There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

[Barbie's Boyfriend]

I could see PZ Myers working in a Radio Shack, and getting all red in the face with apoplexy whenever kids pranked him by asking where they stock the "B" batteries.

Drove past the Radio Crap near my home. Yep, its CLOSED. According to one neighbor, for a year. Another neighbor said "No, it started its Going Outta Bizness sale one year ago. Only been closed for two months.

20180122_135627-1-min.jpg

(543.4 KiB) Downloaded 81 times

That guy sleeping on the sidewalk must be the temporarily inconvenienced former franchise owner. Turnkey or not, once he sells that building, he'll be sitting pretty. Given what real estate in that hood is going for these days, he might even be rich enuf for Sticky Butterscotch. Wait, its in a strip center? He does NOT own the building ? Oh well, at least he has a dry sidewalk upon which to sleep.

And Matt, PZ really would have liked working in THIS Radio Crap. Why? Well, let's take a look at the next door neighbor:

20180122_135627-1-min.jpg

(543.4 KiB) Downloaded 81 times

Yes, after a hard day of work, our chubby friend would only need to walk a few feet to find the perfect present for Becky. Erotic Cabaret has a WIDE selection of whips, chains, butt plugs, ball gags, well, y'all get the idea.

Here's a short video about Erotic Cabaret:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCSZF3p30NI

[Barbie's Boyfriend]

Is it necessary to quote entire conversations in order to respond to the last line?

[quote=Hunt post_id=454220 time= user_id=715]

Just a suggestion, but can we please try to quote just the points we are responding to?

This is turning into There Was an Old Lady who Swallowed a Fly.

People whined when I restricted it a long time ago and so I was generous and turned off the limit after the recent upgrade.

More than happy to turn it on again if people continue to be stupid with it.

Fascist Tit.

Anyone have an idea what maximum thread-nest is?
[/quote]

Don't ask me. According to Sticky Butterscotch, I can't count past three

[Guest_d2e60302]

Well, see what you think AFTER you've heard his side too. Then you'll have both sides to work with. Here's a couple of recent ones he did on the topic:

"The New York Times SMEARED my Twin Falls reporting… but I’m FIGHTING BACK" - from Sep 26, 2017
youtube com/watch?v=SoiKcaJP2Gc

"Lee Stranahan LIVE — SHOCKING Prosecutorial Misconduct by Grant Loebs in Twin Falls / Chobani Story" - from Dec 15, 2017
youtube com/watch?v=38fLG1NBtGM

So I watched both of them and the best I can say is I understand his argument, but I don't think that Stranahan proved his point. Mostly what I saw him doing was denying, but saying he has evidence and not showing me the evidence, hardly proves his point.

I've seen him do good stuff in the past, so I would like to lean in his direction, but I'm not getting that after those two videos. Perhaps I should watch his Periscope, too...

[Hunt]

Here's a short video about Erotic Cabaret:

I guess they don't have a problem with Houston.

[VickyCaramel]

That guy sleeping on the sidewalk must be the temporarily inconvenienced former franchise owner. Turnkey or not, once he sells that building, he'll be sitting pretty. Given what real estate in that hood is going for these days, he might even be rich enuf for Sticky Butterscotch. Wait, its in a strip center? He does NOT own the building ? Oh well, at least he has a dry sidewalk upon which to sleep.

You go back far enough, you will see that I said...

The real money is borrowing against the property and using that money to purchase more property and make other investments.

...investments like... strip malls, shopping centres, hotels, hospitals, car parks even airports and ports.Which they can in turn borrow against.
And yes, you can borrow against your share in a strip mall, you can even borrow against a lease if the lease is for long enough. The point of the exercise is not to own properties, it is to have assets which you can borrow against.

I really don't know what you are trying to prove here, the company history says they sold off their remaining properties, then continued selling turnkey franchises and now has gone on the internet. And so I was almost certainly correct in my observation which is that the reason you used to see RadioShack fucking everywhere was not that the Western World had such a huge demand for cables and batteries, but because they were in the property business. What you are seeing at your local strip mall now is totally fucking irrelevant as the company was in decline from 2006, but even as recently as 2013 they OWNED 4,297 stores with an additional 900 independent franchises. Now they have zero stores but there are "approximately 425 independently owned franchise stores". These will not last long because now they are not only competing against other companies, they are competing against their own distributor which has become an online business retailing direct to the public.

So what exactly is your point Barbie?

For god's sake, don't ever try to start a business.

[BoxNDox]

I thought Radio Crap declared Ch. 11.

I thought Radio Shack was a government program to provide jobs for otherwise unemployable dorks.

That was before they became a cell phone store. After that happened they turned into a program to provide jobs for Spanish-speaking high school dropouts.

[MarcusAu]

The highlight reel:

This clip makes them both look terrible.

Cathy Newman because she cannot refute any point and has to parrot back a twisted interpretation each time. And Peterson because it cuts out what he has to say - and makes it look like he won due to his opponents weakness rather the strength of his own position. Even the gotcha moment seems like a rhetorical gimmick rather than a conceded point.

Based on some of the pictures I've seen of him lately - Peterson seems to be rather stressed out - so I hope that all this does not get too much for him.

[Tigzy]

Based on some of the pictures I've seen of him lately - Peterson seems to be rather stressed out - so I hope that all this does not get too much for him.

I don't think the sales of his new book have been harmed by recent shenanigans. In fact, they've probably boosted them. If he's crying, he'll be crying all the way to the bank.

[MarcusAu]

You really think he has a novel called The Cattle Raid of Cooley?

He's Irish, not Welsh!

The Táin Bó Cúailnge is an Irish tale about a failed hostile takeover by group of venture capitalists from Ulster, and the hero Cú Chulainn ("Nobody accidentally kills big hound dogs like me. Nobody".) who promises to Make Ulster Great Again.

