Soxbadger

I think drinking make sme tell the truth. Why is this box so small, its hard to read. Anyway, drinking makes me honest, which is dangerous because most people wouldnt want to hear what i really think.

I apologize. I often give conservatives credit that there are a few of them who actually believe in cutting everything. Then I read a few nonsensical conservative arguments and I realize that I shouldnt give them credit, because they would never give me credit. kap, A lot of people have no jobs and no money. So we can all play the "Some one has it worse then me" game, or we can actually address the point. Do you believe its fair to strip away unions bargaining power? If your answer is yes, that is fine. But its not about money at this point, the unions have given a concession on all monetary issues. They just want the right to bargain collectively. Soxy, Dont give up the good fight. I dont care what people say, this isnt how govt should be run. This is purposefully to piss people off and to make political statements. We fight because there are so many people who only care about themselves, and so few who care about the good of everyone. Its easy to be a Kap, its hard to be a Soxy. Always remember that. Im out.

Tyler the creator just seems like a less polished Scarface.

I dont care if you care or not. I cared enough to say it was stupid, if you dont care about the subject, that is definitely your choice.

Possibly, but my first statement was: So really the fact was that it didnt matter if she was comparing them as Mulsims versus Judeo/Christians or Middle Easterners versus European's and their descendants or Egyptians versus Americans. She is saying some group is better than Egyptians, just because. It doesnt matter if its American's are greater or more broadly 'Judeo/Christians".

What else does the bolded part imply? Savages implies that the people of Egypt are uncivilized compared to another country. If this statement was written by an American (which was how I interpreted it), isnt it natural that the comparison was between Egyptian "savages" and US "civilized humans"? Its pretty clear to me that statement is about American Exceptionalism.

I cant speak for all liberals, and im not even sure if I truly am a liberal (depends on who is defining it) but at least this "liberal" (being me) is in favor of cutting govt spending and raising taxes. I can make the same argument about "conservative mentality". Instead of increasing taxes, they just want to cut spending on everything. Both solutions are incomplete, the problem requires BOTH increasing revenue and decreasing expenditures. At least if we want to keep our society at the same level we have had it at for the last 20 or so years. So we can pretend that one side or the other doesnt understand, or we can admit that the problem is that neither side actually cares about fixing the problem, they just care about their own personal agendas being pushed through. If you really cared about balancing the budget, you wouldnt oppose tax increases or budget reductions.

Prior to Amare going to the Knicks they werent a playoff team either, yet Melo would have gone there. Id say that with Melo/Lopez as your start the Nets can become a playoff team pretty quick, especially because Id expect their owner to start making big moves for the 2012 season.

Unfortunately some people truly believe that they are better than the rest of the world. Fortunately for the rest of the world, they are living in a dreamland of ignorance.

Its apples and oranges. The CEO still pays income tax on the money he makes, just like you or me pay income tax on the money we make. The difference is that a Corporation may also pay taxes on the money that the corporation makes. That is why there is a great incentive for the corporation to "zero-out" the books. Instead of making a profit and therefore having the profit taxed on the corporation it either turns the profit into employee bonuses or spends the money. Either way the corp avoids paying taxes at the corp level, but the employee still pays income tax.

I mean the fact she blames muslims when we really have no idea who perpetrated the attack is stupid enough. For all we know it was a bunch of christians/jews who raped her. Secondly to use the term "liberated" as "rape" is just bad. I mean its one of those things that is so bad, I cant even really express how horrible it is.

Well shes a dumbass. That is just wrong on so many levels.

Well the company that pays the CEO 90% just zeros out their profit so that they dont pay taxes at the corporate level. A big difference is whether the corp is a C Corp or a S Corp. The best reason why Corps/LLC should pay more taxes is that they are getting unlimited personal liability protection for the owners. The business may go down, but the owner wont lose anything he didnt personally guarantee. Conversely if im a sole prop/dba and my business goes down, I lose everything. Always makes me shake my head when a small business doesnt want to take on a corporate form. I dont care if you dont believe youll ever get sued, for a measly $175 a year you might as well get the potentially unlimited protection. (edit) In theory the CEO is paying income tax on the money earned, which is the equivalent of the individual paying taxes on their individual income. The corporation just pays another tax at the corporate level that no individual ever has to pay.

