Huckabee's "Fair Tax" just Scientology Bullshit?

[Nickdfresh]

Fair Tax, Flawed Tax
Does adding 30% to the price of every house sold sound like a good idea to you?

BY BRUCE BARTLETT
Sunday, August 26, 2007 12:01 a.m.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's unexpectedly strong second-place showing in the recent Iowa Republican straw poll is widely attributed to his support for the FairTax.

For those who never heard about it, the FairTax is a national retail sales tax that would replace the entire current federal tax system. It was originally devised by the Church of Scientology in the early 1990s as a way to get rid of the Internal Revenue Service, with which the church was then at war (at the time the IRS refused to recognize it as a legitimate religion). The Scientologists' idea was that since almost all states have sales taxes, replacing federal taxes with the same sort of tax would allow them to collect the federal government's revenue and thereby get rid of their hated enemy, the IRS.

Rep. John Linder (R., Ga.) and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R., Ga.) have introduced legislation (H.R. 25/S. 1025) to implement the FairTax. They assert that a rate of 23% would be sufficient to replace federal individual and corporate income taxes as well as payroll and estate taxes. Mr. Linder's Web site claims that U.S. gross domestic product will rise 10.5% the first year after enactment, exports will grow by 26%, and real investment spending will increase an astonishing 76%.

In reality, the FairTax rate is not 23%. Messrs. Linder and Chambliss get this figure by calculating the tax as if it were already incorporated into the price of goods and services. (This is known as the tax-inclusive rate.) Calculating it the conventional way that every other (This is called the tax-exclusive rate.)

The distinction is confusing, but think of it this way. If a product costs $1 at retail, the FairTax adds 30%, for a total of $1.30. Since the 30-cent tax is 23% of $1.30, FairTax supporters say the rate is 23% rather than 30%.

This is only the beginning of the deceptions in the FairTax. Under the Linder-Chambliss bill, the federal government would have to pay taxes to itself on all of its purchases of goods and services. Thus if the Defense Department buys a tank that now costs $1 million, the manufacturer would have to add the FairTax and send it to the Treasury Department. The tank would then cost the federal government $300,000 more than it does today, but its tax collection will also be $300,000 higher.

This legerdemain is done solely to make revenues under the FairTax seem larger than they really are, so that its supporters can claim that it is revenue-neutral. But for the government to afford to purchase the same goods and services, it would have to raise spending by the amount of the tax it pays to itself. The FairTax rate, however, is not high enough to finance the higher spending it imposes. Therefore the proposal only works if federal purchases are cut by 30%, close to $300 billion--the increased cost imposed by the FairTax.

Similarly, state and local governments would have to pay the FairTax on most of their purchases. This means that it is partly financed by higher state and local taxes. It's also worth remembering that state sales taxes now average 6%, which means that the total tax rate will be 36% on retail sales.

State sales taxes have long exempted all but a few services because of the enormous difficulty in taxing intangibles. But the FairTax would apply to 100% of services, including medical care, thus increasing their cost by 30%. No state comes close to taxing services so broadly.

Consumers would also find themselves taxed on newly constructed homes. Imagine paying 30% to the federal government on top of the purchase price of your next house.

Since sales taxes are regressive--taking more in percentage terms from the incomes of the poor and middle class than the rich--some provision is needed to prevent a vast increase in taxation on the nonwealthy. The FairTax does this by sending monthly checks to every household based on income.

Aside from the incredible complexity and intrusiveness of tracking every American's monthly income--and creating a de facto national welfare program--the FairTax does not include the cost of this rebate in the tax rate. As noted earlier, the FairTax is designed only to match current revenues and does not cover any increased spending that it may require. Since the rebate will cost at least $600 billion the first year, either federal discretionary spending would have to be cut by 60% or the rate would have to be five percentage points higher than advertised.

Rejecting all the tricks of FairTax supporters and calculating the tax rate honestly--by including the higher spending that it mandates and by being realistic about what could actually be taxed--professional revenue estimators have always concluded that a national retail sales tax would have to be much, much higher than 23%.

