John Kerry's Swift Boat Critics

[Snow]

Originally posted by Cal@Sep 29 2004, 04:48 AM

By the way, as to your Swift boat critics, even your beloved Prez Bush says that the attacks on Kerry are unjustified and he wants nothing to do with them. So why do you keep pounding on it?

What's Bush got to do with it and with Kerry's ego.

I harp on Kerry because he is a gigantic tool, and a dangerously liberal tool at that.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Cal@Sep 29 2004, 04:44 AM

I hate to burst your bubble, pal, but you are probably not carrying SQUAT for me. I also worked my way thru college, got a MA and a law degree, and probably make twice what you do, so dont' bother playing the " I clawed my way to the top, so I deserve every penny I make". The fact is, everybody pays his fair share to be able to prosper in this country. The fact that us "rich" folk pay more doesn't bother me in the least--I'm happy to do it, especially if it means some under priviledge kid can go to college too.

Wow I am impressed. Tell me, how much do I make? Since you make probably twice what I make you ought to know...

...and lemme get this straight, when you do it, it is clawing your way to the top and deserving every penny but when others do it, it is stepping on the backs of the underclass.

That some good ole Kerry logic fer ya.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Cal@Sep 29 2004, 04:30 PM

Actually, I haven't really heard much substance in the complaints about Kerry.

Yesterday it was total fabrication. Today say you haven't heard much.

Aren't you taking this Kerry thing a bit too far. Now you are as wishy-washy as he is. Tomorrow you are going to be back to total fabrication.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow+Sep 29 2004, 09:37 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Sep 29 2004, 09:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Sep 29 2004, 04:48 AM

By the way, as to your Swift boat critics, even your beloved Prez Bush says that the attacks on Kerry are unjustified and he wants nothing to do with them. So why do you keep pounding on it?

What's Bush got to do with it and with Kerry's ego.

I harp on Kerry because he is a gigantic tool, and a dangerously liberal tool at that.

What? And Bush is not a TOOL? Bush, IMHO, is nothing BUT a tool. Look at his VP if you want to really know who runs the country. Besides, I favor liberal tools over conservative tools. Sort of like the difference between Craftsman and K-Mart.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow+Sep 29 2004, 09:41 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Sep 29 2004, 09:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Sep 29 2004, 04:44 AM

I hate to burst your bubble, pal, but you are probably not carrying SQUAT for me. I also worked my way thru college, got a MA and a law degree, and probably make twice what you do, so dont' bother playing the " I clawed my way to the top, so I deserve every penny I make".  The fact is, everybody pays his fair share to be able to prosper in this country. The fact that us "rich" folk pay more doesn't bother me in the least--I'm happy to do it, especially if it means some under priviledge kid can go to college too.

Wow I am impressed. Tell me, how much do I make? Since you make probably twice what I make you ought to know...

...and lemme get this straight, when you do it, it is clawing your way to the top and deserving every penny but when others do it, it is stepping on the backs of the underclass.

That some good ole Kerry logic fer ya.

I'm not the one complaining about paying taxes, that is YOUR thing. Where did I complain about it. In fact, I remember saying that I didn't mind helping some poor guy make it through college.

As to what I make--that comment was in response to your implication that I resented the "rich" because they made more than I--pointing out that I was definitely not in that category, thereby making your comment mute.

Whether I ACTUALLY make twice what you do, I could care less. Try to get the meaning of what is being said before you try to pick at the details, it makes for a better discussion.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Cal@Sep 30 2004, 04:10 PM

Whether I ACTUALLY make twice what you do, I could care less. Try to get the meaning of what is being said before you try to pick at the details, it makes for a better discussion.

In this case maybe, in other cases you repeated mistate facts which misrepresent the meaning of what is being said. An example is when you say Bush offered a massive "give away" to the rich instead of giving them a reduction in their disporportiately high tax burden. Or, when you said that he wanted to make it so that they no longer paid the majority of the burden instead of him wanting to simply reduce their burden.

Bush may be a bit of a bumpkin - though he is far more intelligent than the average critic who calls him a dope - and some other things but he is not a self-righteous tool.

[john doe]

I seem to have overstated by 50% the duration of my make-out session with Stacy Pando in the summer of '89. (In my defense, I wasn't exactly looking at my watch.)

So, it was only 10 minutes? I knew that story couldn't be true!!!

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by john doe@Sep 30 2004, 06:44 PM

I seem to have overstated by 50% the duration of my make-out session with Stacy Pando in the summer of '89. (In my defense, I wasn't exactly looking at my watch.)

So, it was only 10 minutes? I knew that story couldn't be true!!!

