Ron Paul wants to abolish the Income Tax?

[Vic]

Originally posted by: boredhokie

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: boredhokie

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Aisengard

How does the fed dipping into our collective pockets when it wants, increase living standards?

Free sh1t! blah-blah, doofus, Free sh1t! blah-blah!

:disgust:

Wow, what a damning rebuttal..

I agree with Ron Paul to a point but also think that libertarians are living in a fantasy world. There needs to be a balance between self-determination (libertarianism) and what's needed to keep America strong (you all care about america right).

HardWarrior (your nickname at the truck stop?) thinks that everyone should pay for everything. That's how Africa works right now - if we dissolve social services you can say good-bye to any sort of social stability.

I don't think anyone should depend on the government to support them - but we need a body to invest in new technology that's currently unprofitable, care for the poor and the sick, etc. If you think otherwise then you can fvck off down to Somalia - Ayn Rand's utopia.

No offense, but why don't read some Rand before making such idiotic comments? Somalia is pretty much exactly the opposite of her ideal, just like the Soviet Union was also the opposite of her ideal but from a different perspective. Somalia lacks the basic rule of law to protect individual rights, while the Soviet Union used the abuses of the collective to squash the rule of law and individual rights.

The world isn't black and white. Quit making yourself look like a fool. Africa's problem is not a lack of social services, but a complete lack of confidence in the system. Or are you saying that you would invest/buy property in Somalia? OTOH, you can invest in the US with almost complete security (except for the risk inherent to the investment itself). Why? Social services?

Hah, I've read Rand and her little utopia. There is a rule of law in Africa, but it's run by warlords - a structure which has parallels to her little fantasy world in Atlas Shrugged.

You can't think beyond black and white, just simple comic book ideals and that's OK - someone has to be the consumer.

You also completely missed the point of my response - that a balance of social services along with personal liberty is what's needed, not whatever some kook libertarian spouts off because he wants a lower tax bill.

Thanks for your response!

You're completely full of sh!t here. I'm not gonna defend Rand, but you pretty much just said something roughly equivalent to saying that the Bible preaches atheism.

Your 2nd paragraph was a baseless insult right out of left field, so I'm ignoring it except for just pointing it out.

Your response was based on a false premise, which I have bolded for you and thoroughly explained. In my experience, only the privileged view social services as a means for maintaining social stability. You're basically admitting that your intentions are bribing the poor instead of helping them. That's hardly altruistic.

 

[Vic]

On topic, the purpose of taxes, beyond its primary purpose of generating revenue, is to control and/or discourage certain behaviors. So you need to ask yourself, which would you rather discourage? Production (income) or consumption (sales)? I'm anti-consumerism myself, so there's my answer. It doesn't surprise me one bit that the usual "I want my cake and eat it too" crowd is screaming bloody murder.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: Vic
On topic, the purpose of taxes, beyond its primary purpose of generating revenue, is to control and/or discourage certain behaviors. So you need to ask yourself, which would you rather discourage? Production (income) or consumption (sales)? I'm anti-consumerism myself, so there's my answer. It doesn't surprise me one bit that the usual "I want my cake and eat it too" crowd is screaming bloody murder.

Taxing income doesn't discourage making income. If anything it encourages making more income to cover what's lost to tax.

 

[Aisengard]

If you wanted a stand-up response, why not at least pretend to be an adult? My name ain't "doofus", or do you go around calling complete strangers dumb-ass names in the real world? No, you don't, coward. As for your stupid ideas about the way things work, well, let's just say you're ignorant of the facts, which really isn't a surprise.

I call people doofus when the situation calls for it. I'm sorry I hurt your feelings, but it takes a very thin skin to be insulted by a name that really isn't all that insulting. It's along the lines of calling you a silly person. And all while you're complaining you call me a coward. Ah, well. Internet forums like these are the height of hypocrisy.

Look, like everyone's been saying, Ron Paul is a huge libertarian. These people want Zero overarching government so they can do things for themselves. It's not black and white, it's their ultimate goal. It's as extreme as Communism and Fascism and whatever terms exist that so boil your blood. When he talks about changing the tax system, it isn't for everyone's benefit, it's for his own agenda's benefit alone, the one that no one has ever followed because it can't work. What does and has worked is a mixin of good old capitalism and competition, along with a good amount of socialism. Neither can work without the other in a large country like America's.

