Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Oct 26th, 2005, 01:36 PM       
No no... we don't necessarily have to change topics. I was giving you an easy out, and I thought I was going somewhere with a less "news-oriented" discussion for a minute, which is always more fun than discussing what a bunch of jerks may or may not be doing in that rat-hole you moved to...

Sorry... I'm sure your place is nice... I was referring only to the other folks that tend to live there...
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Oct 26th, 2005, 05:57 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
What bill again are we referencing here?
HR 25

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
Perhaps I still simply don't follw. If people are being taxed at the sales counter, but then simply receiving rebates, what did you suggest, once a month, than why have the taxes at all?
The rebates "refund" the estimated amount of sales tax a person is expected to pay for the NEXT month for only certain items. They have also been called "pre-bates," because they are paid before the tax is spent. The items for which that money was spent are then considered to be un-taxed. What we're talking about here is specifically the money a person spends on food, shelter and clothing.

What I was illustrating before was that a "poor" person will actually receive more back through the rebates than he is taxed, similar to how under the current system we can say that guy is subsidized by government (through EICC, generally) rather than taxed. If I'm receiving one of those "pre-bates" every month for, say, $300, and I spend a total of $1600 per month, then I'm taxed about $68 (1600 x 23% - 300). If I save up a bunch of money and buy a $30K bass boat one month in addition to my normal spending, I'm taxed an additional 23% of $30K or $6900, plus the $68. If I'm rich, I get the same tax refund as if I were poor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
I've seen some call the sales tax revenue-neutral, but that proposition seems to be revenue-negative to me. Now, I know as a Libertarian you might dig that, but is that actually solvent?
When they say revenue neutral, they are talking about the idea that the new tax system will generate the same amount of revenue as the old one, were we to switch one night at midnight. Actually, it is designed to be AT LEAST revenue neutral. Free Market Capitalism says consumer spending will increase, which will increase tax revenues.

I think the part that was screwing you up was that I made it sound like everybody paid nothing. There are those who will receive more back than they put in, just like now, but they will be low income folks that live very cheaply, just as now. My emphasis on the progressivity of the plan is there to entice you to look at it moreso than it indicates my secret love of progressive taxation. If that's what we want to do as a society, then by all means let's... and here's a much less insidious way to acheive that goal...

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
I'm actually a little surprised that as a Libertarian you even support this. One argument I've seen in favor of the sales tax is that it'll encourage people to save by making them consider the weight of their day-to-day purchases. Is it the job of the government to be deciding that behavior?
Influencing private activity with economic policies (which is 99% taxation strategies) is at least half of what government does each day. We should not smoke, so tobacco is taxed. Homeowners pay school taxes. Liquor drinkers pay luxury taxes. Yacht owners... well, they register their boats in the Bahamas now, so that's a bad example...

No, I do not like that. HR25 might encourage folks to save more money by giving them their entire paycheck, but they'll not notice any increase in overall price in the consumer goods they buy, so that's not why they might save more. If it happens, it's gonna be because they simply have more money and there's enough left over once the bills are all paid that they can manage to save some of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
Secondly, I know you as being a pretty strict constructionalist. If a federal income tax doesn't pass constitutional muster in your book, how does a tax on consumption for the purpose of raising revenue? Curbing the consumption habits of Americans through heavy, up-front taxation is one thing, curbing government spending? That's a whole other animal.
First off, let me again state that there will not be any "heavy, up-front taxation." The average product purchased contains, hidden in it's cost, about 22% embedded taxes. These taxes are those paid by the various suppliers and manufacturers that went together to finish that product and offer it for sale at the place you buy it. These are, among other things, the "corporate income taxes" Rush Limbaugh correctly moans are always passed onto the consumer. Businesses also pay various other taxes in many different forms. Embedded taxes are known to constitute about 22% of the cash price of all products.

When the Fair Tax in enacted, the free-market system will cause counter prices to fall at least that 22%. You may not believe in Capitalism as strongly as I do, so maybe you don't buy that part. Harvard's Economic Department agrees with me, so Ppthththh!

