MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 Nice try at backpedaling. You started off by stating as a fact he paid no taxes, and now that you've been called out being full of crap, gone into some ridiculous explanation, again devoid of any actual evidence, that he's somehow accepting government subsidies in an effort to deflect the fact that you were caught lying. Despite the fact that your pathetic attempt at deflection by going into this idiotic tangent about capital gains, you do know that you don't actually pay capital gains taxes unless you actually invest money, right? How about that, someone who actually puts money to work instead of pissing it away and suckling from the teet of the gubment? Alienation of labor? Neo-feudalism? Are you seriously that stupid? again, if i invest 100$, and workers create millions and billions through labor, im pretty sure the teet belongs to the free loading capitalist... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 I've seen some intellectually bankrupt posters on this board, but Marcellus takes the cake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 I've seen some intellectually bankrupt posters on this board, but Marcellus takes the cake If I was the real Marcell Dareus I'd be looking for this guy, and things wouldn't be pretty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 (edited) Does Thinkprogress.com have an article about the 50% of Americans who paid no federal taxers last year? Didn't think so. Just explain to him why all of the people who paid the bills in California left the state and why that deficit has ballooned from 9 billion to 16 billion. I love it when brainless liberals bust on Palin inferring what a stupid person she is, yet when given simple facts can not comprehend the historic economic disaster of liberal tax and spend policies. If Obama gets reelected, what's happening in California is the harbinger of what will happen to the United States. Edited May 14, 2012 by 1billsfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 What do they eat? Brains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 The Hypocrisy of Obama’s Bain BundlerBy Robert Costa Mitt Romney left Bain Capital in 1999 to manage the Winter Olympics, two years before GST Steel declared bankruptcy. But that hasn’t stopped President Obama from blaming him for the company’s 2001 collapse. In a new Obama campaign video, ex-steel workers criticize Romney for being “so out of touch” with the “average working person.”....................... Left unmentioned (and blameless) is Jonathan Lavine. Lavine, according to the L A Times, is a top Obama bundler and a managing director at Bain Capital. Lavine, who has raised over $100,000 for the president, was at the firm when GST Steel declared bankruptcy. So according to the Obama team’s logic, Romney, who had left Bain, is responsible for GST Steel’s demise, but Lavine, who was there, is not? Expect to hear more about this connection. Robert Costa . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 ever heard of alienation of labor? you see its this fact that production creates substantially more in wealth than the initial investment, yet loses that wealth to initial capital. in other words, i created the plant, with my tools, and with my brain, and my weatlh, yet i dont get those profits. or i invest a 100$, but the millions and billions created by others belong to me. its called neo-feudalism :wallbash: So your failure to comprehend basic accounting principles somehow substantiates Marx? Do you even read what you reply to or do you just use the reply function to regurgitate whatever bull **** you just read? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 So your failure to comprehend basic accounting principles somehow substantiates Marx? Do you even read what you reply to or do you just use the reply function to regurgitate whatever bull **** you just read? so you refute something without giving any reason or saying why. Just explain to him why all of the people who paid the bills in California left the state and why that deficit has ballooned from 9 billion to 16 billion. I love it when brainless liberals bust on Palin inferring what a stupid person she is, yet when given simple facts can not comprehend the historic economic disaster of liberal tax and spend policies. If Obama gets reelected, what's happening in California is the harbinger of what will happen to the United States. slavery is a great tool at maximizing profits for capital, doesnt make it moral or sustainable. you see there is more to political economy than the bottom line... :wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 again, if i invest 100$, and workers create millions and billions through labor, im pretty sure the teet belongs to the free loading capitalist... It's called freedom. Maybe my friend who sacrificed to open his restaurant should give the dishwasher & register girl an equal cut of the business. Also, let's abolish the patent office while we're at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 so you refute something without giving any reason or saying why. slavery is a great tool at maximizing profits for capital, doesnt make it moral or sustainable. you see there is more to political economy than the bottom line... :wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash: You're a great tool. Shut the !