Soxbadger

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 4, 2016 -> 06:41 PM) The original argument centered on paying taxes, and avoiding taxes. I am glad to see the left wing finally admit the Mitt Romney was right though. Excuse my ignorance but what is the Mitt Romney argument?

QUOTE (raBBit @ Oct 4, 2016 -> 04:46 PM) I get detesting the right wing spin on it but if you (not you personally) think HRC isn't claiming losses too you're mistaken. Everybody who's as wealthy as these two has an accountant who's going to legally evade taxes as best they can. This is an industry. When presidential candidates do it people go nuts because they're uninformed (not you personally). I am sure if anyone here uses an accountant and he/she said, "You can use X to get a write-off" nobody would say, "No, I'd rather pay my fair share." Taxes are incredibly steep on the wealthy and the appropriation of them by our government is embarrassing. Power to Trump and HRC for taking advantage of the law that's made to protect the private citizens. I don't care if Trump is super wealthy, or a scumbag or orange or whatever insult you can put next to him, he's still afforded the same rights as anyone else. Who has made this argument that Trump cant claim deductions? Trump's entire campaign is based on his personal claim that he is a great successful businessman. Losing $900mil in a calendar year is not a "success" by most peoples definition. This has nothing to do with whether Trump should or should not have paid more taxes. That is the job of the IRS. When you claim that you can do better because of your business experience, you should expect people are going to look at your business experience. I am not an accountant, but I would be a lot of money that most people who are considered "successful" have not lost a billion dollars in their life, let alone in a single calendar year. Running the US govt isnt running a business. You cant just close it down and open under a new name. You cant just wave the magic bankruptcy wand and make your debts go away. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 4, 2016 -> 04:54 PM) They took a million dollars in charitable deductions in the last set of tax returns released, which means that was a million dollars they didn't pay taxes on. So no, they are not paying everything they could be paying either. We'd be having a much different discussion if the reason Trump's tax liability was reduced because he gave $900 mil in charitable deductions. Lets be honest, if Trump was actually successful and donated that type of money, hed likely be the next President. But from all current evidence, Trump is not that successful nor that charitable. I mean come on, you are really going to compare losing $900mil, with voluntarily giving money away to charity. This is really where we are going?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 4, 2016 -> 03:53 PM) If the rationale is that Hillary isn't putting thought into voting for bombing countries, we are all in a lot of trouble. Which voting are you specifically saying Hillary should or should not have done? No point in talking generalities.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 4, 2016 -> 03:45 PM) That is all secondary to the fact that the initial decision is WAY more important when you are President. You don't get the luxury of changing your mind down the road to a more politically friendly decision. That history of making wrong decisions is more vital than in any other job. THAT is why it is important here. You can't unbomb a country. Well that presupposes that people put the same amount of thought into every decision (which I dont necessarily think is true.) It also would be more problematic for Trump than Hillary because Trump completely switched political ideologies at least 1 time as compared to Hillary just doing dumb things that everyone else was doing (not that "everyone else is doing it" is a good excuse, just better than completely changing who you are.)

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 4, 2016 -> 03:12 PM) You are making the assumption that these were done for trustworthy reasons. I do not believe that. Not for a second. Especially because none of the decisions made were in a particularly brave political stance, in fact they ALL were made towards the politically favorable stance. That just screams red flag, not change of heart. I am not making any assumptions. I never said anything about Trumps or Hillarys motives. I merely said that people get too caught up in someone changing positions, instead of trying to determine if the change of position is good or bad.

