(03-27-2019 10:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 05:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  . Graham himself felt that the dossier was valid enough to turn into the FBI, and why would he do that, if not because he wanted them to investigate the dossier's claims???

Graham explained that on CNN, and it was not as you assume, that he believed the dossier had validity. But listen to [url=https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/25/politics/lindsey-graham-john-mccain-dossier-fbi/index.htmlhim[/url]

John McCain showed me the dossier. And I told him the only thing I knew to do with it, it could be a bunch of garbage, it could be true, who knows? Turn it over to somebody who's job it is to find these things out and John McCain acted appropriately."

Actually, that is as I assume. If Graham had received a dossier that said Trump was a lizard person like Donald Rumsfield, he wouldn’t have turned it over to the FBI because it wouldn’t have been valid - it would obviously be a bunch of garbage. But the Trump dossier seemed to be valid on the surface and worthy of investigating. And we have no evidence the FBI acted inappropriately in investigating the dossier besides the fact that they investigated the dossier that was turned over to them by a couple of Republicans...

(03-27-2019 09:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 02:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Really interesting idea I just saw, and potentially an argument for keeping the Mueller report under wraps

Quote: Imagine if the Starr Report had been provided only to President Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, who then read it privately and published a 4-page letter based on her private reading stating her conclusion that President Clinton committed no crimes.

When Mueller's investigation was mischaracterized, he publicly set the record straight. I would assume he would do the same with any mischaracterization of the results in his report.

But we see that it is always assumed that Republican appointees will bend and break the rules out of gratitude for their jobs, while
democratic appointees cannot be swayed from the pristine performance of their duties.

Yeah, not saying anything about mischaracterization. I’ve said multiple times now that the Barr report is not going to be lying or disingenuous about the final conclusions.

What you keep missing, apparently, is that the details provided in reaching those conclusions are VERY important. Like with OJ, if you didn’t know the details of the case, you wouldn’t realize how likely it was that he did commit the murder. And to the Start report, and why I said maybe it could be good to not release the entire report, you would keep salacious details that don’t provide any value to the nation, under wraps. Our nation certainly didn’t need to know all the nitty-gritty sexual details that the Starr Report made public.

(03-28-2019 06:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 10:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 05:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  . Graham himself felt that the dossier was valid enough to turn into the FBI, and why would he do that, if not because he wanted them to investigate the dossier's claims???

Graham explained that on CNN, and it was not as you assume, that he believed the dossier had validity. But listen to [url=https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/25/politics/lindsey-graham-john-mccain-dossier-fbi/index.htmlhim[/url]

John McCain showed me the dossier. And I told him the only thing I knew to do with it, it could be a bunch of garbage, it could be true, who knows? Turn it over to somebody who's job it is to find these things out and John McCain acted appropriately."

Actually, that is as I assume. If Graham had received a dossier that said Trump was a lizard person like Donald Rumsfield, he wouldn’t have turned it over to the FBI because it wouldn’t have been valid - it would obviously be a bunch of garbage. But the Trump dossier seemed to be valid on the surface and worthy of investigating. And we have no evidence the FBI acted inappropriately in investigating the dossier besides the fact that they investigated the dossier that was turned over to them by a couple of Republicans...

You mean the dossier that was paid for by a bunch of Democrats, and seeded to the press by a bunch of Democrats, so that a Democratis administration could use the press reports as 'verification' so that a FISA court wouldnt turn them down --- as the FISA court had done so previously.

That dossier, right?

(03-28-2019 06:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 10:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 05:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  . Graham himself felt that the dossier was valid enough to turn into the FBI, and why would he do that, if not because he wanted them to investigate the dossier's claims???

Graham explained that on CNN, and it was not as you assume, that he believed the dossier had validity. But listen to [url=https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/25/politics/lindsey-graham-john-mccain-dossier-fbi/index.htmlhim[/url]
John McCain showed me the dossier. And I told him the only thing I knew to do with it, it could be a bunch of garbage, it could be true, who knows? Turn it over to somebody who's job it is to find these things out and John McCain acted appropriately."

Actually, that is as I assume. If Graham had received a dossier that said Trump was a lizard person like Donald Rumsfield, he wouldn’t have turned it over to the FBI because it wouldn’t have been valid - it would obviously be a bunch of garbage. But the Trump dossier seemed to be valid on the surface and worthy of investigating. And we have no evidence the FBI acted inappropriately in investigating the dossier besides the fact that they investigated the dossier that was turned over to them by a couple of Republicans...

