Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

[Aldo Raine]

Why wait, take your Tundra and go!

Don't need a Tundra in Fiji....just one of these;

and a whole lot of these;

and a couple of these;

Shit I may go anyway....

Bye!

I'm sure they have very good internet access in Fiji....I'll still be here....teaching and debating until you libs get the proper education you were cheated out of in public school.....

Cool, take your Tundra and bye bye. This country will be better by your absence.

If I do go it will be because the nation is beyond hope.....so I think you are wrong.....

You don't think, you're a tRumper thinking is beyond ewe. Go on now git!

 

[SmokeALib]

.

We had Our BEST HALF CENTURY WITH HIGH RATES.

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)
Historical rates (married couples, filing jointly)

Year/ Top Rate%/ Over

1913 --- 7% 500,000
1914 --- 7% 500,000
1915 --- 7% 500,000
1916 --- 15% 2,000,000
1917 --- 67% 2,000,000
1918 --- 77% 1,000,000
1919 --- 73% 1,000,000
1920 --- 73% 1,000,000
1921 --- 73% 1,000,000
1922 --- 58% 200,000
1923 --- 43.5% 200,000
1924 --- 46% 500,000
1925 --- 25% 100,000
1926 --- 25% 100,000
1927 --- 25% 100,000
1928 --- 25% 100,000
1929 --- 24% 100,000
1930 --- 25% 100,000
1931 --- 25% 100,000
1932 --- 63% 1,000,000
1933 --- 63% 1,000,000
1934 --- 63% 1,000,000
1935 --- 63% 1,000,000
1936 --- 79% 5,000,000
1937 --- 79% 5,000,000
1938 --- 79% 5,000,000
1939 --- 79% 5,000,000
1940 --- 81% 5,000,000
1941 --- 81% 5,000,000
1942 --- 88% 200,000
1943 --- 88% 200,000
1944--- 94 200,000
1945 --- 94% 200,000
1946 --- 86% 200,000
1947 --- 86% 200,000
1948 --- 82.% 400,000
1949 --- 82% 400,000
1950 --- 84.36% 400,000
1951 --- 91% 400,000
1952 --- 92% 400,000
1953 --- 92% 400,000
1954 --- 91% 400,000
1955 --- 91% 400,000
1956 --- 91% 400,000
1957 --- 91% 400,000
1958 --- 91% 400,000
1959 --- 91% 400,000
1960 --- 91% 400,000
1961 --- 91% 400,000
1962 --- 91% 400,000
1963 --- 91% 400,000
1964 --- 77% 400,000
1965 --- 70% 200,000
1966 --- 70% 200,000
1967 --- 70% 200,000
1968 --- 75.25% 200,000
1969 --- 77% 200,000
1970 --- 71.75% 200,000
1971 --- 70% 60% 200,000
1972 --- 70% 50 200,000
1973 --- 70% 50 200,000
1974 --- 70% 50 200,000
1975 ----70% 50 200,000
1976 --- 70% 50 200,000
1977 --- 70% 50 203,200
1978 --- 70% 50 203,200
1979 --- 70% 50 215,400
1980 --- 70% 50 215,400
1981 --- 69% 50 215,400
1982 --- 50% 85,600
1983 --- 50% 109,400
1984 --- 50% 162,400
1985 --- 50 % 169,020
1986 --- 50 % 175,250
1987 --- 38.5% 90,000
1988 --- 28% <8> 29,750 <8>
1989 --- 28% <8> 30,950 <8>
1990 --- 28% <8> 32,450 <8>
1991 --- 31% 82,150
1992 --- 31% 86,500
1993 --- 39.6% 89,150
1994 --- 39.6% 250,000
1995 --- 39.6% 256,500
1996 --- 39.6% 263,750
1997 --- 39.6% 271,050
1998 --- 39.6% 278,450
1999 --- 39.6% 283,150
2000 --- 39.6% 288,350
2001 --- 39.1% 297,350
2002 --- 38.6% 307,050
2003 --- 35% 311,950​

`

During the 1990's, you had the best economic growth, a balanced budget, and low unemployment with a top rate of 39.6% on incomes over $250,000. But you still wage stagnant wages for the working class, and a steady erosion of the wealth of the working and middle class trickling up to the top 20% so this would indicate that the rate which provided the best balance to lift ALL Americans, not just the top 20%, were the tax rates in effect prior to the Reagan tax code changes.