So, prices fall, and then the 23% consumption tax is added. Net affect, prices have not changed. Repeat: OVERALL PRICES WILL NOT CHANGE. PEOPLE WILL NOT PAY MORE FOR PURCHASES.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
My point wasn't that rich people spend less per capita than middle and lower class folks (although to argue that home ownership only exists in the upper-class is rather silly, isn't it?). My point was that a national retail sales tax brings taxation to the front lines. It taxes people on their consumption, and I believe it's the paycheck-to-paycheck people who would suffer the most under this, because it goes right after the cash, credit, etc. that they immediately have on hand. And again, if you're saying it's no big deal because they get it all back, then uh, what's the point?
I think I said Million Dollar Home Ownership... but I'm sure Dubya's wonderful new ownership society will ensure we ALL own nice stuff. "A chicken in every pot" has worked for a long time, hasn't it?

I think I've explained the rest of this section already, but it's important to note that people are already not only paying that 22% embedded tax on every purchase under the current system, but they have less money to pay it with now because the government has already taken some of their paycheck before they received it. It doesn't make me feel much better to know that they'll get back a big refund on their overpayments once per year.

I don't hold a lot of faith for the average joe-filer to apply for all the refunds he's due. Besides, the deck is stacked against him. We know that poor people's spending habits are atrocious, and that they spend a higher proportion of their income on highly taxed items like alcohol, tobacco and gas than rich folk do, so it's safe to say your average joe-sixpack-filer is paying more in taxes than we think.

Keep in mind, as well, that states will still be free to tax as they choose, so some of those embedded taxes will remain. I believe the states will emulate the federal system once it proves itself.

It's much, much simpler. It's transparent. I see the current system as sneaky and deceptive, and I prove the merit of my suspicions by pointing at the rising costs of tax preparation. I'm not the only one having problems drawing a line between fair and easy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
I also think you underestimate the power of a 30% sales tax, the outrage, protest, and flat out anger it would create. I only say this from working most of my teenage years in a miserable retail outlet, where people would berate me for charging them a 3.25% rate on a fucking tie.
As I said, the only tax you'll have to explain to those people is the state sales tax. The sticker price on that fucking tie will include the fucking federal consumption tax. When they see it on the fucking receipt, you can explain to them that the price of the fucking tie went fucking down by that same amount and then kick them out of the fucking store because they wouldn't have the fucking receipt if you didn't already have their fucking money.

Let them know a paper still costs the same, and recommend they read one every once and a while. I guarantee this will be in the news a long time before it's passed. I'm talking to you about it early on in the final process, but it's an idea that's been around since the sixties.

Also, it's becoming common to see opponents of the idea referring to a 30% tax. It's not, and it's not all in how you look at it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
Also, there seems to me like this would just create more collection headaches. So rather than taking from an individual's income, the federal government will then be responsible for collecting from business and retail industries? That doesn't sound sketchy to you?
That sounds exactly like only one small portion of the current system's tax collection mechanism. There are a lot more individuals than retail businesses, so it's sounding much more streamlined right there. Add in that a business has a lot more to lose by cheating (and knows it) than your average filer, and I'm feeling much better about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
And back to my point above, I personally believe that the tax system is built (be it intentionally or not) to serve big-spender consumers. You might say that you can't dodge taxes at the retail counter, but i will counter that we simply don't know, because we haven't quite seen it on a grand scale yet, with a high % rate. What would prevent retail companies from creating their own "priority customer" loopholes to allow large consumers to dodge heavy taxation, sort of like folks with buckets of cash can dump it into foundations and charities to avoid the Estate tax???
One thing we do know is that the current system can be cheated by anyone on an individual basis. You simply lie to the government and hope you don't get caught. Under the Fair Tax, it will take at least two parties to cheat, and one of them will ultimately be the guy who is subject to losing his business in order to save some idiot a few bucks. Even if a simple clerk is the one buying into the scheme, the business owner is ultimately responsible, right?

Keep in mind, what we are doing here is replacing many, many forms of taxation with ONE single form... Many, many mechanisms of collection with ONE single method.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Oct 27th, 2005, 06:49 PM       
One thing I forgot to address... the part where you contrasted my constitutionalist-ish-um-ness... whatever... in contrast to a consumption tax: Until the early part of last century, that was the ONLY way the federal goverment received any sort of tax money. Taxation at the income end was a HUGE change that would have been fought bitterly if not instituted to pay for a damn war.

Why is it we always drop our pants when Washington get itself in a war and then runs out of money to pay for it?

