DC Tom Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I enjoy touch screens. They and my flat sausage finger thumbs are enemies. Your what? What's a finger thumb? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Your what? What's a finger thumb? I love the Spanish word for toe. Dedo el pie (foot finger). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I gotta get me a smart phone. You can write any gibberish and blame it on the device. I misspell Australopithecines and 4 posters break their necks to be the first to point it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I gotta get me a smart phone. You can write any gibberish and blame it on the device. I misspell Australopithecines and 4 posters break their necks to be the first to point it out. You know I double-checked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I gotta get me a smart phone. You can write any gibberish and blame it on the device. I misspell Australopithecines and 4 posters break their necks to be the first to point it out. http://www.damnyouautocorrect.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 I love the Spanish word for toe. Dedo el pie (foot finger). The Dutch word for glove is handschoen (hand shoe). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 You know I double-checked. And I expect nothing less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 And I expect nothing less. That's why I'm laughing...I know I was set up. I STILL couldn't help myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 (edited) That's why I'm laughing...I know I was set up. I STILL couldn't help myself. Dude, you're the guy that can dig up and quote an archived TSW post from 1999. Anything less would be a disappointment Edited June 9, 2012 by /dev/null Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Dude, you're the guy that can dig up and quote an archived TSW post from 1999. From memory. But !@#$ it all if it didn't take me an hour to find my car keys this morning. Imagine if I used my powers for good. Or evil. Or anything but !@#$ing minutiae. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 From memory. But !@#$ it all if it didn't take me an hour to find my car keys this morning. Imagine if I used my powers for good. Or evil. Or anything but !@#$ing minutiae. Perhaps if you filed your keys under the names of long dead Nazis." I drive a Honda- of course that would be in the Himmler file!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Now, what was I going to respond to? Oh yeah... Took $50M for Tabacco industry to crush a $1 that would have potentially cost them more than $50M very quickly if imposed....basically as simple as that. If it was $50M v. $50M ... who is to say. The role of money is clear...you can defend the voting down of the tax b/c all cancer research doesn't take place in California if you like and I'm not hear to argue with you over the bill....this wasn't the motive of Big Tabacco...people will find reasons and there are reasons on both sides of all issues...but the money is the money is the money...and that's what the point here is...the side with the most money will always end up with the better "argument" communicated to the people How so? The $1 tax would be paid by consumers, collected by the retail seller and sent to the state. The Tobacco companies are at an arms distance at the point of taxation. They wouldn't be paying a dime. And, if the state taxed them directly, the $1 (plus administrative charges) would be passed along to the wholesalers who would pass it down (along with their administrative markup) to the retailers who would then simply pass the $1 plus-plus charge onto the consumer. Or did I misread your post? Did the State of California spend $1 in its efforts to impose this new tax on its citizens while the evil ghost of James B. Duke's tobacco lobby spent 1/200th of a billion dollars on crushing their puny efforts like a sailor on a 3 day shore leave puts out a butt after having a tryst with Esmeralda in a Times Square lobby? Most of the people that smoke are lower income earners and kids in the teens and twenties. They've got plenty of money - but aren't they the most protected and in need of sheltering from regressive punitive taxation? By the way, I don't know anyone over 30 and/or that's making more than $50k a year that smokes. Seems to me, they put their constituency in the cross hairs this time in place of the dirty, filthy, stinking, lying rich folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Wait....so taxing something....produces less of it? But, then wouldn't raising capital gains taxes....produce less investment? Oh, that's right, this only works for smoking...and not any other form of human behavior. Because...smoking is bad, mmkay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts