Joe Miner

You're really making an ass of yourself on this topic. You should really quit digging.

So what is your point in this thread and how does it relate to Warren Buffet's federal income tax versus your income tax and the average American's total tax burden? Or have we totally switched topics after your first drunken post?

You're the one making claims based on your assumptions. The burden of proof is on you. Put together a rational argument based on facts and then we'll talk. So far all you have is Warren Buffet paid 17.4% in federal income tax. You paid something like 35%. Therefore ipso facto bada bing hocus pocus open sesame you have a higher total tax burden than Warren. Federal taxes are not an indication of total tax burden, and total tax burden cannot be derived from federal tax rate. Come up with an actual coherent point and the discussion you seem to want to have can begin. Otherwise you're gonna keep setting up strawman arguments and getting your panties in a bunch when people call you on it.

Not a fact when you assume.

Is that thing on its way in or out?

Not sure which is a bigger bust. This thread. Or Maybin...

So even with the worst record in the NFL...no Luck in 2012? You could get tarred and feathered for that kind of talk around here.

See Tom's post. Don't make assumptions about numbers you don't have any idea about.

Show your work for full credit.

You're really good at the Strawman thing that Levi was talking about. Bravo.

Yeah, you seem to be doing a great job with this discussion so far. Rob's right. This is a very Conneresque attempt at discussion.

So when arguing that 50+% of the country pays no taxes it's bad? But when arguing that some fat cat corporation paid 0 in taxes it's good?

You might want to be more specific there. Your rich grandpa could have died. You might have won the lottery. Perhaps you received a substantial gift from a rich old lady you were providing much needed services for?

She may get the nomination, but it's very early in the process. To me she seems a lot like Pat Robertson from 1987, who as we all know went on to become the 41st president of the US.

Ahh...nothing like a little elitist attitude to get more votes for your candidate.

So you think his tax rate is 17%?

Completely unimpressed with Buster. Roosevelt should definitely be on the roster. Although I'm not incredibly impressed with anyone else.

It gives the media something to talk about. Otherwise, it's as important to the country as the second half of the Bills/Bears game tonight.

Do the Bills have the balls to cut Wang?

There doesn't seem to be a lot of effort this series.

If we can stay healthy, this defense could possibly be enjoyable to watch this season. How long's it been since that was the case?

Think Merriman has a bit of a chip on his shoulder?

Yeah, I know. Fox should really be ashamed of how they ran that debate. They aren't, but they should be. It was very MTV-ish. Tons of misquotes/out of context quotes, gotcha questions, and then the focus on the cat-fight. The only thing it was missing was a Snookie sighting.

He gave some good answers. Sounded intelligent. Didn't back down from criticisms. Looked good appearance-wise. I wish Bachman and Pawlenty would have shut up long enough to let guys like him talk a bit more so I could get a better read on him.

Bachman and Pawlenty spent the whole time bitching at each other. They should just get a room. I thought Bachman looked bad. All she could say to defend herself about not having a record of accomplishment was say that she was a fighter. Santorum made a good point about her only having showmanship not leadership. Her declaring that any debt extention was wrong and that the downgrade proves that she was right is just idiotic. Ron Paul didn't win. He can make some decent points but he comes across as crazy and can't speak clearly. He doesn't have any type of presidential appearance about him. Cain may know business but his lack of political and foreign relations knowledge hurts. Pawlenty is just a big whiner and mud slinger. Santorum was a little whiney himself. Otherwise he'll turn off too many independants to do anything. He was pretty forgettable which may be partly due to his lack of time. Huntsman may be a darkhorse. Gingrich made some good points, but brought up ol' Ronnie too many times. Romney was Romney. He probably won because he didn't whine, didn't mud sling, and didn't appear crazy. And he probably looks the most presidential. Unfortunately he didn't win because of anything he did or said.