CK: 670 times $52,000 is $34.8 million.
$600,000 is 1.7% of that total.
Yeah, that's going to make a huge difference.
M: You are full of your opinion that it makes no difference. I do not know. I made no claims the bill would be any good, help or make any sense. I only pointed out what the link said and what the bill makers stated as their intention. I did not say it was their intention or that it wasn't. I man no assumptions about it. I do not know, for example, if they have a 1.7% budget shortfall they need to fill.
CK: As for Ms. Winkleprick, she said:
That's not about providing a few bucks to hospitals. It's about making people think this will do something to curb gun violence.
M: Again, you know what her words really meant. I do not. I only stated what she said. Did you talk to her privately where she told you what she really meant?
CK: That's a lie. Here's what he said: "This is just another cash grab. Guns on craiglist now cost $25 more and they still kill the same number of innocent people. This is what happens when politicians like to pretend they care about gun violence but they really just want your money."
M: Lets look at the whole thing: He answering the question how many criminals buy legal guns and answered:
"Most of them? Those guns don't magically appear. A person buys a legal gun then sells it to a criminal on something like craiglist. This is not a complicated riddle."
This is just another cash grab. Guns on craiglist now cost $25 more and they still kill the same number of innocent people. This is what happens when politicians like to pretend they care about gun violence but they really just want your money.
What is he saying, that legal buyers are running guns to criminals for profit and son of a bitch, the price went up 25 dollars? Is the price hike because the legal buyers have to pay the tax or are they ripping off the criminals for an extra 25 profit? But if the stated intent of the law was to garner additional taxes to pay for social needs how does that become cash grabbing instead of responsible fiscal policy, taxing to deal with a critical need? Of course you had he have already determined you know the answer that it's a rip off by criminal evil politicians who only want money and money and money and more money, as much as they can grab no possibility whatsoever they might have good intentions. Not saying their intentions, if good are also intelligent, but I didn't give an opinion of that subject.
CK: There was nothing there about "evil purposes", just that they want more money, which all of us have agreed. You invented the crap about "evil purposes", just as you invented this:
M: We did not agree. You maintain it's money grabbing as he does, but I referred back to the stated intention. I have no opinion offered as to whether it is money grabbing or sincere intent because I haven't an inside track into what the law makers really think they are doing. In short I believe that when somebody speaks of money grabbing politicians they do not mean politicians who are trying to serve the people by directing revenue toward solving the shared problems we have, but rather a bunch of worthless assholes. In my opinion you malign some people here whose intentions you only imagine you divine.
CK: And this: M: But I know that he is that way because he is dead to empathy, especially empathy for himself.
CK: And, well, a large percentage of everything you write in every thread in which you participate.
Ultimately I blame myself, however, for feeding you, when I know better. I'll avoid that mistake in the future.
M: Let me tell you something about empathy, Charles. I am aware that I drive you crazy and it is for that reason alone that I did no seek to join the DC forum, a forum I had hoped to see happen and join for years and years. I read there now and again and it's painful because there have been a number of things I have wanted to say. You will have no reason to blame yourself there.