Many things would not exist in this country if it weren't for the overarching federal government Ron Paul so wants to get rid of. The interstate highway system certainly wouldn't have existed without the federal funding and support it got from Eisenhower. This country would never have been able to wage war on fascism without national funding and support of a military. The internet would not have even been invented in America without the federal agency of DARPA. There are many, many things that the federal government is good for, but libertarians like Ron Paul take the extreme route and say it's all bad for us. He's in the black and white crowd of federal government = evil, federal taxes = evil. The most fanatical of his supporters are, too. I, and most of the other posters here, are not. We understand the value of a federal government, and know that many many things would not exist today if not for the existence of such. It's not 'black and white' to say that, it's the truth in understanding the value of something. Ron Paul doesn't understand. We do.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Aisengard

If you wanted a stand-up response, why not at least pretend to be an adult? My name ain't "doofus", or do you go around calling complete strangers dumb-ass names in the real world? No, you don't, coward. As for your stupid ideas about the way things work, well, let's just say you're ignorant of the facts, which really isn't a surprise.

I call people doofus when the situation calls for it. I'm sorry I hurt your feelings, but it takes a very thin skin to be insulted by a name that really isn't all that insulting. It's along the lines of calling you a silly person. And all while you're complaining you call me a coward. Ah, well. Internet forums like these are the height of hypocrisy.

Look, like everyone's been saying, Ron Paul is a huge libertarian. These people want Zero overarching government so they can do things for themselves. It's not black and white, it's their ultimate goal. It's as extreme as Communism and Fascism and whatever terms exist that so boil your blood. When he talks about changing the tax system, it isn't for everyone's benefit, it's for his own agenda's benefit alone, the one that no one has ever followed because it can't work. What does and has worked is a mixin of good old capitalism and competition, along with a good amount of socialism. Neither can work without the other in a large country like America's.

Many things would not exist in this country if it weren't for the overarching federal government Ron Paul so wants to get rid of. The interstate highway system certainly wouldn't have existed without the federal funding and support it got from Eisenhower. This country would never have been able to wage war on fascism without national funding and support of a military. The internet would not have even been invented in America without the federal agency of DARPA. There are many, many things that the federal government is good for, but libertarians like Ron Paul take the extreme route and say it's all bad for us. He's in the black and white crowd of federal government = evil, federal taxes = evil. The most fanatical of his supporters are, too. I, and most of the other posters here, are not. We understand the value of a federal government, and know that many many things would not exist today if not for the existence of such. It's not 'black and white' to say that, it's the truth in understanding the value of something. Ron Paul doesn't understand. We do.

This should be framed as an example of what happens when the brainwashed regurgitate what they've swallowed.

You began with a false premise, and then proved your points on the basis of that false premise.
Libertarianism isn't anarchy. It doesn't believe that government is evil or that taxes are evil. What it does believe is that government should serve and account to EVERYBODY. Not just the majority, not just the corporations, not just the Republicans, not just the Democrats, not just the voters. But everybody. Equally.
That means you don't pass a law that serves the moralist agenda of one group by punishing the activities of another group. That means you don't forcefully take from one to give to another. They don't "want Zero overarching government so they can do things for themselves," and their individualist philosophy is nothing like any form of "you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs" collectivism like communism, fascism, or socialism.

You know, it makes one wonder why you feel the need to lie so much to forward your agenda. And ARPANet just developed packet switching, not the internet itself. The first TCP/IP network was NSFNet, the first WWW was CERN.

But while you're giving government credit for everything, what about all the inventions for which the government had zero involvement? Which would be about every non-military invention of the industrial age FYI.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Vic
On topic, the purpose of taxes, beyond its primary purpose of generating revenue, is to control and/or discourage certain behaviors. So you need to ask yourself, which would you rather discourage? Production (income) or consumption (sales)? I'm anti-consumerism myself, so there's my answer. It doesn't surprise me one bit that the usual "I want my cake and eat it too" crowd is screaming bloody murder.