Actually, we do have evidence that the FBI acted inappropriately.

They included some portion or portions--not all--of the dossier in a filing before the FISA court to obtain warrants to conduct surveillance of certain individuals associated with the Trump campaign. Rep. Schiff has stated that "most" of the portions of the dossier filed with the FISA court had had been verified at the time, and James Clapper has stated that more and more of the dossier has been verified over time. There is some debate whether the dossier was or was not a material part of the FISA application, or to what extent the FISA court relied upon it in issuing the warrant(s).

I believe that summary of what I understand to be the facts is accurate. If you have reason to believe any part of that paragraph is inaccurate, please so state.

Based on that statement of facts, the FBI did act inappropriately and the issuance of warrant(s) by the FISA court was improper. Whether most of the dossier was verified at the time, or whether more of it has been has been verified subsequently, or whether it was a material part of the FISA application, or to what extent the FISA court relied on it, are all irrelevant.

There are two cases where the warrants could have been proper--either 100% of the dossier (or at least the parts filed with the court) had been verified independently prior to filing the request for the warrant(s), or no part of the dossier was included in any FISA filing. I don't believe either of those to be the case.

(03-28-2019 06:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 06:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 10:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 05:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  . Graham himself felt that the dossier was valid enough to turn into the FBI, and why would he do that, if not because he wanted them to investigate the dossier's claims???

Graham explained that on CNN, and it was not as you assume, that he believed the dossier had validity. But listen to [url=https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/25/politics/lindsey-graham-john-mccain-dossier-fbi/index.htmlhim[/url]

John McCain showed me the dossier. And I told him the only thing I knew to do with it, it could be a bunch of garbage, it could be true, who knows? Turn it over to somebody who's job it is to find these things out and John McCain acted appropriately."

Actually, that is as I assume. If Graham had received a dossier that said Trump was a lizard person like Donald Rumsfield, he wouldn’t have turned it over to the FBI because it wouldn’t have been valid - it would obviously be a bunch of garbage. But the Trump dossier seemed to be valid on the surface and worthy of investigating. And we have no evidence the FBI acted inappropriately in investigating the dossier besides the fact that they investigated the dossier that was turned over to them by a couple of Republicans...

You mean the dossier that was paid for by a bunch of Democrats, and seeded to the press by a bunch of Democrats, so that a Democratis administration could use the press reports as 'verification' so that a FISA court wouldnt turn them down --- as the FISA court had done so previously.

That dossier, right?

I mean the dossier that was started by Republicans, turned over to Republicans, and acted on by Republicans. That one!

(03-28-2019 07:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 06:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 06:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 10:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 05:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  . Graham himself felt that the dossier was valid enough to turn into the FBI, and why would he do that, if not because he wanted them to investigate the dossier's claims???

Graham explained that on CNN, and it was not as you assume, that he believed the dossier had validity. But listen to [url=https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/25/politics/lindsey-graham-john-mccain-dossier-fbi/index.htmlhim[/url]

John McCain showed me the dossier. And I told him the only thing I knew to do with it, it could be a bunch of garbage, it could be true, who knows? Turn it over to somebody who's job it is to find these things out and John McCain acted appropriately."

Actually, that is as I assume. If Graham had received a dossier that said Trump was a lizard person like Donald Rumsfield, he wouldn’t have turned it over to the FBI because it wouldn’t have been valid - it would obviously be a bunch of garbage. But the Trump dossier seemed to be valid on the surface and worthy of investigating. And we have no evidence the FBI acted inappropriately in investigating the dossier besides the fact that they investigated the dossier that was turned over to them by a couple of Republicans...

You mean the dossier that was paid for by a bunch of Democrats, and seeded to the press by a bunch of Democrats, so that a Democratis administration could use the press reports as 'verification' so that a FISA court wouldnt turn them down --- as the FISA court had done so previously.

That dossier, right?

I mean the dossier that was started by Republicans, turned over to Republicans, and acted on by Republicans. That one!

Started, but not finished, that one, right?

So if I start building a house, abandon the project after staking out the foundation, and you come along and finish the house, adding a fairy castle with arrow slits and a moat, it is my house, right?

So how did the democrats end up paying for it? Who hired Steele? Who sent him to russia?

I know, since we are uncertain of this, let's have an investigation! Those always clear things up. I( am sure you would love an investigation. Your fellow democrats, not so much.

