Posted by: Millard J. Melnyk | October 9, 2011


Let’s make 2012 the Year of Jubilee. The 1% can afford it. The rest of us can’t afford not to.

Conservative anti-redistribution of wealth dogma be DAMNED, just like all dogmas should be. Besides, if conservative dogmas are worth their salt, it’s time to show it. They’ve never been tested, just squawked about by loudmouths and talking heads.

I did the math. Crude as it might be, it’s not off by much.

If the top 1% retained $1 million per person (no pittance) and the rest of their 42% of household wealth were redistributed, every single man, woman, and child in the 99% would receive about $70,000. A family of four would get $280,000. (see calc below)

The conservative arguments against wealth redistribution seem pretty pithy when a one-time redistribution is concerned. Note: ONE time, not a habit. Besides, why should TARP beneficiaries and other no-goodniks have all the fun? Bailouts must benefit corporations exclusively, not citizens, for what reasons, again?

A one-time $25.46 trillion injection into the economy would have a huge impact. Houses, cars, and other goods would be bought, businesses started, debts paid. Yes, the lazy and irresponsible would squander their shares, further stimulating consumer markets and entertainment industries. It would be interesting to find out how much squandering would actually happen. Conservatives like to pound that drum, but IT’S NEVER BEEN TESTED.

And the down side is? Hmmm? Conservatives might be offended? Their myth of meritocracy might be challenged? If there’s any merit to the conservative viewpoint, a one-time bailout isn’t likely to shatter it. If it shatters, good riddance.

Or, horror of horrors, conservatives might be forced to admit that most Americans who are now in a pickle didn’t get there because they lacked merit or work ethic.

Meritocracy, my ass. Greedocracy is more like it. This is where greed has gotten us. Let the days of the greedy bastards be over, both for them and everyone who condones them.

Calculation, based on figures from April 2011:

42% of $58.5 trillion = $24.57 trillion, figure from Sep Fed Reserve report for April

USA population was 311,228,000 in April

1% * 311,228,000 = 3,112,280
99% * 311,228,000 = 308,115,720

If all but $1M per person in the 1% were distributed, 3,112,280 * $1,000,000 = $3,112,280,000,000 would be retained by the 1% (with future income unchanged)

$24,570,000,000,000 – $3,112,280,000,000 = $21,457,720,000,000 for distribution

$21,457,720,000,000 / 308,115,720 = $69,641.76 per person for every man, woman, and child in the 99%



  1. what garbage. I am in the low end of the 99% and happy as anyone could be. probably more so than most of the 1%. I don’t need nor want $69,641.76 given to me from someone elses bank account. It is theirs, not mine. I could care less if they are greedy. they can live in their huge homes, I’ll just stay in my doublewide and drive my 90 pickup truck. me thinketh you the greedy one.

    • Haha, I love it. I wish more people were vocal. So sincere thanks for contributing!

      I’m glad that you are fine with what you have. I’m sure that you are much happier than anyone in the 1%. I have less than you do, and I’m happier than I’ve ever been in my life. But that’s all beside the point.

      So, your post might all be in jest, but in case you’re serious, here’s my reaction:

      The point is that other people are not happy. You are not the only one who counts. And there is neither justification for nor sense in the gross inequity. If you are fine with psychopaths running everything and everyone down, sending our children into bloody battles for the sake of an extra percentage point of profit, that indifference or callousness or insensitivity or aloofness (you choose, I won’t presume,) is on you, not me. In my view, people who stood by and let the crooks get this far–including me–are idiots. I woke up. I’d like to see you and everyone else wake up too.

  2. Millard, I hesitate to respond. I won’t make a habit of it. You wouldn’t want me around if you knew my idenity, anyway.

    And no, my post was not in jest. You and I are most likely a million miles apart on most things.

    Well of course other people are not happy. But there are millions of 99% who are happy and mostly satisfied. There is always the unhappy crowd–and $69,641,76 is going fix that problem—–Oh, I think not. Besides, most of [didn’t say all] would lose their $69……within a year anyway.

    And what is the big deal about “inequity?” Inequity how?

    You wrote that:::::If you are fine with psychopaths running everything and everyone down, sending our children into bloody battles for the sake of an extra percentage point of profit, that indifference or callousness or insensitivity or aloofness (you choose, I won’t presume,) is on you, not me.