@#$ up already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 so you refute something without giving any reason or saying why. :wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash: I'm sorry. In the future I'll be sure to counter your points by posting some drivel totally unrelated to the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 You're a great tool. Shut the !@#$ up already. Brains Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 (edited) ever heard of alienation of labor? you see its this fact that production creates substantially more in wealth than the initial investment, yet loses that wealth to initial capital. in other words, i created the plant, with my tools, and with my brain, and my weatlh, yet i dont get those profits. or i invest a 100$, but the millions and billions created by others belong to me. its called neo-feudalism :wallbash: Neo-Feudalism? That's Detroit. Order derived from criminal activity and conspiracy, with the poor bearing the brunt. Look: You are talking to guy who had to concede majority ownership of his firm for investment. At one point, I even conceded the leadership. (How can this be, if I'm narcissist?) Yeah...I don't feel oppressed, or alienated. I'll let you know when I do. The problem for you is: you are dabbling around with concepts like valuation, and deploying a card board cut-out version of the concept of a board of directors(or LLC managers in my case), shareholder's , etc.....as though they are fixed, theoretical things. Reality is much different. There is no substitute for talent. Your % of ownership does you little good if I largely refuse to whip out my...ability, your guy only has a little...ability. , and the firm's success is based on having a big...ability, like mine. However, more often than not, a founder needs the investor's guidance, and mercenary corporate officers they impose,(when they actually have any of either ) than the investor needs the founder, in general. A mature founder knows that he can't control all things, and be all things to all people, and that others have skill sets he simply doesn't have. Rather, he knows that being a founder can, in itself, be a veeeery lucrative career. This is a secret that founders like to keep extremely close. Some "founders" aren't that at all. They are simply a guy that grabs somebody else's idea, knows the VC machine well, starts it off just well enough to hand it off, and gets paid off. Done. Now, how is that guy "alienated"? No. The only alienated people are those who buy the IPO, only to find out that the business model is smoke and mirrors-->Blockbuster video. Edit: the VC/investment bank takes all the blame...and the "founder" gets off scot free, anonymous, and can always blame the VC for screwing up his "idea" if he isn't, and is therefore free to "found" again. But don't feel bad, I was once like you. IIRC when I was intern I came up with a requirements/project plan that went something like: 1. Client needs email, groupware and file serving 2. Deploy Unix Server 3. ???? 3. Profit because all were theoretical concept to me. I had no experience actually gathering requirements, or deploying said server, or designing something that meets those requirements with said server. (Edit: Now that I think about it...this was basically the methodology at Deloitte Doubt it's changed) You'll learn. But, not if you insist on moving theoretical boxes around on a Power Point. Edited May 14, 2012 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 (edited) It's called freedom. Maybe my friend who sacrificed to open his restaurant should give the dishwasher & register girl an equal cut of the business. Also, let's abolish the patent office while we're at it. this is the same concept of freedom slave owners gave or how feudal societies tried to justify their position. you see, you count initial capital as ownership, but you dont let actual people and their own bodies/mind have freedom. capitalism was the labor movement of the agrarian age, a man and his family worked their farm and had a justified right to their labor as it was sold on the market. industry is now entirely collaborative, and now capitalism has created non-labor income class simply because you start something with a little money and then take from others the rest of the way. never mind tons of big business gets made up money through the fed or the fractional reserve system... imagine if i started a lemonade company with literally 50$, and then it turns into a massive billion dollar company. this means i used 50$ to take billions through a !@#$ing retarded definition of private property. this is the equivalent of me giving you a tool belt, i build 10 houses, and now you own the houses. and then you sell the houses buy a million tool belts, and then those people build a whole city, and so on. this literally means through capitalism you can own a whole city hypothetically because you gave one person a tool belt. the classic example of risk also ignores that risk is relative to your wealth. when walmart starts a new restaurant, that is not the risk relative to the empathy driven example of good ole bob in the middle class taking out a major loan. not to mention, big business gets free tax money to cover loss and even profit. e.g. oil subsidies. given this example, there is literally no risk, or all the risk belongs to labor. you can now see why i want to punch fox