Until 1980, working Americans owned 5% of the wealth of the nation. After 1980, when the promised wage boosts promised once the union movement was destroyed failed to materialize, and workers wages steadily lost buying power, workers used their savings to maintain their lifestyles, until those savings ran out, then they used their credit, and finally goverment assistance in the form of food stamps, earned income credits and other administration heavy and expensive forms of social assistance, in place of real increases in their income.

And even as wages stagnated, executive incomes soared, profits are the highest in history, and businesses have absorbed increased costs in equipment, rent, insurance, raw materials, and management salaries, they balk at paying more for their front line workers, the people who do the work which actually generates the profits. Wages, as a percentage of costs, is now back to the same levels as were last seen in the Guilded Age, the age of the Robber Barons.

https://www.history.com/news/second-gilded-age-income-inequality

Ronald Reagan oversaw several changes to the tax code that greatly accelerated wealth inequality and inflated executive compensation. First, stock options, which are the largest portion of executive compensation, were no longer required to be expensed by the company. They don't even have to report them on their balance sheet. Say Company A gives their executive 100,000 options to buy the stock at ten bucks. If the stock is sitting at 20 bucks at the close of the fiscal year the company has a one million dollar liability. Before Reagan, they would have to report that on their balance sheet. After Reagan, they didn't.

Then there are accounting firms certifying a companies financial reports. Prior to Reagan if an accounting firm certified results that turned out to be inaccurate they could be held liable for ALL the misstatement. After Reagan, only a small portion. The end result, prior to Reagan maybe a handful of companies would restate their earnings. After Reagan, well it numbers in the hundreds.

Then there are corporate stock buybacks. Prior to Reagan they were considered artificial manipulation of the stock price and were illegal under almost all circumstances. Now, well it is Katy bar the door, and it is common practice.

The first step in slowing the continued increase in wealth inequality is to change those three things back to the way they were. The second step is to do what Reagan actually supported, tax earned and unearned income the same. The third step is to increase the marginal tax rate on the top ten percent of taxpayers. Step four is to revoke Trumps corporate tax cut and honestly, increase the corporate tax rate to somewhere around forty percent.

Increased wealth inequality, a wildly fluctuating stock market, stagnant wages, they are all signs that our low tax rates are not encouraging investing, they are encouraging speculation and rent-seeking. It is past time that we restructured the tax code to encourage real investing and eliminate rent seeking behavior.

You do know that wealth inequality is because you lazy ass fuckers dont get off your welfare asses and get a job. I used to be a minimum wage puke when I was 18 but got skills given to me by God and was able to go to Saudi Arabia and make a small fortune all tax free. Or you can keep being a victim of liberalism and stay poor and yes my income will increase while your stays the same.

What a total bunch of bullshit. Most people that live at or below the poverty level work, and work damn harder than I do, or you do for that matter. Sure, education is the ticket out. My six kids demonstrate that in spades. But a quality education is expensive. People living at the poverty level sometimes devote forty percent or more of their income to support one college student, and that is WITH financial aid and loans. Our system is fubared. Every year we LOSE more great minds than can ever be delivered by the "one percent". Hell, Donald Trump is a shining example of why elitism is a failure. I mean they say he avoids rainstorms because of his hair but I think it is because he is as dumb as a turkey and would drown in one.

Trump is a failure because he became rich and the President of the United States?
Stupid ass.

 

[OnePercenter]

Do you think our country would be better off if nobody made over 10mil? Why do you want to punish people that are successful to support people that are a drag on our economy?
What the 70% tax would do is make sure people getting close to the 10mil mark is guarentee they would go on an extended vacation or move. Why would they continue to risk investing or work hard for 30c on the dollar.
Let the rich keep their money, they buy things that keep millions employed. How many lose their jobs if the rich don’t buy a new yacht or plane or all the other things the rich buy.
I guess progressive think the wealthy just put money in the bank and let it set there. Without the investments the wealthy make most people would be unemployed or working for the government, which is what the progressives want anyway.

Since when is putting money in a bank NOT an investment? Have you heard of interest?

 

[SmokeALib]

Don't need a Tundra in Fiji....just one of these;

and a whole lot of these;

and a couple of these;

Shit I may go anyway....

Bye!