    I suspect our understanding as to who the psychopaths are quite different. I think your introduction establishes that. I would be that conservative who would argue against the socialist proposition of wealth distribution. Peter Hitchens, in his book, The Rage Against God fairly argues how those wonderful Lenin’s, Stalin’s, Castro’s and many others proved that ‘wealth distribution’ works rather well; NOT. I make $20,400 a year—–oh, that is before State and Federal Taxes and SSI are taken out. I can promise you that if President Obama wanted to share some of his wealth—–and just wait and see what tax bracket he’ll be in after he writes his first post presidency book, I don’t want his money—nor Gates, Bush, Rockerfellers, or anyones. If you want to be a freeloader——that IS ON YOU [borrowed that phrase from you].

    As far as sending our children into battle——I am guessing you raised your voice loudly against Clinton when he sent my son off to Bosnia???? He was the first in. In fact, he was the very guy that had order 50,000 body bags for us. Only reason we didn’t have to use them——-The bombs put some sense into the bad guys. Well, not sense, fear. I doubt if you said a cross word about Clinton’s war———–I do thank God it did not become bloody for us. But the point is, Clinton sent them, and you progressives, well not a wimper.

    Well, if you want to call yourself and idiot, that’s on you. Me, I ain’t no idiot. I find it interesting that a man who claims to have been and idiot, now trys to convince the rest of us we are idiots.

    Oh, and on your point that I am not the only one that counts; well I count just a much as you and those who disagree with me; and they don’t count anymore than me or my opinions.

    Wake up! No need to; never have been asleep.

    • @99%: What a strange thing to say, that I wouldn’t want you around. You seem to assume a lot about me. No, that’s not true. I’m glad to have you around, whoever you are. I learn from everyone. And I’d love to know your identity. Mine is no secret. I’d be glad to take this to email if it would allow you to speak more freely.

      I don’t have time just now to respond, but I will later today. Just wanted you to know that I read your comments with interest. Please don’t hesitate to voice your views here. The fears and qualms that cause our hesitation and make us filter our words six ways from Sunday don’t apply here. Please speak freely, because I will! 🙂

    • 99%, like I said, I’d like to know who I’m discussing with. You can reach me at Come out, come out, wherever you are! 😉

      I’ve read your comments a couple of times, and we could get into details, e.g., “what is the big deal about ‘inequity?'” the definition of “psychopath,” war, being idiots, etc., but we have much more basic disagreements than all that.

      The conservative viewpoint is a defensive viewpoint. It assumes several things that I disagree with.

      First, conservatives are notorious for ignoring context. Given the current situation in the world, the conservative mantra is “work hard.” Individuals who “work hard” will reap the rewards of hard work, and anyone who does not achieve that outcome failed because they didn’t work hard enough. That’s not an oversimplification, but a distillation of “meritocracy.” The fact is that hard work is part of the picture, of course, but it’s a small piece of the picture, not the whole enchilada. Conservatives don’t like considering the whole enchilada. Hard work takes place within a context. If your boss hates you, you won’t get a raise no matter how hard you work. If a large corporation dominates the local market, your small business will probably fail no matter how hard you work. When corporations lobby for laws and preferential treatment to slant the playing field in their favor, smaller competitors don’t stand a chance. If you think that I’m citing exceptions to prove a rule, I’m afraid you are uninformed or misinformed. The evidence is overwhelming and it’s all around us. We’d have to walk around with eyes closed to miss it.

      We are at a point when working harder amounts to working stupider, because our systems are both antiquated and prejudiced. They need to be changed, which brings me to my second disagreement with conservatives. I have yet to meet one who does not throw out knee-jerk arguments at the slightest suggestion that our systems need revamping or replacing. Your leap of illogic from my “Jubilee” suggestion–a ONE time reset–to “wealth distribution” under “communism” is an example of what I mean. Besides the fact that you ignore the obvious: our systems as they work now do nothing else but distribute wealth to the TOP. Conservatives don’t seem to mind wealth distribution per se, as long is the wealth flows in the “right” direction. In fact, I’ve come to believe that conservatives are frightened by the Jubilee suggestion. Every one I’ve talked to argues without evidence against giving it a try. Maybe it’s because deep down they fear that their faith in meritocracy and their blind belief in the laziness and incompetence of those who don’t know how to “work hard” and would squander the money might get shattered by real evidence. The only way to know would be to try it. Don’t worry. The 1% wouldn’t die if we did. Actually, they might die if we don’t.