It's one of the main inspirations for the 2000ad character Slaine.

http://www.glennfabrystudios.com/wp-con ... splash.jpg

"It is said Sláine killed three hundred men, women and children that day... He didn't think it too many."

Could you not find a better picture?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Axvc9-BbqDI/U ... pspasm.jpg

[Tigzy]

Yeah, just checked - Peterson's 12 Rules book is presently number 2 on Amazon's print bestsellers.

I think he'll be fine.

[VickyCaramel]

Doesn't this presume that (i) the "rich" pay taxes rather than evade them using loopholes, and (ii) income tax is the only form of taxation?

Put differently, aren't you once again full of shit?

(i) No because this is the "effective tax rate", it is what they actually pay, or as he says, how much you actually gave to the IRS. This is personal income, not taxes on the business. It is much harder to avoid tax on personal income.

(ii) There is also sales tax, of which the rich pay more because they spend more. I suppose they could collect all the receipts and ask their accountant to put it through the company accounts as work related, or steal toilet paper from work....

There is also a myth that the rich spend all their time avoiding taxes. But "time" is the important part here. While poor people spend time to save money, the rich spend money to save time... so they can have more time to enjoy all that money. They might not be handing out $50 bills to homeless people, but they will hire maids, gardeners, and drivers because they have better things to do than trimming the hedge or cleaning the car.

Very few rich people act like Scrooge McDuck.

[Really?]

Yeah, just checked - Peterson's 12 Rules book is presently number 2 on Amazon's print bestsellers.

I think he'll be fine.

So he is outselling PZ's blog post book? In one week?

[Barbie's Boyfriend]

That guy sleeping on the sidewalk must be the temporarily inconvenienced former franchise owner. Turnkey or not, once he sells that building, he'll be sitting pretty. Given what real estate in that hood is going for these days, he might even be rich enuf for Sticky Butterscotch. Wait, its in a strip center? He does NOT own the building ? Oh well, at least he has a dry sidewalk upon which to sleep.

You go back far enough, you will see that I said...

The real money is borrowing against the property and using that money to purchase more property and make other investments.

...investments like... strip malls, shopping centres, hotels, hospitals, car parks even airports and ports.Which they can in turn borrow against.
And yes, you can borrow against your share in a strip mall, you can even borrow against a lease if the lease is for long enough. The point of the exercise is not to own properties, it is to have assets which you can borrow against.

I really don't know what you are trying to prove here, the company history says they sold off their remaining properties, then continued selling turnkey franchises and now has gone on the internet. And so I was almost certainly correct in my observation which is that the reason you used to see RadioShack fucking everywhere was not that the Western World had such a huge demand for cables and batteries, but because they were in the property business. What you are seeing at your local strip mall now is totally fucking irrelevant as the company was in decline from 2006, but even as recently as 2013 they OWNED 4,297 stores with an additional 900 independent franchises. Now they have zero stores but there are "approximately 425 independently owned franchise stores". These will not last long because now they are not only competing against other companies, they are competing against their own distributor which has become an online business retailing direct to the public.

So what exactly is your point Barbie?

For god's sake, don't ever try to start a business.

For your info, Sticky Butterscotch, I own TWO BUSINESSES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Started one in 1990, and the other one in 1991. And I'm STILL in business !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Barbie's Boyfriend]

That guy sleeping on the sidewalk must be the temporarily inconvenienced former franchise owner. Turnkey or not, once he sells that building, he'll be sitting pretty. Given what real estate in that hood is going for these days, he might even be rich enuf for Sticky Butterscotch. Wait, its in a strip center? He does NOT own the building ? Oh well, at least he has a dry sidewalk upon which to sleep.

You go back far enough, you will see that I said...

The real money is borrowing against the property and using that money to purchase more property and make other investments.

...investments like... strip malls, shopping centres, hotels, hospitals, car parks even airports and ports.Which they can in turn borrow against.
And yes, you can borrow against your share in a strip mall, you can even borrow against a lease if the lease is for long enough. The point of the exercise is not to own properties, it is to have assets which you can borrow against.

I really don't know what you are trying to prove here, the company history says they sold off their remaining properties, then continued selling turnkey franchises and now has gone on the internet. And so I was almost certainly correct in my observation which is that the reason you used to see RadioShack fucking everywhere was not that the Western World had such a huge demand for cables and batteries, but because they were in the property business. What you are seeing at your local strip mall now is totally fucking irrelevant as the company was in decline from 2006, but even as recently as 2013 they OWNED 4,297 stores with an additional 900 independent franchises. Now they have zero stores but there are "approximately 425 independently owned franchise stores". These will not last long because now they are not only competing against other companies, they are competing against their own distributor which has become an online business retailing direct to the public.

So what exactly is your point Barbie?

For god's sake, don't ever try to start a business.

For your info, Sticky Butterscotch, I own TWO BUSINESSES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Started one in 1990, and the other one in 1991. And I'm STILL in business !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Did you see the pic? The FOR LEASE sign? Why don't you CALL THE REAL ESTATE AGENT? And find out who owns the building ???

[VickyCaramel]

For your info, Sticky Butterscotch, I own TWO BUSINESSES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Started one in 1990, and the other one in 1991. And I'm STILL in business !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You don't have a business unless you can go on vacation for a six months, come back to it and it still runs the way you designed it to run.
If you can't do that, you don't have a business, you have a job. If you had a business, you could franchise it, but you can't franchise it if needs you there telling everybody what to do.

My guess is that you do a bit of everything, answer the phones, do the purchasing, pay the bills, some of the driving, some of the cleaning... you actually have a series of part time jobs.

I'm right aren't I? If I am, please use lots of exclamation marks in your reply.