Somewhere between half an hour and an hour, actually. That was a good summer.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow+Sep 30 2004, 05:46 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Sep 30 2004, 05:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Sep 30 2004, 04:10 PM

Whether I ACTUALLY make twice what you do, I could care less. Try to get the meaning of what is being said before you try to pick at the details, it makes for a better discussion.

In this case maybe, in other cases you repeated mistate facts which misrepresent the meaning of what is being said. An example is when you say Bush offered a massive "give away" to the rich instead of giving them a reduction in their disporportiately high tax burden. Or, when you said that he wanted to make it so that they no longer paid the majority of the burden instead of him wanting to simply reduce their burden.

Bush may be a bit of a bumpkin - though he is far more intelligent than the average critic who calls him a dope - and some other things but he is not a self-righteous tool.

What you have refered to here is not misrepresentation, it is simply a difference in characterization. You call it a "reduction", I call it a "massive giveaway". The actual amount is a fact. How one choses to characterize it is simple a function of slant. We have different slants on the issue.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Cal+Oct 2 2004, 08:32 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Oct 2 2004, 08:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Snow@Sep 30 2004, 05:46 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Sep 30 2004, 04:10 PM

Whether I ACTUALLY make twice what you do, I could care less. Try to get the meaning of what is being said before you try to pick at the details, it makes for a better discussion.

In this case maybe, in other cases you repeated mistate facts which misrepresent the meaning of what is being said. An example is when you say Bush offered a massive "give away" to the rich instead of giving them a reduction in their disporportiately high tax burden. Or, when you said that he wanted to make it so that they no longer paid the majority of the burden instead of him wanting to simply reduce their burden.

Bush may be a bit of a bumpkin - though he is far more intelligent than the average critic who calls him a dope - and some other things but he is not a self-righteous tool.

What you have refered to here is not misrepresentation, it is simply a difference in characterization. You call it a "reduction", I call it a "massive giveaway". The actual amount is a fact. How one choses to characterize it is simple a function of slant. We have different slants on the issue.

Sure, and you slant it by calling it a give-away. You choose that phrase because you want people to believe that the rich were "given" something that wasn't theirs to begin with. In point of fact, some of what they, the rich, had "given" the government was returned to them. Your choice of words deliberately obfuscated reality. My choice of words, "reduction in the disporportionate tax burden" accurately reflects reality, it is as 'spinless' as you can get.

I understand why you do it. It is a polemical trick. I do it all the time too. No one would take would get worked up if you portrayed it honestly.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow+Oct 2 2004, 10:29 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Oct 2 2004, 10:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Oct 2 2004, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by -Snow@Sep 30 2004, 05:46 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Sep 30 2004, 04:10 PM

Whether I ACTUALLY make twice what you do, I could care less. Try to get the meaning of what is being said before you try to pick at the details, it makes for a better discussion.

In this case maybe, in other cases you repeated mistate facts which misrepresent the meaning of what is being said. An example is when you say Bush offered a massive "give away" to the rich instead of giving them a reduction in their disporportiately high tax burden. Or, when you said that he wanted to make it so that they no longer paid the majority of the burden instead of him wanting to simply reduce their burden.

Bush may be a bit of a bumpkin - though he is far more intelligent than the average critic who calls him a dope - and some other things but he is not a self-righteous tool.

What you have refered to here is not misrepresentation, it is simply a difference in characterization. You call it a "reduction", I call it a "massive giveaway". The actual amount is a fact. How one choses to characterize it is simple a function of slant. We have different slants on the issue.

Sure, and you slant it by calling it a give-away. You choose that phrase because you want people to believe that the rich were "given" something that wasn't theirs to begin with. In point of fact, some of what they, the rich, had "given" the government was returned to them. Your choice of words deliberately obfuscated reality. My choice of words, "reduction in the disporportionate tax burden" accurately reflects reality, it is as 'spinless' as you can get.

I understand why you do it. It is a polemical trick. I do it all the time too. No one would take would get worked up if you portrayed it honestly.

Again, pointless characterization, without critical analysis. You call me "spinless", without provide one bit of convincing evidence of what you could possibly mean. I guess you do that to somehow appear to be bolstering your position, but it just makes you look silly and desperate for credibility.

