Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25

Thread: Are these schmucks crazy or what?

  1. #1
    [email protected] Guest

    Default Are these schmucks crazy or what?


  2. #2
    Lubow Guest

    Default Re: Are these schmucks crazy or what?

    On Mar 24, 6:03*am, whudson1...@gmail.com wrote:
    > http://wcbstv.com/food/non.kosher.fr....2.965310.html
    >
    > Walter Hudson


    That's all we need. An internet piece of crap criticizing another
    person's (in this case, a whole community's) religious beliefs.

  3. #3
    Pramesh Rutaji Guest

    Default Re: Are these schmucks crazy or what?

    Lubow wrote:
    > On Mar 24, 6:03 am, whudson1...@gmail.com wrote:
    >> http://wcbstv.com/food/non.kosher.fr....2.965310.html
    >>
    >> Walter Hudson

    >
    > That's all we need. An internet piece of crap criticizing another
    > person's (in this case, a whole community's) religious beliefs.


    What we don't need is the politically correct speech police. Free
    speech is essential to a free society which means lots of things will be
    said that someone or some group won't like including all the things true
    and not so true about middle eastern originated religions on both sides
    of the mythical Abrahamic concubinage woman-as-property lines.

    --

    Pramesh Rutaji

    [email protected] - remove tongue to reply

  4. #4
    Lawyerkill Guest

    Default Re: Are these schmucks crazy or what?

    On Mar 24, 3:44�pm, Pramesh Rutaji <p297tongue6...@newsguy.com> wrote:
    > Lubow wrote:
    > > On Mar 24, 6:03 am, whudson1...@gmail.com wrote:
    > >>http://wcbstv.com/food/non.kosher.fr....2.965310.html

    >
    > >> Walter Hudson

    >
    > > That's all we need. �An internet piece of crap criticizing another
    > > person's (in this case, a whole community's) religious beliefs.

    >
    > What we don't need is the politically correct speech police. �Free
    > speech is essential to a free society which means lots of things will be
    > said that someone or some group won't like including all the things true
    > and not so true about middle eastern originated religions on both sides
    > of the mythical Abrahamic concubinage woman-as-property lines.
    >
    > --
    >
    > Pramesh Rutaji
    >
    > p297tongue6...@newsguy.com - remove tongue to reply


    So Lubow is not entitled to free speech too?

  5. #5
    BuffetHater Guest

    Default Re: Are these schmucks crazy or what?

    > So Lubow is not entitled to free speech too?

    Anti- semites would prefer to silence the offended, makes them make
    some
    sense.

    Don't like Jews? Just make sure you mention that to your doctor or
    surgeon
    when in line for help.

  6. #6
    Lubow Guest

    Default Re: Are these schmucks crazy or what?

    On Mar 24, 3:44*pm, Pramesh Rutaji <p297tongue6...@newsguy.com> wrote:
    > Lubow wrote:
    > > On Mar 24, 6:03 am, whudson1...@gmail.com wrote:
    > >>http://wcbstv.com/food/non.kosher.fr....2.965310.html

    >
    > >> Walter Hudson

    >
    > > That's all we need. *An internet piece of crap criticizing another
    > > person's (in this case, a whole community's) religious beliefs.

    >
    > What we don't need is the politically correct speech police. *Free
    > speech is essential to a free society which means lots of things will be
    > said that someone or some group won't like including all the things true
    > and not so true about middle eastern originated religions on both sides
    > of the mythical Abrahamic concubinage woman-as-property lines.
    >
    > --
    >
    > Pramesh Rutaji
    >
    > p297tongue6...@newsguy.com - remove tongue to reply


    Calling people names because you don't like their religion is not free
    speech. It's free stupidity.

  7. #7
    Pramesh Rutaji Guest

    Default Re: Are these schmucks crazy or what?

    BuffetHater wrote:
    >> So Lubow is not entitled to free speech too?

    >
    > Anti- semites would prefer to silence the offended, makes them make
    > some
    > sense.
    >
    > Don't like Jews? Just make sure you mention that to your doctor or
    > surgeon
    > when in line for help.


    Don't know if I ever had a Jewish doctor - do they have Indian Accents too?

    --

    Pramesh Rutaji

    [email protected] - remove tongue to reply

  8. #8
    Pramesh Rutaji Guest

    Default Re: Are these schmucks crazy or what?

    Lubow wrote:
    > On Mar 24, 3:44 pm, Pramesh Rutaji <p297tongue6...@newsguy.com> wrote:
    >> Lubow wrote:
    >>> On Mar 24, 6:03 am, whudson1...@gmail.com wrote:
    >>>> http://wcbstv.com/food/non.kosher.fr....2.965310.html
    >>>> Walter Hudson
    >>> That's all we need. An internet piece of crap criticizing another
    >>> person's (in this case, a whole community's) religious beliefs.

    >> What we don't need is the politically correct speech police. Free
    >> speech is essential to a free society which means lots of things will be
    >> said that someone or some group won't like including all the things true
    >> and not so true about middle eastern originated religions on both sides
    >> of the mythical Abrahamic concubinage woman-as-property lines.
    >>
    >> --
    >>
    >> Pramesh Rutaji
    >>
    >> p297tongue6...@newsguy.com - remove tongue to reply

    >
    > Calling people names because you don't like their religion is not free
    > speech. It's free stupidity.


    Let the BS flow. However, change the channel, figure out how to use a
    kill file, etc.

    Anyone who follows a religion, organized or not, is practicing free
    stupidity.

    To paraphrase a saying, "Good men do good things, evil men do evil
    things, but it takes religion to make good men do evil things."

    However, one can be Jewish and an Atheist, but not "Christian" and an
    Atheist.

    --

    Pramesh Rutaji

    [email protected] - remove tongue to reply

  9. #9
    Rod Speed Guest

    Default Re: Are these schmucks crazy or what?

    Pramesh Rutaji wrote:
    > BuffetHater wrote:
    >>> So Lubow is not entitled to free speech too?

    >>
    >> Anti- semites would prefer to silence the offended, makes them make
    >> some
    >> sense.
    >>
    >> Don't like Jews? Just make sure you mention that to your doctor or
    >> surgeon
    >> when in line for help.

    >
    > Don't know if I ever had a Jewish doctor


    I have.

    > - do they have Indian Accents too?


    Mine has a south african accent, which isnt very surprising given that that is where he comes from.



  10. #10
    websearch Guest

    Default Re: Are these schmucks crazy or what?

    "Lubow" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:d8015edf-69ee-

    > Calling people names because you don't like their religion is not free
    > speech. It's free stupidity.


    Unless of course they are clever and sane enough to have no interest in
    religions. Then you can call them any damn thing you want. Especially if you
    are President...
    http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ents.html#bush

    W.







  11. #11
    LuX Guest

    Default Re: Are these schmucks crazy or what?


    BuffetHater <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> So Lubow is not entitled to free speech too?

    >
    >Anti- semites would prefer to silence the offended, makes them make
    >some
    >sense.
    >

    What a freakin' joke! Anybody with an IQ above room temp knows that
    the most rabid anti-free speech outfits are jewish, the ADL to name
    just one.


    >Don't like Jews? Just make sure you mention that to your doctor or
    >surgeon
    >when in line for help.


