by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .413414415416417418419. . .598599»

Deostan wrote:hewo

OwO

The Rouge Christmas State, Attancia, and Hrvada

https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax

Interesting read. Essentially billionaires are abusing a loophole that allows them borrow against their stock holdings to fund their lifestyles without reporting any income and thus paying zero federal taxes. Just goes to show two things; one: that radical liberal polices like a "wealth tax" or a "50's style 90% income tax for the rich" aren't going to affect the super-wealthy if they have access to the same tax-avoidance playbook and two: that these radical policies aren't supposed to target their rich donors like Bloomberg, Bezos, and Gates but rather the upper-middle class Americans who worked hard for their lifestyle but aren't rich enough to abuse the same loopholes.

RCN's thoughts? Obviously the best policy isn't raising taxes (that would made the avoidance problem worse and hurt real people) but rather closing these loopholes.

Hrvada wrote:
https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax

Interesting read. Essentially billionaires are abusing a loophole that allows them borrow against their stock holdings to fund their lifestyles without reporting any income and thus paying zero federal taxes. Just goes to show two things; one: that radical liberal polices like a "wealth tax" or a "50's style 90% income tax for the rich" aren't going to affect the super-wealthy if they have access to the same tax-avoidance playbook and two: that these radical policies aren't supposed to target their rich donors like Bloomberg, Bezos, and Gates but rather the upper-middle class Americans who worked hard for their lifestyle but aren't rich enough to abuse the same loopholes.

RCN's thoughts? Obviously the best policy isn't raising taxes (that would made the avoidance problem worse and hurt real people) but rather closing these loopholes.

This is well-known problem, and obviously warrants solution, however 25 men cannot fund the whole state. The public debt shouldn't be allowed to mount to a ridiculous height as to avoid repayments trouble, and new way of taxation should be found to fund the mess left by COVID-19.

Tax cuts for tax cuts sake isn't the solution either, as it would make the fiscal situation worse. We already borrow heavily from our future generations at this moment. Except if you live in an African country whose President denies the existance of the present infection.

I don't suggest anything, but the reason why some countries have abyssal low national debt is due to fact that the budget is fed with black gold.

Attancia, The Dodo Republic, and Hrvada

New waldensia wrote:The church should be active in society and culture, absolutely, and that would include some things that might be considered political. But, a Baptist distinctive is that the state should have no officially sanctioned church/denomination and that church leaders should have no official state role by virtue of their church role.

Been slammed with work and stuff. Our kitchen remodel is probably about halfway right now, so the house and normal life is all topsy-turvy still, haha.