The "give away" is exactly that. My position is that the rich were paying something closer to their fair share before Bush's recent tax cuts that disproportionately favor the rich. It was a give-away because that is EXACTLY what Bush intended. To give back to the rich something they, in my SLANT, didn't need and didn't deserve. It contributed to the deficit that Bush has given us, which will, no doubt, have to be repaid by raising the taxes on the middle class. Nice neat distribution of wealth, a la Reagan.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Cal+Oct 3 2004, 08:37 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Oct 3 2004, 08:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Snow@Oct 2 2004, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by -Cal@Oct 2 2004, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by -Snow@Sep 30 2004, 05:46 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Sep 30 2004, 04:10 PM

Whether I ACTUALLY make twice what you do, I could care less. Try to get the meaning of what is being said before you try to pick at the details, it makes for a better discussion.

In this case maybe, in other cases you repeated mistate facts which misrepresent the meaning of what is being said. An example is when you say Bush offered a massive "give away" to the rich instead of giving them a reduction in their disporportiately high tax burden. Or, when you said that he wanted to make it so that they no longer paid the majority of the burden instead of him wanting to simply reduce their burden.

Bush may be a bit of a bumpkin - though he is far more intelligent than the average critic who calls him a dope - and some other things but he is not a self-righteous tool.

What you have refered to here is not misrepresentation, it is simply a difference in characterization. You call it a "reduction", I call it a "massive giveaway". The actual amount is a fact. How one choses to characterize it is simple a function of slant. We have different slants on the issue.

Sure, and you slant it by calling it a give-away. You choose that phrase because you want people to believe that the rich were "given" something that wasn't theirs to begin with. In point of fact, some of what they, the rich, had "given" the government was returned to them. Your choice of words deliberately obfuscated reality. My choice of words, "reduction in the disporportionate tax burden" accurately reflects reality, it is as 'spinless' as you can get.

I understand why you do it. It is a polemical trick. I do it all the time too. No one would take would get worked up if you portrayed it honestly.

Again, pointless characterization, without critical analysis. You call me "spinless", without provide one bit of convincing evidence of what you could possibly mean.

Okay, I just checked and that makes absolutely zero sense, even considering that lawyers sometimes can't speak very clearly and we even gave you a forty percent margin of error.

1. I didn't call you "spinless."

2. Even if I did call you spinless - what does it mean to provide convincingg evidence to what I possibly mean?

3. If I was paying you a compliment by calling you honest or spinless or a straight shooter - why would I need critical anlysis? Does your wife demand critical analysis if you tell her her hair looks silky soft?

The "give away" is exactly that. My position is that the rich were paying something closer to their fair share before Bush's recent tax cuts that disproportionately favor the rich. It was a give-away because that is EXACTLY what Bush intended. To give back to the rich something they, in my SLANT, didn't need and didn't deserve.

Do you even read what you write. You just said that the people who earn money don't deserve the money they earn. Fortunately this is America and we don't much cotton to socialist claptrap nonsense that you and the likes of Americas most liberal congressman try to foist on us.

Here is your definition of a giveaway:

Four men regualary eat in a restaurant. The bill for the foursome always comes to $100. Because of their relative earnings the men paying the bill thusly:

Man A pays $60

Man B pays $30

Man C pays $10

Man D pays zero

One day after the meal was over and the bill paid the restaurant owner tells them that because they have been good customers and he is going to lower the bill to 80 dollars. The men argue about how to divy up the windfall. Everyone wants a share of the good fortune. They settle on:

Man A get a $12 refund, the meal having cost him $48

Man B gets a $6 refund, the meal having cost him $24

Man C gets a $2 refund, the meal having cost him $8

Man D continues to get a free lunch.

Man C and D scream about how unfairly they have been treated. They did not get an equal share of the windfall. Man B. knows he got a refund in porportion to what he was paying to begin with and also understands that Man A was picking up the lion's share to begin with and so he is happy.

In Cal's socialistic mind, the $12 refund was a "giveaway" that "favored the rich," and he "didn't need and didn't deserve."

Like I say, fortunately this is still America.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow+Oct 3 2004, 10:39 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Oct 3 2004, 10:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Oct 3 2004, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by -Snow@Oct 2 2004, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by -Cal@Oct 2 2004, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by -Snow@Sep 30 2004, 05:46 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Sep 30 2004, 04:10 PM

Whether I ACTUALLY make twice what you do, I could care less. Try to get the meaning of what is being said before you try to pick at the details, it makes for a better discussion.

In this case maybe, in other cases you repeated mistate facts which misrepresent the meaning of what is being said. An example is when you say Bush offered a massive "give away" to the rich instead of giving them a reduction in their disporportiately high tax burden. Or, when you said that he wanted to make it so that they no longer paid the majority of the burden instead of him wanting to simply reduce their burden.

Bush may be a bit of a bumpkin - though he is far more intelligent than the average critic who calls him a dope - and some other things but he is not a self-righteous tool.