    Good idea, I wouldn't let a Yid doc touch me if I could avoid it.
    These guys have grown up with their minds being poisoned
    by Talmudic crap. They hate the goyim and wouldn't care
    if their medical "treatment" caused a goy harm. And they
    would do any thing for a shekel. Anyway there are plenty
    of good gentile doctors. That old song 'n' dance that
    you're gonna die without jewish doctors is just a giant
    crock of ****.

  12. #12
    Lubow Guest

    Default Re: Are these schmucks crazy or what?

    On Mar 24, 6:44*pm, Pramesh Rutaji <p297tongue6...@newsguy.com> wrote:
    > Lubow wrote:
    > > On Mar 24, 3:44 pm, Pramesh Rutaji <p297tongue6...@newsguy.com> wrote:
    > >> Lubow wrote:
    > >>> On Mar 24, 6:03 am, whudson1...@gmail.com wrote:
    > >>>>http://wcbstv.com/food/non.kosher.fr....2.965310.html
    > >>>> Walter Hudson
    > >>> That's all we need. *An internet piece of crap criticizing another
    > >>> person's (in this case, a whole community's) religious beliefs.
    > >> What we don't need is the politically correct speech police. *Free
    > >> speech is essential to a free society which means lots of things will be
    > >> said that someone or some group won't like including all the things true
    > >> and not so true about middle eastern originated religions on both sides
    > >> of the mythical Abrahamic concubinage woman-as-property lines.

    >
    > >> --

    >
    > >> Pramesh Rutaji

    >
    > >> p297tongue6...@newsguy.com - remove tongue to reply

    >
    > > Calling people names because you don't like their religion is not free
    > > speech. *It's free stupidity.

    >
    > Let the BS flow. *However, change the channel, figure out how to use a
    > kill file, etc.
    >
    > Anyone who follows a religion, organized or not, is practicing free
    > stupidity.
    > --
    >
    > Pramesh Rutaji


    Pramesh, if you have a problem with the US Constitution and the Bill
    of Rights, you are free to live elsewhere. This isn't the Soviet
    Union nor is it Burma (or whatever it's called today).

    No official has ever put a gun to any law abiding citizen forcing them
    to stay under the jurisdiction of the United States and its system of
    laws and its constitution which every president has sworn to preserve
    and protect.


  13. #13
    Pramesh Rutaji Guest

    Default Re: Are these schmucks crazy or what?

    Lubow wrote:
    > On Mar 24, 6:44 pm, Pramesh Rutaji <p297tongue6...@newsguy.com> wrote:
    >> Lubow wrote:
    >>> On Mar 24, 3:44 pm, Pramesh Rutaji <p297tongue6...@newsguy.com> wrote:
    >>>> Lubow wrote:
    >>>>> On Mar 24, 6:03 am, whudson1...@gmail.com wrote:
    >>>>>> http://wcbstv.com/food/non.kosher.fr....2.965310.html
    >>>>>> Walter Hudson
    >>>>> That's all we need. An internet piece of crap criticizing another
    >>>>> person's (in this case, a whole community's) religious beliefs.
    >>>> What we don't need is the politically correct speech police. Free
    >>>> speech is essential to a free society which means lots of things will be
    >>>> said that someone or some group won't like including all the things true
    >>>> and not so true about middle eastern originated religions on both sides
    >>>> of the mythical Abrahamic concubinage woman-as-property lines.
    >>>> --
    >>>> Pramesh Rutaji
    >>>> p297tongue6...@newsguy.com - remove tongue to reply
    >>> Calling people names because you don't like their religion is not free
    >>> speech. It's free stupidity.

    >> Let the BS flow. However, change the channel, figure out how to use a
    >> kill file, etc.
    >>
    >> Anyone who follows a religion, organized or not, is practicing free
    >> stupidity.
    >> --
    >>
    >> Pramesh Rutaji

    >
    > Pramesh, if you have a problem with the US Constitution and the Bill
    > of Rights, you are free to live elsewhere. This isn't the Soviet
    > Union nor is it Burma (or whatever it's called today).
    >
    > No official has ever put a gun to any law abiding citizen forcing them
    > to stay under the jurisdiction of the United States and its system of
    > laws and its constitution which every president has sworn to preserve
    > and protect.
    >


    Another irrational conclusion as I highly value the constitution, all of
    it. The US constitution, what's left of it, was well framed. Limited
    government was a good idea and we need to return to it. The US
    constitution provides for free speech, not forced listening/reading.
    Change the channel, use a kill file, switch the web page, go on to a
    different post.

    Everyone gets to censor their "inputs" as they see fit. They even get
    to worship the great **** maker in the sky if they want to, their
    choice. You don't however go around threating other citizens when they
    fail either accidentally or on purpose to accommodate your religious
    rituals. If someone contracts to provide "kosher" food and doesn't,
    there's plenty of "kosher" lawyers who would gladly take the case.
    Justice is not administrated by mobs in the US. The constitution works
    for everyone.

    The US government seems to think the constitution allows them to reach
    outside the national boundaries and bind citizens when they are outside
    acting within the laws of other nations. Try moving outside the US and
    earning a living without the US thinking you ought to pay taxes on that
    income as if the US somehow owns you body and soul. Hell, try
    transferring a dollar outside the US without the US thinking it ought to
    know all about it. The constitution was original developed by "we the
    people" as the owners of the government, not the FEDs as the owners of
    the people - say no the next time you get "drafted" into the slave army.

    As to what presidents do, you are quite naive. Now we have a president
    that wants to move us towards a government managed economy, the
    neo-communism he calls redistribution of wealth.

    --

    Pramesh Rutaji

    [email protected] - remove tongue to reply

  14. #14
    Lubow Guest

    Default Re: Are these schmucks crazy or what?

    On Mar 25, 1:12*am, Pramesh Rutaji <p297tongue6...@newsguy.com> wrote:

    > As to what presidents do, you are quite naive. *Now we have a president
    > that wants to move us towards a government managed economy, the
    > neo-communism he calls redistribution of wealth.
    >
    > --
    >
    > Pramesh Rutaji
    >
    > p297tongue6...@newsguy.com - remove tongue to reply


    If you don't like it, you are free to leave. No questions asked. One
    less piece of **** isn't going to make much of a difference.

  15. #15
    Rod Speed Guest

    Default Re: Are these schmucks crazy or what?