Pretty clear the Democrats are going to keep spreading the myth that they are pure, Republicans are evil, and the evilest of them all, Trump, is guilty of everything rumored and will will someday, somehow, be brought to justice.

Keep the faith, baby! You will be rewarded someday with higher taxes and long waits at the doctor's.

nothing has changed

Certainly not minds. No wonder it is business-as-usual for Schiff and his pack of baying dogs.

Like most of her friends, she’s convinced that Mueller’s two years of work must have produced something damning and fatal to the Trump presidency.

“One doesn’t spend two years investigating things, issuing indictments and causing the federal courts to churn without having something,” she said. “There’s something in there.” (Bolding mine)

So the accusations and investigations to find "something" will continue. Sounds like a witch hunt to me.

(03-28-2019 08:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 07:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 06:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 06:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 10:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Graham explained that on CNN, and it was not as you assume, that he believed the dossier had validity. But listen to [url=https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/25/politics/lindsey-graham-john-mccain-dossier-fbi/index.htmlhim[/url]

John McCain showed me the dossier. And I told him the only thing I knew to do with it, it could be a bunch of garbage, it could be true, who knows? Turn it over to somebody who's job it is to find these things out and John McCain acted appropriately."

Actually, that is as I assume. If Graham had received a dossier that said Trump was a lizard person like Donald Rumsfield, he wouldn’t have turned it over to the FBI because it wouldn’t have been valid - it would obviously be a bunch of garbage. But the Trump dossier seemed to be valid on the surface and worthy of investigating. And we have no evidence the FBI acted inappropriately in investigating the dossier besides the fact that they investigated the dossier that was turned over to them by a couple of Republicans...

You mean the dossier that was paid for by a bunch of Democrats, and seeded to the press by a bunch of Democrats, so that a Democratis administration could use the press reports as 'verification' so that a FISA court wouldnt turn them down --- as the FISA court had done so previously.

That dossier, right?

I mean the dossier that was started by Republicans, turned over to Republicans, and acted on by Republicans. That one!

Started, but not finished, that one, right?

So if I start building a house, abandon the project after staking out the foundation, and you come along and finish the house, adding a fairy castle with arrow slits and a moat, it is my house, right?

So how did the democrats end up paying for it? Who hired Steele? Who sent him to russia?

I know, since we are uncertain of this, let's have an investigation! Those always clear things up. I( am sure you would love an investigation. Your fellow democrats, not so much.

Pretty clear the Democrats are going to keep spreading the myth that they are pure, Republicans are evil, and the evilest of them all, Trump, is guilty of everything rumored and will will someday, somehow, be brought to justice.

Keep the faith, baby! You will be rewarded someday with higher taxes and long waits at the doctor's.

As if your team isn't doing the same? I think I heard Democrats be compared to cockroaches earlier on this board...

Like I said, I expect Mueller to dive into the beginnings of the investigation in his report to lay the groundwork for his findings. If he doesn't, I think having an investigation would be beneficial for the country to move forward.

And I've got no problem with higher taxes and longer waits if it benefits society as a whole. If those taxes go towards fixing our crumbling infrastructure, future-proofing out vulnerable cities, funding alternative energy research, curing diseases, etc. I will gladly pay them. I recognize that I am part of a society that needs to continue working together, and funding is needed to do that.

(03-28-2019 09:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 08:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 07:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 06:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 06:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Actually, that is as I assume. If Graham had received a dossier that said Trump was a lizard person like Donald Rumsfield, he wouldn’t have turned it over to the FBI because it wouldn’t have been valid - it would obviously be a bunch of garbage. But the Trump dossier seemed to be valid on the surface and worthy of investigating. And we have no evidence the FBI acted inappropriately in investigating the dossier besides the fact that they investigated the dossier that was turned over to them by a couple of Republicans...

You mean the dossier that was paid for by a bunch of Democrats, and seeded to the press by a bunch of Democrats, so that a Democratis administration could use the press reports as 'verification' so that a FISA court wouldnt turn them down --- as the FISA court had done so previously.

That dossier, right?

I mean the dossier that was started by Republicans, turned over to Republicans, and acted on by Republicans. That one!

Started, but not finished, that one, right?

So if I start building a house, abandon the project after staking out the foundation, and you come along and finish the house, adding a fairy castle with arrow slits and a moat, it is my house, right?

So how did the democrats end up paying for it? Who hired Steele? Who sent him to russia?

