Buffett and Gates say no correlation

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from Lucrum:

All these arrogant two faced liberals can write a check any time them want.

Apparently...they just don't really want to.


https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?agencyFormId=23779454

That was where I was going. They don't want to, because they don't believe in it any more than their millionaire counterparts on the right do. All they want to do is be seen as the champion for the effort.

If they truly believed in it, they would do it regardless of what others do. That is when you can tell the difference between a true believer of a philosophy and a gasbag who pontificates about change.

 

[jem]

buffett is out front and center for the dems... because he is getting inside information and bailouts.

Plain and simple buffett has lived off inside deals for years.

He had the inside on GS and Wells Fargo and now apparently his trains will be shipping oil from canada instead of the pipeline.

Citing Buffett on the economy is like citing this guy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf

Google Image Result for http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/07-minister.jpg

 

[Brass]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

You're a prick, pure and simple. You claim that others cannot see your point, yet you make absolutely no effort to see where anyone else is coming from. You figure that if you don't think the response is worthy, it isn't. That's the arrogance you used under Gabfly, Thunderdog and now your new persona.

Instead of focusing on content and the spirit of what someone is trying to say, you try to point out grammatical or spelling mistakes, leaping at any opportunity to insert what you believe are witty quips, but really offering vapid retorts best left to trolls and sock puppets that are the making of forum participants on par with c-kid.

You once messaged me privately that participating in the P+R forums had cost you more than you care to admit - and I still have no idea what that meant. All I can hope is that someone of your nature truly experiences more of whatever pain and discomfort you referred to in that pm.

This forum will be more enjoyable with you on ignore - not because you have differing view points (as you will no doubt attribute it to) but because you are unable to convey those differing viewpoints in any other way apart from attempts at humiliating and insulting the person to whom you are trying to interact with.

But because I don't want you to to think I simply hung up the phone, I'll be the better man and give you the last word before I hang it up. Then I'll hang it up.

I don't recall PMing you, although I do recall making such a remark in a PM. I checked under all of Gabfly1's inbox and outbox, and I don't see it. I gather you may have been using a different user name at the time, and I don't recall who PMed whom first.

Now to the point. If you think it is a valid point to ask Buffett to make a bigger tax contribution because he believes the rich should pay more, then you get what you deserve by way of response. You think you're clever? I have read this time and again by others here, and I really expected more from you. You were being contemptibly obtuse, and I accorded your comment the respect it deserved. In fact, I responded in kind. How surprising that you didn't like what you read when it came back at you.

Spelling error? I didn't think you made a spelling error. That's a different word, not a typo. I gave you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you meant what you wrote, which would have been something of an admission of intellectual integrity.

I think presenting stupid arguments is a waste of time. Yes, I read them all the time here, and I often ignore them except when I'm bored. I responded in your case because, as I noted earlier, despite our considerable political differences, I genuinely expected better from you. That you took umbrage at being taken to task for having made such a vacuous remark leads me to believe that you actually took your comment seriously. In that case, it would appear that I assumed too much.