The Goat Pen

Was that the real not psa?

You call them Republicans. Or Democrats. Whatever, they both do it, numbnuts.

Just wow.....Please share what yer smokin' w/the rest of us.....serfs and peasants owned land??? Really??

I never said serfs owned land. I said those countries had capitalist economies and they did. DO you imagine that most Americans own land? Most certainly do not. They may think they own something, but the banks own most people's homes. In this nation, 90% of the wealth is held by the richest 10% of people. The poorest 50% have no real wealth at all. All the have are loan payments and grocery bills.

"Try not to engage the RedBird. She is quite certifiable."

Secretly AA has a thing for me.

'All beer is beer. It is the same. There is no difference between Guinness and Natty Light or between a Left Hand Milk Stout and Meisterbrau. If you pay more to get one of those "premium" beers, you are just doing it for the status symbol and so you can feel superior over people who drink cheap beer. They taste the same.'

Please cite this. It doesn't look like my work.

Can't remember if it was toe or IB, but a hard rule 0f 20% down with no regard for how credit worthy someone may be is fucking just as dumb as sub prime.

If someone has a credit score high enough that putting down 5% is considered safe, then fine.

We have excellent credit and did an 80-15-5, but only bought house that we could afford ALL our bills on my salary alone as we knew she would be staying home with kids in the near future.

Common sense rules mean common sense.

Red Bird wrote:To paraphrase Rhett Butler, "My dear Scarlett, I wouldn't be so eager to see Mitt go; with him goes the south's last hope of beating Obama."

There is no reason to besmirch Gone With the Wind.

Red Bird wrote:I always tell people I don't have time for a blogg, but sometimes I spend hours a day doing this.

Trouble is, I love a good debate. And I can't get that with a blogg.

And you expect it here?

Red Bird wrote:

Just wow.....Please share what yer smokin' w/the rest of us.....serfs and peasants owned land??? Really??

I never said serfs owned land. I said those countries had capitalist economies and they did. DO you imagine that most Americans own land? Most certainly do not. They may think they own something, but the banks own most people's homes. In this nation, 90% of the wealth is held by the richest 10% of people. The poorest 50% have no real wealth at all. All the have are loan payments and grocery bills.

As one of the "wealthy land owner" types who currently has a mortgage, that's how it's done. You choose a home, that you can afford, and make payments. If possible, add extra principal to the payment and you will own the home and land sooner than later.

And wow at some of the moronicness on display here the last day+

The world is a very different place now than it was in 1958. Most people wouldn't choose to go back to the economic reality of 1958 anymore than they would choose to return to the social reality of 1958.

Of course we can’t go back to 1958, but there’s no reason we can’t go back to 1950’s tax rates or at least 1980 tax rates (50% top marginal rate). And many people are starting to think we should. Not because they hate rich people, but because over the last 50 years, this country has become increasingly stratified economically. Today, the top 3% of the richest Americans owns 78% of the nation's wealth. In 1980, the top 3% only held about 50% of the nation's wealth.

We have seen revenue increase following decreases in the rates and revenue decreases following tax hikes (again, I reference the Laffer Curve).

We’ve also seen revenue decreases after tax cuts (Bush 2000-2008) and revenue increases after tax rate hikes (Clinton 1992-2000). Laffer be damned! LOL

But all of that really misses the most important point, which is that there isn't enough wealth in the entirety of all the richest people in this country to dig ourselves out of the mess that our politicians have created.

This nation has plenty of wealth. The problem is 78% of that wealth is in the hands of 3% of the people.

We simply cannot tax our way out of it. The math doesn't work out

Your seem to believe that making these broad statements as thought they’re facts, makes them facts. I see Republicans doing this all the time. The math most certainly can work out. All we need is a bit of courage and foresight. By simply returning to the Clinton tax rates of 2000, we can cut the deficit in half and by returning to the Regan rates of the early 1980’s we can eliminate the deficit altogether by 2025, without cutting Medicare or even thinking about Social Security.

I’ve read these same talking points a thousand times. I congratulate you on reciting them so well. I have to ask you though, what do you think is going to happen as the wealth of this nation is increasingly concentrated in the hands of the richest 3% of the population? If I may repeat myself: Today 78% of the wealth of this nation is held by the richest 3% of the population, that’s a big change from the 50% they held only 32 years ago. What do you think will happen 32 years from now when these elites hold 90% or 95% of the nations wealth? Because that’s where the policies you support will take us.

Red Bird wrote:"Try not to engage the RedBird. She is quite certifiable."

Secretly AA has a thing for me.

'All beer is beer. It is the same. There is no difference between Guinness and Natty Light or between a Left Hand Milk Stout and Meisterbrau. If you pay more to get one of those "premium" beers, you are just doing it for the status symbol and so you can feel superior over people who drink cheap beer. They taste the same.'

Please cite this. It doesn't look like my work.

It does not have full quoation marks. It is a paraphrase. But you know beyond the shadow of a doubt that you offered that arguemnt/opinion. You are crazy, but you're not usually dishonest.