I know, since we are uncertain of this, let's have an investigation! Those always clear things up. I( am sure you would love an investigation. Your fellow democrats, not so much.

Pretty clear the Democrats are going to keep spreading the myth that they are pure, Republicans are evil, and the evilest of them all, Trump, is guilty of everything rumored and will will someday, somehow, be brought to justice.

Keep the faith, baby! You will be rewarded someday with higher taxes and long waits at the doctor's.

As if your team isn't doing the same? I think I heard Democrats be compared to cockroaches earlier on this board...

Like I said, I expect Mueller to dive into the beginnings of the investigation in his report to lay the groundwork for his findings. If he doesn't, I think having an investigation would be beneficial for the country to move forward.

And I've got no problem with higher taxes and longer waits if it benefits society as a whole. If those taxes go towards fixing our crumbling infrastructure, future-proofing out vulnerable cities, funding alternative energy research, curing diseases, etc. I will gladly pay them. I recognize that I am part of a society that needs to continue working together, and funding is needed to do that.

Thank you, sir, may I please have another.

I don't know who called your side cockroaches. I certainly would not use that characterization, except for Antifa and other haters. OTOH, I have been told that I am racist, deplorable, that i want people to die, that I am afraid of brown people(!), that I am motivated only by greed and hatred, just recently I have been considered two-faced and evil. I guess this stuff happens when all opposition is lumped into one basket.

I like lower taxes because I see lower taxes as fueling a better economy, which benefits us all. A better economy can fix our "crumbling" infrastructure, fund research, etc.

I don't know if our cities can be 'future-proofed". Is this the promise of the GND? What exactly does "future-proofing" entail? Are you guys going to halt the rise in sea level?

So, lad, we seem to agree on goals, just not ways to achieve them. I think AOL's goals are admirable, although unrealistic, her means stupid and counter productive.

maybe we, the deplorable racist and the cockroach, can work together sometime. But probably not, as long we advocate different means. I believe in feeding the goose that lays the golden eggs, you believe in starving it. The whole mantra behind higher taxes is that "it won't hurt anybody, the rich can afford it". I think the rich are not as unkowing and uncaring about taxes as your side would have us believe. JMHO.

(03-28-2019 09:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 09:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 08:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 07:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 06:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  You mean the dossier that was paid for by a bunch of Democrats, and seeded to the press by a bunch of Democrats, so that a Democratis administration could use the press reports as 'verification' so that a FISA court wouldnt turn them down --- as the FISA court had done so previously.

That dossier, right?

I mean the dossier that was started by Republicans, turned over to Republicans, and acted on by Republicans. That one!

Started, but not finished, that one, right?

So if I start building a house, abandon the project after staking out the foundation, and you come along and finish the house, adding a fairy castle with arrow slits and a moat, it is my house, right?

So how did the democrats end up paying for it? Who hired Steele? Who sent him to russia?

I know, since we are uncertain of this, let's have an investigation! Those always clear things up. I( am sure you would love an investigation. Your fellow democrats, not so much.

Pretty clear the Democrats are going to keep spreading the myth that they are pure, Republicans are evil, and the evilest of them all, Trump, is guilty of everything rumored and will will someday, somehow, be brought to justice.

Keep the faith, baby! You will be rewarded someday with higher taxes and long waits at the doctor's.

As if your team isn't doing the same? I think I heard Democrats be compared to cockroaches earlier on this board...

Like I said, I expect Mueller to dive into the beginnings of the investigation in his report to lay the groundwork for his findings. If he doesn't, I think having an investigation would be beneficial for the country to move forward.

And I've got no problem with higher taxes and longer waits if it benefits society as a whole. If those taxes go towards fixing our crumbling infrastructure, future-proofing out vulnerable cities, funding alternative energy research, curing diseases, etc. I will gladly pay them. I recognize that I am part of a society that needs to continue working together, and funding is needed to do that.

Thank you, sir, may I please have another.

I don't know who called your side cockroaches.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-16...id16016615

From GoodOwl:

Quote:Yup. Lindsey has the Sunlight now. Let's enjoy watching the Dem roaches scatter the next two years.

Quote:I certainly would not use that characterization, except for Antifa and other haters. OTOH, I have been told that I am racist, deplorable, that i want people to die, that I am afraid of brown people(!), that I am motivated only by greed and hatred, just recently I have been considered two-faced and evil. I guess this stuff happens when all opposition is lumped into one basket.