      Which brings me to my third disagreement, more like a repulsion. Conservatives are smug. By that I mean that they think they are sitting pretty, whether that means $20K a year in a double-wide or $20 million a year in 20 mansions. In other words, they care more about the little niches they proudly carved for themselves than they do what is happening around them. They tend to excuse their callous narcissism by faulting anyone in dire straits. Their logic goes: if the good-for-nothings had worked hard enough, they wouldn’t be in dire straits, so it’s their fault. When I ask conservatives if they have actually listened to these incompetent, lazy people who are experiencing the consequences of their choices in life, I find out that they never have. Conservatives love to tell everyone who disagrees with them what’s up and what they should do about it. No one with an ounce of sense takes advice from people who haven’t taken the time to verify that their opinions are anywhere close to what is actually going on. You can’t do that by skipping the listening part and pushing simplistic, one-size-fits-all solutions, or by arguing that no solutions are necessary because the idiots are merely getting their just deserts.

      Which brings me to my final disagreement. Conservatives have it backwards. If this hell-hole of a world were worth preserving and conserving, I would be a damned good, staunch conservative. Given the shit hole we’ve turned it into, I consider the callous, I’ve-made-my-own-little-Eden-so-don’t-rock-the-boat-and-the-rest-of-the-world-can-go-to-hell attitude no less than criminal. I see it like people who sit comfy in their little houses while next door neighbors beat their children, but do nothing because “that’s their problem.” Given the magnitude that the abuses have reached, I’m not exaggerating about criminality. And given that the time is LONG PAST for little Edens to last more than a minute, conservatives clearly display psychopathic characteristics. It was possible to hide away from the world in the past, but that’s a delusion now, and there will soon be nowhere to hide, even if you wanted to. Everything is your problem now, like it or not. Everything is all our problems. We can get together and figure them out, or we can do what conservatives do, which will last for a minute, and then be over. We aren’t getting out alive, but we might be able to ensure that the race continues if we pull our heads out of the sand.

      And to forestall another leap of presumption, most of my criticisms of conservatives apply to liberals. I am neither. I find both camps appallingly self-obsessed and smug. It isn’t about right or left. It’s about empathy and compassion for people, including ourselves, because we won’t escape any easier than anyone else if we don’t all make major changes.

      If you have never read Noam Chomsky, challenge yourself a bit and read “What Uncle Sam Really Wants.” It’s been in print for two decades, and people still believe that the USA is something better than a vicious, global bully. A terrorist nation is closer to the truth. No one with any sense has ever accused Chomsky of being a crackpot, which is what he would have to be to write what he did unless it was well-researched and based on verifiable fact. No one has provided a convincing case that shows Chomsky was wrong. On the contrary, the patterns he described have only escalated.

      So, what do people do when they can’t disagree with undeniable history without looking like morons? The next best thing: just do like an ostrich, bury their heads in their little Edens, and pretend that history and the rest of the world aren’t there.

      • Millard,
        I will get back to you soon. A couple busy days ahead, though. I certainly want to address your bigoted and mainstream media rants; that’s for sure.

        I would ask you one question though. What happens after this great Jubilee year of 2012? Like what happens, what changes in 2013? You see, all those filthy dog capitalist still have the same mindset and brilliance to make more money from the wonderful gift of a Million you let them keep. Maybe you ought to think ahead like chairman Mao did——-killem off. If you don’t they’ll be right back to making zillions.

        Hey, how much money can Peyton Manning make as quarterback? What limit will you put on Merle Streep per picture? How much will you allow Obama to make with his first book? How much can my {the Lord’s] congregation pay me?

        I guessing we might have a hard time getting a standing Army when the boys have all that cash! So who will stand up against the hordes that come to our shores will bad intentions. Ah yea, you dreamer, “Make love not War.” That’ll work well with the Napoleon’s of the World.

        Something just dawned on me. The top 1% just had you confiscate their money. What are you going to do with the new !%? On and on it goes, where it stops….

        • 99%, Great! I look forward to your reply. Here are my observations on what you’ve written so far:

          In all 3 of your comments you engaged in ad hominem attacks against me, someone you barely know, (that is unless I do know you and you are unwilling to disclose your identity.) So far you’ve said I am greedy, an idiot, and bigoted, and on all counts by YOUR meanings of those terms, you are dead wrong. I just wanted to point out that personal attacks are typical abusive tactics that I often encounter from conservatives. I prefer the “if the shoe fits” approach. I characterize actions, events, and perspectives. That leaves you or whoever I’m talking to the option of identifying with or disowning the characterization. So far, you seem to identify with my characterization of the conservative perspective.