I'm sure they have very good internet access in Fiji....I'll still be here....teaching and debating until you libs get the proper education you were cheated out of in public school.....

Cool, take your Tundra and bye bye. This country will be better by your absence.

If I do go it will be because the nation is beyond hope.....so I think you are wrong.....

You don't think, you're a tRumper thinking is beyond ewe. Go on now git!

You Pelosi panty-sniffers crack me up.

 

[Rambunctious]

You don't think, you're a tRumper thinking is beyond ewe. Go on now git!

I'm sure you see the world that way....I had an teacher once that said the truly uneducated will always believe they are the smartest folks on the planet....that's what makes you and them so dangerous....

 

[Aldo Raine]

Bye!

I'm sure they have very good internet access in Fiji....I'll still be here....teaching and debating until you libs get the proper education you were cheated out of in public school.....

Cool, take your Tundra and bye bye. This country will be better by your absence.

If I do go it will be because the nation is beyond hope.....so I think you are wrong.....

You don't think, you're a tRumper thinking is beyond ewe. Go on now git!

You Pelosi panty-sniffers crack me up.

Lol, nothing about ewe but your looks are funny tRump cum dumpster!

 

[Rigby5]

That's not fair to the people who are the wealthiest. 70% !!!!! Way more than half their income going to the government? That is obscene.

Really?

The top 1% own half the country. You don't think they

A. Can't afford it

B. Shouldn't have to pay something approaching equivalency for that?

To me, comparing them to others -- saying they are the top 1% or that they own half the country-- is totally beside the point. The point is they earned that money and taking even half of it away just like that is outrageous. Why would you continue to live or work somewhere that robs you of over half your lawful earnings like that? NO WONDER PEOPLE CHEAT ON THEIR TAXES!
I'll ask you something, Lesh. What gives us the right to take that much money away from another citizen? To me, saying "he can afford it," is a nonanswer. It seems to me that destroys any incentive to either (1) work hard to build more success or (2) to live here.

Do you not understand that "the money" has to come from somewhere???

Should it come from people who can barely pay their minimum bills...or from those who the system has made wealthy beyond any reasonable way to spend that wealth?

That is the whole point, the money does NOT have to come from somewhere.
The federal government is authorized to do almost nothing.
Not even pay for a standing army.
Defense was supposed to be a citizens soldier militia organized by the states.
There certainly is not supposed to be a DEA, BATF, or Homeland Security.
We could easily get rid of half the federal government and have a vast improvement.
Some of it is more questionable, like ICC, FAA, FTA, etc., but we certainly could easily cut military spending by at least half.

 

[Aldo Raine]

You don't think, you're a tRumper thinking is beyond ewe. Go on now git!

I'm sure you see the world that way....I had an teacher once that said the truly uneducated will always believe they are the smartest folks on the planet....that's what makes you and them so dangerous....

If by dangerous ewe mean having my eyes open ewe are correct.

 

[OnePercenter]

.

We had Our BEST HALF CENTURY WITH HIGH RATES.

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)
Historical rates (married couples, filing jointly)