All you can do is play the numbers. Green is the clear #1 on his team and will always get the most looks. DT competes with Sanders every week. Obviously its fantasy and anything can happen, but I wouldnt stay up a lot of nights worrying about AJ.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 4, 2016 -> 02:50 PM) I can't believe anyone would truly think that Trump and Clinton were undergoing true changes of heart, and not manipulating a situation for a personal gain. I dont know. But what I do know is both of them do the same thing, so its not really a needle mover. Its just like when Bush got crucified for "no new taxes". If something is the right thing to do, you do it, you dont hurt everyone to just prove that you are "trustworthy." And that seems to be completely lost by everyone.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Oct 4, 2016 -> 02:11 PM) Obama took the most extreme aspects of the Bush foreign policy and pushed it forward. Bush bombed: Afghanistain, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya Obama bombed: Afghanistain, Iraq (started a new war there), Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, Syria and Somalia. What's your basis for your argument? State Department lost 6 billion up until the point she stepped down. Trump's financial is pretty awful though. Is the State Department responsible for balancing the federal budget? And how does the State Department increase revenue? QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 4, 2016 -> 02:16 PM) And as SecState/Senator, Hillary Clinton was on board for all of it... until she wasn't. You know people can legitimately change their minds. Like when Trump was a Republican, then a Democrat, then a Republican. Or when Trump married Ivana or Marla. Or when Trump was pro-choice. Anyone who claims that they have never changed their opinion is likely a liar or an idiot. Anyone who doesnt change their position when given facts that should convince them to change, is an idiot. I say this because I myself am a total flip-flopper. I know I know, this is political suicide, but when I was in Jr High I debated on the side of pro-life and against any form of gun control. I guess I should have blindly stayed true to what I originally believed in, but as I learned more, I decided that perhaps my original positions were not correct. Again I know that this will disqualify me from ever being a politician, because it is the end of the world if anyone ever changes their mind. This all has just gotten beyond ridiculous.

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Oct 4, 2016 -> 01:30 PM) He said some bulls*** about a "fiduciary responsibility" but that's his personal taxes and there's no such thing. When Gulliani said that a part of me cried.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 4, 2016 -> 01:29 PM) Exactly. Which also is related to the thing a lot of Trumpeters are missing here. It's not that what he did was "wrong", or whether or not it was smart, or whether or not it was course of business. It's that his approach is 100% non-repeatable in government. His entire success has rested on a combination of loans from his Dad, real estate market connections from his Dad, and a willingness to play every debt game that is legally possible. NONE of those things will help a President, and furthermore, NONE of them are related to any actual leadership skills. They are about what he was born into, combined with an all-in willingness to treat every other human being and everyone else's money as disposable. I've voted for more Republicans than Democrats for President. And I do not understand one bit how anyone could even consider voting for someone this unqualified, this hate-fueled and this bigoted for f***ing Dog Catcher, let alone President. I don't like Hillary Clinton, but even if you see her email server, shifting positions and snobbery in their worst possible light, she's still miles better than the orange jackwagon. Outside of messages boards I dont really talk a lot of politics because generally people see me as contrarian (ie in a group full of Democrtas Ill argue that Bush wasnt as bad as they make him out to be) and I usually get annoyed with how people back the "home" team (whether its Republican or Democrat) despite the hypocrisy. But when it comes to Trump, I feel like I have some sort of duty to try and make a difference. Its not that I like Hillary, I voted for Obama and against her, its just that even at Hillary's worst, she is just like every other President. And while everyone likes to b**** about the other sides President and how they ruined things, the reality is that as long as they arent a complete dumpster fire, the US is likely going to be okay. Trump is the first candidate who I seriously think could really mess things up. And I hate to give him that credit, I hate to think that somehow 1 person could screw up everything. But every time I listen to him or try to find some sort of kernel of hope that maybe he wont be so bad, he just doubles down on insanity. Its not even the "Trust me" used car salesman gimmick, its the seemingly manic side of him that just cant let s*** go. Its one thing when hes going off on a rant against ex pageant winners, but what happens if Duterte insults him or any other leader? Is he just going to sit there and take it? Or is he going to go off the deep end and do something that you cant take back. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 4, 2016 -> 01:34 PM) It just goes to show that the governments track record in business isn't exactly stellar either. And much like bankruptcy, when government racks up losses, the losses are paid by somebody else. The US govt is in the govt business, not money making business (whether you think this is good or bad is a matter of opinion). The fact is that the US has never had to go BK, which technically is a better track record than Trump. So far all the s*** talking about how brilliant Trump is, technically the US Govt is a more successful business. And I am not even counting the argument that the services the US provides to its citizens may be "priceless."