Taxing income doesn't discourage making income. If anything it encourages making more income to cover what's lost to tax.

Which is why the rich fight for tax breaks and loopholes, right?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Vic
On topic, the purpose of taxes, beyond its primary purpose of generating revenue, is to control and/or discourage certain behaviors. So you need to ask yourself, which would you rather discourage? Production (income) or consumption (sales)? I'm anti-consumerism myself, so there's my answer. It doesn't surprise me one bit that the usual "I want my cake and eat it too" crowd is screaming bloody murder.

Taxing income doesn't discourage making income. If anything it encourages making more income to cover what's lost to tax.

Which is why the rich fight for tax breaks and loopholes, right?

And a tax based on consumption rather than income if they're smart.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Vic
On topic, the purpose of taxes, beyond its primary purpose of generating revenue, is to control and/or discourage certain behaviors. So you need to ask yourself, which would you rather discourage? Production (income) or consumption (sales)? I'm anti-consumerism myself, so there's my answer. It doesn't surprise me one bit that the usual "I want my cake and eat it too" crowd is screaming bloody murder.

Taxing income doesn't discourage making income. If anything it encourages making more income to cover what's lost to tax.

Which is why the rich fight for tax breaks and loopholes, right?

And a tax based on consumption rather than income if they're smart.

Why? The rich consume far far more than you and I.

Are you pretending that you look witty while conceding my point?

 

[Aisengard]

You know, it makes one wonder why you feel the need to lie so much to forward your agenda. And ARPANet just developed packet switching, not the internet itself. The first TCP/IP network was NSFNet, the first WWW was CERN.

But while you're giving government credit for everything, what about all the inventions for which the government had zero involvement? Which would be about every non-military invention of the industrial age FYI.

Funny, because the United States Government funded NSFNet. CERN is a product of several governments (not the US this time) providing their own federal support. One would wonder where your point was.

I'm not giving the government credit for everything, just many things that improve our standard of living that wouldn't have been possible otherwise. It could be said the government had a hand in many major inventions and creations. The splitting of the atom, and utilization of atomic energy, for example, while initially military, has had incredible non-military impact. Particle accelerators around the world only exist because federal governments fund them, with no kickback or profit involved. Like someone said earlier, the feds fund the unprofitable, but very useful, things that no private company would touch.

And I know what the ideal, nice-guy view of libertarianism is, thanks. Ron Paul is more of a guy along the Grover Norquist lines of "Federal Government needs to be shrunk enough so we can drown it in a bathtub." If not for his absolutely absurd and contrarian ideas about completely abolishing the IRS, I'd even like the guy because he thinks for himself, kind of like a more hard-line McCain before McCain completely sold out to the GOP. A couple of things disturb me about him, like not allowing his kids and grandkids to take part in federally-subsidized student loans, presumably because they're supposed to 'make their own way no matter what'. I would hate to see what he would do to the national federal loans program, or any actually useful federal program he deems unnecessary because he didn't have to use it. In the hands of everyone, Libertarianism is a fine ideology. In the hands of a guy who wants everyone to practice libertarianism just because he thinks it's good for them, it's just as bad as any other extreme ideology. Ron Paul, or any true libertarian, really, can't be the leader of the people and the head of the federal government because it goes against that which they're supposed to stand for. I know people come up with cutesy quotes saying that the only person who should be President is the person who hates government, but that's not how reality works.

 

[Aisengard]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Vic
On topic, the purpose of taxes, beyond its primary purpose of generating revenue, is to control and/or discourage certain behaviors. So you need to ask yourself, which would you rather discourage? Production (income) or consumption (sales)? I'm anti-consumerism myself, so there's my answer. It doesn't surprise me one bit that the usual "I want my cake and eat it too" crowd is screaming bloody murder.

Taxing income doesn't discourage making income. If anything it encourages making more income to cover what's lost to tax.

Which is why the rich fight for tax breaks and loopholes, right?

And a tax based on consumption rather than income if they're smart.

Why? The rich consume far far more than you and I.

Are you pretending that you look witty while conceding my point?

