Please read my answer again & tell me where in the thread before you bought it up did I mention anything about reading the bill.
This is the post to which you replied (quoting yourself above):
Originally Posted by Richard Getz
…as in the case with ACA… To quote Pelosi, “we have to pass it to know what is in it".
Gee, I wonder why I’d mention that bill.Siri has a better grasp of context than you do.
…your agenda.
Yeah, I’m done here.
You said: "Then why are you fine with bills–particularly those that directly affect one seventh of the nation’s domestic economy–being passed without being read? That is inherently conspiratorial."
What were you speaking about when you referred to one seventh of the nation's domestic economy? Please clarify.
Try just reading the post instead. It really helps if you read the words that are written instead of inventing your own.
We are very fortunate to have english as our native tongue. Whilst not the most widely spoken primary language worldwide, it is currently the favoured language for international communication.
Speaking only english will get you by in most parts of the world. That is a huge boon to all of us and not something that anyone else can say.
We are also fortunate in having english as our native language because it is so expressive. Because english is an amalgamation of at least two other languages it means that there is often more than one word for a given thing. Those duplicated words have become subtly different over time to provide us with a highly nuanced and descriptive language.
If we want to maintain the status quo or even improve upon the situation that allows us these benefits, it behooves us to identify and correct any incorrect use of our language. Over time minor differences will magnify and splinter our language until such time as our mutual intelligibility is gone.
Before you dismiss my sentiments as hogwash think of Latin, once the most widely spoken language in Europe and now extinct. It was splintered into Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese and more because regional differences were allowed to continue and magnify.
This is the post to which you replied (quoting yourself above):
Gee, I wonder why I’d mention that bill.Siri has a better grasp of context than you do.
Yeah, I’m done here.
Try just reading the post instead. It really helps if you read the words that are written instead of inventing your own.
Again absolutely nothing to say. I answer your questions. You don't answer anything, as usual. Quick say something condescending as per your usual pattern.
It is a tax imposed to ppl in or out of the State equally. Someone from Texas visiting California has no representation, but pays the same sales tax.
Yes. I know what a sales tax is. How is a sales tax the same as a city income tax that is imposed on non-residents that work in a city? Nothing is being purchased.
Again absolutely nothing to say. I answer your questions.
Yes, and?
You don't answer anything, as usual.
Try reading the post. You’ll find some answers there.
If you can’t hold a conversation, shut up and go away. Anyone with a rudimentary grasp of the English language can comprehend the words that have been written. You are apparently unwilling or unable to do so. You’ve revoked any position you may have otherwise had.
Try reading the post. You’ll find some answers there.
If you can’t hold a conversation, shut up and go away. Anyone with a rudimentary grasp of the English language can comprehend the words that have been written. You are apparently unwilling or unable to do so. You’ve revoked any position you may have otherwise had.
It’s not for you, it’s for him.
Yeah, he doesn't get what you are talking about either. Because you make no point. How about you go away or shut up? You probably can't cause this is your life. You're a wind bag. I didn't mention anything about the bill being read until you bought it up, as I said. I gave you an answer by saying I think the bill should be read & gave you a link, to how the quote that you keep referring to that Pelosi made, may have been taken out of context. Since a bill is not voted on when it is introduced to the floor of the House, it is still being amended & crafted before it gets voted on. I asked you if it would be fair if opponents of the legislation did not read the bill to vote on it. You, as usual, had no concrete answer & said I have to prove it in your usual codescending way. While you proved nothing or say much of anything that is coherent. Are you medicated?
You said: "Then why are you fine with bills–particularly those that directly affect one seventh of the nation’s domestic economy–being passed without being read? That is inherently conspiratorial."
I responded previous to this by asking you a question about how this would adversely affect Insurance compaies which is what I thought you were referring to when you said what is bolded in your quote above. You responded as usual with a non-answer. I then asked you to clarify what you meant by "particularly those that directly affect one seventh of the nation’s domestic economy"
?you again respond with a non answer Your response; "Try just reading the post instead. It really helps if you read the words that are written instead of inventing your own." What the hell does that mean are you even talking to the correct person? Your responses make absolutely no sense & then you piggyback them on your other babbling half sentence gibberish. Then you accuse me of telling everyone I am always right when I am just expressing a different point of view. Pound salt.
Yeah, he doesn't get what you are talking about either.
Because I’m not talking to him. I’m talking to you.