[VickyCaramel]

Did you see the pic? The FOR LEASE sign? Why don't you CALL THE REAL ESTATE AGENT? And find out who owns the building ???

There you go again with that word "owns". You mean I should call the real estate agent, and ask them to ask them to get a list of investors development? I doubt I would get very far.

[MarcusAu]

Based on some of the pictures I've seen of him lately - Peterson seems to be rather stressed out - so I hope that all this does not get too much for him.

I don't think the sales of his new book have been harmed by recent shenanigans. In fact, they've probably boosted them. If he's crying, he'll be crying all the way to the bank.

It wasn't his financial health I was thinking of.

Here's a clip from some time ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x35Rbe81vkU

From the sounds of it he has gotten better since then...well less Canadian anyway.

[VickyCaramel]

Anyone remember Steve Hughes?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zBcTvm6eMg

[dogen]

Doesn't this presume that (i) the "rich" pay taxes rather than evade them using loopholes, and (ii) income tax is the only form of taxation?

Put differently, aren't you once again full of shit?

(i) No because this is the "effective tax rate", it is what they actually pay, or as he says, how much you actually gave to the IRS. This is personal income, not taxes on the business. It is much harder to avoid tax on personal income.

(ii) There is also sales tax, of which the rich pay more because they spend more. I suppose they could collect all the receipts and ask their accountant to put it through the company accounts as work related, or steal toilet paper from work....

There is also a myth that the rich spend all their time avoiding taxes. But "time" is the important part here. While poor people spend time to save money, the rich spend money to save time... so they can have more time to enjoy all that money. They might not be handing out $50 bills to homeless people, but they will hire maids, gardeners, and drivers because they have better things to do than trimming the hedge or cleaning the car.

Very few rich people act like Scrooge McDuck.

But in point (i) you neglect to mention that FICA (the US equivalent of National Insurance contributions) is assessed on only the first ~$130k of income, and therefore impacts people in low wage brackets far more than those in high wage brackets.

And in point (ii) you ignore the documented fact that state and local taxes, as a proportion of income, are inversely correlated with wage bracket -- so the poorest pay the highest effective rate. See, e.g., the state/local tax breakdown here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... f-tax-data

This same article also shows the combination of federal income taxes, and state/local taxes. It paints a very different picture than the table on John D's graphic, showing that the 95th-99th percentile wage group that pays the largest fraction of their income in taxes -- not the "1%".

Finally, while the rich spend money to save time, they also spend money to save money. One of the most cost-effective ways to do this is to hire an accountant to optimize tax avoidance. (You don't honestly believe the rich figure out how to do it themselves?). So, your last point has no merit.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

For your info, Sticky Butterscotch, I own TWO BUSINESSES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Started one in 1990, and the other one in 1991. And I'm STILL in business !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, but your businesses probably provide goods or services. That's mug's game, BB. The super genius entrepreneurial elite make money by shifting money around.

They then spend a tiny fraction of their fortune on paying low wages to maids, gardeners, and chauffeurs, thus propping up the economy. God forbid they ever went on strike and ensconced themselves in some remote hideaway, say in Colorado! The proles wouldn't know how to function, with no pools to clean, no other people's luxury autos to drive around, no shitzu poop to clean up. Civilization itself would grind to a halt.

[dogen]

Doesn't this presume that (i) the "rich" pay taxes rather than evade them using loopholes, and (ii) income tax is the only form of taxation?

Put differently, aren't you once again full of shit?

(i) No because this is the "effective tax rate", it is what they actually pay, or as he says, how much you actually gave to the IRS. This is personal income, not taxes on the business. It is much harder to avoid tax on personal income.

(ii) There is also sales tax, of which the rich pay more because they spend more. I suppose they could collect all the receipts and ask their accountant to put it through the company accounts as work related, or steal toilet paper from work....

There is also a myth that the rich spend all their time avoiding taxes. But "time" is the important part here. While poor people spend time to save money, the rich spend money to save time... so they can have more time to enjoy all that money. They might not be handing out $50 bills to homeless people, but they will hire maids, gardeners, and drivers because they have better things to do than trimming the hedge or cleaning the car.

Very few rich people act like Scrooge McDuck.

But in point (i) you neglect to mention that FICA (the US equivalent of National Insurance contributions) is assessed on only the first ~$130k of income, and therefore impacts people in low wage brackets far more than those in high wage brackets.

And in point (ii) you ignore the documented fact that state and local taxes, as a proportion of income, are inversely correlated with wage bracket -- so the poorest pay the highest effective rate. See, e.g., the state/local tax breakdown here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... f-tax-data

This same article also shows the combination of federal income taxes, and state/local taxes. It paints a very different picture than the table on John D's graphic, showing that the 95th-99th percentile wage group that pays the largest fraction of their income in taxes -- not the "1%".

Finally, while the rich spend money to save time, they also spend money to save money. One of the most cost-effective ways to do this is to hire an accountant to optimize tax avoidance. (You don't honestly believe the rich figure out how to do it themselves?). So, your last point has no merit.

As an example of tax avoidance schemes, I think you will find that many wealthy people -- on the advice of their accountants -- structure their earnings to be classified as other than 'income'. Of course, investments are not taxed at the federal income rate anyway. So this focus on federal income tax rates is completely misleading.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

For your info, Sticky Butterscotch, I own TWO BUSINESSES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Started one in 1990, and the other one in 1991. And I'm STILL in business !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You don't have a business unless you can go on vacation for a six months, come back to it and it still runs the way you designed it to run.
If you can't do that, you don't have a business, you have a job.

That's easily one of the most cuntish statements I've read in a very long time.

I think you should take a long, hard look at why you feel such a need to prove your superiority.

Don't bother replying; I won't see it.

[VickyCaramel]

Doesn't this presume that (i) the "rich" pay taxes rather than evade them using loopholes, and (ii) income tax is the only form of taxation?