Anyhoo... A. Hamilton: (Federalist, XII), “…you fought a war with the British principally over taxation…now that you have your liberty how do you propose funding this new government of yours?” His response, “the ability of a country to pay taxes must always be proportioned, in a great degree, to the quantity of money in circulation and to the celerity with which it circulates. Commerce, contributing to both of these objects must of necessity render the payment of taxes easier and facilitate the requisite supplies to the treasury.”
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Nov 2nd, 2005, 06:54 PM       
Wow... This went to crap quick.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #30  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Nov 2nd, 2005, 06:57 PM       
I hate everyone and everything but I'm not angry. I just want to make tuna melt sandwiches that make your eyes tear up with goodness.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #31  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Nov 3rd, 2005, 09:56 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preechr
Wow... This went to crap quick.
I'm gonna respond, just been a crazy week....
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Nov 29th, 2005, 10:55 AM       
21 WAYS TO BE A GOOD DEMOCRAT

1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand

2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments
create prosperity.

3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are
more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of
Chinese and North Korean communists.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by
cyclical documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected by
soccer moms driving SUV's.

6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual
is natural.

7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal
funding.

8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about
sex.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony
activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually
doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money
to make The Passion Of The Christ for financial gain only.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of
the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts
of the Constitution.

13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more
important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Gen. Robert E. Lee, and
Thomas Edison & A.G. Bell.

15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial
quotas and set-asides are not.

16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very nice
person.

17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked
anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but
a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.

19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag,
transvestites, and beastiality should be constitutionally protected, and
manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal..

20. You have to believe that illegal Democratic Party funding by the Chinese
Government is somehow in the best interest to the United States.

21. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing
conspiracy
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Cosmo Electrolux Cosmo Electrolux is offline
Stone Pants Rabbit
Cosmo Electrolux's Avatar
Join Date: May 2001
Location: In your distant memory
Cosmo Electrolux is probably a spambot
Old Nov 29th, 2005, 11:51 AM       
"21 Rules For Being A Good Republican"

1) You have to believe that the nation's 8-year unprecedented prosperity was
due to the work of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, but that today's gas prices
are all Clinton's fault.

2) You have to believe that those privileged from birth achieve success all
on their own.

3) You have to be against government programs, but expect your Social
Security checks on time.

4) You have to believe that government should stay out of people's lives, yet
you want government to regulate only opposite-gender marriages, what a woman
does with her uterus, and what your official language should be.

5) You have to believe that pollution is OK so long as it makes a profit.

6) You have to believe in prayer in schools, as long as you don't pray to
Allah or Buddha or the Goddess.

7) You have to believe that only your own teenagers are still virgins.

8) You have to believe that a woman cannot be trusted with decisions about
her own body, but that large multi-national corporations should have no
regulation or interference whatsoever.

9) You love Jesus and Jesus loves you and, by the way, Jesus shares your
hatred of AIDS victims, homosexuals, and Bill and Hillary Clinton.

10) You have to believe that society is color-blind and growing up black in
America doesn't diminish your opportunities, but you wouldn't vote for a
black candidate for president.

11) You have to believe that it was great to allow Ken Starr to spend $90
million dollars to attack Clinton because no other U.S. presidents have been
unfaithful to their wives.

12) You have to believe that a waiting period for purchasing a handgun is bad
because quick access to a new firearm is an important concern for all
Americans.

13) You have to believe it is wise to keep condoms out of schools, because we
all know if teenagers don't have condoms they won't have sex.

14) You have to believe that the ACLU is bad because they defend the
Constitution, while the NRA is good because they defend the Constitution.

15) You have to believe that socialism hasn't worked anywhere, and that
Europe doesn't exist.

16) You have to believe the AIDS virus is not important enough to deserve
federal funding proportionate to the resulting death rate and that the public
doesn't need to be educated about it, because if we ignore it, it will go away.

17) You have to believe that biology teachers are corrupting the morals of
6th graders if they teach them the basics of human sexuality, but the Bible,
which is full of sex and violence, is good reading.

18) You have to believe that Chinese communist missiles have killed more
Americans than handguns, alcohol, and tobacco.

19) You have to believe that even though governments have supported the arts
for 5000 years and that most of the great works of Renaissance art were paid
for by governments, our government should shun any such support. After all,
the rich can afford to buy their own and the poor don't need any.