Nope, the rich consume far, far less than their income. Whereas the poor must consume sometimes even more than their income. It's why consumer-based taxes may be 'fair', but hardly sustainable in reality.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Changing the tax system is POINTLESS as Paul has pointed out. All of these so-called tax reform plans are just like shuffling the chairs on the Titanic while ignoring the gaping hole in the side...

We should focus instead on reducing government SPENDING and government control over the economy. The role of the federal government needs to be fundamentally changed before the burden can be lifted from taxpayers.

I agree completely. You should look into Mitt Romney. One of his main campaign platforms is reducing government spending.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Aisengard

You know, it makes one wonder why you feel the need to lie so much to forward your agenda. And ARPANet just developed packet switching, not the internet itself. The first TCP/IP network was NSFNet, the first WWW was CERN.

But while you're giving government credit for everything, what about all the inventions for which the government had zero involvement? Which would be about every non-military invention of the industrial age FYI.

Funny, because the United States Government funded NSFNet. CERN is a product of several governments (not the US this time) providing their own federal support. One would wonder where your point was.

I'm not giving the government credit for everything, just many things that improve our standard of living that wouldn't have been possible otherwise. It could be said the government had a hand in many major inventions and creations. The splitting of the atom, and utilization of atomic energy, for example, while initially military, has had incredible non-military impact. Particle accelerators around the world only exist because federal governments fund them, with no kickback or profit involved. Like someone said earlier, the feds fund the unprofitable, but very useful, things that no private company would touch.

And I know what the ideal, nice-guy view of libertarianism is, thanks. Ron Paul is more of a guy along the Grover Norquist lines of "Federal Government needs to be shrunk enough so we can drown it in a bathtub." If not for his absolutely absurd and contrarian ideas about completely abolishing the IRS, I'd even like the guy because he thinks for himself, kind of like a more hard-line McCain before McCain completely sold out to the GOP. A couple of things disturb me about him, like not allowing his kids and grandkids to take part in federally-subsidized student loans, presumably because they're supposed to 'make their own way no matter what'. I would hate to see what he would do to the national federal loans program, or any actually useful federal program he deems unnecessary because he didn't have to use it. In the hands of everyone, Libertarianism is a fine ideology. In the hands of a guy who wants everyone to practice libertarianism just because he thinks it's good for them, it's just as bad as any other extreme ideology. Ron Paul, or any true libertarian, really, can't be the leader of the people and the head of the federal government because it goes against that which they're supposed to stand for. I know people come up with cutesy quotes saying that the only person who should be President is the person who hates government, but that's not how reality works.

My point was that you're full of it.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Changing the tax system is POINTLESS as Paul has pointed out. All of these so-called tax reform plans are just like shuffling the chairs on the Titanic while ignoring the gaping hole in the side...

We should focus instead on reducing government SPENDING and government control over the economy. The role of the federal government needs to be fundamentally changed before the burden can be lifted from taxpayers.

I agree completely. You should look into Mitt Romney. One of his main campaign platforms is reducing government spending.

Almost every Republican claims to be for reducing government spending. In reality they are all spending like drunken sailors. The 'Gingrich Revolution' of '94 was based on reducing the size of the federal government. If you look at the actual voting records of the Republicans that got elected on that platform, every single one voted for the exact opposite.

Republicans are not for less government.
Republicans are not for less government.
Republicans are not for less government.

How many times does this need to be repeated for people to understand?

LOOK at the voting records and SEE for yourself. Don't just go by what the politicians CLAIM they are going to do.

 

[piasabird]

Legalize Pot and tax that! People are smoking it anyway so may as well make some money off of it.

I am more in favor of a Flat Tax.

As it is people spend millions every year having their taxes prepared so they can take advantage of the loopholes. Armies of accountants and clerks are employed every year to either prepare taxes or look for people not paying their taxes that are required to know thousands of pages of tax codes. Then politicians use all these specialty tax codes and tax breaks to bribe voters. All of these things would disappear with a flat tax. In its place would be a lower fairer tax that gives no one advantage over anyone else.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Legalize Pot and tax that! People are smoking it anyway so may as well make some money off of it.