Put differently, aren't you once again full of shit?

(i) No because this is the "effective tax rate", it is what they actually pay, or as he says, how much you actually gave to the IRS. This is personal income, not taxes on the business. It is much harder to avoid tax on personal income.

(ii) There is also sales tax, of which the rich pay more because they spend more. I suppose they could collect all the receipts and ask their accountant to put it through the company accounts as work related, or steal toilet paper from work....

There is also a myth that the rich spend all their time avoiding taxes. But "time" is the important part here. While poor people spend time to save money, the rich spend money to save time... so they can have more time to enjoy all that money. They might not be handing out $50 bills to homeless people, but they will hire maids, gardeners, and drivers because they have better things to do than trimming the hedge or cleaning the car.

Very few rich people act like Scrooge McDuck.

But in point (i) you neglect to mention that FICA (the US equivalent of National Insurance contributions) is assessed on only the first ~$130k of income, and therefore impacts people in low wage brackets far more than those in high wage brackets.

And in point (ii) you ignore the documented fact that state and local taxes, as a proportion of income, are inversely correlated with wage bracket -- so the poorest pay the highest effective rate. See, e.g., the state/local tax breakdown here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... f-tax-data

This same article also shows the combination of federal income taxes, and state/local taxes. It paints a very different picture than the table on John D's graphic, showing that the 95th-99th percentile wage group that pays the largest fraction of their income in taxes -- not the "1%".

Finally, while the rich spend money to save time, they also spend money to save money. One of the most cost-effective ways to do this is to hire an accountant to optimize tax avoidance. (You don't honestly believe the rich figure out how to do it themselves?). So, your last point has no merit.

I don't know the American system, but your problem seems to be with State and Local taxes... so isn't that something which needs to be taken up with state and local? I can't see why you would expecting federal to mitigate state taxes? I would think that would be like me asking the electric company to lower their prices because I am paying too much for water.

At first glance, it would look like states are trying to attract rich people to their state. I would doubt this is a party-political issue unless you tell me there is a huge difference between red and blue states?

[Barbie's Boyfriend]

For your info, Sticky Butterscotch, I own TWO BUSINESSES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Started one in 1990, and the other one in 1991. And I'm STILL in business !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, but your businesses probably provide goods or services. That's mug's game, BB. The super genius entrepreneurial elite make money by shifting money around.

Actually, one provides goods, and the other one provides a service. So I've got both bases covered.

[Barbie's Boyfriend]

For your info, Sticky Butterscotch, I own TWO BUSINESSES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Started one in 1990, and the other one in 1991. And I'm STILL in business !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You don't have a business unless you can go on vacation for a six months, come back to it and it still runs the way you designed it to run.
If you can't do that, you don't have a business, you have a job.

That's easily one of the most cuntish statements I've read in a very long time.

I think you should take a long, hard look at why you feel such a need to prove your superiority.

Don't bother replying; I won't see it.

I hope that you didn't block sticky on my account. I'm a big boy. I can take it .

I haven't been on vacation in forever, but I do lie in bed every morning til ten or eleven am. I only work on average twenty five hours per week. That's almost like taking a vacation.

I wanna start another business. Just waiting for some capital.

[KiwiInOz]

Doesn't this presume that (i) the "rich" pay taxes rather than evade them using loopholes, and (ii) income tax is the only form of taxation?

Put differently, aren't you once again full of shit?

(i) No because this is the "effective tax rate", it is what they actually pay, or as he says, how much you actually gave to the IRS. This is personal income, not taxes on the business. It is much harder to avoid tax on personal income.

(ii) There is also sales tax, of which the rich pay more because they spend more. I suppose they could collect all the receipts and ask their accountant to put it through the company accounts as work related, or steal toilet paper from work....

There is also a myth that the rich spend all their time avoiding taxes. But "time" is the important part here. While poor people spend time to save money, the rich spend money to save time... so they can have more time to enjoy all that money. They might not be handing out $50 bills to homeless people, but they will hire maids, gardeners, and drivers because they have better things to do than trimming the hedge or cleaning the car.

Very few rich people act like Scrooge McDuck.

But in point (i) you neglect to mention that FICA (the US equivalent of National Insurance contributions) is assessed on only the first ~$130k of income, and therefore impacts people in low wage brackets far more than those in high wage brackets.

And in point (ii) you ignore the documented fact that state and local taxes, as a proportion of income, are inversely correlated with wage bracket -- so the poorest pay the highest effective rate. See, e.g., the state/local tax breakdown here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... f-tax-data

This same article also shows the combination of federal income taxes, and state/local taxes. It paints a very different picture than the table on John D's graphic, showing that the 95th-99th percentile wage group that pays the largest fraction of their income in taxes -- not the "1%".

Finally, while the rich spend money to save time, they also spend money to save money. One of the most cost-effective ways to do this is to hire an accountant to optimize tax avoidance. (You don't honestly believe the rich figure out how to do it themselves?). So, your last point has no merit.

As an example of tax avoidance schemes, I think you will find that many wealthy people -- on the advice of their accountants -- structure their earnings to be classified as other than 'income'. Of course, investments are not taxed at the federal income rate anyway. So this focus on federal income tax rates is completely misleading.

And of course many of the costs incurred by your typical wage slave, e.g. the car, meals at restaurants, etc, are owned or covered by the company or are tax deductible business expenses for the wealthy. They didn't get wealthy by spending money.

[VickyCaramel]

For your info, Sticky Butterscotch, I own TWO BUSINESSES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Started one in 1990, and the other one in 1991. And I'm STILL in business !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, but your businesses probably provide goods or services. That's mug's game, BB. The super genius entrepreneurial elite make money by shifting money around.

