TakeYouToTasker Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 http://www.villagevoice.com/news/the-10-most-corrupt-tax-loopholes-6436479 boy you are going to be so sad when a Democrat win the Presidency again, I can't wait to hear about your next use of "elections have consequences" speech to explain why you're an Ahole That's not a source outlining bribes paid by the wealthy and corporations in order to lessen their tax burdens. It's a malinformed, flame throwing op-ed, which touches on big scary numbers, and falsely portrays them in a manner which suits the author's "corporations bad!!!" narrative which hinges on the presupposition that the wealthy and corporations don't actually own their own property, but rather that it's justly owned by the government, and by God, those bastards are stealing from America! Try again.
IDBillzFan Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 We were talking about buying tax loopholes you simpleton, in this context you bringing up the Clinton foundation makes no sense, if you want to change the topic to bribery for influence in international commerce then say so you sociopathic cretin. My, my. Such anger from the party of tolerance. That's not a source outlining bribes paid by the wealthy and corporations in order to lessen their tax burdens. It's a malinformed, flame throwing op-ed, which touches on big scary numbers, and falsely portrays them in a manner which suits the author's "corporations bad!!!" narrative which hinges on the presupposition that the wealthy and corporations don't actually own their own property, but rather that it's justly owned by the government, and by God, those bastards are stealing from America! Try again. Hang on. Let him do a quick search on Salon. He'll be right back.
Magox Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 (edited) Mr angry old white liberal white dude, is one nasty little !@#$er Edited September 1, 2015 by Magox
....lybob Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 That's not a source outlining bribes paid by the wealthy and corporations in order to lessen their tax burdens. It's a malinformed, flame throwing op-ed, which touches on big scary numbers, and falsely portrays them in a manner which suits the author's "corporations bad!!!" narrative which hinges on the presupposition that the wealthy and corporations don't actually own their own property, but rather that it's justly owned by the government, and by God, those bastards are stealing from America! Try again. This is why you are a loser, and will continue to lose the political argument, anyone who doesn't have his sociopathic head up his well traveled sphincter know that the rich and corporations are bribing politicians to keep and create special tax loopholes. The system is corrupt and it's why establishment politicians are held in such low regard.
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 This is why you are a loser, and will continue to lose the political argument, anyone who doesn't have his sociopathic head up his well traveled sphincter know that the rich and corporations are bribing politicians to keep and create special tax loopholes. The system is corrupt and it's why establishment politicians are held in such low regard. ALOL I'm a loser because you're an unmitigated moron who can neither articulate an argument nor source a "fact"? C'mon, Big Boy, surely you can do better than that.
billsfan89 Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 That's ironic, because anyone with a "working brain" couldn't possibly support his foreign policy and economic policy prescriptions. They are fitting for a country like Denmark, not a super power like the U.S I'm just glad that people with your radical views are still seen as fringe. You could have a legitimate debate about the merits of Sanders economic policies, effectiveness and unintended consequences of economic mandates. But how his foreign policy is looked at as radical and ineffective is baffling. Sanders was against the War in Iraq, yeah good thing we didn't listen to those people. Our interventions in the middle East have been horrendous. Is the Middle East a better or more stable place with all the wars and military action put in place? Non-Intervention and engaging the world through economics and diplomacy use to be a highly conservative principle. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. Are the results from our Middle East policy working? If you think it's being successful then I hate to see what you think a failure would be.