I am more in favor of a Flat Tax.

As it is people spend millions every year having their taxes prepared so they can take advantage of the loopholes. Armies of accountants and clerks are employed every year to either prepare taxes or look for people not paying their taxes that are required to know thousands of pages of tax codes. Then politicians use all these specialty tax codes and tax breaks to bribe voters. All of these things would disappear with a flat tax. In its place would be a lower fairer tax that gives no one advantage over anyone else.

A flat tax based on consumption would not be considered fair.

Some would say, the lower income would be spending a greater percentage of their income on goods than the wealthy.

That is already demonstrated within the existing tax code by having a percentage of the income exempt from taxes and also the EIC.

To counteract that you would have to have some items exempt from taxation and possibly others have a higher tax.

Once you open that can of worms, the lobbyist will jump in to have other items exempted; doing so will incourage a greateer consumption of such items.

 

[Genx87]

Thanks to the deception of income tax withholding, however, some people actually look forward to tax time and a much-anticipated refund. Imagine how quickly Americans would demand lower taxes and spending if they had to write the federal government a check each month!

I cant believe how many idiots out there think getting a fat return check is a good thing.
Ill be quite honest, this year I recieved an appallingly high return check. After doing some searching, realized my wife and I never changed our W2s to refelct our marriage status. The effect was I gave the US govt several thousands in interest free loans last year.

The goal is to have a near zero balance at the bottom of your return. But somehow we have been brainwashed as a country into believing recieving money back is like a gift.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Thanks to the deception of income tax withholding, however, some people actually look forward to tax time and a much-anticipated refund. Imagine how quickly Americans would demand lower taxes and spending if they had to write the federal government a check each month!

I cant believe how many idiots out there think getting a fat return check is a good thing.
Ill be quite honest, this year I recieved an appallingly high return check. After doing some searching, realized my wife and I never changed our W2s to refelct our marriage status. The effect was I gave the US govt several thousands in interest free loans last year.

The goal is to have a near zero balance at the bottom of your return. But somehow we have been brainwashed as a country into believing recieving money back is like a gift.

Considering that the majority of the country knows little to nothing about saving and investing their money, nor do they have enough insight to plan for the future (as is evident by our current SS problems), I doubt that the money most people get back would have done anything more useful had they kept it.

 

[manowar821]

I'd like to know exactly where the peoples fed income tax money is going. I don't know of a single person who knows where it is being spent.

I know it's not anything useful, seeing as sales tax and state level taxes take care of our necessities. Hell, our defense budget isn't even funded by the federal income tax.

What a joke. And then there are those of you claiming Ron Paul is bad because he's a republican. He's there because of the money, there's a better chance of him being elected through the republican party than the democratic.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Vic
Why? The rich consume far far more than you and I.

What are you basing that on?

Most millionaires drive regular cars that they bought used for less than $25,000, live-in modest homes, and work in a non-glamour industry.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Genx87

Thanks to the deception of income tax withholding, however, some people actually look forward to tax time and a much-anticipated refund. Imagine how quickly Americans would demand lower taxes and spending if they had to write the federal government a check each month!

I cant believe how many idiots out there think getting a fat return check is a good thing.
Ill be quite honest, this year I recieved an appallingly high return check. After doing some searching, realized my wife and I never changed our W2s to refelct our marriage status. The effect was I gave the US govt several thousands in interest free loans last year.

The goal is to have a near zero balance at the bottom of your return. But somehow we have been brainwashed as a country into believing recieving money back is like a gift.

Considering that the majority of the country knows little to nothing about saving and investing their money, nor do they have enough insight to plan for the future (as is evident by our current SS problems), I doubt that the money most people get back would have done anything more useful had they kept it.

That's a little too cynical for me. In the simplest of terms, I think a consumption tax would work, essentially giving people the choice whether to blow their money; within certain limits. You can't have essential items being overpriced so that poorer people can't afford bread, but for luxury items, say anything that isn't considered essential, could actually encourage people to be more frugal and save/invest their money rather than blowing it.