They then spend a tiny fraction of their fortune on paying low wages to maids, gardeners, and chauffeurs, thus propping up the economy. God forbid they ever went on strike and ensconced themselves in some remote hideaway, say in Colorado! The proles wouldn't know how to function, with no pools to clean, no other people's luxury autos to drive around, no shitzu poop to clean up. Civilization itself would grind to a halt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeX-SzAICdw

[TheMudbrooker]

I don't know the American system..........snip

Yet you continue to pontificate on the subject.

[KiwiInOz]

I don't know the American system..........snip

Yet you continue to pontificate on the subject.

Qui est pugnae aviditate pugnae aviditate?

[KiwiInOz]

I don't know the American system..........snip

Yet you continue to pontificate on the subject.

Qui est pugnae aviditate pugnae aviditate?

Damn. On back translate it didn't come out as who trolls the trolls?

Quis trolls ipsos trolls, in other words.

[KiwiInOz]

Interestingly, the latin word for trollop is cunnus.

[John D]

Matt really does hate rich people... haha. I hate lots of people I guess. In my experience however, it has been mostly poor people who have done evil things to me and mine. Relatives who run people over with their car, mothers leave their children un-cared for while they used medicare to score narcotic drugs from crooked doctors, people who nosed their way into a party where they just barely knew anyone so they could rob the place once everyone was drunk, punks who watched all the neighbor's behavior so they knew when it was safe to break in and steel their cash, violent rampaging idiots who threaten to kill you if you didn't let them live at your house for free.

Yea.... I love me some poor people.

[John D]

By the way... these are all direct personal experiences... and I could make a much larger list.... but that gets tiring. Haha. I used to have to deal with all these virtuous poor people almost every day until I got enough money to get the fuck away from them. I appreciate where I have gotten to soooooooo much.

[VickyCaramel]

I don't know the American system..........snip

Yet you continue to pontificate on the subject.

The left make exactly the same arguments in the UK, I doubt they are any more wrong just because the US has a different tax system. And even if there is something there, it looks like the blame is being pointed in the wrong direction and you can't do anything about it anyway. Maybe this explains all the seething resentment for the rich?

And of course many of the costs incurred by your typical wage slave, e.g. the car, meals at restaurants, etc, are owned or covered by the company or are tax deductible business expenses for the wealthy. They didn't get wealthy by spending money.

These are the kinds of things small business owners do. Even if the top 1% can be bothered to fiddle the system over a meal in a restaurant, it's a piddling amount in the great scheme of things. Frankly I doubt they are spending thousands on tax accountants to save coppers on sushi.

[VickyCaramel]

I haven't been on vacation in forever, but I do lie in bed every morning til ten or eleven am. I only work on average twenty five hours per week. That's almost like taking a vacation.

I wanna start another business. Just waiting for some capital.

So let me get this straight... you have two businesses, you have an excess of time and a lack of capital... and you want to start a third business?

When you are laying in bed till eleven, why don't you give a moment's thought to how insane that sounds?


Matt was right, I was being a cunt. But I think it would be even more cuntish not to point out the lunacy of your statement. Hire a consultant or a business coach or something for fucks sake.

[Really?]

Shower thought: Hemant Mehta made his atheist skeptic bones "selling his soul on eBay," going to church on the dime of someone who just wanted a friendly dialogue.

Today's Mehta has built a tall Trump wall against anyone who wishes to reach out in good faith.

[Steersman]

A Priest, a prostitute, and Steersman walk into a bar...

This joke has been interrupted by a visit to Wikipedia.

I guess this is the One Zillionth and First joke I made about the boat obsessed bozo. Or the third one in two months. Whatever

LoL. Catch a bit of flak at work so kick the dog on the way home? ...

[Steersman]

In other news, of maybe some particular interest to the antipodeans in the crowd, a somewhat surprising article, though quite a good one, in Penthouse:

Something More: An Alternative Perspective On Australia Day

I Like To Think I Am Descended From An Aboriginal Woman Who Grabbed An Opportunity And Ran With It. That’s Why I Celebrate Australia Day As A Day Of Liberation.

Kerryn Pholi

We can project all sorts of fantasies onto our Aboriginal ancestors. There is scant record of their individual exploits or characters, and very few colonial Aborigines left behind a documented account of their experiences. I could, therefore, decide that my foremothers were courageous warriors of the resistance, or mysterious keepers of ancient feminine wisdoms, or I could envision them as victims and martyrs, enduring the humiliations of colonisation with grace and dignity. These romantic fantasies would be accepted as fact, and my ‘truth’ would be applauded. My own (arguably more plausible) vision is that my Aboriginal foremothers had the good sense to form alliances with the settlers, and that they improved their own lives and their children’s prospects as a result.

I don’t begrudge any Aboriginal person a desire to fill in the blanks in their histories with romanticism, particularly given the rewards on offer. The story of white injustice and black tragedy has become the most acceptable Aboriginal tale to tell, and is now the only perspective on Aboriginal history – despite that dearth of documented accounts - that could possibly be accepted as authentic and true. To suggest that our story is not all about victimhood is bad enough; to suggest that modernity was in any way a blessing is double-plus ungood crimethink. ....

This Australia Day, I will celebrate all those fickle, greedy, opportunistic bitches who walked away from their camps and went after something more. I’ll celebrate that I live in a time and place where I don’t have to make such a choice, where I don’t have to put up with beatings, where I am not merely a thing to be traded and discarded, and where I have more freedom, security and material comfort than even the most ambitious of my Aboriginal foremothers could ever have imagined.

Clearly a sister-punisher & chill-girl of the first water; may her "tribe" increase.

[Steersman]

This post at WEIT promises to be quite entertaining:

Local transgender student with penis sues school district to be allowed to change clothes openly in woman’s locker room

Quite a good comment of yours there to more or less close out the discussion:

To reiterate what others have noted: locker rooms are, by law and public consensus, segregated by sex. Maday’s sex is male, and does not transubstantiate into female just because Maday’s gender identification is feminine.

