I vote that we give Marshall a smiley quota for the month. Once they are used up, he has to stop posting until the next month. Originally Posted by pjorourkeHe'd be done for the decade
You are correct that part is missing....I linked to artcle from Drudge and did cut and paste. Originally Posted by MarshallI linked to the same article Drudge linked to. You're lying.
....was not previously aware any was missing.......will ask though, WHO EDITS OUT A PART AND LEAVES AN OPEN SPACE THAT PERFECTLY MATCHES THE EDITED OUT PART???......duhAnd who types an article and leaves a 7 line gap between one sentence and the next? Duh, is right.
.......when you cut out a piece, the cut function closes the space......so sue me,Not necessary. Exposing you as the sort of hack you claim we liberals are is sufficient.
Actually, it does appear that this is a policy being reviewed again, so a little egg on my face. Originally Posted by DooveI don't know why. Doove. You have been remarkably consistent. Every time I post, I expect you to make some stupid, patronizing, and mendacious reply, and you have always come through.
As I said, I think gas taxes are better, but how is this substantially different from a gas tax, other than ease of collectability? You just have the mileage on a car recorded at each annual safety inspection and have the safety inspection station collect the tax. Or do it when the car is registered. Under either the gas tax or the mileage scenario, you're paying, either roughly or exactly respectively, a charge that corresponds to the amount you drive. What's the big deal? Originally Posted by TexTushHogI agree the issue is collectability. I'd file this under proposal under the heading of: "If we were designing a system from scratch I'd consider this...but since we aren't...I'll pass."
I don't know why. Doove. You have been remarkably consistent. Every time I post, I expect you to make some stupid, patronizing, and mendacious reply, and you have always come through. Originally Posted by woodyboydEvery time you post? I've responded to you in 1, maybe 2 threads. So i have to wonder why you would accuse me of making a stupid reply "every time you post". Me thinks you're getting your identities mixed up.
Don't hold your head down, Doove. Nobody here expects you to be accurate.I assumed Feb '09 information was the information being referred to. Simple mistake, i would think. I was wrong, and admitted as such. Why attack me in this instance rather than the guy who edits the content of his posted article for the purpose of misleading his audience, while denying doing so even after it's obvious to everyone that's exactly what he did?
Every time you post? I've responded to you in 1, maybe 2 threads. Originally Posted by DooveTell you what, Doove. I will look it up. If you have only responded to me in one thread, then I will agree to quit posting here. If it is more than 2, you agree to quit posting here. Do you want to take that deal?
Tell you what, Doove. I will look it up. If you have only responded to me in one thread, then I will agree to quit posting here. If it is more than 2, you agree to quit posting here. Do you want to take that deal? Originally Posted by woodyboydDoesn't seem like a fair deal since you seem to have more than 1 identity on here.
I am not insulting you Doove. I told you that I expect from you patronizing, inaccurate, and mendacious comments and so does everyone else, and here you go again: lying about how many times you have replied to me.If you're so confident that i lied about how many times i've replied to you, here's your chance. I've admitted when i was wrong, and i would have no problem doing so again. So feel free to prove it. Or maybe you're the one who's lying.