Because you make no point.
“You don’t have a clue what you’re even discussing, as shown by your cluelessness regarding the content of one of your own posts.”
That should have been clear to you already. Tell me to reword it again if it’s still too hard for you to get.
I didn't mention anything about the bill being read until you bought it up, as I said.
So you don’t refute the point that the bill was not read by its signatories before passage, correct?
…to how the quote that you keep referring to…
So once is “keep” now, is it?
that Pelosi made, may have been taken out of context.
asdf
I asked you if it would be fair if opponents of the legislation did not read the bill to vote on it.
Fair in what regard?
You, as usual…
It’s almost as though you really DON’T have a clue what you’re saying and aren’t just doing this on purpose.
Are you medicated?
Great argument¡
I responded previous to this by asking you a question about how this would adversely affect Insurance compaies which is what I thought you were referring to when you said what is bolded in your quote above.
And you were wrong in thinking that, and I immediately replied correcting your misconception.
You responded as usual with a non-answer.
Your inability or refusal to read the English language does not equate to a lack of an answer. Your refusal to accept the answer also does not equate to the lack of an answer.
I then asked you to clarify what you meant by "particularly those that directly affect one seventh of the nation’s domestic economy"
And, as mentioned above and in a post earlier, I already did that.
What the hell does that mean are you even talking to the correct person?
So I’m correct, then. You don’t comprehend the English language. Fine, I’ll rewrite the sentence. Tell me what part of “Try just reading the post instead. It really helps if you read the words that are written instead of inventing your own.” is confusing and I’ll explain it to you.
Your responses make absolutely no sense & then you piggyback them on your other babbling half sentence gibberish.
More irony, anyone?
Pound salt.
Yes, you have absolutely no argument whatsoever and are incorrect in what you have said. Thanks for reaffirming that.
Because I’m not talking to him. I’m talking to you.
“You don’t have a clue what you’re even discussing, as shown by your cluelessness regarding the content of one of your own posts.”
That should have been clear to you already. Tell me to reword it again if it’s still too hard for you to get.
So you don’t refute the point that the bill was not read by its signatories before passage, correct?
So once is “keep” now, is it?
asdf
Fair in what regard?
It’s almost as though you really DON’T have a clue what you’re saying and aren’t just doing this on purpose.
Great argument¡
And you were wrong in thinking that, and I immediately replied correcting your misconception.
Your inability or refusal to read the English language does not equate to a lack of an answer. Your refusal to accept the answer also does not equate to the lack of an answer.
And, as mentioned above and in a post earlier, I already did that.
So I’m correct, then. You don’t comprehend the English language. Fine, I’ll rewrite the sentence. Tell me what part of “Try just reading the post instead. It really helps if you read the words that are written instead of inventing your own.” is confusing and I’ll explain it to you.
More irony, anyone?
Yes, you have absolutely no argument whatsoever and are incorrect in what you have said. Thanks for reaffirming that.
As usual you post partial responses of mine & give glib little answers.
As usual you post partial responses of mine & give glib little answers.
Thanks for confirming you can’t refute anything I’ve said. Please just don’t bother replying if you don’t understand the words that are written. Or, you know, ask for clarification. I’m happy to give it. Just don’t do what you did and make crap up.
Thanks for confirming you can’t refute anything I’ve said. Please just don’t bother replying if you don’t understand the words that are written. Or, you know, ask for clarification. I’m happy to give it. Just don’t do what you did and make crap up.
I asked you to clarify twice your "one seventh of the economy" statement twice. I recounted everything we talked about, with your responses in a previous post. You haven't said anything of substance.
Yes. I know what a sales tax is. How is a sales tax the same as a city income tax that is imposed on non-residents that work in a city? Nothing is being purchased.
I'll repeat: It is a tax imposed to ppl in or out of the State equally. Someone from Texas visiting California has no representation, but pays the same sales tax.
Neither in the case of sales tax, or city tax does an outsider paying that tax have any representation.
I'll repeat: It is a tax imposed to ppl in or out of the State equally. Someone from Texas visiting California has no representation, but pays the same sales tax.
Neither in the case of sales tax, or city tax does an outsider paying that tax have any representation.
Yes Richard,
I was looking at it from the angle that one is a voluntary purchase & one is a tax taken out of every check for working in a certain city. I also realize that non residents pay state taxes. So, your point is taken.