....lybob Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 ALOL I'm a loser because you're an unmitigated moron who can neither articulate an argument nor source a "fact"? C'mon, Big Boy, surely you can do better than that. ALOL is that "Almighty Loser Of Losers" or "Ahole Laughs Out Loud"
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 (edited) ALOL is that "Almighty Loser Of Losers" or "Ahole Laughs Out Loud" For your purposes, which I'd never lower myself to try and divine, I suppose it's whichever you'd prefer it to be. For the rest of us, it's "I actually physically laughed out loud at your myopic and childish idiocy." Don't you have any desire to do better than this? Wouldn't it be nice if you could actually bolster your positions with sourced facts, rather than feelings of anger and victimhood? Go home, ...lybob, you're drunk. Again. At 3 PM on a weekday. Edited September 1, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker
Magox Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 (edited) You could have a legitimate debate about the merits of Sanders economic policies, effectiveness and unintended consequences of economic mandates. But how his foreign policy is looked at as radical and ineffective is baffling. Sanders was against the War in Iraq, yeah good thing we didn't listen to those people. Our interventions in the middle East have been horrendous. Is the Middle East a better or more stable place with all the wars and military action put in place? Non-Intervention and engaging the world through economics and diplomacy use to be a highly conservative principle. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. Are the results from our Middle East policy working? If you think it's being successful then I hate to see what you think a failure would be. It's baffling to you because you don't understand the correlation of having a strong military and the influence throughout the world that it gives us. It's one thing to be have a foreign policy that first looks to diplomacy but keeps a military option on the table, to one who doesn't even consider the military option at almost any occasion. Aside from the vote to engage in military action against Al Qaeda and Kosovo in 1999, those are the only two authorizations for engagement he's voted on since he was a politician, which I believe dates back to 1990 or so. He would drastically cut back the defense budget, I know to some of you that sounds like a good move. I think we are already beginning to see the drawbacks of a foreign policy that has swung from too interventionist to not being engaged enough. The world is filled with lots of bad characters out there that seize weakness throughout the world. It sounds nice, cool, zen like and all that jazz to just disengage from the world, concentrate on our economy and voila, Problem solved! Doesn't work that way. A country like the US which is so intertwined with our interests woven throughout the world, we can't afford to always neglect the conflicts that occur in regions that matter to us. We have an obligation to protect our direct interests because they impact our lives in one form or another. I'm not an interventionist, but I'm not an pacifist isolationist like Bernie happens to be. Bernie's foreign policy is not made for the U.S and either are his economic policies. Sure, everyone wants free **** and it's even more popular when you say Wall Street is going to pay for it. That's not a serious proposal and anyone who understands the economy and isn't a prisoner of this form of ideology knows that this isn't grounded in reality for a country of 350 million people. Like I said, Bernie's ideas make sense for Denmark, but not for a country like the U.S Edited September 1, 2015 by Magox
....lybob Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 For your purposes, which I'd never lower myself to try and divine, I suppose it's whichever you'd prefer it to be. For the rest of us, it's "I actually physically laughed out loud at your myopic and childish idiocy." Don't you have any desire to do better than this? Wouldn't it be nice if you could actually bolster your positions with sourced facts, rather than feelings of anger and victimhood? God home, ...lybob, you're drunk. Again. At 3 PM on a weekday. I'm glad I type better drunk than you do sober - btw anymore stories about abusing the help over election results, I love to use them to demonstrate the mind of a cuntsevative
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 (edited) I'm glad I type better drunk than you do sober - btw anymore stories about abusing the help over election results, I love to use them to demonstrate the mind of a cuntsevative Yes, actually. It became a better option to lay off both the gardener and the new housekeeper. I've instead hired a caretaking maintenance service which performs both duties, as well as monitoring the property while I'm out of town, and does so at about 75% of the annual cost. Do you not understand that the less I'm taking in, the less I'm willing to spend? Edited September 1, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker
....lybob Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 Yes, actually. It became a better option to lay off both the gardener and the new housekeeper. I've instead hired a caretaking maintenance service which performs both duties, as well as monitoring the property while I'm out of town, and does so at about 75% of the cost. Do you not understand that the less I'm taking in, the less I'm willing to spend? Yeah but you blamed your loser ways on Obama's reelection "elections have consequences" instead of just admitting your ahole personality loss you income.
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 Yeah but you blamed your loser ways on Obama's reelection "elections have consequences" instead of just admitting your ahole personality loss you income. The wife and I made less because of the increases on our capital gains taxes, which was directly tied to President Obama's reelection.
