RC> *** Answering a msg posted in area ALL-POLITICS (All
 RC> Politics Discussion Echo).

 RC> From a message that was posted here.

 RC> Hello BOB!

 RC> 12 Dec 10 12:18, you wrote to me:

 BK>>>>  Which is 65 days longer than many who criticize it.

 RC>>> Except that those whom criticize it arent making false
 RC>>> boasts and embellishments.

 BK>>  SH claimed to have retired from the Army as a major. Didn't
 BK>>  happen with 12-14 yrs service.

 RC> and by contrast, 12 to 14 years of service, is one phuck of

 We were talking about embellishments. You try to spin the
 discussion when it is shown one of yours is guilty.

 RC> alot longer than 65 days, yet you portray by inference that
 RC> Sauers service was superior to Stans.

 Someday you need to learn the difference between inference and
 implication. More important, you need to learn how to be honest
 in discussion.

 RC> Your boy claimed to have been a full fledged A10 weapons
 RC> mechanic in the USAF, didnt happen with 65 days of service.

 No, he did not. He claimed to have worked on A10s. Any
 apprentice or trainee will do that.

 That you don't know that is evidence that you never served in
 the military, and that you never worked in any position where
 you actually work on something. Hell, do your cashiers never
 touch a cash register before they have completed their
 probation?

 RC> I am not going to argue Stans service here, and it is

 You raise the issue of embellishments.

 ...

 RC> commitments Stan made to the military, he honored!

 And embellished.

 ...

 BK>>  Yet I didn't see any of them ragged on.

 RC> and how long ago was this, and just why do you worry about
 RC> who is being ragged on, when you do it yourself..

 OH? And when outside of in response?

 RC> How about letting Sauer fight his own battles instead of

 Why don't you stay out of his battles? He says something to
 someone else and you jump in. Hypocrite.

 ...

 BK>>  Oh, and Jeff B talks about working in the financial industry,
 BK>>  but never tells what he does, and gets is demonstrably wrong
 BK>>  quite often.

 RC> So in place of all this, we should rely on the Great Klahn
 RC> to be the expert to lead us sheep around the pasture?

 You try to divert from the fact that JB calls himself employed
 in the financial services sector, and passes himself off as
 knowledgable with no actual statement of what he does or what
 his qualifications are.

 RC> Sorry but you are no expert either, but the one thing Jeff

 I have made it clear my knowledge is from personal experience,
 my study, and reading widely. What are his qualifications?

 RC> does that people like Sauer doesnt do, is he keeps the
 RC> details he doesnt want to share close to his vest, to a

 Irrelevant to the subject of embellishment.

 RC> degree so do you.. You could be a welfare wanking leech
 RC> living in a Maytag Box for all I know, but I dont really
 RC> know this to be true, therefore it cant be. However as you
 RC> know...

 Actually, I have given out a great deal of information about
 what I do. See... since I am being honest in my discussion, I
 don't fear an honest disclosure of my qualifications. Which it
 seems you do.

 ...

 RC> no one likes a hypocrite.

 Which, as I recently pointed out, in this echo, applies to you.

 ...

 BK>>  I don't know how the sick anyone defines the rich. Anyone with a
 BK>>  million/yr income is rich. Less than $100k/yr is not. In between
 BK>>  is arguable. Ok, more than $500k/yr is rich.

 RC> So you seek to punish them?

 If you think taxes are punishment, then you must be an
 anarchist.

 RC>>> So 30 to 40 percent of a higher wage equals much more taxes
 RC>>> paid than a lower percentage of a lower wage.

 BK>>  More money more taxes, that's how it goes.

 RC> Which shoots the hell out of your theory that they dont pay
 RC> their fair share.

 Ross Ross Ross... you read it over and over and still manage to
 falsely describe my position. Is that deliberate? I have stated,
 over and over, that the BLS report showed all their income
 levels paid in a fairly close range of their percent of incomes
 in taxes. I pointed out over and over that you can't show how
 that's not fair.

 Yet it seems you want the rich to pay *LESS* than their fair
 share.

 You have shown, in your recent postings esp, that you have no
 interest in a rational discussion. You want only to suppress
 dissenting voices. This is proven beyond any reasonable doubt by
 your recent posts.

 You attack Ross, not because he's a criminal, or because he's
 evil, but because he disagrees with you. If it was just because
 you find him to be wrong you would argue that. Your personal
 attacks are only to suppress dissent.

 And suppressing dissent is evil. And Un-American.

BOB KLAHN bob.klahn{at}sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Some things you cannot change will change you if you do not oppose them.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]