          What happens after Jubilee 2012? THAT’S THE POINT, man, TO FIND OUT! You again seem to try to fit the square peg of my suggestion into your round, preconceived pigeon-holes. One thing we’d find out for sure is how much or how little would get “squandered” and how much or little would be put to good use. In other words, we’d bring QUANTIFICATION into the discussion, instead of the inflammatory rhetoric that political zealots on both sides of the spectrum love to use. Another thing that would happen is that 99% (the real split is 10% vs. 90%, because the 1% need their flunkies and minions, ya know!) would find out what it’s like to become relatively debt-free, and maybe have some discretionary funds. That alone would radically change their perspectives, give them a taste of a minor type of dignity, and let them see what a little autonomy feels like. THAT is what conservatives are scared to death of.

          As to your other questions, they all assume something that is WAY OFF the mark: that I care about what happens to the 1% or how they might react. They have had their fun, and now it’s over. The “Napoleons” of the world are INCONSEQUENTIAL. They are passé, white elephants, an endangered species. They don’t have much time left. We don’t need to worry about them or to “deal with” them. They are already effectively obsolete. Their small, narrow, abuse-oriented minds just haven’t caught up yet.

          On this point I strongly disagree with the Occupy movements. Anyone who is informed and not in denial knows that this country has TERRORIZED the “developing world” (a euphemism for the USA-exploited world) for at least 50 years. You don’t negotiate with terrorists. They are psychopaths. In this case, as we all know, they have big guns, so neither do you try to speak their language and play their game and confront them head-on. Let them have their perceived control and play with their cool toys and make their worthless money. Instead, you do what IS ALREADY HAPPENING but most national news watchers are oblivious to: you stop participating. You leave the educational system, (another euphemism, i.e., the propaganda indoctrination system) IN DROVES. You start building local communities supporting local economies that are sustainable. You boycott big business, as B of A found out is all too easy to do. You start your own games with others like you who are not psychopaths. In short order, the 80% of wealth controlled by the 10% of American population will be one of two things:

          1. WORTHLESS, because the people with OPERATIONAL CONTROL of the real resources will have opted out of the 10%’s money system, eliminating the 10%’s “ownership” and “legal right” of control now afforded them by money. Their money does nothing if no one will take it.

          2. Under control of the people who actually know how to dig it, log it, farm it, run it, distribute it, and make the whole thing work together, ALL OF WHOM ARE 90%-ERS. The 10% are in fact extraneous. They are unnecessary. They don’t know how to run anything except by exploiting the 90% to do it for them, and the 90% will have decided they don’t like the game anymore and refuse to play.

          When the 90% refuse to play by the rules anymore, the 10% will have two options:

          1. Exterminate millions. They could do that, if of course the military–ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY IN THE 90%–are willing to become goons in training for monsterhood. What will the 10% military leaders do when ALL THE 90% GUYS WITH GUNS REFUSE TO OBEY? What will they do if all the guys with the guns turn against them and their corporate and government cronies? I think the 10% are smarter than that. They might be psychopaths, but they can read, and history proves what happens in response to that kind of criminal repression.

          2. Start behaving like human beings and share, and care. Why is that a difficult option for the 10%? BECAUSE THEY ARE ABUSED AND ABUSIVE PSYCHOPATHS!

          The 10%’s choice is immaterial either way, because even if they exterminated millions, they would only make a dent, and the rest of us would rain terror down on their asses in retaliation, ridding the earth of their ilk once for all. How many Napoleons do you think would pip their squeak after that? And at that point, history would look at the “rebels” as liberators, their violent rebellion as a legitimate and measured–even restrained–response after centuries of brutal abuse, and see the psychopaths as worse monsters than Hitler and Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and the rest of their brood combined.

          I hope it doesn’t come to that. I don’t think it needs to. The 90% doesn’t want it to. IT MAKES SENSE ONLY TO THE 10%. That’s how they think, and they can’t fathom that we 90%-ers don’t think like them.

          Jubilee is not a challenge or a threat to the 10%. It’s a suggestion for them to hold out an olive branch to a HIGHLY superior force, before they find out the hard (and terminal) way just how far superior it is. The dragon has already been awakened, but it hasn’t started breathing fire or beating its wings yet. Before it does, I suggest that the 10% take a step away from psychopathy towards humanity. Maybe they can pacify the beast. Psychopaths always end in a bad way. Show me a case where one didn’t, and I’ll show you twenty others where they did.