My guess is you, explicitly, haven't been called that on this board. But you're right about the problems with lumping any large group into a basket.

Quote:I like lower taxes because I see lower taxes as fueling a better economy, which benefits us all. A better economy can fix our "crumbling" infrastructure, fund research, etc.

I don't know if our cities can be 'future-proofed". Is this the promise of the GND? What exactly does "future-proofing" entail? Are you guys going to halt the rise in sea level?

Future-proofing is the term that has started to be floated around once climate change became a political third rail. It accounts for mitigating issues associated with climate change, sea level rise, changes in migration patterns, water scarcity, etc.

Hitting on sea level rise, since you brought it up, future-proofing isn't about halting sea level rise, it's about attempting to mitigate its affects. You can see an example of a potential solution in the Galveston sea wall, which was constructed to deal with elevated sea levels due to storm surge. New York is a high profile case that is planning to build a sea wall at its harbor to mitigate both storm surge and sea level rise.

Greg Abbott recently commissioned a report on how to future proof Texas in the aftermath of Harvey. If you're interested, you can read it here: https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/pres...132018.pdf

Quote:So, lad, we seem to agree on goals, just not ways to achieve them. I think AOL's goals are admirable, although unrealistic, her means stupid and counter productive.

maybe we, the deplorable racist and the cockroach, can work together sometime. But probably not, as long we advocate different means. I believe in feeding the goose that lays the golden eggs, you believe in starving it. The whole mantra behind higher taxes is that "it won't hurt anybody, the rich can afford it". I think the rich are not as unkowing and uncaring about taxes as your side would have us believe. JMHO.

And I don't believe in starving the goose - that's a grosse mischaracterization of my stance. I believe that taxation and responsible appropriation allows us to tackle massive problems that are not going to be profitable for private industries to handle. Tell me how exactly you convince private industry to pay for a sea wall to protect lower Manhattan? Sometimes, you need a non-profit motivated entity to come in and provide services that rely on fees from all citizens.

(03-28-2019 10:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And I don't believe in starving the goose - that's a grosse mischaracterization of my stance. I believe that taxation and responsible appropriation allows us to tackle massive problems that are not going to be profitable for private industries to handle. Tell me how exactly you convince private industry to pay for a sea wall to protect lower Manhattan? Sometimes, you need a non-profit motivated entity to come in and provide services that rely on fees from all citizens.

lad, you are correct that it might mischaracterize *your* POV.

It does *not* mischaracterize the POV of more (much, much more) than a generous proportion of progressives in this nation, who view the taxation system as a means for 'social equalization' (or somefink like that....)

I dont think you can deny that.

(03-28-2019 10:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 10:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And I don't believe in starving the goose - that's a grosse mischaracterization of my stance. I believe that taxation and responsible appropriation allows us to tackle massive problems that are not going to be profitable for private industries to handle. Tell me how exactly you convince private industry to pay for a sea wall to protect lower Manhattan? Sometimes, you need a non-profit motivated entity to come in and provide services that rely on fees from all citizens.

lad, you are correct that it might mischaracterize *your* POV.

It does *not* mischaracterize the POV of more (much, much more) than a generous proportion of progressives in this nation, who view the taxation system as a means for 'social equalization' (or somefink like that....)

I dont think you can deny that.

But even then, it isn't starving the goose - no one is asking for 100% taxation, or anywhere close to that. It would be akin to me saying OO's approach is fattening the goose, as opposed to just feeding it.

(03-28-2019 10:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 10:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 10:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And I don't believe in starving the goose - that's a grosse mischaracterization of my stance. I believe that taxation and responsible appropriation allows us to tackle massive problems that are not going to be profitable for private industries to handle. Tell me how exactly you convince private industry to pay for a sea wall to protect lower Manhattan? Sometimes, you need a non-profit motivated entity to come in and provide services that rely on fees from all citizens.

lad, you are correct that it might mischaracterize *your* POV.

It does *not* mischaracterize the POV of more (much, much more) than a generous proportion of progressives in this nation, who view the taxation system as a means for 'social equalization' (or somefink like that....)

I dont think you can deny that.

But even then, it isn't starving the goose - no one is asking for 100% taxation, or anywhere close to that. It would be akin to me saying OO's approach is fattening the goose, as opposed to just feeding it.