Maday will feel better about xirself if everyone else treats xir like a girl in every way. But, to indulge Maday in this would impose significant hardship on others. That is not acceptable.

However, while the aspect of "hardship" is certainly part of the issue, I don't think it's the whole of it or even a major part of it. Seems the crux of the matter is that the #TransLoonies & their fellow-travelers are attempting to redefine "male" & "female" to comport with a rather problematic if not seriously twisted ideology. Seem to recollect you follow Quillette, but you might have missed this one that looks to hit the nail squarely on its head:

Words Lose Their Meaning at Wilfrid Laurier University
David Millard Haskell

Though different literary forms, the key message of both works [1984, & Politics and the English Language] was the same: beware any person or group that redefines words so that they no longer align with facts, common sense, and common usage. ….

In “Politics and the English Language” Orwell describes how those hungry for power and position will use “meaningless words” to achieve their desired goals. He writes that they use words “which are almost completely lacking in meaning” that if used as intended, or substituted for clearer terms, would reveal “at once that language was being used in an improper way.” ….

Furthermore, the injury was not isolated to just those who saw the clip of the debate. Even hearing that such a video had been aired on campus was enough to do mental harm to others. Echoing the party line with hyperbolic flourish, the op-ed of one Laurier activist proclaimed—

We need to acknowledge that debates that invalidate the existence of trans and non-binary people or dehumanize us based on gender are both a form of transphobia and gendered violence. There is no neutral way to demand that someone defend their very existence and their right to a safe school and work environment.

In addition to “gendered violence” the term, “epistemic violence” was also used in their communiqués. …”

As I've argued elsewhere, that egregiously bogus claim of “invalidating” the existence of transpeople, of “dehumanizing” them, is what really gets my goat – so incredibly, astoundingly, intellectually dishonest as to preclude giving such people the time of day; they should all be taken out to the woodshed & have their hides tanned, be sent to bed without any supper.

Why transactivists should be read the Riot Act at every opportunity, to be told in no uncertain terms that transwomen are most definitely not women, and won't ever be women, at least short of a medical break-through in being able to transplant ovaries. But while some are certainly intersex and have never been either men or women - maybe a rough break in the biological lottery, many others look little more than female impersonators at best or simply so deluded as to want to turn themselves into eunuchs.



The times they are a-changin', something that we might well thank Trump for his part in that ... ;-)

[Basement]

Doesn't this presume that (i) the "rich" pay taxes rather than evade them using loopholes, and (ii) income tax is the only form of taxation?

Put differently, aren't you once again full of shit?

(i) No because this is the "effective tax rate", it is what they actually pay, or as he says, how much you actually gave to the IRS. This is personal income, not taxes on the business. It is much harder to avoid tax on personal income.

(ii) There is also sales tax, of which the rich pay more because they spend more. I suppose they could collect all the receipts and ask their accountant to put it through the company accounts as work related, or steal toilet paper from work....

There is also a myth that the rich spend all their time avoiding taxes. But "time" is the important part here. While poor people spend time to save money, the rich spend money to save time... so they can have more time to enjoy all that money. They might not be handing out $50 bills to homeless people, but they will hire maids, gardeners, and drivers because they have better things to do than trimming the hedge or cleaning the car.

Very few rich people act like Scrooge McDuck.

But in point (i) you neglect to mention that FICA (the US equivalent of National Insurance contributions) is assessed on only the first ~$130k of income, and therefore impacts people in low wage brackets far more than those in high wage brackets.

And in point (ii) you ignore the documented fact that state and local taxes, as a proportion of income, are inversely correlated with wage bracket -- so the poorest pay the highest effective rate. See, e.g., the state/local tax breakdown here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... f-tax-data

This same article also shows the combination of federal income taxes, and state/local taxes. It paints a very different picture than the table on John D's graphic, showing that the 95th-99th percentile wage group that pays the largest fraction of their income in taxes -- not the "1%".

Finally, while the rich spend money to save time, they also spend money to save money. One of the most cost-effective ways to do this is to hire an accountant to optimize tax avoidance. (You don't honestly believe the rich figure out how to do it themselves?). So, your last point has no merit.

As an example of tax avoidance schemes, I think you will find that many wealthy people -- on the advice of their accountants -- structure their earnings to be classified as other than 'income'. Of course, investments are not taxed at the federal income rate anyway. So this focus on federal income tax rates is completely misleading.

And of course many of the costs incurred by your typical wage slave, e.g. the car, meals at restaurants, etc, are owned or covered by the company or are tax deductible business expenses for the wealthy. They didn't get wealthy by spending money.

They got wealthy selling weapons to the first order and the resistance on canto bight - and by abusing animals, which all rich people do

[Basement]

Doesn't this presume that (i) the "rich" pay taxes rather than evade them using loopholes, and (ii) income tax is the only form of taxation?

Put differently, aren't you once again full of shit?

(i) No because this is the "effective tax rate", it is what they actually pay, or as he says, how much you actually gave to the IRS. This is personal income, not taxes on the business. It is much harder to avoid tax on personal income.

(ii) There is also sales tax, of which the rich pay more because they spend more. I suppose they could collect all the receipts and ask their accountant to put it through the company accounts as work related, or steal toilet paper from work....

There is also a myth that the rich spend all their time avoiding taxes. But "time" is the important part here. While poor people spend time to save money, the rich spend money to save time... so they can have more time to enjoy all that money. They might not be handing out $50 bills to homeless people, but they will hire maids, gardeners, and drivers because they have better things to do than trimming the hedge or cleaning the car.

Very few rich people act like Scrooge McDuck.