I was looking at it from the angle that one is a voluntary purchase & one is a tax taken out of every check for working in a certain city. I also realize that non residents pay state taxes. So, your point is taken.
Comments
Please read my answer again & tell me where in the thread before you bought it up did I mention anything about reading the bill.
This is the post to which you replied (quoting yourself above):
…as in the case with ACA… To quote Pelosi, “we have to pass it to know what is in it".
Gee, I wonder why I’d mention that bill. Siri has a better grasp of context than you do.
Yeah, I’m done here.
What were you speaking about when you referred to one seventh of the nation's domestic economy? Please clarify.
Try just reading the post instead. It really helps if you read the words that are written instead of inventing your own.
Regarding the "Doled" saga:
We are very fortunate to have english as our native tongue. Whilst not the most widely spoken primary language worldwide, it is currently the favoured language for international communication.
Speaking only english will get you by in most parts of the world. That is a huge boon to all of us and not something that anyone else can say.
We are also fortunate in having english as our native language because it is so expressive. Because english is an amalgamation of at least two other languages it means that there is often more than one word for a given thing. Those duplicated words have become subtly different over time to provide us with a highly nuanced and descriptive language.
If we want to maintain the status quo or even improve upon the situation that allows us these benefits, it behooves us to identify and correct any incorrect use of our language. Over time minor differences will magnify and splinter our language until such time as our mutual intelligibility is gone.
Before you dismiss my sentiments as hogwash think of Latin, once the most widely spoken language in Europe and now extinct. It was splintered into Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese and more because regional differences were allowed to continue and magnify.
OK soapbox mode off….
This is the post to which you replied (quoting yourself above):
Gee, I wonder why I’d mention that bill. Siri has a better grasp of context than you do.
Yeah, I’m done here.
Try just reading the post instead. It really helps if you read the words that are written instead of inventing your own.
Again absolutely nothing to say. I answer your questions. You don't answer anything, as usual. Quick say something condescending as per your usual pattern.
City Income tax (non-resident) is the same as a state sales tax? Why?
It is a tax imposed to ppl in or out of the State equally. Someone from Texas visiting California has no representation, but pays the same sales tax.
…as in the case with ACA… To quote Pelosi, “we have to pass it to know what is in it".
Gee, I wonder why I’d mention that bill. Siri has a better grasp of context than you do.
Sorry, not getting your point here.
It is a tax imposed to ppl in or out of the State equally. Someone from Texas visiting California has no representation, but pays the same sales tax.
Yes. I know what a sales tax is. How is a sales tax the same as a city income tax that is imposed on non-residents that work in a city? Nothing is being purchased.
Yes, and?
Try reading the post. You’ll find some answers there.
If you can’t hold a conversation, shut up and go away. Anyone with a rudimentary grasp of the English language can comprehend the words that have been written. You are apparently unwilling or unable to do so. You’ve revoked any position you may have otherwise had.
It’s not for you, it’s for him.
Yes, and?
Try reading the post. You’ll find some answers there.
If you can’t hold a conversation, shut up and go away. Anyone with a rudimentary grasp of the English language can comprehend the words that have been written. You are apparently unwilling or unable to do so. You’ve revoked any position you may have otherwise had.
It’s not for you, it’s for him.
Yeah, he doesn't get what you are talking about either. Because you make no point. How about you go away or shut up? You probably can't cause this is your life. You're a wind bag. I didn't mention anything about the bill being read until you bought it up, as I said. I gave you an answer by saying I think the bill should be read & gave you a link, to how the quote that you keep referring to that Pelosi made, may have been taken out of context. Since a bill is not voted on when it is introduced to the floor of the House, it is still being amended & crafted before it gets voted on. I asked you if it would be fair if opponents of the legislation did not read the bill to vote on it. You, as usual, had no concrete answer & said I have to prove it in your usual codescending way. While you proved nothing or say much of anything that is coherent. Are you medicated?
You said: "Then why are you fine with bills–particularly those that directly affect one seventh of the nation’s domestic economy–being passed without being read? That is inherently conspiratorial."
I responded previous to this by asking you a question about how this would adversely affect Insurance compaies which is what I thought you were referring to when you said what is bolded in your quote above. You responded as usual with a non-answer. I then asked you to clarify what you meant by "particularly those that directly affect one seventh of the nation’s domestic economy"
?you again respond with a non answer Your response; "Try just reading the post instead. It really helps if you read the words that are written instead of inventing your own." What the hell does that mean are you even talking to the correct person? Your responses make absolutely no sense & then you piggyback them on your other babbling half sentence gibberish. Then you accuse me of telling everyone I am always right when I am just expressing a different point of view. Pound salt.