A 2000 estimate by Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation found the tax-inclusive rate would have to be 36% and the tax-exclusive rate would be 57%. In 2005, the U.S. Treasury Department calculated that a tax-exclusive rate of 34% would be needed just to replace the income tax, leaving the payroll tax in place. But if evasion were high then the rate might have to rise to 49%. If the FairTax were only able to cover the limited sales tax base of a typical state, then a rate of 64% would be required (89% with high evasion).

I've emphasized problems with the FairTax rate because public opinion polls have long shown that support for flat-rate tax reforms is extremely sensitive to the proposed rate, with support dropping off sharply at a rate higher than 23%. But there are also massive technical and administrative problems with collecting all federal taxes at the checkout counter and relying entirely on state governments to collect the federal government's revenue.

Among the problems: What possible incentive would the states have to be vigorous in their federal tax collections? What is to stop them from slacking off and giving their citizens a tax cut at federal expense? What about states with no sales taxes? What's to stop people from bypassing retail outlets and buying their goods from producers or at wholesale, tax-free?

Perhaps the biggest deception in the FairTax, however, is its promise to relieve individuals from having to file income tax returns, keep extensive financial records and potentially suffer audits. Judging by the emphasis FairTax supporters place on the idea of making April 15 just another day, this seems to be a major selling point for their proposal.

Yet all but six states now have state income taxes. So unless one lives in one of those states, this promise is an empty one indeed. In short, the FairTax is too good to be true, and voters should not take seriously any candidate who supports it.

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010523

Mr. Bartlett was deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury for economic policy from 1988 to 1993.

Copyright © 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

[Nickdfresh]

...the FairTax...was originally devised by the Church of Scientology in the early 1990s as a way to get rid of the Internal Revenue Service, with which the church was then at war (at the time the IRS refused to recognize it as a legitimate religion). The Scientologists' idea was that since almost all states have sales taxes, replacing federal taxes with the same sort of tax would allow them to collect the federal government's revenue and thereby get rid of their hated enemy, the IRS.

http://www.scientomogy.com/honeymoon_animated.gif

http://www.scientomogy.com/xenu_space_opera.php

[Blackflag]

A flat tax would be awesome. A federal sales tax is bull-shit. This guy can stick his spaceman tax plan. :alien:

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
[size=3][b]Since sales taxes are regressive--taking more in percentage terms from the incomes of the poor and middle class than the rich--some provision is needed to prevent a vast increase in taxation on the nonwealthy. The FairTax does this by sending monthly checks to every household based on income.


This is the why it doesn't work.

Flat rate doesn't work too well but trying to do rebates is even more crazy.

It's just dumb.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Blackflag
A flat tax would be awesome. A federal sales tax is bull-shit. This guy can stick his spaceman tax plan. :alien:

Really? And how would a flat tax be any different than Federal income taxes...

You'd just have to create another agency to oversee what the IRS does now...

It's a complete idiotic fantasy that benefits only the extreme wealthy while fucking the middle class, hard. It is what it is, a Utopian pipe dream...

[steve]

what also gets confusing in the "fair tax" discussion are definitions...

What I understand Huckabee and Ron Paul are proposing are consumption taxes...which are bad for many reasons.

Consumption taxes are regressive as Sesh pointed out and would hurt the poor and ESPECIALLY the poor and middle income elderly. C-taxes are so regressive that they become a stark moral argument in my opinion.

But also the argument that C-taxes would enable the elimination of the IRS is complete bullshit. Right now most people have one income source and one itemized deduction worksheet. Imagine having to file deductions for every freaking purchase you make - the paperwork would be immense. The IRS would grow into a Terry-Gilliam-esque mess.

Also, ever stand behind a diplomat at the drugstore trying to void his sales tax with his little card?? Then, ever just leave your toilet paper and shampoo on the ground near the checkout and leave after you are waiting 5 minutes for the manager to come up and complete their checkout? Imagine if every single person was trying to do that.

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
This is the why it doesn't work.

Flat rate doesn't work too well but trying to do rebates is even more crazy.

It's just dumb.


uh...and technically, if you have a flat tax, with rebates for some, it's effectively a graduated tax. you're just reducing the number different income brackets and you're calling it something else, but a rose by any other name...

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
uh but a rose by any other name...

homo.

:gulp:

Go Hawks !!!

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by steve


Also, ever stand behind a diplomat at the drugstore

Sure, happens all the time here. :rolleyes:

Just the other day I was behind the Ambassador from Equatorial Kundu at the AM PM

He was getting 2 corndogs for .99

:gulp:

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Just the other day I was behind the Ambassador from Equatorial Kundu at the AM PM

He was getting 2 corndogs for .99


:lol:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Sure, happens all the time here. :rolleyes:

Just the other day I was behind the Ambassador from Equatorial Kundu at the AM PM

He was getting 2 corndogs for .99

:gulp:

LOL Actually Steve is quite dead on, that's a NoVirginia thing I guess.

But in fact there are diplomats in my compound, and every time you see a diplomatic license plate one avoids those fuckers at all cost...

[steve]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
LOL Actually Steve is quite dead on, that's a NoVirginia thing I guess.

But in fact there are diplomats in my compound, and every time you see a diplomatic license plate one avoids those fuckers at all cost...

:D It's not all THAT prevalent where I live, but when I used to work at CVS in high school you'd see it happen once a month or so and some character from Argentina would try to get his 4.5 cents off a snickers bar and damn was it annoying.

Also lost in the whole "flat tax vs graduated tax" and income vs consumption tax" debate is the fact that the size of IRS is a result of lobbying and not due to the mode of tax. And lobbying for tax deductions on behalf of constituances (for good AND bad reasons...) will never ever stop...ever...because we have freedom of speech.

And for best or worst, you can't say agro-farmers shouldn't lobby the government, but then tell alternative energy industry advocates they can - you've got to apply the law equally.

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
homo.

:gulp:

Go Hawks !!!

if i am pricked, do i not bleed? (anally?)

[Nitro Express]

The politicians don't like sales tax because the pain is too visiable and they can't play games with it. Plus, income tax and the Internal Revenue System gives the govt. an obscene amount of control over citizens by garnishing their earnings, intimidating them. Plus, income tax processing is a $80 billion industry that creates a huge number of jobs.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Nitro Express
Plus, income tax processing is a $80 billion industry that creates a huge number of jobs.

Gee, imagine how much "socialized medicine" could be administered with 80 billion dollars.....

Funny what this country deems worthy of our tax dollars.

Like blowing up countries who have never attacked us, and then paying private companies [who happen to be huge contributors] to do a shitty job rebuilding it......

Or billions in corporate welfare.

:rolleyes:

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Really? And how would a flat tax be any different than Federal income taxes...

You'd just have to create another agency to oversee what the IRS does now...

It's a complete idiotic fantasy that benefits only the extreme wealthy while fucking the middle class, hard. It is what it is, a Utopian pipe dream...

It sounds like maybe you're not familiar with the idea of a flat tax - if you're not sure in which ways it's different. A flat tax is an income tax.

First, it benefits everybody depending on what percentage is used. Second, part of the impetus is to greatly reduce the need for the IRS, certainly not create a new agency.

Third, if it's a 'Utopian pipe dream,' maybe you can explain why it's successfully used in other countries.

Dude, fucking educate yourself on the topic before you spout off on it.

[thome]

In the begginning and thome was there, yea tho...

Taxes were Flat....Fair....whatever ..you call it.

Then different laws came different needs of the government and the people.

Then there were additions amendment books and books of different laws.

Yeah, so lets just start back there with a flat tax and then spend the next couple thousand years getting rite back to where we are now.

Get a life people!!

It's a scam to make you think you can make a difference by thinking you can make a change for the better.

Set upon you by politicos whose job it is to confuse you.

So they can have a job come next monday.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Blackflag
It sounds like maybe you're not familiar with the idea of a flat tax -

Thanks, George Orwell...


if you're not sure in which ways it's different. A flat tax is an income tax.

So you want to replace an income tax with another income tax?