business news anchors in the face. they spew propaganda... risk takers my ass! but even bobs example of risk is bound by math too. eventually, this risk is outdone by new and larger risk because of the contribution from labor. this happens very quickly. of course all of this obfuscates that many times big business just takes from labor and starts new business, creating even further alienation and stolen wealth. ie walmart starting a bank, or a bar, w/e... in short, all capitalism really comes down to is trying to justify non-labor income, or income through hierarchy and power, and not a real sense of the old capitalism where the farmer sold his goods he worked for. owning initial capital does not mean you own every facet of people and their labor after initial capital. just like owning land does not justify owning people and their labor. this is applying private property to yourself, but not other people. it has nothing to do with skill, or talent, but rather pure power and structuralism. Edited May 15, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 How long til some rocket surgeon in the People's Party comes up with the brilliant conclusion that rich people renouncing their citizenship should have to pay a leaving America tax To answer my own question, 5 days http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/senators-to-unveil-the-ex-patriot-act-to-respond-to-facebooks-saverins-tax-scheme/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 I read the other day he's going to save about 67 Million by doing this. Yeah, sure you didnt do it because of the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 I read the other day he's going to save about 67 Million by doing this. Yeah, sure you didnt do it because of the money. 67 Million at 30% is about $20 Million, or enough to fund the government for about as long as it takes me to type government But we don't need that greedy 1%er anyway or his steady stream of tax revenue if he had stayed a citizen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 To answer my own question, 5 days http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/senators-to-unveil-the-ex-patriot-act-to-respond-to-facebooks-saverins-tax-scheme/ If only Schumer would work this hard to find ways to cut spending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 this is the same concept of freedom slave owners gave or how feudal societies tried to justify their position. you see, you count initial capital as ownership, but you dont let actual people and their own bodies/mind have freedom. capitalism was the labor movement of the agrarian age, a man and his family worked their farm and had a justified right to their labor as it was sold on the market. industry is now entirely collaborative, and now capitalism has created non-labor income class simply because you start something with a little money and then take from others the rest of the way. never mind tons of big business gets made up money through the fed or the fractional reserve system... imagine if i started a lemonade company with literally 50$, and then it turns into a massive billion dollar company. this means i used 50$ to take billions through a !@#$ing retarded definition of private property. this is the equivalent of me giving you a tool belt, i build 10 houses, and now you own the houses. and then you sell the houses buy a million tool belts, and then those people build a whole city, and so on. this literally means through capitalism you can own a whole city hypothetically because you gave one person a tool belt. the classic example of risk also ignores that risk is relative to your wealth. when walmart starts a new restaurant, that is not the risk relative to the empathy driven example of good ole bob in the middle class taking out a major loan. not to mention, big business gets free tax money to cover loss and even profit. e.g. oil subsidies. given this example, there is literally no risk, or all the risk belongs to labor. you can now see why i want to punch fox business news anchors in the face. they spew propaganda... risk takers my ass! but even bobs example of risk is bound by math too. eventually, this risk is outdone by new and larger risk because of the contribution from labor. this happens very quickly. of course all of this obfuscates that many times big business just takes from labor and starts new business, creating even further alienation and stolen wealth. ie walmart starting a bank, or a bar, w/e... in short, all capitalism really comes down to is trying to justify non-labor income, or income through hierarchy and power, and not a real sense of the old capitalism where the farmer sold his goods he worked for. owning initial capital does not mean you own every facet of people and their labor after initial capital. just like owning land does not justify owning people and their labor. this is applying private property to yourself, but not other people. it has nothing to do with skill, or talent, but rather pure power and structuralism. You do understand you are losing your mind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 To answer my own question, 5 days http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/senators-to-unveil-the-ex-patriot-act-to-respond-to-facebooks-saverins-tax-scheme/ That's what the Nazis did to Jews trying to emigrate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts