On 09/21/2012 12:31 AM, Why are people so cruel wrote:

"George Plimpton" wrote in message
...
None whatever. There is absolutely no valid moral reason why people
should have to pay higher and higher rates of tax on additional
increments of income.

Depends if you are a tax accountant and a tax lawyer, in which
case your business model is based upon scaring the higher paid
to use your services to avoid paying the incremental taxes. Countries
that have progressive tax regimes have more tax accountants
per capita - which is good for the economy as it spreads the wealth
around more than taxing the wealthy and giving that money to the
poor. Big problem is that they dont give a rat's arse about the
middle income earners who dont earn enough to warrant paying
a tax accountant and therefore pay more tax as a percentage
than the wealthy do, and end up subsidising the ultra rich and the
ultra poor.

And here's the moral reason:

When someone driving at 50 mph doubles his speed to 100 mph, it requires
eight times the power.

So when someone making $50/hr increases that to $100/hr, he should pay
eight times the taxes.

It's a Law of Nature.

On 9/21/2012 1:24 AM, Silly Rabbit wrote:
On 09/21/2012 12:31 AM, Why are people so cruel wrote:

"George Plimpton" wrote in message
...
None whatever. There is absolutely no valid moral reason why people
should have to pay higher and higher rates of tax on additional
increments of income.

Depends if you are a tax accountant and a tax lawyer, in which
case your business model is based upon scaring the higher paid
to use your services to avoid paying the incremental taxes. Countries
that have progressive tax regimes have more tax accountants
per capita - which is good for the economy as it spreads the wealth
around more than taxing the wealthy and giving that money to the
poor. Big problem is that they dont give a rat's arse about the
middle income earners who dont earn enough to warrant paying
a tax accountant and therefore pay more tax as a percentage
than the wealthy do, and end up subsidising the ultra rich and the
ultra poor.

And here's the moral reason:

When someone driving at 50 mph doubles his speed to 100 mph, it requires
eight times the power.

Bull****.


So when someone making $50/hr increases that to $100/hr, he should pay
eight times the taxes.

Invalid analogy, based on bull****. Rejected.

On 09/21/2012 07:37 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/21/2012 1:24 AM, Silly Rabbit wrote:

When someone driving at 50 mph doubles his speed to 100 mph, it requires
eight times the power.

Bull****.

(A) Then state how much power is required.
Do it.

So when someone making $50/hr increases that to $100/hr, he should pay
eight times the taxes.

Invalid analogy, based on bull****. Rejected.

(B) You're stuck on part (A).

On Sep 21, 12:51*pm, Silly Rabbit wrote:
On 09/21/2012 07:37 AM, George Plimpton wrote:

On 9/21/2012 1:24 AM, Silly Rabbit wrote:

When someone driving at 50 mph doubles his speed to 100 mph, it requires
eight times the power.

Bull****.

(A) Then state how much power is required.
* * *Do it.

So when someone making $50/hr increases that to $100/hr, he should pay
eight times the taxes.

Invalid analogy, based on bull****. *Rejected.

(B) You're stuck on part (A).

Things are never as simple as that. The power required to go 50 mph
and 100 mph is composed of two parts. The rolling resistance and the
air resistance. The air resistance goes up by the cube of the speed.
So to go 100 mph requires 8 times as much power as is required to go
50 mph. However the force required for rolling resistance only goes
up by the speed. So the power to go 100 mph because of rolling
resistance is only double that required to go 50 mph. So more data
is required to give an accurate answer. What is the coefficient of
drag and what is the rolling resistance coefficient?

And that will only get you the actual force. To figure gasoline
consumption you need to know more about the engine.

And I can not see any reason tax rate should be related to power
required to drive.

So I would agree. You are a silly rabbit.

Cheers

On 09/21/2012 10:40 AM, wrote:
On Sep 21, 12:51 pm, Silly Rabbit wrote:
On 09/21/2012 07:37 AM, George Plimpton wrote:

On 9/21/2012 1:24 AM, Silly Rabbit wrote:

When someone driving at 50 mph doubles his speed to 100 mph, it requires
eight times the power.

Bull****.

(A) Then state how much power is required.
Do it.

So when someone making $50/hr increases that to $100/hr, he should pay
eight times the taxes.

Invalid analogy, based on bull****. Rejected.

(B) You're stuck on part (A).

Things are never as simple as that. The power required to go 50 mph
and 100 mph is composed of two parts. The rolling resistance and the

And you're going to bog this down with minutiae.

air resistance. The air resistance goes up by the cube of the speed.

That's wrong.

So to go 100 mph requires 8 times as much power as is required to go
50 mph.

That's what I just said. But it isn't because air resistance goes up by
the cube of the speed, because it doesn't.

However the force required for rolling resistance only goes

OK, minutiae man. It's an airplane, there is no rolling resistance.

up by the speed. So the power to go 100 mph because of rolling
resistance is only double that required to go 50 mph.

Wrong some more. Add your "double" rolling resistance to your "cubed"
air resistance and now you're well past 8 times as much power.

So more data
is required to give an accurate answer.

Right. So let's factor in the force of smashing bugs too.

What is the coefficient of
drag and what is the rolling resistance coefficient?

The CD doesn't matter. Whatever it is, it gets squared.

And that will only get you the actual force. To figure gasoline
consumption you need to know more about the engine.

Irrelevant.

And I can not see any reason tax rate should be related to power
required to drive.

So I would agree. You are a silly rabbit.

Cheers

On 9/21/2012 9:51 AM, Silly Rabbit wrote:
On 09/21/2012 07:37 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/21/2012 1:24 AM, Silly Rabbit wrote:

When someone driving at 50 mph doubles his speed to 100 mph, it requires
eight times the power.

Bull****.

(A) Then state how much power is required.
Do it.

So when someone making $50/hr increases that to $100/hr, he should pay
eight times the taxes.

Invalid analogy, based on bull****. Rejected.

(B) You're stuck on part (A).

Not stuck on it at all, ****wit. The analogy is completely invalid.

On 9/21/2012 11:00 AM, Silly Rabbit wrote:
On 09/21/2012 10:40 AM, wrote:
On Sep 21, 12:51 pm, Silly Rabbit wrote:
On 09/21/2012 07:37 AM, George Plimpton wrote:

On 9/21/2012 1:24 AM, Silly Rabbit wrote:

When someone driving at 50 mph doubles his speed to 100 mph, it
requires
eight times the power.

Bull****.

(A) Then state how much power is required.
Do it.

So when someone making $50/hr increases that to $100/hr, he should pay
eight times the taxes.

Invalid analogy, based on bull****. Rejected.

(B) You're stuck on part (A).

Things are never as simple as that. The power required to go 50 mph
and 100 mph is composed of two parts. The rolling resistance and the

And you're going to bog this down with minutiae.

That's your fault for offering a ****ty, invalid analogy, you cocksucker.

On 09/21/2012 10:40 AM, wrote:

And I can not see any reason tax rate should be related to power
required to drive.

Which is easier to catch - the first fish in the ocean, or the last fish?

On 09/21/2012 11:06 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/21/2012 9:51 AM, Silly Rabbit wrote:
On 09/21/2012 07:37 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/21/2012 1:24 AM, Silly Rabbit wrote:

When someone driving at 50 mph doubles his speed to 100 mph, it
requires
eight times the power.

Bull****.

(A) Then state how much power is required.
Do it.

So when someone making $50/hr increases that to $100/hr, he should pay
eight times the taxes.

Invalid analogy, based on bull****. Rejected.

(B) You're stuck on part (A).

Not stuck on it at all, ****wit. The analogy is completely invalid.

Awww, you sidestepped (A)
And that invalidates your conclusion.

On 9/21/2012 11:19 AM, Silly Rabbit wrote:
On 09/21/2012 11:06 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/21/2012 9:51 AM, Silly Rabbit wrote:
On 09/21/2012 07:37 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/21/2012 1:24 AM, Silly Rabbit wrote:

When someone driving at 50 mph doubles his speed to 100 mph, it
requires
eight times the power.

Bull****.

(A) Then state how much power is required.
Do it.

So when someone making $50/hr increases that to $100/hr, he should pay
eight times the taxes.

Invalid analogy, based on bull****. Rejected.

(B) You're stuck on part (A).

Not stuck on it at all, ****wit. The analogy is completely invalid.

Awww, you sidestepped

Your analogy is bull****, and you know it. *You* are bull****.

"Silly Rabbit" wrote in message
...

Wrong some more. Add your "double" rolling resistance to your
"cubed" air resistance and now you're well past 8 times as much
power.


Problem-solving isn't one of your strengths, eh?

Rolling resistance SUBTRACTS from the total needed to go 50, which is
the SUM of both.

If each contributes 1/2 of the total R at 50 MPH then you need 2 *
0.5R + 8 * 0.5R = 5R at 100 MPH.

On 09/21/2012 01:06 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Silly Rabbit" wrote in message
...

Wrong some more. Add your "double" rolling resistance to your
"cubed" air resistance and now you're well past 8 times as much
power.


Problem-solving isn't one of your strengths, eh?

Rolling resistance SUBTRACTS from the total needed to go 50, which is
the SUM of both.

If each contributes 1/2 of the total R at 50 MPH then you need 2 *
0.5R + 8 * 0.5R = 5R at 100 MPH.

There is no "8 * 0.5R" anywhere. There's no "5R" either. You are
completely lost.

On 09/21/2012 11:13 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/21/2012 11:00 AM, Silly Rabbit wrote:
On 09/21/2012 10:40 AM, wrote:

Things are never as simple as that. The power required to go 50 mph
and 100 mph is composed of two parts. The rolling resistance and the

And you're going to bog this down with minutiae.

That's your fault for offering a ****ty, invalid analogy, you cocksucker.

A fine analogy, just like the one of catching fish.

On 09/21/2012 11:21 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/21/2012 11:19 AM, Silly Rabbit wrote:
On 09/21/2012 11:06 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/21/2012 9:51 AM, Silly Rabbit wrote:
On 09/21/2012 07:37 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/21/2012 1:24 AM, Silly Rabbit wrote:

When someone driving at 50 mph doubles his speed to 100 mph, it
requires
eight times the power.

Bull****.

(A) Then state how much power is required.
Do it.

So when someone making $50/hr increases that to $100/hr, he should
pay
eight times the taxes.

Invalid analogy, based on bull****. Rejected.

(B) You're stuck on part (A).

Not stuck on it at all, ****wit. The analogy is completely invalid.

Awww, you sidestepped

Your analogy is bull****, and you know it. *You* are bull****.

Awww, did it again.
You know now that I was correct, don't you?

On 9/21/2012 2:43 PM, Silly Rabbit wrote:
On 09/21/2012 11:21 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/21/2012 11:19 AM, Silly Rabbit wrote:
On 09/21/2012 11:06 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/21/2012 9:51 AM, Silly Rabbit wrote:
On 09/21/2012 07:37 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/21/2012 1:24 AM, Silly Rabbit wrote:

When someone driving at 50 mph doubles his speed to 100 mph, it
requires
eight times the power.

Bull****.

(A) Then state how much power is required.
Do it.

So when someone making $50/hr increases that to $100/hr, he should
pay
eight times the taxes.

Invalid analogy, based on bull****. Rejected.

(B) You're stuck on part (A).

Not stuck on it at all, ****wit. The analogy is completely invalid.

Awww, you sidestepped

Your analogy is bull****, and you know it. *You* are bull****.

Awww,

Awwwwwww - your analogy is bull****. You know it is.

On 9/21/2012 2:21 PM, Silly Rabbit wrote:
On 09/21/2012 11:13 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/21/2012 11:00 AM, Silly Rabbit wrote:
On 09/21/2012 10:40 AM, wrote:

Things are never as simple as that. The power required to go 50 mph
and 100 mph is composed of two parts. The rolling resistance and the

And you're going to bog this down with minutiae.

That's your fault for offering a ****ty, invalid analogy, you cocksucker.

A fine analogy,

It is invalid. You know it. Everyone knows it.

George Plimpton wrote:
....
When someone driving at 50 mph doubles his speed to 100
mph, it requires eight times the power.

Bull****.

(A) Then state how much power is required. Do it.