billsfan89 Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 (edited) It's baffling to you because you don't understand the correlation of having a strong military and the influence throughout the world that it gives us. It's one thing to be have a foreign policy that first looks to diplomacy but keeps a military option on the table, to one who doesn't even consider the military option at almost any occasion. Aside from the vote to engage in military action against Al Qaeda and Kosovo in 1999, those are the only two authorizations for engagement he's voted on since he was a politician, which I believe dates back to 1990 or so. He would drastically cut back the defense budget, I know to some of you that sounds like a good move. I think we are already beginning to see the drawbacks of a foreign policy that has swung from too interventionist to not being engaged enough. The world is filled with lots of bad characters out there that seize weakness throughout the world. It sounds nice, cool, zen like and all that jazz to just disengage from the world, concentrate on our economy and voila, Problem solved! Doesn't work that way. A country like the US which is so intertwined with our interests woven throughout the world, we can't afford to always neglect the conflicts that occur in regions that matter to us. We have an obligation to protect our direct interests because they impact our lives in one form or another. I'm not an interventionist, but I'm not an pacifist isolationist like Bernie happens to be. Bernie's foreign policy is not made for the U.S and either are his economic policies. Sure, everyone wants free **** and it's even more popular when you say Wall Street is going to pay for it. That's not a serious proposal and anyone who understands the economy and isn't a prisoner of this form of ideology knows that this isn't grounded in reality for a country of 350 million people. Like I said, Bernie's ideas make sense for Denmark, but not for a country like the U.S But I Think you are misrepresenting exactly what Bernie's foreign policy could be (He hasn't given out too many specifics which is the only one of a few issues he hasn't gone into detail on, so I am basing this off the modest amount of time he has given to the issue and his voting record). First off Sanders did vote for the use of force in Afghanistan in 2001 as well as Kosovo and a few other military actions over the course of the 90's. I don't think Sanders is a pacifist or someone who never supports the use of military force. It doesn't correspond to his voting record or what he has said publicly. The Middle East is a mess that the United States can't fix with military force. We have been trying that for nearly 30 years and it's simply not working. Other areas of the world the USA needs to keep it's military presence. Japan, the Pacific, Western and Eastern Europe, and even as Africa in a humanitarian sense. But the Middle East is just a !@#$ed up situation. No need to keep throwing trillions of dollars down that sinkhole. I also don't think Sanders has said he wants to pare down the military significantly. From my interpretation he wants to cut spending on the military modestly by cutting the money the military spends on combat operations in the Middle East. At a time when the USA is mired in Debt and has a military of 700+ billion I think it would be a good idea to take some of that money the USA spends on military operations overseas and use it to rebuild the infrastructure of the USA. EDIT: If anything I think your idea of sensible foreign policy (Keep the USA's sphere of influence and the use of military force as a last resort option when other options have failed) lines up closer to Bernie than the other major candidates. Edited September 1, 2015 by billsfan89
Magox Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 But I Think you are misrepresenting exactly what Bernie's foreign policy could be (He hasn't given out too many specifics which is the only one of a few issues he hasn't gone into detail on, so I am basing this off the modest amount of time he has given to the issue and his voting record). First off Sanders did vote for the use of force in Afghanistan in 2001 as well as Kosovo and a few other military actions over the course of the 90's. I don't think Sanders is a pacifist or someone who never supports the use of military force. It doesn't correspond to his voting record or what he has said publicly. The Middle East is a mess that the United States can't fix with military force. We have been trying that for nearly 30 years and it's simply not working. Other areas of the world the USA needs to keep it's military presence. Japan, the Pacific, Western and Eastern Europe, and even as Africa in a humanitarian sense. But the Middle East is just a !