          • Millard wrote March 8th, 12:21 am “In all 3 of your comments you engaged in ad hominem attacks against me….”
            Why Millard, does that piss you off? From the welcome on your blog, your 3rd goal was to piss people off. And now your sensibilities are hurt because you are attacked for pissing someone off you meant to piss off {see goal 3].
            YOUR WELCOME SAID:;Glad you made it! This will be fun…
            Goal #3: Piss you off
            “There is only one way for me to fail, and that’s if I trigger no reaction at all. There is only one way for me to fail, and that’s if I trigger no reaction at all.”
            Well you triggered a reaction, and then you whin, “you…attack[ed me….” I didn’t realize you only wanted certain kinds of reactions, when one of your goals was to piss people off. Me bad!

            Millard, interestingly, before you accused me of engaging in an attack at you, you did just what you accuse me of. But I don’t expect in your little game of words you will acknowledge that you did that, or that you are even capable of attacks.
            As you write about conservatives in your original “Jubilee” post, you use the description:”… just squawked about by loudmouths and talking heads.”
            In your reply to me, March 7th, 12:11 AM, you use language to describe conservatives like me, and you surely can not deny knowledge that I am a conservative by what I previously wrote:::::::”knee-jerk arguments———‘blind belief in laziness and incompetence…————‘Conservatives are smug———-‘no less criminal—–and I really like this character assassination “conservatives clearly display psychopathic characteristics’————“appallingly self-obsessed and smug”——–‘looking like morons’——‘just like an ostrich.’ I SUSPECT THAT YOU DENY ATTACKING ME?
            Guys like you are all alike. You insult off the cuff and hide behind “if the shoe fits….” Yes, I am a conservative—–and that makes all those assertions personal. Or are you so ignorant as to think that conservatives would not take being called “smug,” “morons,” and “display[ing] psychopathic characteristics” personally?
            I love what you wrote on the 8th at 4:58 am:: I didn’t realize you set the standard for the rest of America……..Wait big fella. You are the one wanting to set YOUR JUBILEE STANDARD upon America. I am just for the standard that is already in place, but with a tweek or two. But man, it is your position to set a NEW STANDARD.
            YOU WRITE:: Jubilee is not a challenge or a threat to the 10%. It’s a suggestion for them to hold out an olive branch to a HIGHLY superior force, before they find out the hard (and terminal) way just how far superior it is. The dragon has already been awakened, but it hasn’t started breathing fire or beating its wings yet. Before it does, I suggest that the 10% take a step away from psychopathy towards humanity. Maybe they can pacify the beast. Psychopaths always end in a bad way. Show me a case where one didn’t, and I’ll show you twenty others where they did.
            Hehehe. You sound like Lenin and Mao. Yea, the leaders of the 90% did a bang up job, and so would your so-called 10% when they did there take over. Never failed yet, in human history.

            • 99%: I’m sorry, did I sound pissed off? No. Ad hominem attacks are last resorts used by people who have nothing better to offer. It means THEY LOST THE ARGUMENT. I guess you didn’t know that.

              It’s interesting to see how you react. “Pissed off…” “Accused me of engaging in an attack…” “insult off the cuff…” Typical conservative, emotional (approaching hysterical?) language. No I’m not pissed off. I’m amused. I wasn’t whining, I pointed out the level YOU stooped to. No hurt feelings here; I’m having fun! Are you? 🙂

              Again, as I CLEARLY explained, I characterize positions, attitudes, and perspectives, then I let people choose whether they identify with them or disown them. And I don’t just sling mud. I clearly state WHAT I disagree with or find repulsive and WHY. Getting pissed off and defensive–as YOU seem to be, correct me if I’m wrong–are CLASSIC reactions when YOU make clear that the shoe not only fits, but it’s pinching the hell out of your toes. Yes, I do deny attacking YOU. I attacked conservative positions, attitudes, and perspectives, especially their smug, holier-than-thou indifference to the problems of their supposed “inferiors.” I set up the door, and you walked through it yourself. Your choice, not mine.

              No, that comment at 8:58 was not mine, it was MY SON. Notice the difference between “Robert” and “Millard.” OH-OH! Looks like you are being GANGED UP ON! 😉 And I see that you dodged answering his pertinent questions.

              I rarely resort to taunting, but you left me no choice. There’s nothing in your last response of substance to respond to, and since I obviously got your goat without even trying, I decided I might as well goad it a bit.

              By the way, “Yes, I am a conservative—–and that makes all those assertions personal.” Well, obviously you took them personally. Maybe you should take a step back, slow your breathing, calm your heart rate a bit–that’s right; breathe in, breathe out–and actually THINK about what I wrote. Feeble word associations with the likes of Lenin and Mao are a pitiful, flailing attempt that didn’t land a touch, much less a jab.