So when someone making $50/hr increases that to $100/hr,
he should pay eight times the taxes.

Invalid analogy, based on bull****. Rejected.

(B) You're stuck on part (A).

Not stuck on it at all, ****wit. The analogy is completely
invalid.

Awww, you sidestepped

Your analogy is bull****, and you know it. *You* are bull****.

Awww,

Awwwwwww - your analogy is bull****. You know it is.


It's a fine analogy. That 100th mile per hour comes with a greater
penalty than the 50th. Just as the 100th dollar per hour ought to.
I'm sorry that you are stupid.
And Wilkins "Problem-solving isn't one of your strengths, eh?" too.

On 9/21/2012 4:57 PM, Silly Rabbit wrote:

George Plimpton wrote:
...
When someone driving at 50 mph doubles his speed to 100
mph, it requires eight times the power.

Bull****.

(A) Then state how much power is required. Do it.

So when someone making $50/hr increases that to $100/hr,
he should pay eight times the taxes.

Invalid analogy, based on bull****. Rejected.

(B) You're stuck on part (A).

Not stuck on it at all, ****wit. The analogy is completely
invalid.

Awww, you sidestepped

Your analogy is bull****, and you know it. *You* are bull****.

Awww,

Awwwwwww - your analogy is bull****. You know it is.


It's a fine analogy.

It's a bull**** analogy. You know it is. Everyone knows it is.

George Plimpton wrote: ...
When someone driving at 50 mph doubles his speed to
100 mph, it requires eight times the power.

Bull****.

(A) Then state how much power is required. Do it.

Hello??

So when someone making $50/hr increases that to
$100/hr, he should pay eight times the taxes.

Invalid analogy, based on bull****. Rejected.

(B) You're stuck on part (A).

Not stuck on it at all, ****wit. The analogy is
completely invalid.

Awww, you sidestepped

Your analogy is bull****, and you know it. *You* are
bull****.

Awww,

Awwwwwww - your analogy is bull****. You know it is.


It's a fine analogy.

It's a bull**** analogy. All I can say anymore is bull****. Everyone knows it.

Yes, it's all you got left.

On 09/21/2012 01:06 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Silly Rabbit" wrote in message
...

Wrong some more. Add your "double" rolling resistance to your
"cubed" air resistance and now you're well past 8 times as much
power.


Problem-solving isn't one of your strengths, eh?

Rolling resistance SUBTRACTS from the total needed to go 50, which is
the SUM of both.

If each contributes 1/2 of the total R at 50 MPH then you need 2 *
0.5R + 8 * 0.5R = 5R at 100 MPH.

Show us your problem-solving strength, Jim! Plimpy has faded, so I'll
settle for you explaining your magic above.

"8 * 0.5R" ... Where did you pull that number 8 out of?
"5R" ... you're telling me, all of us, that the total drag at 100mph is
5 times what it is at 50mph?

"Silly Rabbit" wrote in message
...
On 09/21/2012 01:06 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Silly Rabbit" wrote in message
...

Wrong some more. Add your "double" rolling resistance to your
"cubed" air resistance and now you're well past 8 times as much
power.


Problem-solving isn't one of your strengths, eh?

Rolling resistance SUBTRACTS from the total needed to go 50, which
is
the SUM of both.

If each contributes 1/2 of the total R at 50 MPH then you need 2 *
0.5R + 8 * 0.5R = 5R at 100 MPH.

Show us your problem-solving strength, Jim! Plimpy has faded, so
I'll settle for you explaining your magic above.

"8 * 0.5R" ... Where did you pull that number 8 out of?
"5R" ... you're telling me, all of us, that the total drag at 100mph
is 5 times what it is at 50mph?

The claim is that the aerodynamic drag rises as the cube of the speed
ratio. 100 is two times 50. Two cubed is 8. Is that simple enough for
you to follow?

On Sep 21, 2:00*pm, Silly Rabbit wrote:


OK, minutiae man. It's an airplane, there is no rolling resistance.

But the original post by you said " driving ".

Wrong some more. Add your "double" rolling resistance to your "cubed"
air resistance and now you're well past 8 times as much power.

It is obvious you are not an engineer.


The CD doesn't matter. Whatever it is, it gets squared.

