Johnwk, why don't you stand for election and do something about it rather than bore us to death with your obsessive rants?
No, I read most of the argumentative inconclusive stuff you are posting, as well as the replies, and this is what I get from it.
You keep dodging the questions you know would hurt your position. You do not address them, but sidestep them and bring up other issues that have little bearing on the discussion of the moment.
And then you also sign your name to a reply to a post that criticizes you for doing that very thing.
Tell me. Have you EVER signed it with something besides JWK while using this alias? If not, your usage of the signature is rather pompous and overbearing.
So whatever. Keep posting prattle and you wll get people less and less likely to agree with you.
Oh, I almost forgot...
Under the Rudy plan States with large populations would be getting a larger tax break than states with smaller population sizes, that is a simple and irrefutable fact. If there are any exceptions they would not be the rule but the exception. However, no mention in Rudy’s proposal indicates the tax break being dolled out to the states would be apportioned among the states and would follow the intentions for which the rule of apportionment was put into our Constitution. In easy to understand language Zippy, the Rudy proposal does not conform to the rule of apportionment and its legislative intent.
Last edited by johnwk; August 6th, 2007 at 04:51 PM.
Y-A-W-N zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wake me up when he's finished!
C'mon Cap, don't bait him.
I do not like what and how he is saying things, but try not to be heavy handed with the belittlement.
I rememer hearing Bernard Goldberg utter words to the extent that NY and CA. should be aware of whole group of people living between the coasts called "Americans". As if to suggest I suppose, that NY'ers and Ca'ians are not Americans. This comment was especially galling considering the imbalance of payments previously referred to. I wonder what all those "true Americans" would do without NY Federal Tax subsidies.
Zippy, if this is not what you were referring to, I apologize.
Last edited by eddhead; August 7th, 2007 at 10:10 AM.
A specious argument...unless you can support it with figures that show the balance of payments between the federal government and NY State vs that of Idaho.
Care to wager which is state has the more favorable arrangement?
Did it ever dawn on you that the amount dolled out to N.Y. by the federal government under the Rudy plan can only be determined after the people apply for the tax break? And so, the figures you requested as well as the rest of your post was a sophomoric response at best. As to figures, we do know N.Y. has a much larger population than Idaho, and thus, it is reasonable to conclude N.Y. would receive a larger tax break than Idaho. We also know there is no provision in the Rudy plan to apportion the tax break among the states which would meet the intentions for which the rule of apportionment was adopted. I don’t think the rule of apportionment and the intentions with which it was adopted, comes within the category of being specious. I do believe socialists, Brits included, would argue to the contrary.
And he seems to have a problem with reading comprehension:
Did it ever dawn on you that I was not asking for numbers from the "Rudy Plan?"Originally Posted by johnwk
Did you miss it again when eddhead explained it to you?
Do you really know anything about health care, other than you have little use for doctors or dentists?
Still patiently waiting to hear about your kids.
Last edited by ZippyTheChimp; August 6th, 2007 at 09:59 PM.