Year/ Top Rate%/ Over

1913 --- 7% 500,000
1914 --- 7% 500,000
1915 --- 7% 500,000
1916 --- 15% 2,000,000
1917 --- 67% 2,000,000
1918 --- 77% 1,000,000
1919 --- 73% 1,000,000
1920 --- 73% 1,000,000
1921 --- 73% 1,000,000
1922 --- 58% 200,000
1923 --- 43.5% 200,000
1924 --- 46% 500,000
1925 --- 25% 100,000
1926 --- 25% 100,000
1927 --- 25% 100,000
1928 --- 25% 100,000
1929 --- 24% 100,000
1930 --- 25% 100,000
1931 --- 25% 100,000
1932 --- 63% 1,000,000
1933 --- 63% 1,000,000
1934 --- 63% 1,000,000
1935 --- 63% 1,000,000
1936 --- 79% 5,000,000
1937 --- 79% 5,000,000
1938 --- 79% 5,000,000
1939 --- 79% 5,000,000
1940 --- 81% 5,000,000
1941 --- 81% 5,000,000
1942 --- 88% 200,000
1943 --- 88% 200,000
1944--- 94 200,000
1945 --- 94% 200,000
1946 --- 86% 200,000
1947 --- 86% 200,000
1948 --- 82.% 400,000
1949 --- 82% 400,000
1950 --- 84.36% 400,000
1951 --- 91% 400,000
1952 --- 92% 400,000
1953 --- 92% 400,000
1954 --- 91% 400,000
1955 --- 91% 400,000
1956 --- 91% 400,000
1957 --- 91% 400,000
1958 --- 91% 400,000
1959 --- 91% 400,000
1960 --- 91% 400,000
1961 --- 91% 400,000
1962 --- 91% 400,000
1963 --- 91% 400,000
1964 --- 77% 400,000
1965 --- 70% 200,000
1966 --- 70% 200,000
1967 --- 70% 200,000
1968 --- 75.25% 200,000
1969 --- 77% 200,000
1970 --- 71.75% 200,000
1971 --- 70% 60% 200,000
1972 --- 70% 50 200,000
1973 --- 70% 50 200,000
1974 --- 70% 50 200,000
1975 ----70% 50 200,000
1976 --- 70% 50 200,000
1977 --- 70% 50 203,200
1978 --- 70% 50 203,200
1979 --- 70% 50 215,400
1980 --- 70% 50 215,400
1981 --- 69% 50 215,400
1982 --- 50% 85,600
1983 --- 50% 109,400
1984 --- 50% 162,400
1985 --- 50 % 169,020
1986 --- 50 % 175,250
1987 --- 38.5% 90,000
1988 --- 28% <8> 29,750 <8>
1989 --- 28% <8> 30,950 <8>
1990 --- 28% <8> 32,450 <8>
1991 --- 31% 82,150
1992 --- 31% 86,500
1993 --- 39.6% 89,150
1994 --- 39.6% 250,000
1995 --- 39.6% 256,500
1996 --- 39.6% 263,750
1997 --- 39.6% 271,050
1998 --- 39.6% 278,450
1999 --- 39.6% 283,150
2000 --- 39.6% 288,350
2001 --- 39.1% 297,350
2002 --- 38.6% 307,050
2003 --- 35% 311,950​

`

During the 1990's, you had the best economic growth, a balanced budget, and low unemployment with a top rate of 39.6% on incomes over $250,000. But you still wage stagnant wages for the working class, and a steady erosion of the wealth of the working and middle class trickling up to the top 20% so this would indicate that the rate which provided the best balance to lift ALL Americans, not just the top 20%, were the tax rates in effect prior to the Reagan tax code changes.

Until 1980, working Americans owned 5% of the wealth of the nation. After 1980, when the promised wage boosts promised once the union movement was destroyed failed to materialize, and workers wages steadily lost buying power, workers used their savings to maintain their lifestyles, until those savings ran out, then they used their credit, and finally goverment assistance in the form of food stamps, earned income credits and other administration heavy and expensive forms of social assistance, in place of real increases in their income.

And even as wages stagnated, executive incomes soared, profits are the highest in history, and businesses have absorbed increased costs in equipment, rent, insurance, raw materials, and management salaries, they balk at paying more for their front line workers, the people who do the work which actually generates the profits. Wages, as a percentage of costs, is now back to the same levels as were last seen in the Guilded Age, the age of the Robber Barons.

https://www.history.com/news/second-gilded-age-income-inequality

Ronald Reagan oversaw several changes to the tax code that greatly accelerated wealth inequality and inflated executive compensation. First, stock options, which are the largest portion of executive compensation, were no longer required to be expensed by the company. They don't even have to report them on their balance sheet. Say Company A gives their executive 100,000 options to buy the stock at ten bucks. If the stock is sitting at 20 bucks at the close of the fiscal year the company has a one million dollar liability. Before Reagan, they would have to report that on their balance sheet. After Reagan, they didn't.

Then there are accounting firms certifying a companies financial reports. Prior to Reagan if an accounting firm certified results that turned out to be inaccurate they could be held liable for ALL the misstatement. After Reagan, only a small portion. The end result, prior to Reagan maybe a handful of companies would restate their earnings. After Reagan, well it numbers in the hundreds.

Then there are corporate stock buybacks. Prior to Reagan they were considered artificial manipulation of the stock price and were illegal under almost all circumstances. Now, well it is Katy bar the door, and it is common practice.