@#$ed up situation. No need to keep throwing trillions of dollars down that sinkhole. I also don't think Sanders has said he wants to pare down the military significantly. From my interpretation he wants to cut spending on the military modestly by cutting the money the military spends on combat operations in the Middle East. At a time when the USA is mired in Debt and has a military of 700+ billion I think it would be a good idea to take some of that money the USA spends on military operations overseas and use it to rebuild the infrastructure of the USA. EDIT: If anything I think your idea of sensible foreign policy (Keep the USA's sphere of influence and the use of military force as a last resort option when other options have failed) lines up closer to Bernie than the other major candidates. I don't believe that. Based on his voting history and I've looked through it up and down, because that's what kinda dude I am and based on his history, his rhetoric and general philosophy I see him as being an isolationist. Obama's naivete on the world stage and his willingness to appease to avoid conflict has shown himself to be weak and some bad characters have seized upon that. I kinda don't blame him in the sense that one of the mandates of his election was he was going to be the anti G.W Bush. Well, like anything, pendulums swing and he swung too much in the non interventionist side. Sure, we can say that he escalated the Afghanistan war and that he took out Khadafi in Libya. Or that he increased the drone activities and is now running air missions vs. ISIS. We are in a period of tremendous instability in the middle east and for that matter an antagonistic Russia who is pushing the boundaries to see how far they can go without being brushed back. Make no mistake, ISIS wouldn't be what it is today if Obama hadn't of pulled out of Iraq with the expiration of the status of forces agreement. And before you even attempt to pull out some link that says the agreement was going to expire and that it wasn't his fault bla bla bla bla. Don't. Because I can show you even more compelling proof that came directly from his own mouth and the Secretary of Defense under his administration that states otherwise. His desperation to strike any deal with Iran is showing that he is a horrible deal maker. I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that a better deal could have been struck if Iran actually believed that the U.S could have walked away from the table. His unwillingness to stand by the side of the Polish people by providing missile defense systems in the face of the Russians aggression or not wanting to help arm the Ukranians....Or when he dithered early on in Syria. The point is that Bernie would make Obama look like Cheney. I believe that if Bernie had his way, he'd make cuts in Defense like we'd never seen and I know it sounds cliche but I absolutely believe in it, that there is a such thing as peace through strength. If bad characters out there know they can push through certain areas without being stopped, they will do it. If they know there will be resistance, then the likelyhood of that happening is much less. I know you and others like Bernie, he's there for the little guy etc etc. But he isn't fit to be president of this country. His mindset is for Scandinavia, not here.
DC Tom Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 The question I'd ask Carson is "how old do you think the earth is?" I'd ask him "Where do antibiotic-resistant bacteria come from?" Really...an MD who doesn't believe in evolution?
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) I'd ask him "Where do antibiotic-resistant bacteria come from?" Really...an MD who doesn't believe in evolution? You'd question his skill and expertise as a doctor? Even in a round-about way? Why not question him on something relevant? Edited September 2, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker
Who is Yuri? Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 That's not a source outlining bribes paid by the wealthy and corporations in order to lessen their tax burdens. It's a malinformed, flame throwing op-ed, which touches on big scary numbers, and falsely portrays them in a manner which suits the author's "corporations bad!!!" narrative which hinges on the presupposition that the wealthy and corporations don't actually own their own property, but rather that it's justly owned by the government, and by God, those bastards are stealing from America! Try again. Sorry for taking so long to get back to you on the "tax evasion" point. I'm sure a great many Americans hire someone to prepare their taxes. Those persons with investments, foundations, families, and charities certainly don't mind it when a book-keeper, or accountant minimizes their tax burden. After-all, you didn't get to this point by being stupid with money. These people with money aren't bad people, and to accuse them of "tax evasion," as if it's something like a crime, is unfair. That being said, from my own bias (yes), of someone who is against corporate inversions, outsourcing, some free-trade agreements I think you understand, if not share where I am coming from with regards to wanting corporations to pay more real taxes. As you are an investor, if corporations are restricted from maximizing profits through the aforementioned ways, that would have an effect on your return on investment. However, without corporate inversions, outsourcing, and some free trade agreements, I do believe that this effect on your tax burden would be mitigated by reduced unemployment, food-stamps, and Medicaid costs. I believe that you cannot be FOR outsourcing jobs, paying starvation wages, de-regulation, and also be AGAINST safety net programs, That, to me is a recipe for radical revolution. However, I am sensitive to the fact that the rich should not be scapegoated at all for the position that we all find ourselves in. If I've given you the opposite impression, I apologize, and will be more careful with my words, and find the time to respond to you with good sense, and compassion, sir. But I'd also like capital gains to be taxed slightly higher, but not as much as income.