20) You have to believe that the lumber from the last one percent of old
growth U.S. forests is well worth the destruction of those forests and the
extinction of the several species of plants and animals in them because it
allows logging companies to add to their profit margin.

21) You have to believe that we should forgive and pray for Newt Gingrich,
Henry Hyde, and Bob Livingston for their marital infidelities, but that
bastard Clinton should have been impeached.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Nov 29th, 2005, 12:41 PM       
Ok, now let's do Libertarians!
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #35  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Nov 29th, 2005, 01:01 PM       
Couldn't all 21 basically go like "You must believe '' '' '' if we cut taxes"?
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Nov 29th, 2005, 02:43 PM       
That, and maybe something about staying out of my yard.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Cosmo Electrolux Cosmo Electrolux is offline
Stone Pants Rabbit
Cosmo Electrolux's Avatar
Join Date: May 2001
Location: In your distant memory
Cosmo Electrolux is probably a spambot
Old Nov 29th, 2005, 03:08 PM       
or you could just say that either you believe that (insert typical right wing bullshit here), or you're with the terrorists....

Or, you don't support the troops if you don't think that ........

same difference.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Nov 29th, 2005, 04:54 PM       
No, no no... Not for us Libbies!

Officially, the LP is the biggest anti-war party, believe it or not. I'M not anti-war... but, whatever... It's a big tent and whatnot.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #39  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Nov 29th, 2005, 06:19 PM       
"officially" meaning that it says it on the website.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Nov 29th, 2005, 07:04 PM       
I'm sure it does. They mean it.

http://www.lp.org/exitplan.pdf

Oh... were you challenging their size again? We've done that. Maybe the Greens are bigger... Hell, I dunno. Neither one can field a winner to save it's life, so who cares which one has a larger mailing list?
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #41  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Nov 29th, 2005, 10:10 PM       
There's a debate over who's bigger, but that doesn't matter. We all know it's how you use your fringe third party that matters.

Even though the Greens may be larger, I think the Libertarian Party is actually in better position to be a major third party. I think once they can get away from the image of gun crazy hunters in Michigan, they might be able to make some damage. Unlike the Greens, the LP has more of a foundation in a presumably alternative ideology, a "third way," if I may use the language of Sen. Clinton.

My beloved Greens, unfortunately, have a far worse image problem than the LP, and their solutions are really just socialism-light, with a pinch of Jeffersonian jargon in there.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Dec 6th, 2005, 01:31 PM       
I preferred ya'll's Texan over the Lp's Texan in the last presidential run, at least in terms of bearing and ability to look like a candidate.

My original point was that the Libertarian Party is and always has been firmly anti-war. They've gotta get some points from the true ideological left for that, right? ... and not just because the war benefits Bush...
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Jan 20th, 2006, 04:27 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
I'm actually a little surprised that as a Libertarian you even support this. One argument I've seen in favor of the sales tax is that it'll encourage people to save by making them consider the weight of their day-to-day purchases. Is it the job of the government to be deciding that behavior?
Y'know, I was driving down the road today, and I recalled you saying this. I thought of a better way to phrase my opinion here:

I have fewer problems with government encouraging certain behaviors than I do with government actively discouraging any behavior that only harms the individual making the decision. Ideally, the government I would choose for us would not be acknowledged as a go-to-guy for advice anyways, but you have to work with what you've got, right?

Let's look at that for a minute from the point of view of funding art with tax money, a fun subject. Republicans get all pissy about guys like Andres Serrano, and charge the Democrats that defend his work as art with either demonic possession or liberal lunacy. Were I forced to pick a side, I would not be able to condone culling this or that piece on some random merit system, but I also don't have to agree that much of what is called art should be partly paid for by me, much less that that is what it should even be called.

Republicans that would discourage shitty art would inadvertantly encourage, for example, much more Christian-friendly art. Is that better or worse for them from their standpoint? I mean, maybe they won't notice the difference, but it stinks of sin to me... Additionally, since part of art's reward is fame, maybe even infamy, the Democrats that defend shitty art encourage more of it while effectively discouraging better work. A good libertarian would say fuck all that and remove government from the position of funding art entirely.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #44  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Apr 14th, 2008, 04:32 PM       
next topic.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Apr 16th, 2008, 07:35 PM       
What? You miss me?
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:15 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.