It doesnt take 100% to starve the goose. Nice try though. You tend to forget the 'stacking' that occurs. So in addition to the top Federal rate of 37 per cent, you forget the additional hits, for individual proprietors and investors, of *both* halves of SS (at the very least, and for capital gains, the additional 7 per cent 'evil corporate *******' Obamacare levy.

My suggestion is that when you decide to fkin opine on what the proper corporate or individual rate is, that you actually try to do more than be a W-2 when you proffer those opinions. But it always seems to be these people that tell us what is the 'fair rate' that those who actually run a business should be 'happy' to 'fairly' walk away with it, doesnt it?

But that mode of action seems to the be the raison d'etre for modern progressives, does it not?

(03-28-2019 10:38 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 10:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 10:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 10:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And I don't believe in starving the goose - that's a grosse mischaracterization of my stance. I believe that taxation and responsible appropriation allows us to tackle massive problems that are not going to be profitable for private industries to handle. Tell me how exactly you convince private industry to pay for a sea wall to protect lower Manhattan? Sometimes, you need a non-profit motivated entity to come in and provide services that rely on fees from all citizens.

lad, you are correct that it might mischaracterize *your* POV.

It does *not* mischaracterize the POV of more (much, much more) than a generous proportion of progressives in this nation, who view the taxation system as a means for 'social equalization' (or somefink like that....)

I dont think you can deny that.

But even then, it isn't starving the goose - no one is asking for 100% taxation, or anywhere close to that. It would be akin to me saying OO's approach is fattening the goose, as opposed to just feeding it.

It doesnt take 100% to starve the goose. Nice try though.

My suggestion is that when you decide to fkin opine on what the proper corporate or individual rate is, that you actually try to do more than be a W-2 when you proffer those opinions.

So where do you put the cut off then for when taxation becomes starvation? Is it different for corporations than it is for individuals?

My suggestion is that when you decide to fkin opine on what the proper corporate or individual rate is, you provide some numbers to back up your fkin opine.

Or how bout one better, when you decide to fkn opine about a comment someone makes, you actually respond to their comment - I never once stated what I felt the proper corporate or individual rate is, yet you seem to think I've stated my opinion about that up above. My comment was that I don't believe that simply increasing taxes is enough to say that it's starving anything.

Boy you *are* touchy about being the proponent for a 'fairness' based taxation system, arent you?

Hell, I backed you up saying that what was said didnt necessarily characterize *your* point of view. But by god you got your panties in wad when I (correctly) stated that that POV seems absolute part and parcel of modern progressivism.

Sounds like you disagree with assessment from your 'fingernails in the dirt' defense of it. Good god.

While it might 'mischaracterize' *your* POV you sure as fk seemingly defend that concept to the death. Kind of funny.

(03-28-2019 10:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Boy you *are* touchy about being the proponent for a 'fairness' based taxation system, arent you?

Hell, I backed you up saying that what was said didnt necessarily characterize *your* point of view. But by god you got your panties in wad when I (correctly) stated that that POV seems absolute part and parcel of modern progressivism.

Sounds like you disagree with assessment from your 'fingernails in the dirt' defense of it. Good god.

While it might 'mischaracterize' *your* POV you sure as fk seemingly defend that concept to the death. Kind of funny.

I'm touchy about the way you respond and the types of comments you make. You really think saying that I was "fkin opin[ing]" is appropriate? Or how about that you didn't even respond to my POV, because my POV wasn't given?

I guess I'll start calling you touchy when I generate a strawman and attack you for it.

Your opinion appears to be that a rate that 'doesnt starve the goose' seems to be absolutely okay to you. Which, btw, isnt 'techically' a call for 'fair share tax rate', but pretty much the same pig in lipstick.

Or do you not remember stating that? When you specifically and explicitly type that, pardon me for thinking that being your opinion. How dare I....

Quote:"My guess is you, explicitly, haven't been called that on this board.

I guess you and i have different definitions of "explicit". But equally as explicit as GoodOwl's statement is this one from JAAO:

"Unlike Trump and his supporters, I’m not going to change my tune on that because I didn’t like his conclusions. "

I guess he "explicitly" called ME two-faced, just as GO "explicitly" called YOU a cockroach.

Quote:Future-proofing is the term that has started to be floated around once climate change became a political third rail. It accounts for mitigating issues associated with climate change, sea level rise, changes in migration patterns, water scarcity, etc.