    Pramesh Rutaji wrote:
    > Lubow wrote:
    >> On Mar 24, 6:44 pm, Pramesh Rutaji <p297tongue6...@newsguy.com>
    >> wrote:
    >>> Lubow wrote:
    >>>> On Mar 24, 3:44 pm, Pramesh Rutaji <p297tongue6...@newsguy.com>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>> Lubow wrote:
    >>>>>> On Mar 24, 6:03 am, whudson1...@gmail.com wrote:
    >>>>>>> http://wcbstv.com/food/non.kosher.fr....2.965310.html
    >>>>>>> Walter Hudson
    >>>>>> That's all we need. An internet piece of crap criticizing
    >>>>>> another person's (in this case, a whole community's) religious
    >>>>>> beliefs.
    >>>>> What we don't need is the politically correct speech police. Free
    >>>>> speech is essential to a free society which means lots of things
    >>>>> will be said that someone or some group won't like including all
    >>>>> the things true and not so true about middle eastern originated
    >>>>> religions on both sides of the mythical Abrahamic concubinage
    >>>>> woman-as-property lines. --
    >>>>> Pramesh Rutaji
    >>>>> p297tongue6...@newsguy.com - remove tongue to reply
    >>>> Calling people names because you don't like their religion is not
    >>>> free speech. It's free stupidity.
    >>> Let the BS flow. However, change the channel, figure out how to
    >>> use a kill file, etc.
    >>>
    >>> Anyone who follows a religion, organized or not, is practicing free
    >>> stupidity.
    >>> --
    >>>
    >>> Pramesh Rutaji

    >>
    >> Pramesh, if you have a problem with the US Constitution and the Bill
    >> of Rights, you are free to live elsewhere. This isn't the Soviet
    >> Union nor is it Burma (or whatever it's called today).
    >>
    >> No official has ever put a gun to any law abiding citizen forcing
    >> them to stay under the jurisdiction of the United States and its
    >> system of laws and its constitution which every president has sworn
    >> to preserve and protect.


    > Another irrational conclusion as I highly value the constitution, all of it. The US constitution, what's left of it,
    > was well framed.


    Ignoring slavery wasnt. Neither was holding their nose about standing armys either.

    > Limited government was a good idea and we need to return to it.


    Nope. The world's moved on and the voters want govt to avoid stuff like the sub prime fiasco.

    > The US constitution provides for free speech, not forced
    > listening/reading. Change the channel, use a kill file, switch the web page, go on to a different post.


    > Everyone gets to censor their "inputs" as they see fit. They even get
    > to worship the great **** maker in the sky if they want to, their choice. You don't however go around threating other
    > citizens when
    > they fail either accidentally or on purpose to accommodate your
    > religious rituals. If someone contracts to provide "kosher" food and
    > doesn't, there's plenty of "kosher" lawyers who would gladly take the
    > case. Justice is not administrated by mobs in the US. The
    > constitution works for everyone.


    No it doesnt, most obviously those whose religion allows multiple wives.

    > The US government seems to think the constitution allows them to reach outside the national boundaries and bind
    > citizens when they are outside acting within the laws of other nations.


    Most countrys do impose some limits on the behaviour of their citizens
    when they are outside their country, even if local law allows it.

    > Try moving outside the US and earning a living without the US thinking you ought to pay taxes on that income as if the
    > US somehow owns you body and soul.


    Nope, just part of your income.

    > Hell, try transferring a dollar outside the US without the US
    > thinking it ought to know all about it. The constitution was
    > original developed by "we the people" as the owners of the
    > government, not the FEDs as the owners of the people - say no the next time you get "drafted" into the slave army.


    No slave army.

    > As to what presidents do, you are quite naive. Now we have a
    > president that wants to move us towards a government managed economy, the neo-communism he calls redistribution of
    > wealth.


    Redistribution of wealth is nothing even remotely
    resembling anything like communism, neo or otherwise.

    It isnt even socialism.



  16. #16
    Cormac Guest

    Default Re: Are these schmucks crazy or what?


    Dietary regimes arise for various reasons. Unless they are for medical
    reasons they should be a private matter.

    When people start to get offended by a lapse in the rules by a
    restaurant it can be funny or life-treatening.

    Cormac.

  17. #17
    Pramesh Rutaji Guest

    Default Re: Are these schmucks crazy or what?

    Rod Speed wrote:
    > Pramesh Rutaji wrote:
    >> Lubow wrote:
    >>> On Mar 24, 6:44 pm, Pramesh Rutaji <p297tongue6...@newsguy.com>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>> Lubow wrote:
    >>>>> On Mar 24, 3:44 pm, Pramesh Rutaji <p297tongue6...@newsguy.com>
    >>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>> Lubow wrote:
    >>>>>>> On Mar 24, 6:03 am, whudson1...@gmail.com wrote:
    >>>>>>>> http://wcbstv.com/food/non.kosher.fr....2.965310.html
    >>>>>>>> Walter Hudson
    >>>>>>> That's all we need. An internet piece of crap criticizing
    >>>>>>> another person's (in this case, a whole community's) religious
    >>>>>>> beliefs.
    >>>>>> What we don't need is the politically correct speech police. Free
    >>>>>> speech is essential to a free society which means lots of things
    >>>>>> will be said that someone or some group won't like including all
    >>>>>> the things true and not so true about middle eastern originated
    >>>>>> religions on both sides of the mythical Abrahamic concubinage
    >>>>>> woman-as-property lines. --
    >>>>>> Pramesh Rutaji
    >>>>>> p297tongue6...@newsguy.com - remove tongue to reply
    >>>>> Calling people names because you don't like their religion is not
    >>>>> free speech. It's free stupidity.
    >>>> Let the BS flow. However, change the channel, figure out how to
    >>>> use a kill file, etc.
    >>>>
    >>>> Anyone who follows a religion, organized or not, is practicing free
    >>>> stupidity.
    >>>> --
    >>>>
    >>>> Pramesh Rutaji
    >>> Pramesh, if you have a problem with the US Constitution and the Bill
    >>> of Rights, you are free to live elsewhere. This isn't the Soviet
    >>> Union nor is it Burma (or whatever it's called today).
    >>>
    >>> No official has ever put a gun to any law abiding citizen forcing
    >>> them to stay under the jurisdiction of the United States and its
    >>> system of laws and its constitution which every president has sworn
    >>> to preserve and protect.

    >
    >> Another irrational conclusion as I highly value the constitution, all of it. The US constitution, what's left of it,
    >> was well framed.

    >
    > Ignoring slavery wasnt. Neither was holding their nose about standing armys either.


    Excellent point. This was a certainly a flaw.

    >> Limited government was a good idea and we need to return to it.

    >
    > Nope. The world's moved on and the voters want govt to avoid stuff like the sub prime fiasco.


    Sub-prime was instigated by government with Freddy and Fanny as their
    driving force to "guarantee" outcomes, everyone owning a home, instead
    of returning to original principles, equal opportunity. Regulation and
    incentives were in place to promote bad loans. Barney Frank was one of
    the driving forces that destroyed so much capitol.

    >> The US constitution provides for free speech, not forced
    >> listening/reading. Change the channel, use a kill file, switch the web page, go on to a different post.

    >
    >> Everyone gets to censor their "inputs" as they see fit. They even get
    >> to worship the great **** maker in the sky if they want to, their choice. You don't however go around threating other
    >> citizens when
    >> they fail either accidentally or on purpose to accommodate your
    >> religious rituals. If someone contracts to provide "kosher" food and
    >> doesn't, there's plenty of "kosher" lawyers who would gladly take the
    >> case. Justice is not administrated by mobs in the US. The
    >> constitution works for everyone.

    >
    > No it doesnt, most obviously those whose religion allows multiple wives.


    Freedom of association should be unfetter among consenting
    adults/citizens. No should be making association decisions for someone
    else, even by "vote". The laws against interracial marriage were just
    such bad "votes". Democracy is sometimes known as the tyranny of the
    majority - that's why the constitution was designed as a republic.
    Anyone should be able to choose their companions as they desire, 1 or 2
    or more, any combination.

    >> The US government seems to think the constitution allows them to reach outside the national boundaries and bind
    >> citizens when they are outside acting within the laws of other nations.