The first step in slowing the continued increase in wealth inequality is to change those three things back to the way they were. The second step is to do what Reagan actually supported, tax earned and unearned income the same. The third step is to increase the marginal tax rate on the top ten percent of taxpayers. Step four is to revoke Trumps corporate tax cut and honestly, increase the corporate tax rate to somewhere around forty percent.

Increased wealth inequality, a wildly fluctuating stock market, stagnant wages, they are all signs that our low tax rates are not encouraging investing, they are encouraging speculation and rent-seeking. It is past time that we restructured the tax code to encourage real investing and eliminate rent seeking behavior.

You do know that wealth inequality is because you lazy ass fuckers dont get off your welfare asses and get a job. I used to be a minimum wage puke when I was 18 but got skills given to me by God and was able to go to Saudi Arabia and make a small fortune all tax free. Or you can keep being a victim of liberalism and stay poor and yes my income will increase while your stays the same.

What a total bunch of bullshit. Most people that live at or below the poverty level work, and work damn harder than I do, or you do for that matter. Sure, education is the ticket out. My six kids demonstrate that in spades. But a quality education is expensive. People living at the poverty level sometimes devote forty percent or more of their income to support one college student, and that is WITH financial aid and loans. Our system is fubared. Every year we LOSE more great minds than can ever be delivered by the "one percent". Hell, Donald Trump is a shining example of why elitism is a failure. I mean they say he avoids rainstorms because of his hair but I think it is because he is as dumb as a turkey and would drown in one.

Trump is a failure because he became rich and the President of the United States?
Stupid ass.

tRump is a silver spoon kid. He started rich. He's POTUS because Putin made it that way.

 

[Rambunctious]

Lol, nothing about ewe but your looks are funny tRump cum dumpster!

What....you don't like my red white and blue makeup?.....does everything American upset you?.....

 

[Rambunctious]

.

During the 1990's, you had the best economic growth, a balanced budget, and low unemployment with a top rate of 39.6% on incomes over $250,000. But you still wage stagnant wages for the working class, and a steady erosion of the wealth of the working and middle class trickling up to the top 20% so this would indicate that the rate which provided the best balance to lift ALL Americans, not just the top 20%, were the tax rates in effect prior to the Reagan tax code changes.

Until 1980, working Americans owned 5% of the wealth of the nation. After 1980, when the promised wage boosts promised once the union movement was destroyed failed to materialize, and workers wages steadily lost buying power, workers used their savings to maintain their lifestyles, until those savings ran out, then they used their credit, and finally goverment assistance in the form of food stamps, earned income credits and other administration heavy and expensive forms of social assistance, in place of real increases in their income.

And even as wages stagnated, executive incomes soared, profits are the highest in history, and businesses have absorbed increased costs in equipment, rent, insurance, raw materials, and management salaries, they balk at paying more for their front line workers, the people who do the work which actually generates the profits. Wages, as a percentage of costs, is now back to the same levels as were last seen in the Guilded Age, the age of the Robber Barons.

https://www.history.com/news/second-gilded-age-income-inequality

Ronald Reagan oversaw several changes to the tax code that greatly accelerated wealth inequality and inflated executive compensation. First, stock options, which are the largest portion of executive compensation, were no longer required to be expensed by the company. They don't even have to report them on their balance sheet. Say Company A gives their executive 100,000 options to buy the stock at ten bucks. If the stock is sitting at 20 bucks at the close of the fiscal year the company has a one million dollar liability. Before Reagan, they would have to report that on their balance sheet. After Reagan, they didn't.

Then there are accounting firms certifying a companies financial reports. Prior to Reagan if an accounting firm certified results that turned out to be inaccurate they could be held liable for ALL the misstatement. After Reagan, only a small portion. The end result, prior to Reagan maybe a handful of companies would restate their earnings. After Reagan, well it numbers in the hundreds.

Then there are corporate stock buybacks. Prior to Reagan they were considered artificial manipulation of the stock price and were illegal under almost all circumstances. Now, well it is Katy bar the door, and it is common practice.

The first step in slowing the continued increase in wealth inequality is to change those three things back to the way they were. The second step is to do what Reagan actually supported, tax earned and unearned income the same. The third step is to increase the marginal tax rate on the top ten percent of taxpayers. Step four is to revoke Trumps corporate tax cut and honestly, increase the corporate tax rate to somewhere around forty percent.