I believe that with out a religious group leading the way on moral and ethical issues a nation will go in search of a moral authority from a different source. In the case of the US, churches stepped back allowing the government to step in and push their asinine agenda. It should be the role of the church to decide issues like abortion, gay marriage, social systems, etc.

~~~
A remodel, children, and a job. You sure are asking for it. XD
In all seriousness I hope all is well for you and my friends in the RCN.

Dunferm, Attancia, The Dodo Republic, and Hrvada

Why is there so much outrage over Illhan Omar saying America and Israel carried out war crimes in Afghanistan (I don't think it's possible "not" to commit a single war crime when the also Coalition killed over 400,000 civilians); but not any outrage over her constant anti-White racism?

American conservatives are so goofy.

Hrvada wrote:Why is there so much outrage over Illhan Omar saying America and Israel carried out war crimes in Afghanistan (I don't think it's possible "not" to commit a single war crime when the also Coalition killed over 400,000 civilians); but not any outrage over her constant anti-white racism?

American conservatives are so goofy.

Every war can be considered a crime I think

Attancia and Hrvada

Hrvada I can't tell if you're being ironic or not :happycrowder:

Hrvada wrote:but not any outrage over her constant anti-white racism?

Oh, I'm outraged alright

The Dodo Republic and Hrvada

Northern connecticut

[quote=hrvada;44247603]Why is there so much outrage over Illhan Omar saying America and Israel carried out war crimes in Afghanistan (I don't think it's possible "not" to commit a single war crime when the also Coalition killed over 400,000 civilians); but not any outrage over her constant anti-white racism?

Im outraged too. Im not Jewish but I have immense sympathy for Isreal. People like Ilhan Omar say things that lead to violence against Jewish people and no one punishes them. It seems like Racism is bad, but liberals think anti semitism is ok. It also seems like left wing political violence is excusable but Right wing is not. Now im no 4chan alt right lunatic, I think all political violence is not good.

Northern connecticut

My plane is taking off soon so I just thought id pop by and see what's up in the good ol RCN.

Northern connecticut wrote:My plane is taking off soon so I just thought id pop by and see what's up in the good ol RCN.

Not much over in the Dodo

Hrvada

Attancia wrote:Hrvada I can't tell if you're being ironic or not :happycrowder:

I'm actually not trolling this time. People are putting words in her mouth to make some kind of point that denies American and Israeli (as well as Afghan National Government, Taliban, and Hamas) war crimes in Afghanistan when there's bigger things these people do and say that we should be offended and outraged by.

Hrvada wrote:I'm actually not trolling this time. People are putting words in her mouth to make some kind of point that denies American and Israeli (as well as Afghan National Government, Taliban, and Hamas) war crimes in Afghanistan when there's bigger things these people do and say that we should be offended and outraged by.

I was talking about the "anti-white racism".

Os Adoradores de Deus wrote:Oh, I'm outraged alright

agreed

Northern connecticut wrote:[quote=hrvada;44247603]Why is there so much outrage over Illhan Omar saying America and Israel carried out war crimes in Afghanistan (I don't think it's possible "not" to commit a single war crime when the also Coalition killed over 400,000 civilians); but not any outrage over her constant anti-white racism?

Im outraged too. Im not Jewish but I have immense sympathy for Isreal. People like Ilhan Omar say things that lead to violence against Jewish people and no one punishes them. It seems like Racism is bad, but liberals think anti semitism is ok. It also seems like left wing political violence is excusable but Right wing is not. Now im no 4chan alt right lunatic, I think all political violence is not good.

What she said exactly wasn not a call to violence, it was a statement of fact and I don't see how it could lead to violence against Jews especially because "Israel" =/= "all Jews..." Also, I believe conservatives calling liberals the "real racists" or the "real antisemites" means that they concede to their paradigm and it's one of my biggest political pet peeves. Racism and antisemitism are obviously bad things, but debating liberals about who's "more racist" or "more antisemetic" under their own conditions is always going to be a losing battle for us.

Attancia

Attancia wrote:I was talking about the "anti-white racism".

That's increasingly becoming a real thing. You have the Mayor of Chicago refusing to interview with White journalists, the Democratic relief package mandating that the vast majority of small business loans only go non-White business owners, the Farmers of Color Act which explicitly mandates that relief only to non-White farmers, anti-White discrimination in college acceptance and student loans, the general otherization of Whites in the media and commentary, etc.

Surprisingly Tulsi Gabbard was the one of the first major people in politics it seems to use the term "anti-white racism."

Hermosamente, Attancia, and The Dodo Republic

Hrvada wrote:That's increasingly becoming a real thing. You have the Mayor of Chicago refusing to interview with White journalists, the Democratic relief package mandating that the vast majority of small business loans only go non-White business owners, the Farmers of Color Act which explicitly mandates that relief only to non-White farmers, anti-White discrimination in college acceptance and student loans, the general otherization of Whites in the media and commentary, etc.

Surprisingly Tulsi Gabbard was the one of the first major people in politics it seems to use the term "anti-white racism."

Oh, I've heard about that racist mayor of Chicago refusing interviews from White Journalists. Unfortunately for her, she is getting backlashed and sued. Also, there is a growing problem in America just like you said about racism and reverse-segregation to White people. I happen to see some White liberals obsessed about skin color (people of color) and why it matters so much, idk why. And there's this another problem: teaching critical race theory to kids.

The Dodo Republic and Hrvada

Mda kentucky legion

Pee

The Dodo Republic and Hrvada

Mda kentucky legion wrote:Pee

So true!

Hrvada wrote:What she said exactly wasn not a call to violence, it was a statement of fact and I don't see how it could lead to violence against Jews especially because "Israel" =/= "all Jews..." Also, I believe conservatives calling liberals the "real racists" or the "real antisemites" means that they concede to their paradigm and it's one of my biggest political pet peeves. Racism and antisemitism are obviously bad things, but debating liberals about who's "more racist" or "more antisemetic" under their own conditions is always going to be a losing battle for us.

You underestimate the mob thinking. Israel is the only Jewish state on the world, and of course its action, for good or bad, will be inevitably lead to association with the entire Jewish People (and to a certain extent, the word "Israel" refers to the entire kind, not just their state, after their progenitor).

The recent conflict led to spark of anti-semetic violence, and people were assaulted on streets by men carrying flags coloured red, white, black, ans green.