I pay more than 32% of my gross towards taxes, some of which I get back, but the only deduction I get is for interest on my student loans. For me personally, if I could automatically keep at least 20% of that money, every dime of this would be invested. I know not everyone would do this, like the people that are constantly running $40,000+ CC balances, increasing consumption taxes might put them further in the hole, but those people have other compulsive issues and that's their problem.

 

[Tommy2000GT]

If Ron Paul says he will abolish the income tax system then I will vote for him 🙂

I would buy everything from ebay to avoid paying sales tax

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Vic
Why? The rich consume far far more than you and I.

What are you basing that on?

Most millionaires drive regular cars that they bought used for less than $25,000, live-in modest homes, and work in a non-glamour industry.

Source? I've worked in mortgage for 12 years, and I can say for absolute certainty that the wealthy have much nicer homes than the rest of us.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Genx87

Thanks to the deception of income tax withholding, however, some people actually look forward to tax time and a much-anticipated refund. Imagine how quickly Americans would demand lower taxes and spending if they had to write the federal government a check each month!

I cant believe how many idiots out there think getting a fat return check is a good thing.
Ill be quite honest, this year I recieved an appallingly high return check. After doing some searching, realized my wife and I never changed our W2s to refelct our marriage status. The effect was I gave the US govt several thousands in interest free loans last year.

The goal is to have a near zero balance at the bottom of your return. But somehow we have been brainwashed as a country into believing recieving money back is like a gift.

Considering that the majority of the country knows little to nothing about saving and investing their money, nor do they have enough insight to plan for the future (as is evident by our current SS problems), I doubt that the money most people get back would have done anything more useful had they kept it.

That's a little too cynical for me. In the simplest of terms, I think a consumption tax would work, essentially giving people the choice whether to blow their money; within certain limits. You can't have essential items being overpriced so that poorer people can't afford bread, but for luxury items, say anything that isn't considered essential, could actually encourage people to be more frugal and save/invest their money rather than blowing it.

I pay more than 32% of my gross towards taxes, some of which I get back, but the only deduction I get is for interest on my student loans. For me personally, if I could automatically keep at least 20% of that money, every dime of this would be invested. I know not everyone would do this, like the people that are constantly running $40,000+ CC balances, increasing consumption taxes might put them further in the hole, but those people have other compulsive issues and that's their problem.

I agree with this. I think it's a given that any reasonable consumption tax should not penalize people for consuming essentials, while luxury items OTOH should be penalized (why not a "progressive" consumption tax, where the higher the item price the higher the tax?). And as EK noted above, yes, the necessity for breaks and loopholes encourages the potential for abuse. I understand this, like I understand that the people would not have it any other way. I recall that Asimov, in one of the later (prequel) Foundation books, went into considerable detail about why people insist on unfair systems of taxation. I suggest the read as I would suggest most of any his books. Essentially, the issue is similar to why flat-rate pricing on new cars doesn't work. People want to feel like they can negotiate for a better deal than their neighbors, i.e. "Yeah, I paid my taxes, but I got to deduct my mortgage interest," etc.
It should be especially noted IMO that, except for rare circumstances, the people running $40k+ CC balances are NOT poor. Somewhere along the line, they borrowed $40k, but just not all at once, from a high cost of funds source, and they invested it poorly.
While I am definitely a "free-willer," it goes without saying that life consists of a long chain of causality. The choices you make determine your future opportunities. This is unavoidable.

 

[digiram]

I think a NAT would hurt the economy due to a major decrease in consumption because of it. We do live in a consumer driven economy. Ever heard of the paradox of thrift?

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Aisengard

If you wanted a stand-up response, why not at least pretend to be an adult? My name ain't "doofus", or do you go around calling complete strangers dumb-ass names in the real world? No, you don't, coward. As for your stupid ideas about the way things work, well, let's just say you're ignorant of the facts, which really isn't a surprise.

I call people doofus when the situation calls for it. I'm sorry I hurt your feelings, but it takes a very thin skin to be insulted by a name that really isn't all that insulting..

You're just FULL of bullsh1t, aren't you? The only thing that was "hurt" here, retarded baby, is civil discourse. Then again, perhaps that's the very thing that freeloading goons like you don't want, respect for the topic at hand.