    >
    > Most countrys do impose some limits on the behaviour of their citizens
    > when they are outside their country, even if local law allows it.


    Irreverent. If I relocate out of a religiously oppressive regime, like
    one that forbids alcohol, and relocate to one that celebrates it, like
    France, the French people's constitution/laws should apply. Iran for
    instance should have no legal "reach" to residents of France or for
    anywhere outside of Iran for that matter.

    >> Try moving outside the US and earning a living without the US thinking you ought to pay taxes on that income as if the
    >> US somehow owns you body and soul.

    >
    > Nope, just part of your income.


    No, they don't own me. If I were to relinquish my citizenship the US
    government still thinks it has a right to tax my world wide income for
    the next 10 years. One cool thing about other countries is that
    business income can be completely retained inside a corporation. In the
    US, that income is taxed first, and then it is required to be
    distributed as dividends where it is taxed a second time. There is a
    low limit on allowed retained income in the US. If one forms their
    corporation outside the US and does so correctly, income is not taxed by
    the local country (Panama doesn't tax Panamanian companies who do no
    business in Panama for instance and therefore they don't care if you
    distribute that income or not - the ownership of said companies can be
    designed so that it isn't public). One can retain income indefinitely
    inside the corporation and only distribute what you actually want/need
    for your living leaving only that to be taxed. Also, one can pass on
    these businesses to their heirs without tax consequences while in the US
    inheritance taxes can be very high.

    >> Hell, try transferring a dollar outside the US without the US
    >> thinking it ought to know all about it. The constitution was
    >> original developed by "we the people" as the owners of the
    >> government, not the FEDs as the owners of the people - say no the next time you get "drafted" into the slave army.

    >
    > No slave army.


    One can be "drafted" and forced to effectively die. That's not freedom
    - that's government ownership - slavery. One can be denied essential
    medication because the government deems it illegal and die as a
    consequence - that's government ownership of your health - slavery.
    Personally, I'm not willing to die for oil or any other such reason and
    take effective actions.

    >> As to what presidents do, you are quite naive. Now we have a
    >> president that wants to move us towards a government managed economy, the neo-communism he calls redistribution of
    >> wealth.

    >
    > Redistribution of wealth is nothing even remotely
    > resembling anything like communism, neo or otherwise.
    >
    > It isnt even socialism.


    Pfft. It's theft. It's taking by force to buy votes. The purpose of
    government was to protect rights, the right to life, liberty, and the
    "pursuit" of happiness.

    It's socialism. And, Communism hates free markets, capitalism, and
    takes capital from those who have saved and invested wisely and gives to
    those who have not. That's the Obama plan - destruction of capital by
    taking from those who save and giving to those who waste, capitol well
    invested is the source of our high standard of living.

    --

    Pramesh Rutaji

    [email protected] - remove tongue to reply

  18. #18
    Rod Speed Guest

    Default Re: Are these schmucks crazy or what?

    Pramesh Rutaji wrote
    > Rod Speed wrote
    >> Pramesh Rutaji wrote
    >>> Lubow wrote
    >>>> Pramesh Rutaji <p297tongue6...@newsguy.com> wrote
    >>>>> Lubow wrote
    >>>>>> Pramesh Rutaji <p297tongue6...@newsguy.com> wrote
    >>>>>>> Lubow wrote:
    >>>>>>>> whudson1...@gmail.com wrote


    >>>>>>>>> http://wcbstv.com/food/non.kosher.fr....2.965310.html
    >>>>>>>>> Walter Hudson


    >>>>>>>> That's all we need. An internet piece of crap criticizing another person's (in this case, a whole community's)
    >>>>>>>> religious beliefs.


    >>>>>>> What we don't need is the politically correct speech police. Free speech is essential to a free society which
    >>>>>>> means lots of things will be said that someone or some group won't like including all the things true and not so
    >>>>>>> true about middle
    >>>>>>> eastern originated religions on both sides of the mythical
    >>>>>>> Abrahamic concubinage woman-as-property lines.


    >>>>>> Calling people names because you don't like their religion is not free speech. It's free stupidity.


    >>>>> Let the BS flow. However, change the channel, figure out how to use a kill file, etc.


    >>>>> Anyone who follows a religion, organized or not, is practicing free stupidity.


    >>>> Pramesh, if you have a problem with the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, you are free to live elsewhere.
    >>>> This isn't the
    >>>> Soviet Union nor is it Burma (or whatever it's called today).


    >>>> No official has ever put a gun to any law abiding citizen forcing
    >>>> them to stay under the jurisdiction of the United States and its
    >>>> system of laws and its constitution which every president has sworn to preserve and protect.


    >>> Another irrational conclusion as I highly value the constitution,
    >>> all of it. The US constitution, what's left of it, was well framed.


    >> Ignoring slavery wasnt. Neither was holding their nose about standing armys either.


    > Excellent point. This was a certainly a flaw.


    >>> Limited government was a good idea and we need to return to it.


    >> Nope. The world's moved on and the voters want govt to avoid stuff like the sub prime fiasco.


    > Sub-prime was instigated by government


    Only in the sense that govt refused to regulate CDOs and CDSs.

    > with Freddy and Fanny as their driving force to "guarantee" outcomes, everyone owning a home, instead of returning to
    > original principles, equal opportunity. Regulation and incentives were in place to promote bad loans.


    That wasnt the cause. There were never enough CRA loans written
    to produce the complete implosion of the world financial system.
    Even if they had defaulted at a higher rate, and they didnt, the worst
    that could have produced was higher costs for the non CRA loans.

    The problem was actually the bundling and securitising of sub
    prime loans with prime loans and the resulting securitys getting
    AAA+ rating that they didnt come even close to qualifying for
    with the terminally stupid US non recourse system.

    Once the real estate bubble burst, as it inevitably did, and it
    became obvious that those CDOs didnt come even close to
    qualifying for their AAA+ rating, it was impossible to rate them
    properly and so no one wanted them anymore. The mark to
    market system then meant that they had to be valued at zero,
    because no one would buy them, and that is what produced
    the implosion of Bear Stearns and Lehmans, both of which
    had survived the great depression fine.

    > Barney Frank was one of the driving forces that destroyed so much capitol.


    Nope, the spivs and con men that were giving bundled securitized
    sub prime loans AAA+ ratings that they didnt come even close to
    qualifying for were. When that was combined with the terminal
    stupidity of CDSs for immense amounts of money, the writing
    was on the wall. Nothing to do with Franks and his ilk except
    in the sense that they didnt do anything to stop that happening.

    Not one of the canadian or australian retail banks
    imploded spectacularly or even needed to be bailed out.

    >>> The US constitution provides for free speech, not forced
    >>> listening/reading. Change the channel, use a kill file, switch the web page, go on to a different post.


    >>> Everyone gets to censor their "inputs" as they see fit. They even
    >>> get to worship the great **** maker in the sky if they want to, their
    >>> choice. You don't however go around threating other citizens when
    >>> they fail either accidentally or on purpose to accommodate your
    >>> religious rituals. If someone contracts to provide "kosher" food and doesn't, there's plenty of "kosher" lawyers
    >>> who would gladly take the case. Justice is not administrated by mobs in the US. The constitution works for
    >>> everyone.


    >> No it doesnt, most obviously those whose religion allows multiple wives.