But in point (i) you neglect to mention that FICA (the US equivalent of National Insurance contributions) is assessed on only the first ~$130k of income, and therefore impacts people in low wage brackets far more than those in high wage brackets.

And in point (ii) you ignore the documented fact that state and local taxes, as a proportion of income, are inversely correlated with wage bracket -- so the poorest pay the highest effective rate. See, e.g., the state/local tax breakdown here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... f-tax-data

This same article also shows the combination of federal income taxes, and state/local taxes. It paints a very different picture than the table on John D's graphic, showing that the 95th-99th percentile wage group that pays the largest fraction of their income in taxes -- not the "1%".

Finally, while the rich spend money to save time, they also spend money to save money. One of the most cost-effective ways to do this is to hire an accountant to optimize tax avoidance. (You don't honestly believe the rich figure out how to do it themselves?). So, your last point has no merit.

As an example of tax avoidance schemes, I think you will find that many wealthy people -- on the advice of their accountants -- structure their earnings to be classified as other than 'income'. Of course, investments are not taxed at the federal income rate anyway. So this focus on federal income tax rates is completely misleading.

And of course many of the costs incurred by your typical wage slave, e.g. the car, meals at restaurants, etc, are owned or covered by the company or are tax deductible business expenses for the wealthy. They didn't get wealthy by spending money.

They got wealthy selling weapons to the first order and the resistance on canto bight - and by abusing animals, which all rich people do

[Keating]

Australia Day:
The First Fleet arrived at the latest on the 20th of January.
However, it was not possible to be an Australian prior to the 26th of January 1948. Before then, we were British.
So, given Aborigines weren’t deemed citizens in 1948 either, I propose we keep the date and just change what we complain about.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

40!

[Oglebart]

Yeah, just checked - Peterson's 12 Rules book is presently number 2 on Amazon's print bestsellers.

I think he'll be fine.

I imagine that it outsold Myers pathetic pamphlet in one hour.

So he is outselling PZ's blog post book? In one week?

[Oglebart]

Let's try again

Yeah, just checked - Peterson's 12 Rules book is presently number 2 on Amazon's print bestsellers.

I think he'll be fine.

So he is outselling PZ's blog post book? In one week?

I imagine that it outsold Myers pathetic pamphlet in one hour.

Been caught out with that little reply box a few times now.

[feathers]

My gut reaction about nesting is that it is the size of the post rather then the number of nests. So.... since all the comments were short I posted a reply. My post was still half the size of anything Streers has ever posted.

Deeply-nested quotes, whether long or short, are repetitive and almost unparseable for the human eye. It's like programming LISP.

[MarcusAu]

40!

You made it halfway...that's the hard part done...it's all downhill from there.

[Guest_d2e60302]

rip, 78

[DrokkIt]

You really think he has a novel called The Cattle Raid of Cooley?

He's Irish, not Welsh!

The Táin Bó Cúailnge is an Irish tale about a failed hostile takeover by group of venture capitalists from Ulster, and the hero Cú Chulainn ("Nobody accidentally kills big hound dogs like me. Nobody".) who promises to Make Ulster Great Again.

A lot of 2000ad character Slaine was modelled on Cu Chulainn, and various figures from the Welsh legendary cycle 'The Mabinogion'. Loved that growing up.

[feathers]

Clarence: Putin has a cold war Soviet mind set and considers the west as an adversary. His aim is to make Russia the worlds #1 superpower and to at least regain the influence and territory of the Soviet Union before it's collapse. Count your fingers after shaking hands with bad Vlad.
Not the only shifty character in international politics for sure but one would be naive to place too much trust in him.

I agree he's a snake, but I'm not so certain about his motives. I somehow think his major objective is to stay in power without having his throat cut, and the best way to do that is to obtain a large internal backing: bankers, mafia, orthodox clerics and other assorted scumbags. I also think he's far more concerned about his national image than about his international reputation.

He's mostly about power and Russia's international position is crucial to that.

[Kirbmarc]

Clarence: Putin has a cold war Soviet mind set and considers the west as an adversary. His aim is to make Russia the worlds #1 superpower and to at least regain the influence and territory of the Soviet Union before it's collapse. Count your fingers after shaking hands with bad Vlad.
Not the only shifty character in international politics for sure but one would be naive to place too much trust in him.

I agree he's a snake, but I'm not so certain about his motives. I somehow think his major objective is to stay in power without having his throat cut, and the best way to do that is to obtain a large internal backing: bankers, mafia, orthodox clerics and other assorted scumbags. I also think he's far more concerned about his national image than about his international reputation.

He's mostly about power and Russia's international position is crucial to that.

Yup. "Staying in power without getting his throat cut" is the number one priority of ALL dictators, from Putin to Assad to Kim Jong Un to the Saudi princes to the leaders of Qatar, Kuwait, Iran or the UAE.

Putin invaded Crimea and the Donbass for two main reasons:

1) keep the strategic port of Sebastopol under Russian control, instead of having the new Ukrainian governments eventually hand it over to EU/NATO due to joint sovereignty agreements (which is what all Russian bigwigs feared, anyway)

2) appease the revanschist nuts like Zhirinovski by giving them something to fight for (and so keeping them busy and on his side instead of plotting to replace him if he looked "soft")

[Kirbmarc]

Also it's not just Putin, the vast majority of Russians see the Ukraine as being more or less part of Russia. Of course many Ukrainians disagree (especially if they don't speak Russian as a first language).

I'm pretty sure that pretty much everyone who was in charge of Russia would have invaded at least Crimea after it started to look like the Ukraine was leaving the Russian sphere of influence. Or, if they didn't, they would have been deposed and substituted by someone who would.

I'm not saying this to justify the invasion, just to explain what Russians think.