Hitting on sea level rise, since you brought it up, future-proofing isn't about halting sea level rise, it's about attempting to mitigate its affects. You can see an example of a potential solution in the Galveston sea wall, which was constructed to deal with elevated sea levels due to storm surge. New York is a high profile case that is planning to build a sea wall at its harbor to mitigate both storm surge and sea level rise.

I have always said we should spend our time and money on preparing to meet changes, not spending it on efforts to turn back the clock. Glad to see you are finally coming around to my position.

But most of your side, when I talk about how most of the change is natural and not man-caused, just call me a climate denier.

Quote:And I don't believe in starving the goose - that's a grosse mischaracterization of my stance. I believe that taxation and responsible appropriation allows us to tackle massive problems that are not going to be profitable for private industries to handle. Tell me how exactly you convince private industry to pay for a sea wall to protect lower Manhattan? Sometimes, you need a non-profit motivated entity to come in and provide services that rely on fees from all citizens.

Well, if the goose is capitalism, the goose feed is capital. Capitalists without capital do not invest. Capitalists without capital do not build. and eventually, capitalists who do not invest or build, don't pay more taxes. Wealth taxes and high tax rates take capital out of the hands of capitalists and put it in the hands of people who care a lot less about waste and uselessness, and more about votes and getting re-elected or re-appointed to cushy jobs..

But you are right, some things need to be done by government. And government needs some taxes to do those things. We just disagree on on what things, done by whom, and with what money.

And some things are better done by capitalists, seeking profit and growth. All the steel that AOC needs to build her railroads - which governmetnt agency is going to make that steel? Try giving a tax break to manufacturers, and that steel will be available PDQ. That's one way to feed the goose.

\Capitalists want to make money, and keep it. The net gain is what they look at. Give them that opportunity and they will go after like a dog to hamburger. You will stimulate growth and employment. Take it away, and you only stimulate bureaucracy.

(03-28-2019 11:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

Quote:Future-proofing is the term that has started to be floated around once climate change became a political third rail. It accounts for mitigating issues associated with climate change, sea level rise, changes in migration patterns, water scarcity, etc.

Hitting on sea level rise, since you brought it up, future-proofing isn't about halting sea level rise, it's about attempting to mitigate its affects. You can see an example of a potential solution in the Galveston sea wall, which was constructed to deal with elevated sea levels due to storm surge. New York is a high profile case that is planning to build a sea wall at its harbor to mitigate both storm surge and sea level rise.

I have always said we should spend our time and money on preparing to meet changes, not spending it on efforts to turn back the clock. Glad to see you are finally coming around to my position.

But most of your side, when I talk about how most of the change is natural and not man-caused, just call me a climate denier.

I literally can not roll my eyes enough at that statement. I gotta say, what an epic troll comment.

Just read the Tanq/Lad exchange.

I guess Lad read too much into my "starve" wording. But when you cut rations, you are straving the body of needed fuel. sometimes we call that a diet.

lad asks for the percentage that should be the target. I ask for the target on leftist programs all the time, and never get one. What is the traget on income equality or climate change, i ask, and all I get is "more of this" or "less of that". So it makes me smile when a left-winger asks for specific targets.

TMy answer of course is less taxation and less government regulations and less government interference. That is fattening the goose. fattening the goose enables him to lay more golden eggs that benefit everybody. Substitute "more" for "less" in those statements, and that is starving the goose. A starving goose lays less eggs, and may eventually die.

I think Tanq has hit one nail on the head, when he characterizes Lad as a W-2 guy. I think the left is primarily made of people who have never taken much of a risk and so cannot truly understand the viewpoints of those of us, the capitalists, who have risked everything for that profit motive and fought our way through that morass of taxes and regulation. In the past, I have characterized that difference as paycheck signers vs. paycheck cashers.

I owned businesses. i started them, I bought them, I sold them, I closed them. My employees in the ones I closed did not understand why their jobs were going away, but then, they never spent a sleepless night wondering how to make payroll or ever had to pledge their entire life to a bank to keep 70 people employed.

I presume Tanq is a partner, and as such the profitablity (revenue less expenses), is vital to him. (Taxes are an expense)

So lad, are you just a paycheck casher? It would sure explain some of the differences we have. Maybe you have a few stocks in your 401K, but do you realize that if they paid less taxes, they might be paying more dividends? or maybe they are investing the extra money in expansion, thus raising the stock value giving you a capital gain at some point? Or do you only invest in stocks whose CEOs pockert the extra tax savings for themselves?