The Dodo Republic and Hrvada

Dunferm wrote:You underestimate the mob thinking. Israel is the only Jewish state on the world, and of course its action, for good or bad, will be inevitably lead to association with the entire Jewish People (and to a certain extent, the word "Israel" refers to the entire kind, not just their state, after their progenitor).

The recent conflict led to spark of anti-semetic violence, and people were assaulted on streets by men carrying flags coloured red, white, black, ans green.

Maybe I do underestimate the mob, but are you implying that people shouldn't allowed to criticize the State of Israel because it leads to a few more antisemetic attacks (most of which were non-violent)? I thought conservatives were supposed to be in favor of free speech... The sole reason Trump isn't on Gab, the only true free speech social media platform, is because Jared Kushner wants Gab's CEO Andrew Torba to ban antisemitism and anti-Israeli rhetoric on the site. I think that's a terrible mentality.

I think its also worth mentioning that some of the top Israel critics like Bernie Sanders on the left and Geraldo Rivera on the right are Jewish themselves and wouldn't purposely try to bring harm against themselves and their people.

Hrvada wrote:Maybe I do underestimate the mob, but are you implying that people shouldn't allowed to criticize the State of Israel because it leads to a few more antisemetic attacks (most of which were non-violent)? I thought conservatives were supposed to be in favor of free speech... The sole reason Trump isn't on Gab, the only true free speech social media platform, is because Jared Kushner wants Gab's CEO Andrew Torba to ban antisemitism and anti-Israeli rhetoric on the site. I think that's a terrible mentality.

I think its also worth mentioning that some of the top Israel critics like Bernie Sanders on the left and Geraldo Rivera on the right are Jewish themselves and wouldn't purposely try to bring harm against themselves and their people.

"I thought conservatives were supposed to be in favor of free speech..."

The popular misconception that conservatism equals libertinism and licentiousness. Our rights are bounded by our responsibility to the community, its peace and order. Our right to defend ourselves is not a right to murder, our right for property is not a right to destroy beauty and our freedom of commerce is not freedom of slave-trade. There is difference between honest and intellectual criticism of Israel, and pure defamation by the unruly mob, who express their frustration in the least noble fashion. While the application of the full force of law may be a little too excessive, ultimately protection of social cohesion and public peace is priority over the claims of agitators of their "breached" rights, who themselves breached the spirit of law and rights of society by using it as excuse to assault innocents.

"The sole reason Trump isn't on Gab, the only true free speech social media platform, is because Jared Kushner wants Gab's CEO Andrew Torba to ban antisemitism and anti-Israeli rhetoric on the site. I think that's a terrible mentality."

Oh I have seen Gab. Just another platform for some fringe scare-mongers, who claim that the End of World will come tomorrow, in form of Epstein, Clinton, Big Government, the ZOG, Department of the Interior, FRS, or university fraternities, depending on particular version. It would be rather demeaning for Trump to be on Gab. If even someone wants to ban the "anti-Israel" rhetoric on that site, it tells you something of people that sit on Gab. You know, I have seen these groups from the inside, and they merely use different labels since their old labels become too discredited even for them. Not a National Socialist but a Social Patriot etc.

"I think that's a terrible mentality"
"is because Antonio Ludovici wants CosaNostra's CEO Andrio Torba to ban anarchist and anti-police rhetoric on the site."

"I think its also worth mentioning that some of the top Israel critics like Bernie Sanders on the left and Geraldo Rivera on the right are Jewish themselves and wouldn't purposely try to bring harm against themselves and their people."

Of course, but we still should distinguish between the legitimate criticism and very peaceful rhetoric by some no-name bloggers on Gab, who definitely like to read "Siege" and have an unhealthy obsession over the symbols of yoke and arrows painted red.

The Dodo Republic and Hrvada

Post self-deleted by Dunferm.

To be fair, I actually see no point in "free-speech" social networks, since they are epitome of echochambers. I remember my sojourn in Mastadon, I never imagined that there exists a community so ridiculously social progressive, as if it came out of right-wing parady. I never returned to that social network.

The Dodo Republic and Hrvada

Dunferm wrote:-snip-

Our rights are bounded by our responsibility to the community, its peace and order... There is difference between honest and intellectual criticism of Israel, and pure defamation by the unruly mob, who express their frustration in the least noble fashion.

The ruling in Brandenburg basically resolved the debate over where exactly free speech ends. Under the case's holding, the "disorderly" speech as well as "pure defamation" you speak about is recognized as 1st Amendment free speech. So at the end of the day, in the eyes of U.S. constitutional law there is no "difference."

... who themselves breached the spirit of law and rights of society by using it as excuse to assault innocents.

The vast majority of the people you criticize aren't doing that. According to the ADL (which definitely overreports antisemetism in the U.S.) there were less than 200 antisemetic incidents during the apex of the Israel-Palestine violence last month and most of those were people either spraying graffiti on walls or yelling the "k-word" at Jews, nothing physically violent... However, that's not to endorse or undermine the seriousness of antisemitism or to ignore that there were a few physical attacks.

... in form of Epstein, Clinton, Big Government, the ZOG, Department of the Interior, FRS...

Literally all those things are true to a certain degree but we should save them for another debate.

... it tells you something of people that sit on Gab.

Most of the people on Gab are the same goofy boomers from Middle America who elected Trump, most of my Mom's friends have it for some reason. It wouldn't at all be demeaning for Trump to join a platform filled with his type of people.

I have seen these groups from the inside, and they merely use different labels since their old labels become too discredited even for them. Not a National Socialist but a Social Patriot etc...

I've seen these groups from the inside too, you should know that they don't exist anymore. The Wignats of 2015 and 2016 died with Charlottesville and were buried with 8chan when that board was taken down after Christchurch and El Paso. You couldn't find an edgy Nazi online in 2021 if you had a search warrant!

Of course, but we still should distinguish between the legitimate criticism...

That goes all the way back to the source of this debate which was about Illhan Omar's comments. She said "America and Israel committed war crimes in Afghanistan alongside Hamas, the Taliban, and the ANG." May I ask how that's not a "legitimate criticism" of Israel and rather an antisemetic call-to-violence?

«12. . .413414415416417418419. . .598599»

Advertisement