What you have refered to here is not misrepresentation, it is simply a difference in characterization. You call it a "reduction", I call it a "massive giveaway". The actual amount is a fact. How one choses to characterize it is simple a function of slant. We have different slants on the issue.

Sure, and you slant it by calling it a give-away. You choose that phrase because you want people to believe that the rich were "given" something that wasn't theirs to begin with. In point of fact, some of what they, the rich, had "given" the government was returned to them. Your choice of words deliberately obfuscated reality. My choice of words, "reduction in the disporportionate tax burden" accurately reflects reality, it is as 'spinless' as you can get.

I understand why you do it. It is a polemical trick. I do it all the time too. No one would take would get worked up if you portrayed it honestly.

Again, pointless characterization, without critical analysis. You call me "spinless", without provide one bit of convincing evidence of what you could possibly mean.

Okay, I just checked and that makes absolutely zero sense, even considering that lawyers sometimes can't speak very clearly and we even gave you a forty percent margin of error.

1. I didn't call you "spinless."

2. Even if I did call you spinless - what does it mean to provide convincingg evidence to what I possibly mean?

3. If I was paying you a compliment by calling you honest or spinless or a straight shooter - why would I need critical anlysis? Does your wife demand critical analysis if you tell her her hair looks silky soft?

The "give away" is exactly that. My position is that the rich were paying something closer to their fair share before Bush's recent tax cuts that disproportionately favor the rich. It was a give-away because that is EXACTLY what Bush intended. To give back to the rich something they, in my SLANT, didn't need and didn't deserve.

Do you even read what you write. You just said that the people who earn money don't deserve the money they earn. Fortunately this is America and we don't much cotton to socialist claptrap nonsense that you and the likes of Americas most liberal congressman try to foist on us.

Here is your definition of a giveaway:

Four men regualary eat in a restaurant. The bill for the foursome always comes to $100. Because of their relative earnings the men paying the bill thusly:

Man A pays $60

Man B pays $30

Man C pays $10

Man D pays zero

One day after the meal was over and the bill paid the restaurant owner tells them that because they have been good customers and he is going to lower the bill to 80 dollars. The men argue about how to divy up the windfall. Everyone wants a share of the good fortune. They settle on:

Man A get a $12 refund, the meal having cost him $48

Man B gets a $6 refund, the meal having cost him $24

Man C gets a $2 refund, the meal having cost him $8

Man D continues to get a free lunch.

Man C and D scream about how unfairly they have been treated. They did not get an equal share of the windfall. Man B. knows he got a refund in porportion to what he was paying to begin with and also understands that Man A was picking up the lion's share to begin with and so he is happy.

In Cal's socialistic mind, the $12 refund was a "giveaway" that "favored the rich," and he "didn't need and didn't deserve."

Like I say, fortunately this is still America.

Again--full of meaningless characterization--short on evidence.

Let me indulge in a little of the kind of characterization you seem so fond of.

The the America you live in would let single mothers in poverty die of starvation, let ghetto kids linger in underfunded schools, let hungry babies die rather than give money and food to their undeserving and lazy partents, pollute the land, sky and sea, make sure the rich pay no taxes and start as many wars as possible, and send only the kids of poor people to fight them.

By characterizing me as a "socialist" you engage in the same kind of unfair characterization I just indulged in. The fact is you and I see two distinct kinds of worlds and have two irreconcilable points of view on the roll of governement, taxation and social programs. The two points of view, in my opinion, come from two different sets of underlying assumptions.

Yours: Poor people are poor because they are lazy. Rich people are rich because they earned it with no help from the government. The rich deserve to keep every penny they make, because they earned it. People with problems brought them on themselves, so those more fortunate are justified in insisting that the governement do little to help. Democrats are socialists.

Mine: The rich make money because the function under the consent of the people that protects their right to do it. They do owe a lot back, and don't deserve to keep every penny. The poor sometimes are lazy, and sometimes need and deserve the help of government to rise up. Spending on social programs may be a waste in some cases and a boon to the economy and people's lives in many. Republicans are facists.

[Snow]

Gee Cal,

Thanks for the fireside chat. What was it you said about me and meaningless characterization short on evidence?

Okay, here's the test of whether or not your post started with hypo and ended with critical:

Where was the evidence in your post?

Oh- that's right - there wasn't any. Kinda like the pot calling the kettle a pot.

Here, let me ask you another question: How many U.S "single mothers in poverty die(d) of starvation" last year Cal?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Cal,

It contributed to the deficit that Bush has given us, which will, no doubt, have to be repaid by raising the taxes on the middle class. Nice neat distribution of wealth, a la Reagan.