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Oct 4, 2016 -> 01:08 PM) Everyone defending this by saying "it just shows he's a great businessman" doesn't know or care HOW he lost all that money - he over-leveraged his casinos with mountains of debt (intentionally), then milked as much for himself personally as he could while leaving the other investors out to dry through the bankruptcy(ies). And of course he left thousands of contractors out to dry who never got paid for their work (which he says is substandard, while bragging about how great his buildings are). People defending it also dont seem to understand the difference between a corporate loss and a personal loss. Without the full return I cant tell what is in statement 1, but we can likely assume that the loss derived from 2 events, the bankruptcies of Trump Taj Mahal and Trump Plaza, that were then reorganized into Trump Hotel & Casino Resorts in 1995. Most likely Trump owned stock in those 2 companies. When they went bankrupt there is a chance that the value of those stocks effectively became 0. The loss is actually likely not true. The stock was likely never worth $900mil. Its all speculation, but I would bet not many individuals have ever claimed a loss that big.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Oct 3, 2016 -> 10:37 PM) How is that a straw man? You used the phrases "least regard" "fakest facade" and "most egregious." Soxbadger asked about the most obvious culprits to put those claims in doubt. I didn't read Soxbadger's post as excusing American hegemony. Unfortunately other people have been blowing up urban dictionary with the word "trumping", but I was going to say that what raBBit's post show is the "trumping" of America. That is where you basically just say how terrible America is, without providing any proof or evidence to support the claim. Its not that I "excuse" what America is doing, its that I try and point out the reality that without America the world likely would be a far worse place. Maybe its because people cant be bothered to learn about anything before 1980, but it is as if people forgot how terrible the world really can be. Yes I get that America probably kills people they shouldnt, yes I get that there is probably some collateral damage/innocents, etc due to our war on terrorism. But at some point people have to accept that we live in reality, and that sometimes you have to make hard decisions and that maybe sometimes, no decision is a good decision. But that is the way the world works. I guess I am just tired of hearing how terrible America is and that we should go back to some time in the past when America was so great. Because I call bulls***. Yes, I concede that if you were an anglo saxon white land owner life may have been better in the 19th century. Yes I concede if you hate minorities, outsiders, others, that America may have been better in the past. But I will never concede that America is not better today than it has ever been. Just because some jobs are moving to other countries doesnt mean that we are any worse, if anything it shows the evolution of our economy. Again, a lot of this requires actually reading about history before 1980, some of it may even require reading about history before the 18th century. But when you look at things like the industrial revolution and how at one point Britain was the manufacturing capital of the world, only to be replaced by the US, you begin to understand that no amount of taxes, protectionism, etc can change reality. As your country progresses your workers will require higher wages. Eventually there will be another country that is less advanced that will be able to produce the goods cheaper. When you start to chase the past, you lose. Globalization is here. Manufacturing goods in other countries will only become cheaper and easier as the cost to transport goes down. Even China faces this reality as they lose manufacturing plants to cheaper places in South East Asia ( http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/201...facturing-crown ). In economics they call it the "race to the bottom", where a country basically tries to do anything it possibly can to compete with the cheaper labor of foreign countries. But there is no way to win, the US has "left the barn" there is no way to go back to slavery or to paying people $.50 per hour its just not reality. After I wrote all of this I see that it is not at all relevant to anything that was being originally discussed, but I just cant hide my frustration with Americans right now. Maybe its always been this way, but it just seems that now people have absolutely no clue about how good they have it here. That is not to say America is perfect, or that we cant try to make it better, but enough is enough of this doom and gloom bulls***. /end rant

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 4, 2016 -> 12:36 PM) So after Trump's billion dollar loss, Hillary has taken to asking "What kind of genius loses a billion dollars?" The funny part is that three of the six biggest losses of all time for a corporation are the same corporation. Fannie Mae. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large...fits_and_losses Company losing a billion dollars is a lot different than a person losing a billion. And the Fannie Mae thing makes complete sense. Their entire business was to provide loans so when the real estate market crashed they obviously stood the most to lose. Trump is running on his business record. I sincerely doubt that many people would suggest that Daniel Mudd, CEO of Fannie Mae in 2008, should be President. But then again, Mudd probably never personally lost $900mil, so maybe he is more qualified than Trump. That being said, personal losses on taxes are not really comparable to corporate losses on taxes.