First, it benefits everybody depending on what percentage is used. Second, part of the impetus is to greatly reduce the need for the IRS, certainly not create a new agency.

LOL So we'll call the agency that has to handle the massive paperwork nightmare something else?

And regressive taxes biased against people that spend a far greater percentage of their income on goods and services do not "help" poor people, though the massive welfare payments necessitated might...


Third, if it's a 'Utopian pipe dream,' maybe you can explain why it's successfully used in other countries.

Name one...


Dude, fucking educate yourself on the topic before you spout off on it.

Thanks dumbshit unable to provide any factual basis for his statements..:)

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Blackflag


Third, if it's a 'Utopian pipe dream,' maybe you can explain why it's successfully used in other countries.



LMAO

This is the same argument I gave you for our fucked up healthcare "system" in America.

I believe you even called it a pipe dream.


:gulp:

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh

So you want to replace an income tax with another income tax?



So we'll call the agency that has to handle the massive paperwork nightmare something else?

And regressive taxes biased against people that spend a far greater percentage of their income on goods and services

Name one...

I believe you even called it a pipe dream.



- If you want to improve the income tax system, your idea is to replace it with what..? A big fund raising raffle? Of course another income tax, you douche. Unless you want to share your solution?

- If you're going to collect taxes, you need some agency to collect them. I don't care what you call it. How big it is depends on the complexity of the scheme.

- Again...a flat tax has nothing to do with goods and services...

- Iceland, Romania, New Zealand, Gondwonaland... read a book and stop asking me questions, for fuck's sake. Do you know what it means to educate yourself? Let me give you a hint - it doesn't involve the internet or "opinionjournal.com."

- Actually, I said it's a "pothead's wet dream." That's very different. ;)

[Nitro Express]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Gee, imagine how much "socialized medicine" could be administered with 80 billion dollars.....

Funny what this country deems worthy of our tax dollars.

Like blowing up countries who have never attacked us, and then paying private companies [who happen to be huge contributors] to do a shitty job rebuilding it......

Or billions in corporate welfare.

:rolleyes:

If the fucked up US Govt. ran socialized medicine it would run worse than the Walter Reed hospital. They were putting our injured soldiers in a dripping, rat infested shit hole. If they do that to our war heros, I cringe on where they will put the average American working stiff.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Blackflag
- If you want to improve the income tax system, your idea is to replace it with what..? A big fund raising raffle? Of course another income tax, you douche. Unless you want to share your solution?

How are you "improving the system" troll "douche?"

And when did I say anything about improving it?

I just don't want it fucked anymore by dummies like you that fall for any childishly populist rhetoric...


- If you're going to collect taxes, you need some agency to collect them. I don't care what you call it. How big it is depends on the complexity of the scheme.

So why lie about "abolishing the IRS?"


- Again...a flat tax has nothing to do with goods and services...

Then what the fuck are the taxes collected on, supergenius?


The distinction is confusing, but think of it this way. If a product costs $1 at retail, the FairTax adds 30%, for a total of $1.30. Since the 30-cent tax is 23% of $1.30, FairTax supporters say the rate is 23% rather than 30%.


- Iceland, Romania, New Zealand, Gondwonaland... read a book and stop asking me questions, for fuck's sake. Do you know what it means to educate yourself? Let me give you a hint - it doesn't involve the internet or "opinionjournal.com."

It was originally from the Wall Street Journal, fuck stump...


- Actually, I said it's a "pothead's wet dream." That's very different. ;)

Pull John Travolta and Xenu out of your ass...

[Blackflag]

Dude, do you understand that this "fair tax" and the flat tax are two totally different concepts?

Taxes are collected on income. That's why I said it's an income tax. :confused:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Blackflag
-

- Iceland, Romania, New Zealand, Gondwonaland...

LMMFAO

You forgot Freedonia as well :rolleyes:

Wait a minute.

Aren't these also the last remaining countires in the "Coalition of the Willing" ?


Next time you want to prop up an argument, you may wish to find better case studies than Iceland and Romania,

Just a thought....