              Why are conservatives so EASY to upset?

              “…in your little game of words…”

              That just tells me that you read, you saw red, and all the little words just jumbled themselves all around until you couldn’t tell up from down. Calm yourself, read Chomsky, (ha ha, as if I actually think you will,) and come back with something material to say. I’d love to discuss SOMETHING, but this is about as far as I’m willing to fence with you over hurt feelings.

              And I wasn’t kidding. The change is already going on. FOX just doesn’t cover it, so you think nothing’s happening. That’s just fine with me.

              And you still refuse to divulge your identity. Typical. Men show up. Posers hide and snipe. Let me know when you decide to come out.

            • Yeah that was me and yes you dodged my questions. I’m not ashamed to poke fun at people like you because you are so reactionary. For instance I think you should lay off the humble pie your starting to make jesus envy.

    • I didn’t realize you set the standard for the rest of America, and obviously you’ve considered everyone in America’s needs. What do you say to the ghetto’s of America? Or the homeless? Or the ill? or the elderly? or the….rest of the 99%? Just be happy with what you got, even when your dying or have no place to go? Capitalism imperialism has worked so well for society as whole right? How about the 99% of the world that’s under the same dire conditions? Sure they could snag their bootstraps if they had any, or had the strength when falling ill to contaminated water, or cancer from American consumer electronics. If your happy great, but don’t speak for the oppressed who have suffered in this country for 250 years, I think $69,641.76 is a good start.

  3. Milliard,
    There is no use in you and I talking. You have made it quite clear what you think of people like me. And I think you a total self-serving, bigoted, idiot who thinks he is entitled. There is not one shred of common ground on which we can dialogue.

    You told me that I am not the only one who counts. Well bud, neither are you. And you said that other people are not happy. But then there are millions more who are happy. You live in your miserable world——I’ll live in mine. The fact is, you wouldn’t be happy with $69,641.76 of someone elses money and you wouldn’t be happy if you were a 30%er. The fact is, guys like you become exactly what they perport to hate if they gain control. Your philosophy is just as seedy as the 1%er. Control!!!

    • @ 99%. you seem very angry. Anger usually isnt the appropriate emotional response for a “happy” person. Just makin an observation, its hard to see clearly and have rational conversations when you are angry. I hope you feel better.

    • WOW! Thanks for proving my points. I couldn’t have asked for better.

      The only terms that “guys like you” seem able to think in are power, greed, and control. Those are foreign and repugnant to me. Self-serving, bigoted, idiot? No, sorry, that’s not me either, AS MUCH AS YOU CLEARLY WOULD LIKE IT TO BE. Set up as many straw Millards as you like and knock ’em down again, man. Doesn’t change a thing.

      That’s the sad thing about people who have a story to push and very little basis in fact or evidence to push it with: as soon as they feel they are losing, they get upset and start attacking little straw men. Then, after all the little straw men are knocked down flat all around them, they look up and smile as if they accomplished something. If we were at a pub, I’d expect your next move would be to clench your fists and get in my face. Another sign of having nothing left worth saying. By the way, how’s your blood pressure right now? Got a cuff? What’s more, you can change my assessment at any time by simply SAYING SOMETHING WORTH SAYING. You’ve got all the power here, bud.

      Apparently, though, you don’t intend to. Sorry that you decided that we have not “one shred of common ground on which we can dialogue.” I agree. We would have something to dialogue about if you brought one shred of evidence or substantive argument to the discussion. No chance of that, it seems.

      I still hope you think about what I wrote. After it’s over, after it’s all changed and you look around baffled, wondering WTF happened??? Remember you heard it here! 🙂 HA HA! You WILL NOT dismiss what I said! You might try to, but it’s going to bug you for a long, long time. I bet you talk to someone about it, too. 😉

      And I guess I fibbed. Turns out I WAS interested in goading you a little further. You make it so EASY to do! Sorry. I can’t help it. It’s fun! 🙂

    • PS. Andrew is another of my sons. WOOOW! Now you’re really outnumbered. Yeah, we’re a gang building an army. Gonna get all those psychopaths… Watch out! 🙂

  4. […] and incredibly thin. Let me spare everyone the wasted effort. I’ve advocated a Jubilee-like, one-time wealth redistribution before, but not this time. I’ve argued against the lame contention that any amount of […]

Please let me know what you think!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: