Report: Tax Returns of the Top 25 Wealthiest in America

[Endus]

Nah, here:

Maybe you shouldn't have tried to tell me what my argument is.

That's . . . literally the post I linked to.

And you're saying it wasn't.

You're not even reading my posts, are you?

The only thing I did there was point out that a "should" statement is a value statement, not a fact statement. If you didn't mean to make a value statement, you shouldn't have used "should". If you did, then I'm completely correct in pointing out that you made a value statement. So what, exactly, is your issue?

[Bodakane]

Once again, let's see you quantify this. I want to see how your math plays out.

Are you just planning on ignoring the amount they also pay into the system? That seems rather disingenuous.

I don't have to quantify it.

Following your stupid ass logic, I can't say the Empire State Building is bigger than a 7-11 unless I present actual square footage.

You should be ashamed of yourself. Take the fucking loss like a man.

[Machismo]

Considering the fictional math you did, he can post some equally fictional math. You realize Amazon doesn't exclusively use their own vehicles to deliver, right? That deliveries from Amazon aren't their only contribution to roadway damage, which would include freight shipments to warehouses etc?

Yep, the number came from Him, I used his numbers. SO, if you don't like it, take it up with him.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't have to quantify it.

Following your stupid ass logic, I can't say the Empire State Building is bigger than a 7-11 unless I present actual square footage.

You should be ashamed of yourself. Take the fucking loss like a man.

Which is the problem, it makes it a shitty argument, especially when you try to declare it as a fact.

- - - Updated - - -

That's . . . literally the post I linked to.

And you're saying it wasn't.

You're not even reading my posts, are you?

The only thing I did there was point out that a "should" statement is a value statement, not a fact statement. If you didn't mean to make a value statement, you shouldn't have used "should". If you did, then I'm completely correct in pointing out that you made a value statement. So what, exactly, is your issue?

I am, you're trying to tell me what my argument is

[Edge-]

Yep, the number came from Him, I used his numbers. SO, if you don't like it, take it up with him.

That was just the Amazon fleet, comparing that most average folks don't own/drive tens of thousands of vehicles that add wear and tear to the roadways for everyone else. And even then, you should know that those aren't the only vehicles Amazon has on the road so you're choosing to take a dishonest position because you can.

[Endus]

I am, you're trying to tell me what my argument is

I am telling you what the meaning of your words are.

If they don't reflect your internal concept of your argument, then the issue is you phrased it incorrectly and nobody could figure out what you really secretly meant because you didn't actually say it. I can't read your mind; the only insight I have is the actual words you chose to use.

You won't even explain how I'm getting it wrong. And it's such a minor thing. You're disputing the difference between "ought" and "is" statements.

[Machismo]

That was just the Amazon fleet, comparing that most average folks don't own/drive tens of thousands of vehicles that add wear and tear to the roadways for everyone else. And even then, you should know that those aren't the only vehicles Amazon has on the road so you're choosing to take a dishonest position because you can.

Once again, take it up with him, it's his number.

- - - Updated - - -

I am telling you what the meaning of your words are.

If they don't reflect your internal concept of your argument, then the issue is you phrased it incorrectly and nobody could figure out what you really secretly meant because you didn't actually say it. I can't read your mind; the only insight I have is the actual words you chose to use.

You won't even explain how I'm getting it wrong. And it's such a minor thing. You're disputing the difference between "ought" and "is" statements.

No, you're telling me what my argument is, and telling me what I didn't mean.

Nah, fuck that.

[Edge-]

Once again, take it up with him, it's his number.

You responded with your voodoo math, yet you're trying to pass the buck yet once more.

One day you'll actually take responsibility for your own posts instead of blaming others for your own posts. One day.

[Machismo]

You responded with your voodoo math, yet you're trying to pass the buck yet once more.

One day you'll actually take responsibility for your own posts instead of blaming others for your own posts. One day.

I responded with their sales:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...U.S.%20dollars.

Take it up with him.

[Endus]

No, you're telling me what my argument is, and telling me what I didn't mean.

Nah, fuck that.

I'm making an effort, here, trying to figure out what the issue is.

You clearly have no interest in explaining your issue, you just want to misrepresent me and make empty, baseless, slanderous rants.

You can't even explain where I've made an error, despite claiming repeatedly that I have.

[Elegiac]

You responded with your voodoo math, yet you're trying to pass the buck yet once more.

One day you'll actually take responsibility for your own posts instead of blaming others for your own posts. One day.

That's about as likely as getting a reason why anyone should give a shit about "liberty" beyond whinging about communism. Lol.

"But why?" is to libertarian ideology as garlic is to vampires.

[Machismo]

I'm making an effort, here, trying to figure out what the issue is.

You clearly have no interest in explaining your issue, you just want to misrepresent me and make empty, baseless, slanderous rants.

You can't even explain where I've made an error, despite claiming repeatedly that I have.

You tried to say you reject the premise of the current reality, and say I don't get to make that argument, because you reject the premise that is reality at the present.

That's no different than a Trumpster saying we cannot talk about President Biden, because Trump really won the election.

[Endus]

You tried to say you reject the premise of the current reality, and say I don't get to make that argument, because you reject the premise that is reality at the present.

And now you're digging up and misrepresenting a completely different post than the one you claimed you were complaining about.

When you can't back it up, move goalposts, huh?

[Bodakane]

Which is the problem, it makes it a shitty argument, especially when you try to declare it as a fact.

No.

Your response is weak and shitty.

Without knowing the numbers can i say the Empire State Building is bigger than a 7-11, yes or no? Answer honestly and with the courage of knowing you've been wrong.....you know, the opposite of you in this entire thread.

[Machismo]

And now you're digging up and misrepresenting a completely different post than the one you claimed you were complaining about.

When you can't back it up, move goalposts, huh?

Nope, I'm pointing to why you making my argument for me isn't going to fly.

[Elegiac]

Nope, I'm pointing to why you making my argument for me isn't going to fly.

Technically speaking the reason it wouldn't fly is because you haven't actually made any substantive arguments in the thread. It's all been complaining about perceived flaws in other people's points.

And no, repeating the same shit in every thread tangentially related to taxes is not a substantive argument, it's proselytism.

[Machismo]

No.

Your response is weak and shitty.

Without knowing the numbers can i say the Empire State Building is bigger than a 7-11, yes or no? Answer honestly and with the courage of knowing you've been wrong.....you know, the opposite of you in this entire thread.

So, prove that narrative is a fact.

I want to see just how fucking disingenuous that narrative is.

[Elegiac]

So, prove that narrative is a fact.

If Jeff Bezos is a person (citation needed), then the benefit he plus owning Amazon as an organization derives from the social contract is greater than the benefit another person derives from the social contract without owning Amazon as an organization.

If X = Y+Z then X>Y.

There's your proof. Is math communist, now?

[Machismo]

So, prove that narrative is a fact.

I want to see just how fucking disingenuous that narrative is.

If your argument is that a company is bigger than a house, so that means the company is bad... mmmkay.

[Bodakane]

So, prove that narrative is a fact.

I want to see just how fucking disingenuous that narrative is.

Stop circumventing like a goddamned coward and answer the simple question asked of you.

Without knowing the numbers can i say the Empire State Building is bigger than a 7-11, yes or no?

Not answering this simple question is you admitting defeat.

[Machismo]

If Jeff Bezos is a person (citation needed), then the benefit he plus owning Amazon as an organization derives from the social contract is greater than the benefit another person derives from the social contract without owning Amazon as an organization.

If X = Y+Z then X>Y.

There's your proof. Is math communist, now?

Great, let's see those numbers.