But inless you know the Coef of drag and the Coef of rolling
resistance , you can not compute how much of the power is used to over
come the wind resistance and how much is used to over come the rolling
resistance.

Take physics when you get to high school.


So I would agree. *You are a silly rabbit.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Cheers

On 09/21/2012 06:57 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Silly Rabbit" wrote in message
...
On 09/21/2012 01:06 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Silly Rabbit" wrote in message
...

Wrong some more. Add your "double" rolling resistance to your
"cubed" air resistance and now you're well past 8 times as much
power.


Problem-solving isn't one of your strengths, eh?

Rolling resistance SUBTRACTS from the total needed to go 50, which
is
the SUM of both.

If each contributes 1/2 of the total R at 50 MPH then you need 2 *
0.5R + 8 * 0.5R = 5R at 100 MPH.

Show us your problem-solving strength, Jim! Plimpy has faded, so
I'll settle for you explaining your magic above.

"8 * 0.5R" ... Where did you pull that number 8 out of?
"5R" ... you're telling me, all of us, that the total drag at 100mph
is 5 times what it is at 50mph?

The claim is that the aerodynamic drag rises as the cube of the speed
ratio.

Who's claim is that? Certainly not mine.

00 is two times 50. Two cubed is 8. Is that simple enough for
you to follow?

Haw-haw-hawww! I knew it. That wasn't a hurried mistake, you don't know
squat.

On 09/21/2012 07:01 PM, wrote:
On Sep 21, 2:00 pm, Silly Rabbit wrote:

OK, minutiae man. It's an airplane, there is no rolling resistance.

But the original post by you said " driving ".

Yeah, I think it did. So what? Could be a Cessna 152 driver.

Wrong some more. Add your "double" rolling resistance to your "cubed"
air resistance and now you're well past 8 times as much power.

It is obvious you are not an engineer.

How's that? Be specific.

The CD doesn't matter. Whatever it is, it gets squared.

But inless you know the Coef of drag and the Coef of rolling
resistance , you can not compute how much of the power is used to over
come the wind resistance and how much is used to over come the rolling
resistance.

The power required is 8 times whatever it was. I don't care how much
that is, or was. Why do you care?

Take physics when you get to high school.

You're the one who thinks air drag is cubed when speed doubles.
= "The air resistance goes up by the cube of the speed." =
Take some time to rethink that.

On 9/21/2012 6:41 PM, Silly Rabbit wrote:
George Plimpton wrote: ...
When someone driving at 50 mph doubles his speed to
100 mph, it requires eight times the power.

Bull****.

(A) Then state how much power is required. Do it.

Hello??

So when someone making $50/hr increases that to
$100/hr, he should pay eight times the taxes.

Invalid analogy, based on bull****. Rejected.

(B) You're stuck on part (A).

Not stuck on it at all, ****wit. The analogy is
completely invalid.

Awww, you sidestepped

Your analogy is bull****, and you know it. *You* are
bull****.

Awww,

Awwwwwww - your analogy is bull****. You know it is.


It's a fine analogy.

It's a bull**** analogy. All I can say anymore is bull****. Everyone
knows it.

Yes, it's

Yes, it's a bull**** analogy. You know it, and everyone knows you know
it. Bull****, start to finish - just like you.

On 09/21/2012 07:01 PM, wrote:
On Sep 21, 2:00 pm, Silly Rabbit wrote:

OK, minutiae man. It's an airplane, there is no rolling resistance.

But the original post by you said " driving ".

Wrong some more. Add your "double" rolling resistance to your "cubed"
air resistance and now you're well past 8 times as much power.

It is obvious you are not an engineer.

It is obvious that you are baffled by that inexplicable number "8" if it
didn't come about by drag being cubed. You and Jim "Problem-solving
isn't one of your strengths, eh" Wilkins both.

If the purpose of the tax system is to fund the government, then a low flat
tax will promote economic growth, and bring in more total revenue.

I agree, no moral justification....

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 9/22/2012 6:13 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
If the purpose of the tax system is to fund the government, then a low flat
tax will promote economic growth, and bring in more total revenue.