billsfan89 Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 I don't believe that. Based on his voting history and I've looked through it up and down, because that's what kinda dude I am and based on his history, his rhetoric and general philosophy I see him as being an isolationist. Obama's naivete on the world stage and his willingness to appease to avoid conflict has shown himself to be weak and some bad characters have seized upon that. I kinda don't blame him in the sense that one of the mandates of his election was he was going to be the anti G.W Bush. Well, like anything, pendulums swing and he swung too much in the non interventionist side. Sure, we can say that he escalated the Afghanistan war and that he took out Khadafi in Libya. Or that he increased the drone activities and is now running air missions vs. ISIS. We are in a period of tremendous instability in the middle east and for that matter an antagonistic Russia who is pushing the boundaries to see how far they can go without being brushed back. Make no mistake, ISIS wouldn't be what it is today if Obama hadn't of pulled out of Iraq with the expiration of the status of forces agreement. And before you even attempt to pull out some link that says the agreement was going to expire and that it wasn't his fault bla bla bla bla. Don't. Because I can show you even more compelling proof that came directly from his own mouth and the Secretary of Defense under his administration that states otherwise. His desperation to strike any deal with Iran is showing that he is a horrible deal maker. I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that a better deal could have been struck if Iran actually believed that the U.S could have walked away from the table. His unwillingness to stand by the side of the Polish people by providing missile defense systems in the face of the Russians aggression or not wanting to help arm the Ukranians....Or when he dithered early on in Syria. The point is that Bernie would make Obama look like Cheney. I believe that if Bernie had his way, he'd make cuts in Defense like we'd never seen and I know it sounds cliche but I absolutely believe in it, that there is a such thing as peace through strength. If bad characters out there know they can push through certain areas without being stopped, they will do it. If they know there will be resistance, then the likelyhood of that happening is much less. I know you and others like Bernie, he's there for the little guy etc etc. But he isn't fit to be president of this country. His mindset is for Scandinavia, not here. Had the USA avoided conflict and been more measured in it's approach to use of force then the war in Iraq probably would have never happened. ISIS would not exist had it not been through an over eager use of force. Both the Bush and Obama administrations mishandled the Iraq situation. Bush of course getting the USA into the war and mishandling the non-existent exit strategy (Also fostering some of the conditions that led to ISIS beyond destabilizing the region). Obama didn't leave a force behind due to political pressure within the USA and within Iraq (Even had he wanted to, the Iraqi government had a major political force not wanting it, although I bet had the Obama administration been more steadfast in pressing for it they could have gotten it done). There is such a thing as peace through strength. But there is also blowback and unintended consequences. Also by being tied up in conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan the USA has been limited in it's capacity to have a sphere of influence all across the world. Madmen are much more willing to act if they know the USA is war tired and caught up in two Middle East wars, knowing the USA doesn't have the backing of the international community and is limited in their options to engage in more war. So of course there has to be a balance there. However when looking at our policy in the Middle East can you really say it's working? Defending our allies in Europe, The Pacific, and the Americas is one thing, but keeping up this intervention in the Middle East just isn't working and it's tying up our resources into useless occupations is actually hurting Americas ability to project strength.
Magox Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) We are knee deep in it, we have interests all over the middle east and I'm not just talking about oil. We have strategic allies in place and the middle east is on the verge of having a nuclear race. Many of these countries are run by religious fanatics and the idea that if we just turn are backs, scale down on our military and for the most part just focus on Domestic issues which is what I wholeheartedly and with good reason believe in. I'm not advocating for the Cheney foreign policy approach but definitely more muscular than Obama's. He's telegraphed his intentions on a number of issues, and our enemies know that he will avoid confrontation at all cost. That sounds nice, but it's not fitting for a country like the U.S The credible threat of retaliation against countries that want to advance terror and regional dominance is critical. It's like playing poker with someone, if you know they aren't holding anything, then you will call them every time. Putin, Syria and ISIS all have been pushing themselves to the limit. Obama established a "red line", Syria knew he was bullshittin, and they crossed it. Now look at that **** hole. Putin knows that he is surrounded by a bunch of pacifistic pussies in Europe and he knows that we were naive enough to not assist Poland and Ukraine and he's continuously pushing everyone as far as he can. And we all know that Bernie is even a much bigger non interventionist than Obama, he'd get pushed around even more. Listen, I think he's an honest guy who has convictions. I like that. But he's not made to be president of this country for matters of both the economy and foreign policy. Edited September 2, 2015 by Magox
Recommended Posts