Your attempt to paraphrase my words is not an accurate representation of my position.

In an attempt to discredit me, you leave out specific points to make it look like I'm making an absurd argument. I stand by my argument that people frequently chose high-end beer for reasons other than taste. I remember posting studies that supported my view. I'm sure you remember that too, I guess you chose not to mention them for obvious reasons.

Questioning my sanity is another attempt by you to discredit my ideas by character assassination. It isn't really surprising since you plainly lack the ability to attack them on their merit.

Your attempt to paraphrase my words is not an accurate representation of my position.

Incorrect. That was exactly your position - even the beers mentioned were the same. So, I can conclude that you have decided to add a foray into dishonesty as the newest item on your resume. Congrats, I suppose. Either that or your psychosis has clouded your memory to the point that large swaths of time are now blank. I tend to think the former, though.

And as far as a study, I do remember a study on wine, which you misunderstood - both the statistics and the conclusion - that you transposed to beer.

I stand by my argument that people frequently chose high-end beer for reasons other than taste

That was NOT your argument. You used absolutes. Not "frequently" or "sometimes" or "many" (or even most).

What you posted is neither an accurate representation of my position nor a faithful account of the particulars. I never said that all beer tastes the same, and I don’t even know what “Left Hand Milk Stout” is. And it is you who misunderstood the results of that study.

You are not crazy, but rather, as I told you on another thread, deluded, blind to your own prejudices and egoic passions. You are intelligent enough to see the facts, especially when someone lays them out before you, but your selfish ego doesn’t want to accept them. Because if you accept that which contradicts your ego, you have to change, either the way you behave or they way you think about yourself. And people hate change. I know because I’m a person myself.

This creates a terrible conflict, a risk no matter what you do. That makes you angry, and rather than be mad at yourself, you deflect that anger at an object, In this case me, a perfect target because in some sense you blame me for the conflict.

"I never said that all beer tastes the same"

You are a liar or crazy or both. I don't have time for you. Like at Worldcrossing, where you were only one of two people that I ever filtered, I will now do the same thing here.


Get treatment.

Red Bird wrote:

Red Bird, if you are going to advance the liberal position, that's fine, but at least try not to be silly. The founding fathers granted a constitutional right to keep and bear the types of arms that existed in their time - rifles, muskets, pistols. Maybe even a canon, which will do a number on your gophers. Same today.

So since the founding fathers had no notion of automatic rifles, nor semi-automatic weapons of any sort, since all they had were single shot, muzzle loaded long rifles, and single shot flintlock pistols, it's silly to suggest that automatic and semi-automatic weapons are covered under the second amendment of the constitution.

I'm so happy you agree with me.

Yes, indeed. In fact we should apply the same logic to the first amendment's guarantee of "freedom of the press." As you know, the "press" was a primitive machine in the 18th century. If you believe the second amendment right to keep and bear "arms" can't include later technological developments in "arms" (i.e. semiautomatics), then the first amendment guarantee of "freedom of the press" cannot apply to technological developments of "the press."

Did you know that the Constitution doesn't mention "journalism" once? Not a single time? It only mentions "the press." By your logic, this changes everything.

Therefore, I assume, Red Bird, that you would agree that "freedom of the press" ONLY applies to a wooden box with moveable lead letters using linseed oil and soot for ink that is "pressed" to dried parchment by a big wooden handle. That is the only "press" covered by the 1A. I assume, Red Bird, that there is no first amendment freedom of journalism in radio since that is not a Gutenberg-style "press." Kiss NPR goodbye. Furthermore, there is no first amendment freedom of journalism on television since that is not a Gutenberg-style "press." Bye bye ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. Moreover, there is no first amendment freedom of journalism on the internet because that is not a Gutenberg-style "press." Arrest Ariana Huffington for treason immediately.

Like I said, Red Bird, if you are going to advance liberalism, at least do so with some degree of intelligence, not childish word games.

Prof,


Are you still in Illinois? You talked of moving to North Carolina at one time.

AlabamAlum wrote:I was addressing the group as a whole.

RedBird is from the old baseball forum (and later TGP) at Wxing.


She once spent a month defending this position of hers:

'All beer is beer. It is the same. There is no difference between Guinness and Natty Light or between a Left Hand Milk Stout and Meisterbrau. If you pay more to get one of those "premium" beers, you are just doing it for the status symbol and so you can feel superior over people who drink cheap beer. They taste the same.'

If she starts saying there is no difference between Cutty Sark and Glenfiddich, then we should organize a lynch mob.

AlabamAlum wrote:Prof,


Are you still in Illinois? You talked of moving to North Carolina at one time.

Yes, I'm still in Illinois. I didn't get the North Carolina (Butner) or South Carolina (Estill) openings I applied for.

There's a new joint opening soon down the road from you in Aliceville, AL. I'm thinking about putting in for that one.

Thanks for asking.

ALiceville? Goodness, that's in the middle of nowhere. Knew a beagle breeder out there. Hated making the trek.