So it's a tax.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

You got me. Just like Nancy Peepee is not sticking corn cobs up Boehners ass...

Shows how much Iiffy knows. There is no doubt that is a Nancy just jammed a corn cob up Boehner's ass look on his face and he doesn't know how to remove it.

[CuteOldGuy]

You seem to have an obsession with having homely women sticking corncobs up your ass. Have you seen a therapist, BigTurd? I think we now know why you keep saying such stupid things here.

Get help. You'll feel better. And that nasty constipation will probably be relieved as well.

[i'va biggen]

Boner doesn't have a cob up his ass,he is just taking his toys and going home.won't play anymore.LOL

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by Doove

Uh huh. Or not.

This graph illustrates nothing pertinent to arguement. It only shows the # of payees not how much money is paid.
It must be the Paul Krugman hour.

[nwarounder]

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

This graph illustrates nothing pertinent to arguement. It only shows the # of payees not how much money is paid.
It must be the Paul Krugman hour.

You have to consider the source of the poster, it won't take you long to realize why no one else responded and why you didn't need to either. Hint: Check out the ignore feature in your control panel, it works wonders, lol.

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by nwarounder

You have to consider the source of the poster, it won't take you long to realize why no one else responded and why you didn't need to either. Hint: Check out the ignore feature in your control panel, it works wonders, lol.

Thanks for the tip nwarounder. So far his posts match his avatar. A clown. He either knows he's being dishonest with that garbage or he's too ill informed to know the difference.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

This graph illustrates nothing pertinent to arguement. It only shows the # of payees not how much money is paid.
It must be the Paul Krugman hour.

Then perhaps you can show something to contradict the graph and prove that it is, according to 2dogs, "the biggest tax grab and control over the individual since income tax was instituted."

Or you can just shut it.

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by Doove

Then perhaps you can show something to contradict the graph and prove that it is, according to 2dogs, "the biggest tax grab and control over the individual since income tax was instituted."

Or you can just shut it.

I already contradicted it. The graph only shows the # of taxpayers. There is no reference to actual taxes that will be collected. It reveals nothing, aside from your ineptitude or dishonesty. I'll take our word for which ever one you decide it to be. I noticed you didn't have anything to say about it being proven to be a tax, determined by 5 and not 1 SC justice.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

. I noticed you didn't have anything to say about it being proven to be a tax, determined by 5 and not 1 SC justice.

It was simple point that you failed to see.

Had Roberts (or any other Justice) voted the other way...

He was not saying literally "Only one Justice decides".

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by Doove

If one judge out of nine calls it a tax, i think it's a bit of a reach to say SCOTUS decided it was a tax.

Please explain the sublety that's escaping me in this statement.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Doove

Then perhaps you can show something to contradict the graph and prove that it is, according to 2dogs, "the biggest tax grab and control over the individual since income tax was instituted."

Or you can just shut it.

Doofus, you dissembling liar, go back to the original legislation; you'll find that Social Security and Medicare as originally proposed were not the bloated monstrosities they have now become. Then consider that Odumbocare already has a leg-up on becoming another bloated monstrosity. Only a liberal with a devolved, convoluted mind would accept Odumbo and Pelosi's cost projections as being immutably true. Only in a liberal's devolved, convoluted mind do two (three) wrongs make a right.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

I already contradicted it. The graph only shows the # of taxpayers. There is no reference to actual taxes that will be collected.

You contradicted nothing. When talking about the biggest tax grab and control of the individual since the onset of the income tax, i think the number of tax payers it affects is entirely relevant. In fact, it's pretty much the entire argument.

It reveals nothing, aside from your ineptitude or dishonesty.

Oh please. If you wanna make a different argument, make it. Making no argument and suggesting that contradicts my argument is just dumb.

I'll take our word for which ever one you decide it to be. I noticed you didn't have anything to say about it being proven to be a tax, determined by 5 and not 1 SC justice.

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

Please explain the sublety that's escaping me in this statement.

I actually argued it was a tax (or at least the equivalent of a tax) leading up to the decision. So frankly, i don't care what the Supreme Court calls it. It's the same thing today that it was 2 months ago, so if you wanna argue semantics, you're on your own.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by nwarounder

You have to consider the source of the poster, it won't take you long to realize why no one else responded and why you didn't need to either. Hint: Check out the ignore feature in your control panel, it works wonders, lol.

I've been ignoring Doofie for weeks, and only see his posts when someone else quotes him. I certainly wouldn't choose to have a conversation with someone like him in real life. Why would I want to read or respond to his posts?

[Doove]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

I've been ignoring Doofie for weeks, and only see his posts when someone else quotes him. I certainly wouldn't choose to have a conversation with someone like him in real life. Why would I want to read or respond to his posts?

Great! Then that means i can always have the last word.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

Please explain the sublety that's escaping me in this statement.

the chart is a projection .. mandatory purchase wont take place until 2014 so there isnt any way to determine exact expendatures for few more years ..