[Kirbmarc]

To many Russians the Orange Revolution was a Western plot to take control of the Ukraine (and especially Crimea) away from Russia. I'm not saying that they're right (they're probably not, or at least their concerns are not entirely rational) but to many Russians the situations is similar to the 1962 Cuban crisis, with a nation which is "on their doorstep" and has many ties to them being taken over by a rival power which threatens to use it as a ramp for its missiles.

[Kirbmarc]

Before anyone wants to Cathy Newman me ("so what you're saying is that Putin is great, or right all along"), I'm only exposing trends in Russian culture, Russian news and Russian politics, not saying that they're justified.

[paddybrown]

40!

Congratulations, you've made it to adulthood!

[VickyCaramel]

To many Russians the Orange Revolution was a Western plot to take control of the Ukraine (and especially Crimea) away from Russia. I'm not saying that they're right (they're probably not, or at least their concerns are not entirely rational)

I think if they had been reading and believing the western media in the years prior, it would be fairly rational.

Before everyone jumps all over me, we are talking about perceptions here, but you had the business of the missile shield, a missile arms race (remember the stuff about scram-jets?), and since 1999 NATO has signed up 13 former Warsaw Pact countries including the one which contains Warsaw.
I got the distinct impression that NATO wanted to sign up the Ukraine but thought it a bridge too far in provoking the Russians, and so there is a rationale for taking Ukraine off the table for NATO. Although Obama had been president for 5 years by the invasion of Ukraine, I think we have to acknowledge that prior to this the Neo-Cons had two terms to throw their weight around and antagonize Russia.

[VickyCaramel]

Interestingly, the latin word for trollop is cunnus.

Google translates trollop to cunnus, but it translates cunnus to vulva.
Trollop is a word of unknown origin which dates back to 1600 while cunt appears in the English language in around 1300...

"female intercrural foramen," or, as some 18c. writers refer to it, "the monosyllable," Middle English cunte "female genitalia," by early 14c. (in Hendyng's "Proverbs" -- ʒeve þi cunte to cunni[n]g, And crave affetir wedding), akin to Old Norse kunta, Old Frisian, Middle Dutch, and Middle Low German kunte, from Proto-Germanic *kunton, of uncertain origin. Some suggest a link with Latin cuneus "wedge," others to PIE root *geu- "hollow place," still others to PIE *gwen-, root of queen and Greek gyne "woman."

The form is similar to Latin cunnus "female pudenda" (also, vulgarly, "a woman"), which is likewise of disputed origin, perhaps literally "gash, slit," from PIE *sker- (1) "to cut," or literally "sheath," from PIE *kut-no-, from root *(s)keu- "to conceal, hide."

Hec vulva: a cunt. Hic cunnus: idem est. [from Londesborough Illustrated Nominale, c.1500, in "Anglo-Saxon and Old English Vocabularies," eds. Wright and Wülcker, vol. 1, 1884]
First known reference in English apparently is in a compound, Oxford street name Gropecuntlane cited from c.1230 (and attested through late 14c.) in "Place-Names of Oxfordshire" (Gelling & Stenton, 1953), presumably a haunt of prostitutes. Used in medical writing c.1400, but avoided in public speech since 15c.; considered obscene since 17c.

"Trollop" seems to have the same history as "Slattern" in as much as it originally meant lazy, slovenly, unkept.

Collecting slang is a bit of a hobby of mine, so if you know differently please let me know.

[InfraRedBucket]

Based on some of the pictures I've seen of him lately - Peterson seems to be rather stressed out - so I hope that all this does not get too much for him.

I don't think the sales of his new book have been harmed by recent shenanigans. In fact, they've probably boosted them. If he's crying, he'll be crying all the way to the bank.

It wasn't his financial health I was thinking of.

Here's a clip from some time ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x35Rbe81vkU

From the sounds of it he has gotten better since then...well less Canadian anyway.

He's cried in public within the last few weeks at least. Once , on a recent tour evening when he starts to talk about a young man who came up
to him and said "you changed/saved my life" and then in a radio interview (possibly UK radio)
when the presenter brought the previous incident up. He began to well up again.

He has a huge busy schedule, and while he had said he doesnt now have the time for the clinical practice seeing patients he once had,
he would need to be consistently relatively well to sustain what he as has up to now.
Depends what might trigger a relapse , if anything , but I suspect he's still on medication "just in case"
unless he's been able to wean off it with confidence , and what , if anything identifiable, triggered his original depression.

[Kirbmarc]

To many Russians the Orange Revolution was a Western plot to take control of the Ukraine (and especially Crimea) away from Russia. I'm not saying that they're right (they're probably not, or at least their concerns are not entirely rational)

I think if they had been reading and believing the western media in the years prior, it would be fairly rational.

Before everyone jumps all over me, we are talking about perceptions here, but you had the business of the missile shield, a missile arms race (remember the stuff about scram-jets?), and since 1999 NATO has signed up 13 former Warsaw Pact countries including the one which contains Warsaw.
I got the distinct impression that NATO wanted to sign up the Ukraine but thought it a bridge too far in provoking the Russians, and so there is a rationale for taking Ukraine off the table for NATO. Although Obama had been president for 5 years by the invasion of Ukraine, I think we have to acknowledge that prior to this the Neo-Cons had two terms to throw their weight around and antagonize Russia.

If we're talking about perception I'd say this is pretty much what most Russians believe.

[Barbie's Boyfriend]

A Priest, a prostitute, and Steersman walk into a bar...

This joke has been interrupted by a visit to Wikipedia.

I guess this is the One Zillionth and First joke I made about the boat obsessed bozo. Or the third one in two months. Whatever

LoL. Catch a bit of flak at work so kick the dog on the way home? ...

My boss is the GREATEST guy in the Multiverse. I am self employed. Therefore, I do NOT have a job

Kinda like your girlfriends. Except the ones that have pimps.