought in political science that says out type of democracy is not
sustainable - but the parliamentary form of democracy is.

The cite all the USA-type democracies that have fallen by the wayside
and then describe certain unusual situations/events that have enabled
ours to persist beyond it's time... the implication seeming to be that
our time has come.

I wish I could cite, but the name escapes me.

Maybe Greater Minds Than Mine can supply a link.


"When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will
herald the end of the republic." -Benjamin Franklin

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 21:33:39 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 13:07:50 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 19:50:54 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

Riddle me this, if no one pays their Federal income tax, how do you
propose paying for the national defense and dozens of other programs
you would deem necessary?

Riddle me this, ever see a tax law repealed? Why do you still pay a
federal tax for the debt of the Civil War? Curious minds and all.

Your comment is non sequitur to the question I put forth.

How does the nation pay for all of the federal programs mandated by
our elected representatives if people do not pay their federal taxes?
How does the nation service the interest on the national debt if
residents do not pay federal taxes?

Just as serving the country in the armed forces is patriotic, so is
paying to sustain the nation we have created through our elected
representatives.

Many people feel only the dumb schmoes pay taxes, but the "smart" guys
evade taxes and fly around in private 757s which are subsidized by the
dumb schmoes. This is an absurdity.

I say again, paying taxes is a form of patriotism, especially when one
has the means to help support the nation.

Try again. Why take more tax money and not reduce spending? Again.
Have you ever seen a tax repealed?

Feds took in around 3.x Trillion this tax year. Was spending reduced
or was there more give-away programs?

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 14:42:04 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 21:33:39 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 13:07:50 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 19:50:54 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

Riddle me this, if no one pays their Federal income tax, how do you
propose paying for the national defense and dozens of other programs
you would deem necessary?

Riddle me this, ever see a tax law repealed? Why do you still pay a
federal tax for the debt of the Civil War? Curious minds and all.

Your comment is non sequitur to the question I put forth.

How does the nation pay for all of the federal programs mandated by
our elected representatives if people do not pay their federal taxes?
How does the nation service the interest on the national debt if
residents do not pay federal taxes?

Just as serving the country in the armed forces is patriotic, so is
paying to sustain the nation we have created through our elected
representatives.

Many people feel only the dumb schmoes pay taxes, but the "smart" guys
evade taxes and fly around in private 757s which are subsidized by the
dumb schmoes. This is an absurdity.

I say again, paying taxes is a form of patriotism, especially when one
has the means to help support the nation.

Try again. Why take more tax money and not reduce spending? Again.
Have you ever seen a tax repealed?

Feds took in around 3.x Trillion this tax year. Was spending reduced
or was there more give-away programs?

Not going to play your diversionary game.

The original question was:

"Riddle me this, if no one pays their Federal income tax, how do you
propose paying for the national defense and dozens of other programs
you would deem necessary?"

The elected representatives of the people have established spending
priorities, if you take issue with the spending, elect different
representatives. In the meantime, as a democratic republic, we are
all obligated to financially support the government, whether we agree
with what it does, or not.

It happens that Stormin' Norman formulated :
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 14:42:04 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 21:33:39 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 13:07:50 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 19:50:54 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

Riddle me this, if no one pays their Federal income tax, how do you
propose paying for the national defense and dozens of other programs
you would deem necessary?

Riddle me this, ever see a tax law repealed? Why do you still pay a
federal tax for the debt of the Civil War? Curious minds and all.

Your comment is non sequitur to the question I put forth.

How does the nation pay for all of the federal programs mandated by
our elected representatives if people do not pay their federal taxes?
How does the nation service the interest on the national debt if
residents do not pay federal taxes?

Just as serving the country in the armed forces is patriotic, so is
paying to sustain the nation we have created through our elected
representatives.

Many people feel only the dumb schmoes pay taxes, but the "smart" guys
evade taxes and fly around in private 757s which are subsidized by the
dumb schmoes. This is an absurdity.

I say again, paying taxes is a form of patriotism, especially when one
has the means to help support the nation.

Try again. Why take more tax money and not reduce spending? Again.
Have you ever seen a tax repealed?

Feds took in around 3.x Trillion this tax year. Was spending reduced
or was there more give-away programs?

Not going to play your diversionary game.