Ha I was thinking about Quantum Leap last night after I watched the show. It reminded me of when I was in college and the show was on every day during the day. They played it sequentially and my roommate and I watched them because I never saw the final episode. The day of the final episode the channel it was on didnt work. Every other channel we had worked fine, but that one didnt. So I have never seen that episode cause well I think Sam interfered and didnt want bad things to happen.

Anyone else watch Timeless? Not sure how long it will last, but I always like shows/movies/books where you see the outcome when random historical events are changed.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Oct 3, 2016 -> 07:39 PM) Source? http://truepundit.com/under-intense-pressu...julian-assange/ Here is what i could find. Seems more like speculation that Hillary was going to go outside her authority and do it on her own. Not sure that passes the smell test cause I don't see why assange would be that important to her. It seems Obama didn't like him, so no need for Hillary to go rogue.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Oct 3, 2016 -> 02:05 PM)

QUOTE (raBBit @ Oct 3, 2016 -> 11:28 AM) Frankly, I only have limited time and I don't follow foreign countries politics. The bolded is true, but still, a hypothetical that is irrelevant for reasons previously stated. I have not excused any atrocities by others and I am not sure what even led you to attribute doing so to me. The bolded is regional. I am not going to act like I understand the evolution of the USSR, Russia and the satellite countries but that's not an international concern. The USA always sticks their nose in everything to ensure that Russia's influence is limited. As far as the italicized, he's done the same with HRC as StrangeSox has said in this thread ad nauseam. I think, seeing as Snowden was housed in Russia, Assange will tread lightly on Russia if he has any glimmer of hope of living and walking freely on this earth. If Russia is a country that will allow him some form of a normal living life, why would he piss on them? The last line does not contain legitimate questions. China and Russia would be worse but that is straw man and no reason to excuse American hegemony. I don't believe there's another world power although China could certainly change that in time if they pushed to. Well since you cant be bothered to learn about Russia and why you maybe should question Assange and his motives, I will give you a brief history of Ukraine. In 1991 Ukraine declared independence from Russia. At that time Ukraine had approximately 1/3 of Russia's nuclear arsenal. In 1994 Ukraine, Russia, United Kingdom and the US signed Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances whereby Ukraine agreed to destroy or return all of the nuclear arsenal to Russia, if Russia agreed to respect their sovereignty and their borders. In 2014 Russia invaded Ukraine and took an area called "Crimea." To say this is not an international concern, is the equivalent of saying that the Germans invading France was not an international concern. And when you say "the US is the WORST" it means that all others are better, so that in fact does excuse the atrocities committed by other countries. Whether you agree with the US policy or not, there is no legitimate way to say that the US has the least regard for international law if you do not actually look up what other countries do. International law does not just apply to incidents that you feel are important, it applies to things like "Russia invading countries" it applies to things like "Chinese taking territorial waters", those are actual breaches of international law. We all only have limited time, the difference is that if you are going to make statements that use words like "LEAST" and "MOST EGREGIOUS" there is some expectation that you actually have done some research on international actors and have evidence to support your claim. Because whether you like it or not, in terms of historical super powers, the US has been arguably the most benevolent. I know I know, you have limited time and cant be expected to learn about anything prior to 1980, but if you ever do, I would suggest looking at how previous world super powers like "Great Britain" treated smaller/weaker countries. Because despite your personal opinion, the US has been as fair as any other super power ever has been.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Oct 3, 2016 -> 11:09 AM) I didn't follow the Panama papers at all. Judging on my googling of when they released, I wasn't following politics at all in the spring because of life. Is WikiLeaks reporting on Iran? What about Egypt? South Africa? Is any country they're ignoring paying them? The USA has the least regard for international law, the fakest facade of beacon of the world and the most egregious military action. That's what got Assange to go after them in the beginning and their ensuing treatment of him only emboldened him to go at them more. I am young and didn't live through the Cold War so forgive me if I am being curt when I say that Russia isn't important. The USA fears Putin and tries to sanction them and keep them away from the EU but other than that, on a world scale, they are essentially irrelevant. Putin has so many problems domestically they can't do anything on a global scale. His country has 11 different time zones, issues under microscope in the Ukraine, serious terror problems up in the northern caucus (not like domestic American terror, but Dagestanis/Chechnians extremists (spelling?) killing hundreds in public every year) and then Putin is going to war with Russia's journalists. This cant be serious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memo...rity_Assurances Russia has attempted to take territory in multiple countries in the last decade. You dont need to have been born during the cold war to know places like Ukraine and Georgia (not the US state). Do you even know that originally Assange claimed he had a lot of information on Russia, but then mysteriously never published it: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/world/eu...ussia.html?_r=0 These are legitimate questions: Do you really believe that the US is worse than China or Russia? What super power do you believe has a better regard for international law?