:gulp:

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
LMMFAO

You forgot Freedonia as well :rolleyes:

Wait a minute.

Aren't these also the last remaining countires in the "Coalition of the Willing" ?


Next time you want to prop up an argument, you may wish to find better case studies than Iceland and Romania,

Just a thought....

:gulp:

Typical American...if the U.S. isn't doing it, it's not worth talking about. Yeah, we have it all figured out. :rolleyes: Do you ever get tired of being narrow minded?

If I'm not mistaken, GDP growth in Romania is higher than the U.S.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Blackflag
Typical American...if the U.S. isn't doing it, it's not worth talking about. Yeah, we have it all figured out. :rolleyes: Do you ever get tired of being narrow minded?

If I'm not mistaken, GDP growth in Romania is higher than the U.S.

:rolleyes:

Yeah, I'm the jingoistic flag-waving American who thinks we're the shit.

For a forum macaca, you're pretty ignorant of the facts.

I throw out names like GB, Canada and France as examples of socialized medicine working better than our system, and you roll your eyes...

But I'm supposed to get excited about you touting Romania and Iceland?

You're such a fucking hypocrite.

But I dont care. It's the internet, this aint my fight, and you live in Yakima voluntarily. 'nuff said.


Knock yourself out. Regale me with Romanian GDP numbers. :D


I'm just enjoying having a laugh at your expense for now...

:gulp:

[Blackflag]

This thread isn't about socialized medicine, and I've never made a comment about giving a fuck about Canada's medical system. I think you're mixing up who you're sniping at today. So your laugh doesn't cost me anything.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Blackflag
If I'm not mistaken, GDP growth in Romania is higher than the U.S.

You're mistaken.

They're ranked 70th.

We're 6th.



And it does not shock me in the least you can't figure out why I brought up the "socialized medicine" comparison.


I used to think you were bright.

I was wrong. oh, well.


:gulp:

[Blackflag]

"Romanian GDP will double by 2011. Romania is one of the most stable and prosperous states of Central, Eastern and South Europe. As of 2007 the economy is growing at a steady pace of above 7% a year."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Romania

Here's a question for you, forum boy... is US GDP growth higher than 7%? Take your time and think real hard. :rolleyes: There's no shame in admitting you're clueless. You can do it.

(I used to think you were smart, too...oh wait, no I didn't.)

Aren't you going to go search and quote where I commented on Canada's health system? Go on...go search. Go search, little monkey! :p

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Blackflag
Dude, do you understand that this "fair tax" and the flat tax are two totally different concepts?

No, what you don't understand is that both are a flat tax, one is a 'flat tax' on goods and services, the other is on income.

Try reading the article, and figure out what the thread is about...


Taxes are collected on income. That's why I said it's an income tax. :confused:

But the "Fair" version of the "flat tax" isn't collected on income...

Why are you changing the subject?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Blackflag
This thread isn't about socialized medicine, and I've never made a comment about giving a fuck about Canada's medical system. I think you're mixing up who you're sniping at today. So your laugh doesn't cost me anything.

It's also not about horridly regressive tax systems adopted by small or poor nations that are scoffed at by developed economies. But that didn't stop you from changing the subject...

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
It's also not about horridly regressive tax systems

Of course it is. You don't think this "fair tax" is regressive?

You have a hard time with logic, don't you?

And I like how you've declared that New Zealand doesn't have a "developed economy." Fuck, you're clueless. No doubt, you've never been there.

Just keep copying and pasting internet stories. That's a good replacement for knowledge. :heyfu:

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Just the other day I was behind the Ambassador from Equatorial Kundu at the AM PM
He was getting 2 corndogs for .99
:gulp:


This should be illegal.



Corn Dogs, that is.


Throw in ATM fees.


Nitro's take was dead on. (I think it was Nitro)
I don't trust these government buttfuckers with a flat anything.
Everybody and their girlfriend will be pinching off the top before it gets to the final destination, leaving them with nothing but a rubber check that only China or ROMANIA (:rolleyes: ) will cash.
BTW- how do we charge overseas? Do we give them a sliding scale based on their income or ability to pay?
This ranks right up there with the privatization of Social Security.
Forget it!!!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Blackflag
"Romanian GDP will double by 2011. Romania is one of the most stable and prosperous states of Central, Eastern and South Europe. As of 2007 the economy is growing at a steady pace of above 7% a year."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Romania

Says the fool that gets his info off a service that pretty much anybody can write anything they want...