Because I’m not talking to him. I’m talking to you.
“You don’t have a clue what you’re even discussing, as shown by your cluelessness regarding the content of one of your own posts.”
That should have been clear to you already. Tell me to reword it again if it’s still too hard for you to get.
So you don’t refute the point that the bill was not read by its signatories before passage, correct?
So once is “keep” now, is it?
asdf
Fair in what regard?
It’s almost as though you really DON’T have a clue what you’re saying and aren’t just doing this on purpose.
Great argument¡
And you were wrong in thinking that, and I immediately replied correcting your misconception.
Your inability or refusal to read the English language does not equate to a lack of an answer. Your refusal to accept the answer also does not equate to the lack of an answer.
And, as mentioned above and in a post earlier, I already did that.
So I’m correct, then. You don’t comprehend the English language. Fine, I’ll rewrite the sentence. Tell me what part of “Try just reading the post instead. It really helps if you read the words that are written instead of inventing your own.” is confusing and I’ll explain it to you.
More irony, anyone?
Yes, you have absolutely no argument whatsoever and are incorrect in what you have said. Thanks for reaffirming that.
Because I’m not talking to him. I’m talking to you.
“You don’t have a clue what you’re even discussing, as shown by your cluelessness regarding the content of one of your own posts.”
That should have been clear to you already. Tell me to reword it again if it’s still too hard for you to get.
So you don’t refute the point that the bill was not read by its signatories before passage, correct?
So once is “keep” now, is it?
asdf
Fair in what regard?
It’s almost as though you really DON’T have a clue what you’re saying and aren’t just doing this on purpose.
Great argument¡
And you were wrong in thinking that, and I immediately replied correcting your misconception.
Your inability or refusal to read the English language does not equate to a lack of an answer. Your refusal to accept the answer also does not equate to the lack of an answer.
And, as mentioned above and in a post earlier, I already did that.
So I’m correct, then. You don’t comprehend the English language. Fine, I’ll rewrite the sentence. Tell me what part of “Try just reading the post instead. It really helps if you read the words that are written instead of inventing your own.” is confusing and I’ll explain it to you.
More irony, anyone?
Yes, you have absolutely no argument whatsoever and are incorrect in what you have said. Thanks for reaffirming that.
As usual you post partial responses of mine & give glib little answers.
Thanks for confirming you can’t refute anything I’ve said. Please just don’t bother replying if you don’t understand the words that are written. Or, you know, ask for clarification. I’m happy to give it. Just don’t do what you did and make crap up.
Thanks for confirming you can’t refute anything I’ve said. Please just don’t bother replying if you don’t understand the words that are written. Or, you know, ask for clarification. I’m happy to give it. Just don’t do what you did and make crap up.
I asked you to clarify twice your "one seventh of the economy" statement twice. I recounted everything we talked about, with your responses in a previous post. You haven't said anything of substance.
This conversation is over. I suggest both of you just let it go because and start anew on the next topic that interests you.
I think it was over a while ago.
Then prove it.
And I clarified twice.
You’re not the one who gets to make that assessment.
Yes. I know what a sales tax is. How is a sales tax the same as a city income tax that is imposed on non-residents that work in a city? Nothing is being purchased.
I'll repeat: It is a tax imposed to ppl in or out of the State equally. Someone from Texas visiting California has no representation, but pays the same sales tax.
Neither in the case of sales tax, or city tax does an outsider paying that tax have any representation.
I'll repeat: It is a tax imposed to ppl in or out of the State equally. Someone from Texas visiting California has no representation, but pays the same sales tax.
Neither in the case of sales tax, or city tax does an outsider paying that tax have any representation.
Yes Richard,
I was looking at it from the angle that one is a voluntary purchase & one is a tax taken out of every check for working in a certain city. I also realize that non residents pay state taxes. So, your point is taken.
Yes Richard,
I was looking at it from the angle that one is a voluntary purchase & one is a tax taken out of every check for working in a certain city. I also realize that non residents pay state taxes. So, your point is taken.
You don't voluntarily work for someone?
Oh, I get why he’s arguing with us! He lives in a socialist dictatorship! He really just doesn’t get how it is over here.