    > Freedom of association should be unfetter among consenting adults/citizens.


    Its more complicated than that, most obviously with terrorists.

    > No should be making association decisions for someone else, even by "vote". The laws against interracial marriage were
    > just such bad "votes".


    I wasnt talking about interracial marraige, JUST stuff like preventing the
    Mormons from following their religion and having more than one wife.

    > Democracy is sometimes known as the tyranny of the majority - that's why the constitution was designed as a republic.


    Its much more complicated than that.

    > Anyone should be able to choose their companions as they desire, 1 or 2 or more, any combination.


    So the constitution does not in fact work for everyone.

    >>> The US government seems to think the constitution allows them to reach outside the national boundaries and bind
    >>> citizens when they are outside acting within the laws of other nations.


    >> Most countrys do impose some limits on the behaviour of their
    >> citizens when they are outside their country, even if local law allows it.


    > Irreverent.


    Presumably you mean irrelevant.

    > If I relocate out of a religiously oppressive regime, like one that forbids alcohol, and relocate to one that
    > celebrates it, like France, the French people's constitution/laws should apply.


    But if you temporarily are in say Saudi which allows you to beat
    your wife if she doesnt behave herself, its quite reasonable for the
    US to say that a US citizen cant start beating his wife when she gets
    uppity, just because he has chosen to work there for a while etc.

    > Iran for instance should have no legal "reach" to residents of France or for anywhere outside of Iran for that matter.


    Its much more complicated than that with citizens of Iran in this case.

    >>> Try moving outside the US and earning a living without the US thinking you ought to pay taxes on that income as if
    >>> the US somehow owns you body and soul.


    >> Nope, just part of your income.


    > No, they don't own me.


    They dont own you just because personal income tax is due.

    > If I were to relinquish my citizenship the US government still thinks it has a right to tax my world wide income for
    > the next 10 years.


    Thats not owning you and that unenforceable if you arent a US citizen anymore anyway.

    > One cool thing about other countries is that business income can be completely retained inside a corporation.


    It cant be in plenty of them.

    > In the US, that income is taxed first, and then it is required to be distributed as dividends where it is taxed a
    > second time.


    The US isnt unique in that.

    > There is a low limit on allowed retained income in the US. If one forms their corporation outside the US and does so
    > correctly, income is not taxed by the local country


    That varys with the local country.

    > (Panama doesn't tax Panamanian companies who do no business in Panama for instance and therefore they don't care if
    > you distribute that income or not -


    And that is something that hardly any modern first world countrys have.

    > the ownership of said companies can be designed so that it isn't public).


    And that is something that hardly any modern first world countrys have.

    > One can retain income indefinitely inside the corporation and only distribute what you actually want/need for your
    > living leaving only that to be taxed.


    And plenty of other modern first world countrys dont allow that.

    > Also, one can pass on these businesses to their heirs without tax
    > consequences while in the US inheritance taxes can be very high.


    And plenty of western european countrys are a hell of a lot higher.

    >>> Hell, try transferring a dollar outside the US without the US
    >>> thinking it ought to know all about it. The constitution was
    >>> original developed by "we the people" as the owners of the
    >>> government, not the FEDs as the owners of the people - say no the next time you get "drafted" into the slave army.


    >> No slave army.


    > One can be "drafted" and forced to effectively die.


    Doesnt make it a SLAVE army, just a draft.

    > That's not freedom - that's government ownership


    Nope, no ownership, just a requirement on what you must do.

    All modern first world countrys require you to attend school until a particular age too.

    > - slavery.


    Nothing even remotely resembling anything like slavery. You cant be bought and sold.

    > One can be denied essential medication because the government deems it illegal and die as a consequence


    No modern first world govt makes essential life sustaining medication illegal.

    > - that's government ownership of your health


    No it isnt. Its just a constraint on what you can do medication wise.

    That just means that you can need a qualified person to agree that
    a particular medication is appropriate for your medical condition.

    > - slavery.


    Nothing even remotely resembling anything like slavery. You cant be bought and sold.

    > Personally, I'm not willing to die for oil or any other such reason and take effective actions.


    All modern first world countrys have provision for conscientious objection to the draft.

    And few of them even have a draft anymore.

    >>> As to what presidents do, you are quite naive. Now we have a
    >>> president that wants to move us towards a government managed
    >>> economy, the neo-communism he calls redistribution of wealth.


    >> Redistribution of wealth is nothing even remotely
    >> resembling anything like communism, neo or otherwise.


    >> It isnt even socialism.


    > Pfft. It's theft.


    Nope, its taxation. Nothing like theft.

    > It's taking by force


    No it isnt. Almost everyone does what the law requires without force being used.

    > to buy votes.


    Wrong again, to do what that particular party thinks is an appropriate approach.

    The other party also favours a progressive income tax system which also redistributes wealth.

    In fact every modern first world country does too.

    > The purpose of government was to protect rights, the right to life, liberty, and the "pursuit" of happiness.


    Its other purpose is to do what the voters have decided they want
    govt to do, all sorts of stuff like education etc etc etc as well.

    > It's socialism.


    Yes, but every country is a mix of socialism and capitalism,
    even HongKong before it was handed back to china was.

    And a progressive income tax is not socialism.

    > And, Communism hates free markets, capitalism,


    And Obummer does neither.

    > and takes capital from those who have saved and invested wisely and gives to those who have not.


    So did Bush. Any progressive income tax does that. Inheritance taxes in spades.

    > That's the Obama plan


    Like hell it is on the first two.

    > - destruction of capital by taking from those who save and giving to those who waste,


    Corse the shrub never ever did anything like that, eh ?

    > capitol well invested is the source of our high standard of living.


    And when we have seen the destruction of so much capital due to
    the failure of the shrub's administration to properly regulate the financial
    industry, that capital has to come from somewhere and there is only one
    place it can come from to pay for the bailouts, the taxpayer.

    You must have noticed that the first of the bailouts were done by the shrub, before
    he got the bums rush at the ballot box that he so richly deserved. His party in spades.



  19. #19
    Pramesh Rutaji Guest

    Default Re: Are these schmucks crazy or what?

    Rod Speed wrote:
    > Pramesh Rutaji wrote
    >> Rod Speed wrote


    >> with Freddy and Fanny as their driving force to "guarantee" outcomes, everyone owning a home, instead of returning to
    >> original principles, equal opportunity. Regulation and incentives were in place to promote bad loans.

    >
    > That wasnt the cause. There were never enough CRA loans written
    > to produce the complete implosion of the world financial system.
    > Even if they had defaulted at a higher rate, and they didnt, the worst
    > that could have produced was higher costs for the non CRA loans.
    >
    > The problem was actually the bundling and securitising of sub
    > prime loans with prime loans and the resulting securitys getting
    > AAA+ rating that they didnt come even close to qualifying for
    > with the terminally stupid US non recourse system.
    >
    > Once the real estate bubble burst, as it inevitably did, and it
    > became obvious that those CDOs didnt come even close to
    > qualifying for their AAA+ rating, it was impossible to rate them
    > properly and so no one wanted them anymore. The mark to
    > market system then meant that they had to be valued at zero,
    > because no one would buy them, and that is what produced
    > the implosion of Bear Stearns and Lehmans, both of which
    > had survived the great depression fine.


