monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@maporsche,

And you have been a font of widely diverging viewpoints?

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

According to the WaPo Fact Checker - The Dems propaganda in response to this plan is worth 4 Pinocchios which is just short of the top lying spot.

You should work on your reading comprehension. The WaPo fact checker went up against the Dem claim that 'middle class taxes would rise for most taxpayers.' Not that it's not a giveaway to the wealthy, which it certainly is.

Here's an actual link to the article - why don't you go ahead and point out what it says that's contradictory to what I wrote:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/11/02/senate-democrats-falsely-claim-gop-tax-plan-will-raise-taxes-for-most-working-class-families/

Quote:

But keep on spreading the bilgewater.

Amusing considering the error you made above

Quote:

What do you consider the "very wealthy?"

Those with income, mostly in the form of investment income, that fall in the top 1% of all taxpayers. The currently proposed tax bill is a MASSIVE boon to them. It cuts their taxes in every conceivable way other than the actual top-line rate on earned income of 39.5% (which remains unchanged). That's a red-herring, though, as the very wealthy earn next to none of their income as direct compensation.

The bill has multiple giveaways that are specifically designed to help the quite wealthy, in addition to the corporate tax cuts and removal of the AMT. It caps SALT deductions - but not from investment income, so the very wealthy in blue states wouldn't be hurt at all. It completely removes the Estate tax within 6 years.

Here's an egregious one for you: It changes corporate tax rules on pass-through organizations (ostensibly to combat your doctor and lawyer from self-incorporating) but exempts from these changes, guess what? Real estate corporations! Guess whose companies will all pay massively less tax under this bill?

The bill is a legit giant giveaway to the wealthy, I can't imagine you can put together a cogent argument otherwise based on the facts of the current bill. The middle-classes and lower-classes will receive only tiny amounts of tax relief, and if you live in about 10 states, you're likely to receive no relief at all.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

I have now decided that the 2017 Presidential election was decided by the illegal Russian hacking, bot, eMail, Facebook, Tweeter and Google ad activities conspired to and colluded to with the help of the tRump Campaign, a now known criminal organization! There were other factors, sure, but this was primary and had it not occurred, Hillary would be President instead of stupid!

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

And you have been a font of widely diverging viewpoints?

If not viewpoints then at the very least topics.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Why don't y'all spend your precious time responding to her posts rather than disparaging the lady? Is anything she's posted blatantly false?

HAHAHA

Are you, are you serious? She (assuming it is a she) regularly posts the worst sort of clap-trap. And you can't have a discussion with her about the fact that her sources and arguments are ****, because she simply ignores what you write and refuses to engage in substantive discussion.

We don't do it because it's a waste of our ******* time

I should add that you as well have a bad habit of running away from discussion when someone points out that your argument is crap. But you're no Lash.

Cycloptichorn

3 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

HAHAHA and an HA

She is a "she" you fool. A2K members have met her.

"Clap-trap" as defined by you is anything you disagree with.

You're quite bold in declaring sources "****." Once again, prove they are or stop with your declarations.

Funny how you are quite willing to waste your "*******" time disparaging her.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

HAHAHA and an HA

She is a "she" you fool. A2K members have met her.

I'll take your word for it. I never make assumptions about gender on the internet, which I'm sure you'll agree is a good policy to engage in.

Quote:

"Clap-trap" as defined by you is anything you disagree with.

Not at all. Only indefensible or unsupportable arguments, or those based on fiction instead of fact.

Quote:

You're quite bold in declaring sources "****." Once again, prove they are or stop with your declarations.

Prove what? To who? As I said in the last thread, I could spend hours obsessively tracking down how many fake or totally crap articles have been published in the Daily Caller, and what would be the result? You wouldn't care. You wouldn't stop linking to them. Where's the benefit in my doing so, what do I gain from it? Explain that to me and maybe I'll consider doing so.

Quote:

Funny how you are quite willing to waste your "*******" time disparaging her.

It's both fun and easy to do so. I don't consider it a waste of time. It's productive, as opposed to, say, trying to engage her in substantive discussion.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

I should add that you as well have a bad habit of running away from discussion when someone points out that your argument is crap. But you're no Lash.

Then again, no difference - really!

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Prove what? To who? As I said in the last thread, I could spend hours obsessively tracking down how many fake or totally crap articles have been published in the Daily Caller, and what would be the result? You wouldn't care. You wouldn't stop linking to them. Where's the benefit in my doing so, what do I gain from it? Explain that to me and maybe I'll consider doing so.

Reminds me of when I was a kid and a coward called out to fight declared "I'd fight you but I'm afraid I'd kill you" HaHaHa

To use one of your favorite rhetorical ploys: "Even you know this response is pure bullshit"

1 Reply

@BillW,

And you're no Cyclo...that's for damned sure.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Give me an argument that I've run away from

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

On the contrary, I know what I wrote is perfectly true and so do you. What more, you can't explain to me what I'd gain from doing so precisely because of that fact.

Now, why don't you respond to my post about the tax bill, and how incorrect you were? An admission of error would be nice. Do you have the intellectual honesty to do so?

Here's a link for your convenience -

https://able2know.org/topic/355218-1664#post-6532223

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@BillW,

BillW wrote:

Quote:
I should add that you as well have a bad habit of running away from discussion when someone points out that your argument is crap. But you're no Lash.

Then again, no difference - really!

Wait a second, Lash probably isn't a White Supremacist, Finn is!

2 Replies

@BillW,

Yep...you got it.

And I am just as convinced that you are a toad licker.

See God yet?

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Even I, non legal eagle, knew that.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

So you accept the Dem's false claims about benefits for the wealthy while acknowledging (?) they've lied about the impact on the middle class?

Are you a Tax Lawyer or a CPA because if not you don't have any more of a clue as to this bill than I do. You can parrot your Dem sources but really should you claim their ideas as your own?

1 Reply

@BillW,

So let it be written, so let it be so! Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Give me an argument that I've run away from

I think this post, from today, is a great example of how your and my conversations usually go:

https://able2know.org/topic/355218-1664#post-6532223

See, the problem for you is that I actually do research! I know the details of things and am more than happy to argue in detail! You, not so much. Big on declaratory statements, poor on sourcing. Even upon request. So when confronted with a detailed argument that cuts against your own, your MO is to simply... stop responding. How would you characterize it?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

So you accept the Dem's false claims about benefits for the wealthy while acknowledging (?) they've lied about the impact on the middle class?

It's not the 'Dems claims' about the benefits for the wealthy, I'm literally repeating to you the written elements of the bill. These are not contreversial or opinion-based statements, they're the exact proposal the GOP put forth today! You understand that, right? Did you bother to do even a tiny bit of research before posting about it? Read a single article about it? I honestly don't think you did. Why talk about things that you haven't done even the slightest research about first? I personally would be embarrassed to do so.

Quote:

Are you a Tax Lawyer or a CPA because if not you don't have any more of a clue as to this bill than I do. You can parrot your Dem sources but really should you claim their ideas as your own?

Haha, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, I guess. Ya got me. I am an accountant and I do in fact have a very good idea what this bill will do.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

Rick Perry suggests fossil fuels could reduce sexual assault in Africa

The social media backlash was swift and brutal after Energy Secretary Rick Perry today suggested that fossil fuels would play a "positive role" in preventing sexual assault in Africa.

Perry, who last month traveled to Cape Town, South Africa to discuss oil and gas partnerships in Africa, today tied the sexual assault issue to the lack of electricity on the continent:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/rick-perry-suggests-fossil-fuels-reduce-sexual-assault/story?id=50891889

1 Reply

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know