The original question was:

"Riddle me this, if no one pays their Federal income tax, how do you
propose paying for the national defense and dozens of other programs
you would deem necessary?"

The elected representatives of the people have established spending
priorities, if you take issue with the spending, elect different
representatives. In the meantime, as a democratic republic, we are
all obligated to financially support the government, whether we agree
with what it does, or not.

+1, well said. We don't have to like paying taxes, but it is the price
of a democratic republic.

On 10/15/2016 3:27 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:
It happens that Stormin' Norman formulated :
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 14:42:04 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 21:33:39 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 13:07:50 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 19:50:54 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

Riddle me this, if no one pays their Federal income tax, how do you
propose paying for the national defense and dozens of other programs
you would deem necessary?

Riddle me this, ever see a tax law repealed? Why do you still pay a
federal tax for the debt of the Civil War? Curious minds and all.

Your comment is non sequitur to the question I put forth.

How does the nation pay for all of the federal programs mandated by
our elected representatives if people do not pay their federal taxes?
How does the nation service the interest on the national debt if
residents do not pay federal taxes?

Just as serving the country in the armed forces is patriotic, so is
paying to sustain the nation we have created through our elected
representatives.

Many people feel only the dumb schmoes pay taxes, but the "smart" guys
evade taxes and fly around in private 757s which are subsidized by the
dumb schmoes. This is an absurdity.

I say again, paying taxes is a form of patriotism, especially when one
has the means to help support the nation.

Try again. Why take more tax money and not reduce spending? Again.
Have you ever seen a tax repealed?

Feds took in around 3.x Trillion this tax year. Was spending reduced
or was there more give-away programs?

Not going to play your diversionary game.

The original question was:

"Riddle me this, if no one pays their Federal income tax, how do you
propose paying for the national defense and dozens of other programs
you would deem necessary?"

The elected representatives of the people have established spending
priorities, if you take issue with the spending, elect different
representatives. In the meantime, as a democratic republic, we are
all obligated to financially support the government, whether we agree
with what it does, or not.

+1, well said. We don't have to like paying taxes, but it is the price
of a democratic republic.

but it is the price for only a portion of the population.

On 10/15/2016 3:27 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:
It happens that Stormin' Norman formulated :
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 14:42:04 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 21:33:39 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 13:07:50 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 19:50:54 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

Riddle me this, if no one pays their Federal income tax, how do you
propose paying for the national defense and dozens of other programs
you would deem necessary?

Riddle me this, ever see a tax law repealed? Why do you still pay a
federal tax for the debt of the Civil War? Curious minds and all.

Your comment is non sequitur to the question I put forth.

How does the nation pay for all of the federal programs mandated by
our elected representatives if people do not pay their federal taxes?
How does the nation service the interest on the national debt if
residents do not pay federal taxes?

Just as serving the country in the armed forces is patriotic, so is
paying to sustain the nation we have created through our elected
representatives.

Many people feel only the dumb schmoes pay taxes, but the "smart" guys
evade taxes and fly around in private 757s which are subsidized by the
dumb schmoes. This is an absurdity.

I say again, paying taxes is a form of patriotism, especially when one
has the means to help support the nation.

Try again. Why take more tax money and not reduce spending? Again.
Have you ever seen a tax repealed?

Feds took in around 3.x Trillion this tax year. Was spending reduced
or was there more give-away programs?

Not going to play your diversionary game.

The original question was:

"Riddle me this, if no one pays their Federal income tax, how do you
propose paying for the national defense and dozens of other programs
you would deem necessary?"

The elected representatives of the people have established spending
priorities, if you take issue with the spending, elect different
representatives. In the meantime, as a democratic republic, we are
all obligated to financially support the government, whether we agree
with what it does, or not.

+1, well said. We don't have to like paying taxes, but it is the price
of a democratic republic.

but it is the price for only a portion of the population.

Yes, the very rich and the very poor have been exempted through the
political process. The rest of us should be motivated to change this
and ensure that everyone has skin in the game, as it were.

none used his keyboard to write :
On 10/15/2016 3:27 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:
It happens that Stormin' Norman formulated :
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 14:42:04 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 21:33:39 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 13:07:50 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 19:50:54 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

Riddle me this, if no one pays their Federal income tax, how do you
propose paying for the national defense and dozens of other programs
you would deem necessary?