Increased wealth inequality, a wildly fluctuating stock market, stagnant wages, they are all signs that our low tax rates are not encouraging investing, they are encouraging speculation and rent-seeking. It is past time that we restructured the tax code to encourage real investing and eliminate rent seeking behavior.

You do know that wealth inequality is because you lazy ass fuckers dont get off your welfare asses and get a job. I used to be a minimum wage puke when I was 18 but got skills given to me by God and was able to go to Saudi Arabia and make a small fortune all tax free. Or you can keep being a victim of liberalism and stay poor and yes my income will increase while your stays the same.

What a total bunch of bullshit. Most people that live at or below the poverty level work, and work damn harder than I do, or you do for that matter. Sure, education is the ticket out. My six kids demonstrate that in spades. But a quality education is expensive. People living at the poverty level sometimes devote forty percent or more of their income to support one college student, and that is WITH financial aid and loans. Our system is fubared. Every year we LOSE more great minds than can ever be delivered by the "one percent". Hell, Donald Trump is a shining example of why elitism is a failure. I mean they say he avoids rainstorms because of his hair but I think it is because he is as dumb as a turkey and would drown in one.

Trump is a failure because he became rich and the President of the United States?
Stupid ass.

tRump is a silver spoon kid. He started rich. He's POTUS because Putin made it that way.

Oh my...we need a special prosecutor....oh wait....we have one and he has proved nothing....

 

[Aldo Raine]

Lol, nothing about ewe but your looks are funny tRump cum dumpster!

What....you don't like my red white and blue makeup?.....does everything American upset you?.....

Not hardly, I know a moron when I see one. Ewe are one, off to Fiji with your American Tundra!

 

[Rambunctious]

If by dangerous ewe mean having my eyes open ewe are correct.

No dangerous because libs do not think things through...they are reactionary and they think with other body parts rather than their brains.....

 

[Rigby5]

71% of the federal budget goes to pay for the following five things:

National Defense
Medicaid
Medicare
Social Security
Veterans Benefits

Unless you plan on cutting those things, you need to increase the top federal tax rate. Its not a good idea to cut national defense. What justification would you have for cutting a veteran's benefits or preventing a citizen from collecting their social security pay check for the month?

You really naive enough to think that the Pentagon isn't as duplicative and wasteful as any other federal program?....All that would need to happen is have all the waste and graft wrung out of their budget, and they could survive budget cuts just fine.

Correct.
It was the Pentagon that lied to use about WMD in Iraq.
We should make them pay back that $3 trillion they causes us to spend, with interest.

A LOT more people lied in order to get Murica mired in Iraq.

Yes, that is likely true.
I think the CIA, FBI, Congress, president Bush, and a whole lot of people had to be deliberately lying about Iraq.
And they still are lying or else we would not still be in Iraq and Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Syria, etc.

 

[OnePercenter]

You don't think, you're a tRumper thinking is beyond ewe. Go on now git!

I'm sure you see the world that way....I had an teacher once that said the truly uneducated will always believe they are the smartest folks on the planet....that's what makes you and them so dangerous....

I had an teacher once that said the truly uneducated will always believe they are the smartest folks on the planet.

That truly defines tRump supporters.

 

[Rambunctious]

Not hardly, I know a moron when I see one. Ewe are one, off to Fiji with your American Tundra!

No I'll sell the Tundra for a scooter and a closet full of board shorts and scuba gear......

 

[Aldo Raine]

If by dangerous ewe mean having my eyes open ewe are correct.

No dangerous because libs do not think things through...they are reactionary and they think with other body parts rather than their brains.....

Ewe don't think at all and just proved it again. Besides your Toyota.

 

[boedicca]

You don't think, you're a tRumper thinking is beyond ewe. Go on now git!

I'm sure you see the world that way....I had an teacher once that said the truly uneducated will always believe they are the smartest folks on the planet....that's what makes you and them so dangerous....

I had an teacher once that said the truly uneducated will always believe they are the smartest folks on the planet.

That truly defines tRump supporters.

^^^ Diagnosis: Terminal Projection ^^^

 

[Aldo Raine]

Not hardly, I know a moron when I see one. Ewe are one, off to Fiji with your American Tundra!

No I'll sell the Tundra for a scooter and a closet full of board shorts and scuba gear......

Go on git!

 

[Rambunctious]

Ewe don't think at all and just proved it again. Besides your Toyota.

Maybe I will keep the Tundra for keg runs....