But, okay:

A.) the article says next to nothing about the "flat tax" nor does it give any data on its direct correlation to the economy overall

B.) Romania's transitional economy is growing because it was a stagnant, post-communist basket case that has flourished because of Western foreign investment, not a "flat tax"

No shit it's going to grow a lot quicker than a developed post-industrial economy, dummy...

And their economy was booming in relative terms even before 2005, because almost any real economic expansion of trade and foreign investment is going to blow up that economy...

There's almost no real data showing the "flat tax" a fuck lot of anything:

From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4155907.stm)

'Little effect'

Apart from reducing tax evasion, advocates of the flat-rate tax argue that it both encourages the unemployed back into work and those already in employment to work harder.

But research conducted in Russia by the Institute of Fiscal Policy has come up with different findings. One of those involved in that research was German economist Alexander Klemm.

"There was some improvement in tax compliance and absolutely no effect on labour supply or work effort," he says.

"Overall the tax reform was certainly not paying for itself, in the sense that cutting tax rates has not led to higher tax revenues."

In any case, a single tax rate set at a relatively high level - in Estonia it was initially fixed at 26% - may not be enough of an incentive. So its success seems inherently linked to lowering the tax rate.



Here's a question for you, forum boy... is US GDP growth higher than 7%? Take your time and think real hard. :rolleyes: There's no shame in admitting you're clueless. You can do it.

Well, you shamelessly admitted in most of your posts.

Go back to the 11th grade economics texts, I'm pretty sure you never had it in college...

Then maybe you'll figure our that comparing the economy of a post-industrial superpower to what is still and under-developed east European country regressed by forty years of communism is pretty idiotic and shows nothing...


(I used to think you were smart, too...oh wait, no I didn't.)

Oooh, what a dig! The idiot forum argument troll thinks I'm dumb...

Well, at least I managed to get a four year degree, GED...


Aren't you going to go search and quote where I commented on Canada's health system? Go on...go search. Go search, little monkey! :p

Why the fuck would I do that?

Who gives a fuck about Canada's health care system? I'm pretty sure you know nothing about it and will spin the typical nightmare propeganda before getting owned by actual Canadians here...

[Blackflag]

Uh...yeah. You realize that you're responding to a post directed at Lounge, right? Holy shit... :rolleyes: What an ultra-maroon.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Blackflag
Of course it is. You don't think this "fair tax" is regressive?

You have a hard time with logic, don't you?

Nice edit and quote out of context. Dishonesty, the last refuge of the intellectually feeble bitch...


And I like how you've declared that New Zealand doesn't have a "developed economy." Fuck, you're clueless. No doubt, you've never been there.

I didn't "declare" anything about New Zealand, fuckwit...


Just keep copying and pasting internet stories. That's a good replacement for knowledge. :heyfu:

LMFAO!!

Sure thing, Wikifag...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Blackflag
Uh...yeah. You realize that you're responding to a post directed at Lounge, right? Holy shit... :rolleyes: What an ultra-maroon.

You didn't quote him, dickweed...

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
You didn't quote him, dickweed...

Sorry I didn't spell it out for you, retard-style.

Look, we both agree that Hickabee's plan is bullshit. So turn off the belligerent act for a few minutes, douche-boy. :)

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Blackflag
Sorry I didn't spell it out for you, retard-style.

I was puzzled that you deviated from your usual style...


Look, we both agree that Hickabee's plan is bullshit. So turn off the belligerent act for a few minutes, douche-boy. :)

Then why are you arguing?

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Then why are you arguing?

I can't help it...it's who I am. :cato2: What's your excuse?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Blackflag
I can't help it...it's who I am. :cato2: What's your excuse?

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y240/Nickdfresh/MontyPython.jpg