Comments by binky
Page 1 of 74 | Next
Posted on September 6 at 2:45 p.m.
I like it when God just skips the middle man and does it himself:
2 Kings 2:23-24 (King James Version)
"And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
"And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."
note: I never make fun of bald men.
Posted on September 4 at 10:12 p.m.
You need a citation for this claim, "wassamatau""
::: "According to government statistics my retirement income of 32,000 per year will be taxed an additional $900.00 plus is the Bush tax cuts expire."
I don't believe that is correct.
Currently the Obama proposal has the four lower rates remaining at 10 percent, 15 percent, 25 percent and 28 percent. Take a look at 'Table 1' the column which reads "Tax Rate if “middle-class” brackets are extended," here:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=...
Posted on September 4 at 10:21 a.m.
These people think you're all wet, "Lars"
":: ...CBO assumes that tax reductions enacted earlier in this decade that are currently set to expire at the end of this year do so as scheduled; it also assumes that no new legislation aimed at keeping the alternative minimum tax (AMT) from affecting many more taxpayers is enacted. In addition, CBO assumes that the measures enacted in the past two years to provide fiscal stimulus to the weakened economy will expire as currently scheduled and that future annual appropriations will be kept constant in real (inflation-adjusted) terms. Under those assumptions, the federal budget deficit would decline substantially over the next two years—to 4.2 percent of GDP by 2012—and, consequently, the budget would provide much less support to the economy than has been the case for the past two years."
http://cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11705
And, "Lars," Obama's plan appears to lay the burden on the top 2%, contrary to your statement above:
"::: "Given the progressive nature of the federal income tax system, in which tax rates increase with income, even the richest households would continue to pay the four lower rates on up to the first $250,000 of their income, under the approach being pushed by Mr. Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress.
"The president has vowed to extend the tax cuts for individuals with less than $200,000 in annual taxable income and couples with less than $250,000 — about 98 percent of American households. About 315,000 households report adjusted gross income of $1 million or more. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/us/...
Posted on September 3 at 1:18 p.m.
In case my writing wasn't clear, I was sincere when I said your post was "nice" and the words you quoted were "smart."
Joe Lyles's trope was as spot on in 2004 as today; the primary reason for my previous post was to give credit to the guy who coined 'cheap-labor conservative,' and an shout out to your good taste in cutting and pasting.
Posted on September 2 at 10:27 p.m.
Nice post "chuckU": those words were smart when they were written in 2004, and remains so today. Maybe it will catch on after six years.
Posted on September 1 at 9:24 p.m.
mr. jukin, although your first paragraph could be true, I believe if you read the article referenced above, the proposal applies to all drivers caught without a license.
On Should a driving without a license ticket have a 20-minute grace period before impound?
Posted on September 1 at 4:34 p.m.
If, Mr. Pinatubo, you cannot recognize or parse rhetorical devices and turns of phrase in presenting and formulating an argument, I don't believe I can point you in the right direction through these comment sections -- too small of a 2x4.
On the other hand if your gambit is to disagree with Mr. Mullin by tossing out a bit of Socratic dialectic, reducing hypotheses by contradiction, I suggest you are nibbling at the edges of his argument and missing the pith.
Posted on September 1 at 3:31 p.m.
Nice unsubstantiated finger-pointing, "Disturber."
If that website actually belongs to this fatally crazed person, which it very well may, it reveals a mind driven by hatred of many things, including babies, immigrants, advocating decreasing all human life, stopping the birth of babies, changing and de-railing the current world economy.
Most of all, the ramblings on that website show a cracked mind filled with hatred of his neighbors:
::: "Humans are the most destructive, filthy, pollutive creatures around and are wrecking what's left of the planet with their false morals and breeding culture."
::: "The humans? The planet does not need humans."
A weak move by Mr. Disturber, for attempting to push his feeble and speculative political point.
Posted on September 1 at 1:15 p.m.
Do you not recognize, Mr. Pinatubo, that remarks can be both forgettable and (unduly) amplified?
Page 1 of 74 | Next
Previous Month
Posted on September 6 at 2:59 p.m.
The beautiful hymn "Rivers Of Babylon" is based on this nifty passage:
Psalm 137
- 1 By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.
- 2 We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof.
- 3 For there they that carried us away captive required of us a song; and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion.
- 4 How shall we sing the LORD's song in a strange land?
But somehow the last part of the psalm didn't make the lyrics:
- 7 Remember, O LORD, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof.
- 8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
- 9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
On The Mosque Question