That isn't going to happen. If taxes get raised, it will be first on the rich. It always is. The percentage of income taxes paid by the rich has increased pretty consistently since the 1980s. In other words, the tax system has gotten consistently more progressive under Republican and Democratic administrations alike. I'd think you'd like that, even though, as I pointed out, this leaves the country increasingly vulnerable to greater swings in tax revenue during recessions.

One problem with raising taxes on "the rich" is that tax increases never bring in the revenue the increases' proponents project. "Static scoring" of the effects of tax-rate increases mindlessly assume that a 10% increase in tax rates will result in a 10% increase in revenue. That never happens, because (1) the increased tax rates distort the economy and discourage investment-driven growth, thus shrinking the economic pie on which the taxes are levied, and (2) because people use legal strategies to minimize their tax liability. So when Senator Kerry says his proposed increase of taxes on "the rich" (by the way, his definition of "rich" includes pretty much everyone who could afford to buy a house in most of Southern California) will bring in $250 billion in revenue, it's probably safe to assume it will produce about half that. Since he's already proposed much more than that in new spending, taking Kerry at his word means the deficit will probably increase substantially if he were to be elected.

The same thing happened when President Clinton ran for office promising a tax increase only on the wealthy. When that tax increase didn't bring in as much as he'd projected, he reached down to tax the middle class, too. That's one reason I support politicians who favor broad-based tax relief: A President who refuses to raise taxes on people who make more money than I do is even more unlikely to raise taxes on me.

Since government already spends more on education and health care than is the case in most other developed countries, I believe the problem isn't a lack of resources. Government-worker unions have gotten so strong that they'll gobble up any increases in spending, and show no more improvement than they've shown over the last quarter-century.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow@Oct 3 2004, 06:46 PM

Gee Cal,

Thanks for the fireside chat. What was it you said about me and meaningless characterization short on evidence?

Okay, here's the test of whether or not your post started with hypo and ended with critical:

Where was the evidence in your post?

Oh- that's right - there wasn't any. Kinda like the pot calling the kettle a pot.

Here, let me ask you another question: How many U.S "single mothers in poverty die(d) of starvation" last year Cal?

Hopefully very few, since not everyone thinks the way you do.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Cal+Oct 4 2004, 04:56 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Oct 4 2004, 04:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Oct 3 2004, 06:46 PM

Gee Cal,

Thanks for the fireside chat. What was it you said about me and meaningless characterization short on evidence?

Okay, here's the test of whether or not your post started with hypo and ended with critical:

Where was the evidence in your post?

Oh- that's right - there wasn't any. Kinda like the pot calling the kettle a pot.

Here, let me ask you another question: How many U.S "single mothers in poverty die(d) of starvation" last year Cal?

Hopefully very few, since not everyone thinks the way you do.

That's what I though Cal - that when put up time came - you would shut up.

Beyond you getting backed into a corner, what about my tax beliefs would cause single mothers to starve? Hmmm? In point of fact, you know nothing about what I would want done with tax - beyond that I favor acknowledging the the rich pay the lion's share of income taxes and that you can't raise the rate too high on the well-off because 1. it isn't fair and 2. it is counter-productive...

...and that's all you know, nothing else - so when you start spouting garbage about my beliegs leading to the starvation of single mothers, you are just muck-racking, and rather clumsily at that.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow+Oct 4 2004, 06:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Oct 4 2004, 06:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Oct 4 2004, 04:56 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Oct 3 2004, 06:46 PM

Gee Cal,

Thanks for the fireside chat. What was it you said about me and meaningless characterization short on evidence?

Okay, here's the test of whether or not your post started with hypo and ended with critical:

Where was the evidence in your post?

Oh- that's right - there wasn't any. Kinda like the pot calling the kettle a pot.

Here, let me ask you another question: How many U.S "single mothers in poverty die(d) of starvation" last year Cal?

Hopefully very few, since not everyone thinks the way you do.

That's what I though Cal - that when put up time came - you would shut up.

Beyond you getting backed into a corner, what about my tax beliefs would cause single mothers to starve? Hmmm? In point of fact, you know nothing about what I would want done with tax - beyond that I favor acknowledging the the rich pay the lion's share of income taxes and that you can't raise the rate too high on the well-off because 1. it isn't fair and 2. it is counter-productive...

...and that's all you know, nothing else - so when you start spouting garbage about my beliegs leading to the starvation of single mothers, you are just muck-racking, and rather clumsily at that.

It's just that you provide to much 'Muck' to resist raking!