I didnt mean to imply that he still worked for Def Jam, just that he has many connections with the music industry which may help with Lala. It would serve no purpose to list Jay and a company he owns.

Well Ive done some work for high income people who want to claim their residence is Florida (Fl has 0 state income tax). The problem is that income tax is based on where the income is generated. So unless they want to move their entire business to Florida and not sell anything in Illinois, they end up still paying IL income tax. The best example is baseball players. They pay taxes where the income is earned. Thus when they play in Chicago they pay IL taxes (regardless of if they are on the Marlins or Dodgers), when they play in Florida they pay FL income taxes and so on. Thats why when clients call in asking to move their business, etc., I generally have to tell them its not going to make much difference. Its just like the commercials that say to form your corp in NV/DE, its true that they have a lower filing fee, but the problem is if your business is in Il you have to then register as a foreign corp, meaning that you pay both IL/NV every year, plus double filing fee. You then also have to pay Illinois any income earned in this state. Now there are differences for major corporations when it comes to headquarters/franchise fees, but most major corporations are going to still have a business presence and generate pretty equal revenue. In the end it usually does not make much sense to move your business, but most people like to sensationalize the truth. I have only seen 1 instance where it made sense, and that was a retired man who no longer had any income outside of investments, none of them being land based and in IL, who owned a house in FL/IL. He was able to file for residency in Fl, terminate his residency in IL, and therefore pay less income tax. But its very limited circumstances.

Melo wants to be in New York. If the Nets are going to move to Brooklyn and Melo can be the face of the franchise, Im not sure there is a big difference between the Nets or Knicks. Here is the link to information about the Barclay's Center (Nets new stadium) http://barclayscenter.com/ Youll see a picture of Jay-Z, youll see pictures of what could be one of the best stadiums in the NBA, which will be located in Brooklyn, NY. Jay-Z is going to be at the meeting with Carmelo and Prokhorov, if they have agreed on talent, I would bet that they will convince Melo to come to the Nets and NY.

Jay-Z is a Nets minority owner so my guess is that if they really want Melo, they are trying to sell Lala on becoming part of the Nets family and how shell have connections with Jay/Beyonce/Def Jam. In terms of the trade, if I was Melo Id want Harris to say in New Jersey. Harris/Melo/Lopez is a pretty good nucleus to build around.

Looking at those ratings it just shows how close/difficult it is to differentiate. I probably am harder on Eminem because I feel he gets a lot more love than other equally talented rappers did in the past. Nothing he can do about that.

lost, Jay-zs output is his gift and his curse (like Snoop Dogg), they have produced so many albums that at this point even though they have a lot of great songs, they also have ones that unremarkable. Its pretty hard for me to pin down my favorite rapper, I generally have favorite songs that have rappers on them. I dont think every song can be an Atliens or Rosa Parks, I mean when you look at a group like Outkast they had their mainstream/pop "Hey Ya", but I cant blame them for wanting to make money. Ive been thinking about it a lot and maybe my biggest problem with Eminem is that I generally dont love the songs he samples and a lot of what I hear comes off similar. For example, "Toy Soldiers" I used to listen to all the time and obviously Stan was pretty big one. I like diverse albums but that might be because I started listening around Dre's Chronic and the album was kind of like a mini show. You never knew who was going to be appearing on the album and many times the best verses were from the rapper who was just appearing (ie some of Eminem on Chronic 2001) on the album. Now that I think about it I probably listened to D12 a ton of times and for a while I couldnt stop listening to Proof's "Kurt Cobain". But I think that just goes to show that depending on the mood/time/etc you may gravitate towards different artists/styles. Its hard to really decide, Im horrible at ranking things.

Yeah I assume this is just for debt purposes only. Corps are different when it comes to bankruptcy because there is generally a pretty big incentive for the creditors to work with the company (if they dont the company goes under and the creditors may get nada, as opposed to keeping the business open and restructuring the debt so that they can get paid.)