Careful...fund the government doing what? The correct and proper
function of government *excludes* providing the basic goods and services
of life to deadbeat vermin who are too ****ing lazy to do it for
themselves: housing, food, clothing, transportation. Read our
Constitution. There is no mention of school lunches, food stamps,
Section 8 housing payments, farm subsidies, medical care provision, or
any of that massive redistribution schemes in which government at all
levels engages. The *intent* of the founders was to create an extremely
limited government - basically, one that provided national defense, a
little bit of essential infrastructure, a court system, and basic
protection of social order - and the Constitution they wrote reflects
that. By *NO* means did the founders intend government to be a vehicle
to level life's outcomes for citizens. The founders saw *NO* role for
government to redistribute wealth or income. You no they didn't because
there's nothing in the Constitution about it - the Constitution is *THE*
defining document of both the structure and the intent of government.
There is a vague statement about "general welfare", but no
interpretation of the Constitution has ever held that that meant a power
to redistribute wealth and income, or to promote the *specific* welfare
of politically favored classes like farmers or deadbeat vermin who will
vote universally for the party that promises them the softest life.

Define the duties of government in the most severely restricted role
imaginable, then impose a low flat tax just sufficient to fund those
legitimate activities. That is good and just.


I agree, no moral justification....

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

On 09/21/2012 07:37 AM, George Plimpton wrote:

When someone driving at 50 mph doubles his speed to 100 mph, it requires
eight times the power.

Bull****.

There is no more question about it, or where the "8" came from, Plimpy.
You're the only one who isn't able to deal with it. Crybaby.

On 9/23/2012 6:52 PM, Silly Rabbit wrote:
On 09/21/2012 07:37 AM, George Plimpton wrote:

When someone driving at 50 mph doubles his speed to 100 mph, it requires
eight times the power.

Bull****.

There is no more question about it, or

**** off. You don't know what the **** you're talking about, on
anything. Get the **** out of here.

Plimpton:
Silly Rabbit wrote:

A fine analogy,

It is invalid. You know it. Everyone knows it.

Nature enthusiast Tom Del Rosso recoils from physics analogies too.

"Your physics analogy assumes the government is more natural than
people are... The government is not natural."


He then, unwittingly, hands me a chainsaw to cut the limb you two sit on.

"And when people get the hourly wage they agreed to, with the right to
go elsewhere, that's natural too."

'So the rich should also agree to a graduated income tax structure,
because they're free to go elsewhere.'

On 9/23/2012 8:41 PM, Silly Rabbit wrote:
Plimpton:
Silly Rabbit wrote:

A fine analogy,

It is invalid. You know it. Everyone knows it.

Nature enthusiast

You know your ****witted analogy is invalid. It's bull****. You know
it is, bitch.

Plimpton:
Silly Rabbit wrote:

A fine analogy,

It is invalid. You know it. Everyone knows it.

Nature enthusiast Tom Del Rosso recoils from physics analogies
too.

"Your physics analogy assumes the government is more natural than
people are... The government is not natural."


He then, unwittingly, hands me a chainsaw to cut the limb you two
sit on.

You know your ****witted analogy is invalid. It's bull****.

Dell Rosso's analogy.

"And when people get the hourly wage they agreed to, with the right to
go elsewhere, that's natural too."

'So the rich should also agree to a graduated income tax structure,
because they're free to go elsewhere.'

Just about perfect, isn't it? The morality of the first, and thus both,
is inescapable.

Plimpton:
On 9/23/2012 6:52 PM, Silly Rabbit wrote:
On 09/21/2012 07:37 AM, George Plimpton wrote:

When someone driving at 50 mph doubles his speed to 100 mph, it
requires
eight times the power.

Bull****.

There is no more question about it, or

**** off. You don't know what the **** you're talking about, on
anything. Get the **** out of here.

It's not about me. Tom Del Rosso knows.

"And when people get the hourly wage they agreed to, with the right to
go elsewhere, that's natural too."

'So the rich should also agree to a graduated income tax structure,
because they're free to go elsewhere.'

It's a wrap!

On 9/23/2012 11:44 PM, Silly Rabbit wrote:
Plimpton:
Silly Rabbit wrote:

A fine analogy,

It is invalid. You know it. Everyone knows it.