    The bottom line is that freddy and fanny were quasi government
    organizations with the profits being private and the losses being
    public. This allowed them (or encouraged them) to take extra-ordinary
    risks resulting in the problems we are experiencing.

    >
    >> Barney Frank was one of the driving forces that destroyed so much capitol.

    >
    > Nope, ...


    Barney Frank was a prime legistator in creating this public gain/private
    loss problem and freddy and fanny.


    >>>> The US constitution provides for free speech, not forced
    >>>> listening/reading. Change the channel, use a kill file, switch the web page, go on to a different post.

    >
    >>>> Everyone gets to censor their "inputs" as they see fit. They even
    >>>> get to worship the great **** maker in the sky if they want to, their
    >>>> choice. You don't however go around threating other citizens when
    >>>> they fail either accidentally or on purpose to accommodate your
    >>>> religious rituals. If someone contracts to provide "kosher" food and doesn't, there's plenty of "kosher" lawyers
    >>>> who would gladly take the case. Justice is not administrated by mobs in the US. The constitution works for
    >>>> everyone.

    >
    >>> No it doesnt, most obviously those whose religion allows multiple wives.

    >
    >> Freedom of association should be unfetter among consenting adults/citizens.

    >
    > Its more complicated than that, most obviously with terrorists.


    Terrorist is an over used word. How about tea-party-revolutionaries?
    Or Nelson Mandela Terrorists bombers who will one day get a Nobel Peace
    price? History is written by the winers, both sides have equal blood on
    their hands.

    >> No should be making association decisions for someone else, even by "vote". The laws against interracial marriage were
    >> just such bad "votes".

    >
    > I wasnt talking about interracial marraige, JUST stuff like preventing the
    > Mormons from following their religion and having more than one wife.


    Who the **** cares if Mormon break-off groups, any group for that
    matter, marry more than one wife? Adults can make their own damn
    decision on who to ****. If you cannot find a ****-buddy, tough ****.


    >> If I relocate out of a religiously oppressive regime, like one that forbids alcohol, and relocate to one that
    >> celebrates it, like France, the French people's constitution/laws should apply.

    >
    > But if you temporarily are in say Saudi which allows you to beat
    > your wife if she doesnt behave herself, its quite reasonable for the
    > US to say that a US citizen cant start beating his wife when she gets
    > uppity, just because he has chosen to work there for a while etc.


    Unreasonable. If you don't like the laws of the Saudis, don't go there.

    >> Iran for instance should have no legal "reach" to residents of France or for anywhere outside of Iran for that matter.

    >
    > Its much more complicated than that with citizens of Iran in this case.


    Yea, the "empire" of the US can reach into Iran and compel American
    citizens one way or the other but Iran cannot reach into the USA and
    force Iranian citizens to obey Iranian laws in the USA? Hell, the US
    expect even non-citizens to obey US laws outside the of the USA in some
    cases. That's complete and utter BS.

    >
    >>>> Try moving outside the US and earning a living without the US thinking you ought to pay taxes on that income as if
    >>>> the US somehow owns you body and soul.

    >
    >>> Nope, just part of your income.

    >
    >> No, they don't own me.

    >
    > They dont own you just because personal income tax is due.


    Forced taxes is the same as some gang extorting protection money on
    small businesses in inner cities - same exact thing except more
    "organized" and larger "gangs". It's a "protection racket" no matter
    how you look at it, except the large gang has the ability to force you
    participate in the protection racket.

    >
    >> If I were to relinquish my citizenship the US government still thinks it has a right to tax my world wide income for
    >> the next 10 years.

    >
    > Thats not owning you and that unenforceable if you arent a US citizen anymore anyway.


    Yea, but try visiting the USA and not getting arrested if you don't pay
    your extorted taxes for the 10 years after giving up your citizenship.

    >> One cool thing about other countries is that business income can be completely retained inside a corporation.

    >
    > It cant be in plenty of them.


    Then don't form your international businesses in the repressive countries.

    >> In the US, that income is taxed first, and then it is required to be distributed as dividends where it is taxed a
    >> second time.

    >
    > The US isnt unique in that.


    That's why one should take care in where they form and how they bank.

    >> There is a low limit on allowed retained income in the US. If one forms their corporation outside the US and does so
    >> correctly, income is not taxed by the local country

    >
    > That varys with the local country.


    Then choose carefully.

    >> (Panama doesn't tax Panamanian companies who do no business in Panama for instance and therefore they don't care if
    >> you distribute that income or not -

    >
    > And that is something that hardly any modern first world countrys have.


    Yet, there are quite a few countries with this option and it is rater
    common for large corporation to run money through some of these
    countries. Hell, using a Nevada corporation allows some fund to
    "earned" in Nevada if you have your management there and excludes them
    from state taxes.

    >> the ownership of said companies can be designed so that it isn't public).

    >
    > And that is something that hardly any modern first world countrys have.


    The goal is to keep as much of hard work as possible to use as you see fit.

    >> One can retain income indefinitely inside the corporation and only distribute what you actually want/need for your
    >> living leaving only that to be taxed.

    >
    > And plenty of other modern first world countrys dont allow that.


    Choose carefully.

    Yet, Even in the USA my real estate businesses allow me to do 1031
    exchanges while depreciating these properties AND to borrow against
    increasing asset values without tax consequences and when carefully
    crafted, pass most of the gains untaxed to the heirs of my choice.

    >> Also, one can pass on these businesses to their heirs without tax
    >> consequences while in the US inheritance taxes can be very high.

    >
    > And plenty of western european countrys are a hell of a lot higher.


    Specious argument.

    >>>> Hell, try transferring a dollar outside the US without the US
    >>>> thinking it ought to know all about it. The constitution was
    >>>> original developed by "we the people" as the owners of the
    >>>> government, not the FEDs as the owners of the people - say no the next time you get "drafted" into the slave army.

    >
    >>> No slave army.

    >
    >> One can be "drafted" and forced to effectively die.

    >
    > Doesnt make it a SLAVE army, just a draft.


    And people are being forced into the drug business in Mexico. It's
    slavery regardless of if the government does or some other group with
    "power".

    >> That's not freedom - that's government ownership

    >
    > Nope, no ownership, just a requirement on what you must do.
    >
    > All modern first world countrys require you to attend school until a particular age too.


    That's BS too. Before the FEDs interfered in schooling in 1890,
    literacy was greater. Free market systems work better AND charity and
    education foundations were much more extensive.

    >> - slavery.

    >
    > Nothing even remotely resembling anything like slavery. You cant be bought and sold.
    >
    >> One can be denied essential medication because the government deems it illegal and die as a consequence

    >
    > No modern first world govt makes essential life sustaining medication illegal.


    Sure they do. The FDA is the arm of large pharma. It needs to be
    eliminated and free market certification options allowed to arise.

    >
    >> - that's government ownership of your health

    >
    > No it isnt. Its just a constraint on what you can do medication wise.


    When shouldn't exist in a "free" society.

    > That just means that you can need a qualified person to agree that
    > a particular medication is appropriate for your medical condition.


    BS. I don't need a "qualified" person to tell me how to invest my
    money, where to live, what to eat, how to dress, when to exercise, and
    who to ****. Medical licensing and education limits is a medical
    protection racket. I'd rather see medical providers that are certified
    by private organizations/businesses who's reputation and profits depend
    on providing excellent service.

    >> - slavery.

    >
    > Nothing even remotely resembling anything like slavery. You cant be bought and sold.
    >
    >> Personally, I'm not willing to die for oil or any other such reason and take effective actions.

    >
    > All modern first world countrys have provision for conscientious objection to the draft.
    >
    > And few of them even have a draft anymore.


    **** the ""conscientious objection" criteria. I shouldn't have to
    conform to some "regulation" or order to say, I'm not going kill or be
    killed for the American empire aspiration and it's attempt to dominate
    the world outside of it's own borders.

    >>>> As to what presidents do, you are quite naive. Now we have a
    >>>> president that wants to move us towards a government managed
    >>>> economy, the neo-communism he calls redistribution of wealth.

    >
    >>> Redistribution of wealth is nothing even remotely
    >>> resembling anything like communism, neo or otherwise.

    >
    >>> It isnt even socialism.

    >
    >> Pfft. It's theft.

    >
    > Nope, its taxation. Nothing like theft.


    Just like a "tea tax" ayh?

    <snip all the rests> Your love of socialism and communal tax
    arrangements is apparent. It's too bad you have abdicated personal
    responsibility and expect taxes and wealth redistribution to wipe your ass.

    --

    Pramesh Rutaji

    [email protected] - remove tongue to reply

  20. #20
    Rod Speed Guest

    Default Re: Are these schmucks crazy or what?

    Pramesh Rutaji wrote
    > Rod Speed wrote
    >> Pramesh Rutaji wrote
    >>> Rod Speed wrote


    >>> with Freddy and Fanny as their driving force to "guarantee"
    >>> outcomes, everyone owning a home, instead of returning to original principles, equal opportunity. Regulation and
    >>> incentives were in place to promote bad loans.


    >> That wasnt the cause. There were never enough CRA loans written
    >> to produce the complete implosion of the world financial system.
    >> Even if they had defaulted at a higher rate, and they didnt, the worst that could have produced was higher costs for
    >> the non CRA loans.


    >> The problem was actually the bundling and securitising of sub
    >> prime loans with prime loans and the resulting securitys getting
    >> AAA+ rating that they didnt come even close to qualifying for
    >> with the terminally stupid US non recourse system.


    >> Once the real estate bubble burst, as it inevitably did, and it
    >> became obvious that those CDOs didnt come even close to
    >> qualifying for their AAA+ rating, it was impossible to rate them
    >> properly and so no one wanted them anymore. The mark to
    >> market system then meant that they had to be valued at zero,
    >> because no one would buy them, and that is what produced
    >> the implosion of Bear Stearns and Lehmans, both of which
    >> had survived the great depression fine.


    > The bottom line is that freddy and fanny were quasi government
    > organizations with the profits being private and the losses being public.


    That wasnt what produced the sub prime fiasco or
    the complete implosion of the world financial system.

    > This allowed them (or encouraged them) to take extra-ordinary risks


    It wasnt the risk THEY were taking that produced the current problem.

    > resulting in the problems we are experiencing.


    Wrong. You're completely ignoring the real risks, CDSs etc.

    >>> Barney Frank was one of the driving forces that destroyed so much capitol.


    >> Nope, ...


    > Barney Frank was a prime legistator in creating this public gain/private loss problem and freddy and fanny.


    Pity that neither produced the sub prime fiasco and the complete implosion of the world financial system.

    >>>>> The US constitution provides for free speech, not forced
    >>>>> listening/reading. Change the channel, use a kill file, switch the web page, go on to a different post.


    >>>>> Everyone gets to censor their "inputs" as they see fit. They even
    >>>>> get to worship the great **** maker in the sky if they want to, their choice. You don't however go around
    >>>>> threating other citizens when
    >>>>> they fail either accidentally or on purpose to accommodate your
    >>>>> religious rituals. If someone contracts to provide "kosher" food
    >>>>> and doesn't, there's plenty of "kosher" lawyers who would gladly
    >>>>> take the case. Justice is not administrated by mobs in the US. The constitution works for everyone.


    >>>> No it doesnt, most obviously those whose religion allows multiple wives.


    >>> Freedom of association should be unfetter among consenting adults/citizens.


    >> Its more complicated than that, most obviously with terrorists.


    > Terrorist is an over used word. How about tea-party-revolutionaries?


    They werent terrorists because they didnt use any terror.

    > Or Nelson Mandela Terrorists bombers


    Those were certainly terrorists.

    > who will one day get a Nobel Peace price?


    Even you should have noticed Yasser Arrafat who
    was a real terrorist in anyone's book, got one too.

    > History is written by the winers,


    Sometimes it is, sometimes it aint.

    > both sides have equal blood on their hands.


    Nothing even remotely resembling anything like equal.

    No one else did anything like the rape of Nanjing, or the concentration/extermination
    camps that the Nazis had, or the slave labor camps that the japs had either.

    >>> No should be making association decisions for someone else, even by
    >>> "vote". The laws against interracial marriage were just such bad "votes".


    >> I wasnt talking about interracial marraige, JUST stuff like preventing the Mormons from following their religion and
    >> having more than one wife.


    > Who the **** cares if Mormon break-off groups, any group for that matter, marry more than one wife?


    The US authoritys, thats who. In spite of the constitution.

    > Adults can make their own damn decision on who to ****.


    We aint talking about ****ing, we are talking about marraige.

    > If you cannot find a ****-buddy, tough ****.


    Their problem is that they could find plenty more than one.

    >>> If I relocate out of a religiously oppressive regime, like one that forbids alcohol, and relocate to one that
    >>> celebrates it, like France, the French people's constitution/laws should apply.


    >> But if you temporarily are in say Saudi which allows you to beat
    >> your wife if she doesnt behave herself, its quite reasonable for the
    >> US to say that a US citizen cant start beating his wife when she gets
    >> uppity, just because he has chosen to work there for a while etc.


    > Unreasonable. If you don't like the laws of the Saudis, don't go there.


    Didnt say anything about like. JUST that the US feels that its citizens
    shouldnt be allowed to behave like that even if the local laws allow that.

    >>> Iran for instance should have no legal "reach" to residents of France or for anywhere outside of Iran for that
    >>> matter.


    >> Its much more complicated than that with citizens of Iran in this case.


    > Yea, the "empire" of the US can reach into Iran and compel American
    > citizens one way or the other but Iran cannot reach into the USA and
    > force Iranian citizens to obey Iranian laws in the USA?


    If you dont like the way the US does its laws, dont become a US citizen.

    > Hell, the US expect even non-citizens to obey US laws outside the of the USA in some cases. That's complete and utter
    > BS.


    If you dont like the way the US does its laws, dont become a US citizen.

    >>>>> Try moving outside the US and earning a living without the US thinking you ought to pay taxes on that income as if
    >>>>> the US somehow owns you body and soul.


    >>>> Nope, just part of your income.


    >>> No, they don't own me.


    >> They dont own you just because personal income tax is due.


    > Forced taxes is the same as some gang extorting protection money on small businesses in inner cities - same exact
    > thing except more "organized" and larger "gangs".


    Nope, nothing like. The voters get to decide the detail of tax law.