Riddle me this, ever see a tax law repealed? Why do you still pay a
federal tax for the debt of the Civil War? Curious minds and all.

Your comment is non sequitur to the question I put forth.

How does the nation pay for all of the federal programs mandated by
our elected representatives if people do not pay their federal taxes?
How does the nation service the interest on the national debt if
residents do not pay federal taxes?

Just as serving the country in the armed forces is patriotic, so is
paying to sustain the nation we have created through our elected
representatives.

Many people feel only the dumb schmoes pay taxes, but the "smart" guys
evade taxes and fly around in private 757s which are subsidized by the
dumb schmoes. This is an absurdity.

I say again, paying taxes is a form of patriotism, especially when one
has the means to help support the nation.

Try again. Why take more tax money and not reduce spending? Again.
Have you ever seen a tax repealed?

Feds took in around 3.x Trillion this tax year. Was spending reduced
or was there more give-away programs?

Not going to play your diversionary game.

The original question was:

"Riddle me this, if no one pays their Federal income tax, how do you
propose paying for the national defense and dozens of other programs
you would deem necessary?"

The elected representatives of the people have established spending
priorities, if you take issue with the spending, elect different
representatives. In the meantime, as a democratic republic, we are
all obligated to financially support the government, whether we agree
with what it does, or not.

+1, well said. We don't have to like paying taxes, but it is the price
of a democratic republic.

but it is the price for only a portion of the population.

Yes, the very rich and the very poor have been exempted through the political
process. The rest of us should be motivated to change this and ensure that
everyone has skin in the game, as it were.

Agreed!

On 10/15/2016 11:34 AM, Muggles wrote:
Every generation has similar problems, I think.

Hesiod mentioned it in 'Works and Days'. The date is up for grabs but it
was written sometime around 700 BCE. The first thing progressives need
to realize is there ain't no progress. iPhones and self-driving cars are
just techie-toys; humanity is the same old same old.

On 10/15/2016 12:51 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per rbowman:
The wisdom of crowds that brought on the dot-com bubble? Or the tulip
bubble for that matter. Mass hysteria is a hell of a way to run a country.

But isn't that what elections are? (wisdom of the crowd)


Precisely In the timeline of humanity democracies inhabit a very
small space. The current crop isn't doing well.

Look around at your friends, neighbors, and business associates. How
many would you send to the store with a shopping list and expect a good
outcome? They're potential voters. Look at the news sites and find the
dumbest stories for the last 24 hours. Potential voters. Look around
(figuratively) at this news group. Potential voters.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

On 10/15/2016 12:55 PM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 10/15/2016 11:51 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per rbowman:
The wisdom of crowds that brought on the dot-com bubble? Or the tulip
bubble for that matter. Mass hysteria is a hell of a way to run a
country.

But isn't that what elections are? (wisdom of the crowd)



That is why we have (or had) a Republic, and not a democracy.

That just concentrates the incompetents in a smaller herd. Exhibit A:
Sheila Jackson Lee:

http://www.dumbocratquotes.com/viewb...hp?personid=40

On 10/15/2016 4:36 PM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 12:36:08 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 10/15/2016 8:23 AM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 22:25:54 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 10/14/2016 1:41 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:

Once again, you cannot refute the methodology for calculating the odds
which have been presented,

I've studied analytics for a while and just I'm curious what methodology
for calculating the odds you're referring to?


I was able to find a pretty thorough explanation of the process on the
quoted website and the websites from which the data is amalgamated.
These folks are wagering real money, I have no doubt they have parsed
the data every which way from Sunday. I also have no doubt they are
correct in their predictions, but that is a personal opinion.


Seriously, I have even more doubts about such "odds" the more I study
analytics.

Then you should probably not become a bookie......


You do know that statistics are solely dependent on the sampling, or
data collected, right? What data would you have to collect in order to
lay odds as to a winner of the presidency?

--
Maggie

On 10/15/2016 9:22 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 10/15/2016 11:34 AM, Muggles wrote:
Every generation has similar problems, I think.

Hesiod mentioned it in 'Works and Days'. The date is up for grabs but it
was written sometime around 700 BCE. The first thing progressives need
to realize is there ain't no progress. iPhones and self-driving cars are
just techie-toys; humanity is the same old same old.

.... just somewhat more modern.

--
Maggie