Nature enthusiast Tom Del Rosso recoils from physics analogies
too.

"Your physics analogy assumes the government is more natural than
people are... The government is not natural."


He then, unwittingly, hands me a chainsaw to cut the limb you two
sit on.

You know your ****witted analogy is invalid. It's bull****.

Dell Rosso's analogy.

"And when people get the hourly wage they agreed to, with the right to
go elsewhere, that's natural too."

'So the rich should also agree to a graduated income tax structure,
because they're free to go elsewhere.'

Bad analogy, because a graduated tax *isn't* a wage, and the rich didn't
agree to it.

You're ****ed.

On 9/23/2012 11:52 PM, Silly Rabbit wrote:
Plimpton:
On 9/23/2012 6:52 PM, Silly Rabbit wrote:
On 09/21/2012 07:37 AM, George Plimpton wrote:

When someone driving at 50 mph doubles his speed to 100 mph, it
requires
eight times the power.

Bull****.

There is no more question about it, or

**** off. You don't know what the **** you're talking about, on
anything. Get the **** out of here.

It's not about me. Tom Del Rosso knows.

It's you. His is worse, but yours is ****.

You're ****ed.

Plimpton whined:
On 9/23/2012 11:44 PM, Silly Rabbit wrote:

"And when people get the hourly wage they agreed to, with the right to
go elsewhere, that's natural too."

'So the rich should also agree to a graduated income tax structure,
because they're free to go elsewhere.'

Bad analogy, because a graduated tax *isn't* a wage,

_ANALOGY_ , idiot! I don't need to use a graduated tax as an analogy of
a graduated tax. This is about MONEY. !00% Economics here, an excellent
analogy indeed.

and the rich didn't
agree to it.

*Should* agree, not *was* agreed.

You're ****ed.

No, your argument is ****ed. You can't logically back it up, without
demonstrating that all possible justifications are immoral. An
impossible task.
But I needed just ONE example... already done. My work is done.

stupid **** lied:
Prof. Plimpton patiently elaborated:
On 9/23/2012 11:44 PM, Silly Rabbit wrote:

"And when people get the hourly wage they agreed to, with the right to
go elsewhere, that's natural too."

'So the rich should also agree to a graduated income tax structure,
because they're free to go elsewhere.'

Bad analogy, because a graduated tax *isn't* a wage,

_ANALOGY_ ,

A ****** analogy, you ****tard. There has to be a fundamental
similarity between the elements for the analogy to hold. In this case,
there is a fundamental *OPPOSITION* of the elements, you ****ing ****.
A tax is the complete *OPPOSITE* of a wage, and the people victimized by
the tax didn't agree to it.

Your analogy is ****ed. You are ****ed. You are not up to doing this.

On 09/24/2012 01:50 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
stupid **** lied:
Prof. Plimpton patiently elaborated:
On 9/23/2012 11:44 PM, Silly Rabbit wrote:

"And when people get the hourly wage they agreed to, with the right to
go elsewhere, that's natural too."

'So the rich should also agree to a graduated income tax structure,
because they're free to go elsewhere.'

Bad analogy, because a graduated tax *isn't* a wage,

_ANALOGY_ ,

similarity between the elements for the analogy to hold. In this case,

Yes! The similarity is, obviously, INCOME. Wages before taxes, taxes
after wages, it makes no difference how you view it. Net Income is what
matters, to the loafing rich guy and the toiling laborer.

stupid **** lied:
On 09/24/2012 01:50 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
stupid **** lied:
Prof. Plimpton patiently elaborated:
On 9/23/2012 11:44 PM, Silly Rabbit wrote:

"And when people get the hourly wage they agreed to, with the right to
go elsewhere, that's natural too."

'So the rich should also agree to a graduated income tax structure,
because they're free to go elsewhere.'

Bad analogy, because a graduated tax *isn't* a wage,

_ANALOGY_ ,

similarity between the elements for the analogy to hold. In this case,

Yes! The similarity is,

There is *NO* similarity - obviously. A wage is something the person
receives; a tax is something the person gives up.

The analogy is bull****: proved beyond rational dispute.