I guess if he really wanted to let it go his statement would have been something like: "My wife and I love dogs, some times our love may cloud our judgment. Regardless of our personal feelings about the subject, we would never wish injury on another person." I think most people would accept that he let his feelings cloud his judgment. But just admit to it.

Which is why he should just stop talking about the issue, instead of trying to defend himself further. No matter what he says it will just be digging a bigger hole at this point. Any way he tries to defend himself, will just give people easier ways to attack him for hypocrisy. Thus he should just let it go. Some people think hes a hero some people think hes a dick. That wont change, so why not just let it go? And none of this is even touching on the fact that a professional athlete should probably never wish injury on another professional athlete. That just seems tacky in and of itself. Even if Mark was a vegan who never had killed an animal, I still wouldnt want him getting involved in this situation. It just serves no purpose. If Mark is so pissed about what happened, donate money to save dogs from dog fighting. That will do more than any amount of interviews knocking Vick ever will. (And yes I know he has a shelter, but Im just saying instead of wishing harm on Vick, maybe he should just go about his life.) It makes some one who I always thought of as a good guy, come off as a douche. So maybe the reason Im bent out of shape is because I hate thinking that Mark's image is going to be tarnished over something stupid like this. Where have I for one second argued legal versus illegal under the eyes of the law? Its legal to bear bay in South Carolina, but I sure as hell wont support the practice. Whether something is legal or illegal only matters in a courtroom. It doesnt change whether your a hypocrite or not. It was once legal in the US to own slaves, that doesnt mean that a slave owner who only beat his slaves wasnt a hypocrite when he called out another owner for killing his slaves, and it doesnt mean that either of them was right just because the law allowed it. The law is nothing more than the opinion's of people, it can be wrong, just like a person.

iamshack, And that is fine, and all he has to do is admit that he is acting subjectively. But he is trying to imply that he is right objectively, which is just not true. An animal is an animal is an animal. I have 2 cats, they are like my children. If anyone did anything to them, I would want to murder them. That does not mean that law should protect my cats any greater than it should protect a cow, dog or other animal. Under the eyes of the law all animals are property, including dogs. The law is clear,a dog is nothing more than property and recovery is limited to the value of the animal. Just like property. So if we want to have a subjective argument, sure cats/dogs are the beloved companions of humans and get better protection than a deer. If we want to have an objective argument, cats/dogs are animals, so if murdering a cat/dog deserves jail time, than murdering a deer/animal deserves jail time. Im looking at this objectively, and objectively I dont see much difference in killing one animal versus killing another. I dont care if the law says its okay, I wouldnt care if the law said that a person from Illinois could kill some one from Indiana. Once again, we can all be as hypocritical as we want, he has a right to his opinion. I just would have preferred he kept it to himself as its an amazingly simplistic view of the world.

Because hes trying to justify his opinion on nonsense. This is a flat out miss statement of fact. If you want to be a man, dont justify your actions on nonsensical reasoning. I guess i dont consider some one manning up when they just make a litany of excuses why their behavior is okay, instead of accepting that maybe other people have a point.

Hes trying to say that because his family thinks "hunting is a sport" its okay to kill animals. Whereas because his family thinks dogs deserve special treatment he thinks "sports that kill dogs" are wrong. Its horrific reasoning, unless we just get to the simplest answer, "We believe one thing and I dont care if its hypocritical because thats my belief". If he said that, Ive got no argument. We are all entitled to be as hypocritical and nonsensical as we want on any given topic. Just dont demean my intelligence by trying to say that killing an animal with modern weapon is so honorable. Dog fighting (or animal fighting because isnt that really just the same thing) and hunting for sport trace their roots to the same historical time periods. Animal fighting and animal sport hunting have been going on hand and hand before the year O. So to insult my intelligence and act like dog fighting has never been as accepted as sport hunting is annoying. Once again, he should just man up and say that its his opinion and hes entitled to it. Instead of making absurd arguments.