Republican congressman bemoans making $600k per year

... and you're wrong because you're apparently mixing up cash flow with accounting ( of both the financial and tax variety ). In any event, you're not making any sense. Cash flow, from which capital expenditures are made, is after-tax dollars.




If you are a C.P.A., I have no choice but to bow to someone with more specialist knowledge.

If you are not, I will stick with my own experience of running a business for over twenty years.
 
If you are a C.P.A., I have no choice but to bow to someone with more specialist knowledge.

If you are not, I will stick with my own experience of running a business for over twenty years.


You're debating the point with the same guy who chose to believe that global warming isn't happening because of a chart he managed to google.
 
You're debating the point with the same guy who chose to believe that global warming isn't happening because of a chart he managed to google.



and you are a leach on the system. you are a total consumer. come back when you start to add value, or create "wealth"

till then, keep on sucking the life out of US tax payers
 
and you are a leach on the system. you are a total consumer. come back when you start to add value, or create "wealth"

till then, keep on sucking the life out of US tax payers


Well, to make sense out of what you write, could you please explain exactly how you define "wealth" and how it is created?


I know, I know.
If I don't know what wealth is then I must be a loser who will always be poor, and if I don't know how it's created then i must be on welfare.

Okay, we've got that out of the way.

But what is YOUR definition of wealth?
And how is it created?
 
Last edited:
If you'd like to play with the JenBot, that's fine. But could you kindly not quote it? Thanks in advance.

Please forgive me for my naivete, but do you think that is actually just a computer program, and not simply a dull witted person?
It does make sense.
A bit dim of me not to perceive it myself.
 
Last edited:
You're debating the point with the same guy who chose to believe that global warming isn't happening because of a chart he managed to google.

Fuck you. You are a moron— and that's unfortunate for you for the simple reason that stupid tends to be forever.


Subject: I resign from APS [ American Physical Society ]

Dear Ms. Kirby

Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I can not live with the statement below:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.


In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.

Best regards,

Ivar Giaever

Nobel Laureate 1973
 
What's a "leach?" :confused:

1. Make (a soluble chemical or mineral) drain away from soil, ash, or similar material by the action of percolating liquid, esp. rainwater.
2. (of a soluble chemical or mineral) Drain away from soil in this way.
 
Fuck you. You are a moron— and that's unfortunate for you for the simple reason that stupid tends to be forever.


Look how angry and out of control I made you! *laughs*

No seriously dude. You exploit the simple fact that science operates with less than 100% certainty to advance your agenda.
 
Back
Top