    > It's a "protection racket" no matter how you look at it, except the large gang has the ability to force you
    > participate in the protection racket.


    Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you
    dont have a ****ing clue about what a democracy is about.

    If you dont like the way the US does taxation, dont become a US citizen.

    >>> If I were to relinquish my citizenship the US government still thinks it has a right to tax my world wide income for
    >>> the next 10 years.


    >> Thats not owning you and that is unenforceable if you arent a US citizen anymore anyway.


    > Yea, but try visiting the USA and not getting arrested if you don't pay your extorted taxes for the 10 years after
    > giving up your citizenship.


    If you dont like US tax law, dont visit the country.

    >>> One cool thing about other countries is that business income can be completely retained inside a corporation.


    >> It cant be in plenty of them.


    > Then don't form your international businesses in the repressive countries.


    Those arent repressive countrys.

    >>> In the US, that income is taxed first, and then it is required to
    >>> be distributed as dividends where it is taxed a second time.


    >> The US isnt unique in that.


    > That's why one should take care in where they form and how they bank.


    And thats why the US still taxes stuff done outside the US by US citizens.

    You get to like that or lump it or dont become a US citizen.

    >>> There is a low limit on allowed retained income in the US. If one forms their corporation outside the US and does
    >>> so correctly, income is not taxed by the local country


    >> That varys with the local country.


    > Then choose carefully.


    You clearly didnt with your citizenship.

    >>> (Panama doesn't tax Panamanian companies who do no business in Panama for instance and therefore they don't care if
    >>> you distribute that income or not -


    >> And that is something that hardly any modern first world countrys have.


    > Yet, there are quite a few countries with this option


    Only havens for tax cheats.

    > and it is rater common for large corporation to run money through some of these countries.


    Yes, lots of corps are tax cheats.

    > Hell, using a Nevada corporation allows some fund to "earned" in Nevada if you have your management there and excludes
    > them from state taxes.


    Yes, some US states are havens for tax cheats too.

    >>> the ownership of said companies can be designed so that it isn't public).


    >> And that is something that hardly any modern first world countrys have.


    > The goal is to keep as much of hard work as possible to use as you see fit.


    Dont be too surprised when you end up in jail convicted as a tax cheat.

    >>> One can retain income indefinitely inside the corporation and only
    >>> distribute what you actually want/need for your living leaving only
    >>> that to be taxed.


    >> And plenty of other modern first world countrys dont allow that.


    > Choose carefully.


    You clearly didnt with your citizenship.

    > Yet, Even in the USA my real estate businesses allow me to do 1031
    > exchanges while depreciating these properties AND to borrow against
    > increasing asset values without tax consequences and when carefully
    > crafted, pass most of the gains untaxed to the heirs of my choice.


    And hardly any other modern first world countrys are that stupid.

    >>> Also, one can pass on these businesses to their heirs without tax
    >>> consequences while in the US inheritance taxes can be very high.


    >> And plenty of western european countrys are a hell of a lot higher.


    > Specious argument.


    Nope. Statement of fact. It isnt even an argument.

    >>>>> Hell, try transferring a dollar outside the US without the US
    >>>>> thinking it ought to know all about it. The constitution was
    >>>>> original developed by "we the people" as the owners of the
    >>>>> government, not the FEDs as the owners of the people - say no the next time you get "drafted" into the slave army.


    >>>> No slave army.


    >>> One can be "drafted" and forced to effectively die.


    >> Doesnt make it a SLAVE army, just a draft.


    > And people are being forced into the drug business in Mexico.


    The US govt never does anything like that.

    > It's slavery regardless of if the government does or some other group with "power".


    Slaves dont get paid, they just get flogged if they dont work etc.

    >>> That's not freedom - that's government ownership


    >> Nope, no ownership, just a requirement on what you must do.


    >> All modern first world countrys require you to attend school until a particular age too.


    > That's BS too.


    Like it or lump it.

    > Before the FEDs interfered in schooling in 1890, literacy was greater.


    Lie.

    > Free market systems work better AND charity and
    > education foundations were much more extensive.


    Irrelevant to compulsory education. It aint govt schools that are compulsory,
    you are welcome to use those schools you believe do it better if you want to.

    >>> - slavery.


    >> Nothing even remotely resembling anything like slavery. You cant be bought and sold.


    >>> One can be denied essential medication because the government deems it illegal and die as a consequence


    >> No modern first world govt makes essential life sustaining medication illegal.


    > Sure they do.


    Like hell they do. Have fun listing even a single example of that.

    > The FDA is the arm of large pharma. It needs to be eliminated and free market certification options allowed to arise.


    Then there's the real world. Have a look at the utter obscenity
    that something like that produces in India sometime.

    >>> - that's government ownership of your health


    >> No it isnt. Its just a constraint on what you can do medication wise.


    > When shouldn't exist in a "free" society.


    There is no such animal. You aint free to murder anyone you like either.

    >> That just means that you can need a qualified person to agree that
    >> a particular medication is appropriate for your medical condition.


    > BS. I don't need a "qualified" person to tell me how to invest my money, where to live, what to eat, how to dress,
    > when to exercise, and who to ****.


    You do however need a qualified person to agree that
    some drugs are appropriate for your medical condition.

    > Medical licensing and education limits is a medical protection racket.


    Because we noticed the downsides with the alternative,
    even if you are too stupid to have noticed that.

    > I'd rather see medical providers that are certified by private organizations/businesses who's reputation and profits
    > depend on providing excellent service.


    You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

    What you may or may not rather see in spades.

    >>> - slavery.


    >> Nothing even remotely resembling anything like slavery. You cant be bought and sold.


    >>> Personally, I'm not willing to die for oil or any other such reason and take effective actions.


    >> All modern first world countrys have provision for conscientious objection to the draft.


    >> And few of them even have a draft anymore.


    > **** the ""conscientious objection" criteria. I shouldn't have to conform to some "regulation" or order to say, I'm
    > not going kill or be killed for the American empire aspiration and it's attempt to dominate the world outside of it's
    > own borders.


    If you dont like the approach they take on that, dont become a citizen of that country, stupid.

    >>>>> As to what presidents do, you are quite naive. Now we have a
    >>>>> president that wants to move us towards a government managed
    >>>>> economy, the neo-communism he calls redistribution of wealth.


    >>>> Redistribution of wealth is nothing even remotely
    >>>> resembling anything like communism, neo or otherwise.


    >>>> It isnt even socialism.


    >>> Pfft. It's theft.


    >> Nope, its taxation. Nothing like theft.


    > Just like a "tea tax" ayh?


    That wasnt theft either, just a ****ed approach to taxation.

    > <snip all the rests> Your love of socialism


    So stupid that it hasnt even noticed that every single modern first world country is a mix
    of socialism and capitalism. Even HongKong before it was handed back to china was.

    > and communal tax arrangements is apparent.


    I dont 'love' any tax arrangments, fool.

    > It's too bad you have abdicated personal responsibility


    Corse you didnt do anything like that when you were actually stupid enough to
    become a citizen of a country that has some aspects of its law that you dont like eh ?

    > and expect taxes and wealth redistribution to wipe your ass.


    Nope, I made enough wealth of my own to not need a cent of wealth distribution, fool.

    AND I wasnt actually stupid enough to become a citizen of a
    country that does things in a way that I strongly object to either.



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32