Wrong. Once again trying to praise the Holocaust as successful state action because it helped people who needed lampshades.
“If anyone benefits from abhorrent state action, then it isn’t abhorrent, it’s a success”
You guys really do have a limited bench of talking points, and you’ve divided them up and recycled them multiple times in this thread already.
Queue JD to come in and call me a complainer (since Jedi did it yesterday and you the day before). Dan Carlin puts out new material at a breakneck pace compared to y’all.
Look, you can insult me all you want but keep Dan out of this.
Thy praise or dispraise is to me alike:
One doth not stroke me, nor the other strike.
-Ben Johnson
You claimed this wasn't about taxes, but about efficacy. When I talked about efficacy you brought up the Holocaust.
You didn’t talk about efficacy, you simply stated pre-existing victory conditions for the head tax. We know Amazon isn’t an itinerant farm worker who can just shuffle out of town in a week, and we know handout-addicted Seattlelites will take subsidies in any form they’re offered.
So your condition for a head-tax win is meaningless - Seattle met the same condition $48million ago, and King County had the same win condition $1billion ago. Thus your metric is stupid, which I dare say, surprises nobody.
Feel free to send me 28% of your paycheck every month, and if you don’t starve to death we’ll call that victory.
I mean, why not back your ideological standards for a government win with more than just your mouth. Show me how much you really believe that any amount of money thrown at a problem is justified if *someone* benefits. Need my paypal addy?
Feel free to send me 28% of your paycheck every month, and if you don’t starve to death we’ll call that victory.
I mean, why not back your ideological standards for a government win with more than just your mouth. Show me how much you really believe that any amount of money thrown at a problem is justified if *someone* benefits. Need my paypal addy?
I've already stated I am happy to pay more for my Prime membership in order to help defer the costs.
Great service from a great company, and I know that money will go to pissing you off by funding progressive boondoggles.
#winning
HAIL!
Her needs America so they won't just take his shit away like in some pussy non gun totting countries can happen.
-Hwen
But you're not starving, and to paraphrase your own benevolent position on the income of others "If you can pay for Amazon Prime, then you can send me 28% of your pay".
And we'll judge the policy by your metrics, of course - You won't starve, and I will benefit - ergo the program works!
So what's the hold up, HM? You have an opportunity to put your own philosophy to the test right here. Why the hesitation?
You're not going to commit to your beliefs through a show of action, eh?
That's how much faith I have in your philosophy too. Since we both think your standards are lacking, how about giving us all a break and just staying home on election days, eh?