QUOTE (raBBit @ Oct 3, 2016 -> 10:25 AM) Again, this isn't the "big reveal." To act as if the government isn't concerned with Assange/Wikileaks is naive. Your assessment of self motivated is an opinion and really not important. HRC/Trump are self motivated presidential candidates trying to cloak themselves as outsiders too (Hillary woman, Trump not from government). It's a part of the political game. If you're anti American government you're not going to get a job on CNN, FOX, etc. Just ask Phil Donahue and his #1 ratings in 2003. So that leaves making your own YouTube type show, which wasn't really a great option when Assange went to RT, or going on another network that doesn't have mainstream acceptance. How is Russia his employer? Russia Today is state owned. Assange tv show was on Russia Today. And just because your anti-American govt doesnt mean that you have to get a job with Russia Today. Because well, if you were truly some champion of freedom (or whatever Assange claims to be) you would probably wouldnt associate yourself with a regime that has a pretty terrible record on cracking down on freedoms, such as free speech, etc. In terms of concern about Assange I would say it falls well below people like Assad, etc, and we dont drone them, so in what world are we going to use a drone against Assange, especially when he resides in a country that we are allies with. Can you name 1 time when the US has used a drone in a Europe?

QUOTE (raBBit @ Oct 3, 2016 -> 09:27 AM) The Secretary of State talks about dronebombing one of the individual world power's biggest oppositions...not a big deal. Journalists unveiling a sexist buffoons comments when that person is already sexist on TV regularly...real journalism. EDIT: former SOS If this is the "big reveal" do you really believe that Clinton was being serious? Calling him one of the US's "biggest oppositions" is really giving him a lot of credit. He is a self motivated hacker who tries to cloak himself as some sort of altruistic outsider. I mean you really dont see this for the dog and pony show that it is? The guy has a tv show on Russia today, which is the propaganda arm of the Kremlin. Furthermore, the guy is in in London and cancelled his "reveal" because of security concerns. Ironic that Russia, his current employer, may have assassinated a dissident in London see Alexander Litvinenko. But totally trustworthy group of guys.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Sep 30, 2016 -> 09:06 AM) Tell me how much, convince me to replace my PS3 I am waiting for the PS4 Pro to be released. At that point the old PS4 price will likely go down and I can decide if it is worth it to buy the newer version. More than likely Ill wait to see if there is a Final Fantasy bundle with a limited edition model. I kind of regret not getting the Darth Vader PS4, but at least it meant I waited a bit longer for the better system to come out.

Arrietta also pitched a lot of innings last year (I think it was significantly higher than his previous year totals) so sometimes that mileage catches up the next year.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Sep 29, 2016 -> 01:17 PM) I need to start two of the following for WR/FLEX WR Beckham Jr. @ MIN WR Demaryius Thomas @ TB RB Matt Jones vs. CLE RB Jordan Howard vs. DET WR Terrelle Pryor @ WAS What do I do? How good is the team you are playing against. The safest play is OBJ. After that it really depends on whether you think you need a safe score (ie 1-10 points) or if you need a big score and willing to take a risk.

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Sep 29, 2016 -> 03:17 PM) McConnell says Obama didn't communicate consequences of 9/11 bill IT WAS THE REASON HE VETOED IT, YOU STUPID SON OF A b****. HE TOLD YOU OVER AND OVER. Dont blame them, they heard Obama hated 9/11 victims and loves terrorists.