yobnoc

Yeah, HBO digitally removed it yesterday

Apparently there was a bunch of backlash about GoT 8:04. People whining about "it's sexist" and how Sansa shouldn't have been made to say that her torture (including the R word) made her a stronger person. I'm left shaking my head in disbelief. Are we really THIS fragile now? If you dislike the show or something they said...maybe just stop watching it?

Also intellectual honesty. There are certain issues I lean more libertarian on. I never claimed I was a "Capital L" Libertarian.

Obviously another area which you didn't do your due diligence. This is fake. Not the picture, but the quote.

Hey Turtle, remember waybackwhen when you made an assertion about someone else's beliefs? I 'member...

Oh I figured it out with haste. Took me about 30sec.

Or not all my eggs are in one basket. Are you suggesting that I can't have ideas that differ on different subjects?

Oh, a double down. Wasn’t expecting that. *yawn*

You must be referring to the break-point for AMT? Because the top tax rate of 24% starts to apply to income much, much lower than the number you referenced.

I haven't been posting here long, but from what I can tell, you sidestep and dance around every attempt to get you to clarify your position. That's called trolling. You come in, stir the pot, and never provide any specific answers to probing questions on your positions. I think I'm going to join the growing group of people who put you on "ignore," as soon as I figure out how to do so.

That's a strawman argument and you should know it. First, there is no way for private citizens to forfeit extra income individually to the federal coffers, short of being convicted of the crime of tax evasion a la Manafort. That is why the GoFundMe for the border wall (for example) was so stupid in the first place, and ultimately had to be taken down and the donors got reimbursed their money; all except for the 2.3 Million or whatever that GoFundMe took in fees. They didn't get that money back. Really 'owned the libs' there, eh? Second, no single citizen can solve this problem alone. The "ultra wealth" tax that Warren is proposing would, however, completely cover the cost of subsidizing higher education, which is a long-term value-add to our economy. Roughly 50,000 families in America - the richest of the rich - would pay an additional 2% of their income to fund the program. Don't sidestep with the juvenile argument of "Go ahead and set the example." The system doesn't work that way and you come across as snide when you suggest it, though maybe that's what you're aiming for.

Right, I think we're on the same page but we're reading different paragraphs. The Judiciary signed off on a legal warrant to perform surveillance on an individual (Carter Page) who was suspected of being in bed with the Russian Government in their efforts to sabotage our election process. He also happened to be a part of the campaign for a presidential candidate. That's not spying; that's doing the job of protecting our country from all enemies - foreign and domestic.

Um...in this country, it's not illegal if it's signed off by the courts. The judiciary decides whether something is legal or not. Congress might make laws, but the Judicial branch decides if they're legal. The simple way the sentence was portrayed, I'll give you that it wasn't exactly clear enough. As in: military orders can be illegal, and are required by oath to be disobeyed if they are illegal in nature. Nuremburg comes to mind. Presidential orders and executive branch orders can be illegal; take Mnuchin ordering that David Dennison's taxes not be handed over. That's an illegal order. It flies in the face of a law that has been upheld by the Judiciary in the past. Hopefully DT's cronies that he installed in the supreme court have some sense of integrity left to uphold precedent and rule in favor of law and order, but I doubt it.

See, here's the thing: I get taxed a lot. I'm solid upper-middle class with just my own income already, and then my wife makes a bit more than I do, so we pay. A lot. When I say a lot, I mean that in real numbers, not in percentage alone. 10% tax to someone who only has $100 is a lot for that person. That $10 has more significance for someone who is poor. the same 10% tax to someone who has 1,000,000 is A LOT MORE, right? Except that when it comes to meeting basic needs, the 100,000 is less significant to the person who has 1,000,000. It won't prevent him or her from meeting their basic needs. I use that only for a base example to prove my point: If I had to pay another 3% of my income toward federal taxes, and as a result of that, it would provide tuition-free college education, it wouldn't bother me in the least. The extra money that I'd be paying in taxes wouldn't harm my ability to provide for the basic needs of myself, my wife, or my children. Hell, we'd still be doing really well. And that kind of investment in our own country is sorely needed. The ripples from investing in the grass roots of the country rather than letting it trickle down causes the standard of living to go up for ALL Americans; not just the 1%. I'm really good with that. I love my country. All of it. Not just the wealthy people.

I don't have to make 1M a year to be in the top tax bracket, which I am.

I like how you said "convinced." I don't believe in absolute certainty in any subject. We are all operating on being convinced that we share this reality based on the available evidence presented.

I fixed it for you

I'm not complaining. I'm pointing out the inconsistency in your judgement.

Like how well-sourced journalism you disagree with is “fake news,” but you’re cool with an anonymously sourced article that plays to your bias. Yep, classic... *one-handed clap*

The difference is who can afford it and still have basic quality of life needs met. I’m not sorry if someone making $1M/year or more gets taxed at 50%. Oh, you can’t afford that ostrich leather jacket anymore?

Which part isn’t my financial burden? I’m intrigued that you presume to know my financial status.

So...speaker of the house is Paul Ryan and Devin Nunes is the chairman of the intel committee still? Words matter. Will you admit you’re wrong? Even if it’s just one little thing I’m pointing out in this case?

Interesting...

You must not have read the part about how this article was written back in October, huh... Typical though...the first couple lines bolster your already biased belief system, and you run with it like a good little trumpster. *slow clap*

Ya, on the money