hntnhole

I disagree. That may be the case in your country, but it isn't the case in the US. Here in the US, we're taxed on everything, no matter what level of financial security we enjoy or not. We're taxed annually on our income, on our property, there are sales taxes of every single thing we buy - from groceries to clothing, and everything else you can name. If taxation were voluntary, there wouldn't be any governments at all, including yours. It's when our contributions are simply taken away - for example, Social Security in the US - that troubles start. You may already know this, but for any readers that don't. taxes are collected (via withholdings from our paychecks) beginning with our very first job, and ending whenever we retire. It's only at retirement that US citizens can access their own earned money back, as SS monthly reimbursements on money we've earned from our very first day of employment. In my case, it was when I began delivering newspapers beginning in the 5th grade. Thus, any American citizen who is employed has a portion of their wages deducted by the Social Security Administration, and from the very first day they are employed until the very last day before retirement, with the understanding that the Government will invest our S.S. taxes, and we will not only get our principal back, it will be with a portion of decades worth of interest as well. That's only one of the taxation contrivances, and there are plenty of others. Of course, every other type of tax (sales tax, income tax, property tax for example) continues until the individual heads off to what you might call "their great reward in Heaven". More, the great majority of Americans do not quibble about paying their fair share, since we enjoy many benefits derived from taxation. My friend, I enjoy your commentary on many subjects, but on this one, you are very much mistaken. We want what we've been promised our entire lives, but more than what we're entitled to - what we've earned - would be unfair, just as chiseling on what we've earned would be unfair.

Thank for that interesting commentary, (I'll just say 'airplane", ok?). I don't think the rich are at all interested in taking a 'step down', as you mention. Nor do I think the wealthy are interested in meeting anyone 'half-way'. Further, I think the rich are more interested in keeping the 99% down than they are sharing their excess. That said, and to the point, I think those holding vast wealth close to their hearts need a transplant, in order to spread the largess around more equitably. If everyone gave 10% of their income to ameliorate the sorrows of the poor, those sorrows would disappear. But that has never happened, and it won't happen in the future, since the more resources a person, a family hoards, the more they crave. So the answer to your question is, of course it's easier for the rich to step down than it is for the poor to climb up. But it just doesn't happen unless there are some kind of benefits (i.e. tax write-offs) to compensate the wealthy if they actually part with some of their gold.

Since he's been referenced in this thread, I'd fuck E.K. in an eyeblink .... in the middle of a tornado .... on the deck of a sinking ship ..... swarming with R "undead" vampires .... and love it.

I can't recall which one just now - but one of the venereal diseases often causes skin problems, scarring, etc. Considering all the call girls, whores, prostitutes, loose tarts he's "been with" through the years, it's no surprise there's plenty to cover up on that corpulent bag of filth. I'm surprised he has any money left, after paying for all the "working girls".

The R's may put up Vance in the next cycle, but he's not bright enough to pull it off. Once the pestilence has left office, I think Vance will be reduced to a minor historical footnote. He has demonstrated absolutely nothing of note, other than taking all that money from a gay billionaire <polite cough> to get elected to the Senate. Trump wouldn't have a Veep that's at all capable of threatening his own position in any way. Only a dullard like Vance - or similar - would be acceptable to Rump.

I use a "pony"* glass, which is quite similar, but not as much "mass" as sperm frozen in a shot-glass. Unfamiliar bottoms seem to like it better, and - we all start someplace, right? *same size, same shape as a shot glass, but not as big, and doesn't hold as much as a shot glass. I found it easier to use on a "newbie", since a full shot glass of frozen Sperm can appear a bit intimidating to some bottoms, and it can be too thick to manage easily. Lather up the hole first with saliva (while holding the pony glass in your hand to let a thin layer of the load melt), pop it into your mouth (after lathering up the Hole with your spit) and tongue-shove it where it'll melt quickly, providing a perfect lube.

BP, meaning blood pressure? On a side note - the tv news stations are carrying a photo of him from behind, and only showing the back of his head. There is a flowing mane of orange-ish hair on each side of the head, beginning at the temples and sides, combed back over the bald top of his head (in the photo, they don't cover all the rear of his head), so a swath of completely bald skin - from the top of his head backwards and down to his neck - is completely bald. The hair on his forelocks must be decades old ... It's not like he can't afford to buy the best wigs available - why go to all that bother, trying to cover up all the bald parts? No one gives a rats ass about that silly hairdo ...

Sounds about right to me too ... I never ask a guy about his religious beliefs because I don't care what they are/aren't. It's none of my business what anyone else's metaphysical beliefs are - if any - and in the fuckjoints, I couldn't possibly care less. Come to think of it, in any other area of concern either. For that matter, I know I've fucked pastors (Lutheran) on the dl before, and probably every other denomination too. Doesn't make any difference to me - as long as they keep the metaphysical part to themselves. So everybody ... lets just ignore the benighted parts and fuck ...

now THAT'S what I would call PROGRESSIVE. When are you running for office, and can someone.not.in.your.district.still.vote.for you ??????????

Did someone say that? Sounds like it might be a simile ....

Exactly. Everyone should get what they need, and allow others to do the same. Thanks.

That sentence alone reduces the value of "conservative" intellectual prowess to virtually nil. As I recall, Someone a couple of millennia ago never did get around to marrying. But then, untold magical powers have since been attributed to that most decent man/teacher/human being, so we'll probably never know for sure. Shoving bullshit into that man's mouth has been going on in the ensuing millennia, and we're all the worse for it. It's a wonder that he is intellectually unable to recognize the similarities between gay folks marrying, when only a handful of years past, he would have been legally constrained from marrying that fat pale woman he calls his "best friend" - rather than "wife". What a total pussy.

So close your meaning is unmistakable .... Since you asked (the ?), it's Obergefell v. Hodges - the landmark decision of 2015 in the SCOTUS that officially extended the rights everyone else on earth has, to us gay men and women. Thanks.

Or, if we even have elections anymore by then .... or, maybe hold elections, but they're so heavily meddled with they lose all meaning. Frankly, I think the decades of all his haute dining at Mickey D's will catch up with him before too long. He's already obviously diminished, and only getting more-so by the day.

Nah - I made it to the john. Probably could have made it outside, but I've already pulled most of the weeds ....