Jump to content

sheeeit

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    703
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by sheeeit

  1. I love the rosenstein stuff.  Anonymous sources claim rosenstein summoned to wh to be fired by trump!  Predictable response here, like teen girls at a justin beiber concert.  Speculation runs rampant.  

    Oh wait, rosenstein was going to a regularly scheduled meeting and trump wasn't even in the WH.  Why do you mopes keep falling for this stuff?  Why do any of you believe any anonymous sourced story about trump?  

    Can any of you at least admit, that in this particular case, every report based on anonymous sources was absolutely dead wrong.  99% of them are bogus.  I do not even think the press is relying on sources they know are lying anymore.  At this point I think they are just making them up.

  2. 13 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

    If they had acted when Feinstein referred it to them, it would likely already be completed. 

    How? Feinstein sent the FBI a letter about an alleged sexual assault from 35 years ago and she REDACTED all of the names except for Kav and provided no specific date or location.  As part of Kav's background check, virtually everyone he knows has already been questioned by the FBI.  The vetting is intense and extremely comprehensive.  Not one single person questioned by the FBI in their check even hinted at anything like what is being alleged.  So what exactly did you want the FBI to do at that point?

     

     

    • Haha 1
  3. 28 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

    Actually, the 1992 Senate elections ended up even, with Dems taking seats in California and Wisconsin and Reps taking seats in North Carolina and Georgia.  After a special election in Texas in 1993, in which Kay Bailey Hutchison beat Bob Krueger, the count ended up D-1.

    Regardless--not my point.

    Feinstein won a seat previously held by a Rep, and Boxer, Murray, and Braun all won seats previously held by male Dems.  Add to that Hutchison's (one-year delayed) win, and 1992 was popularly coined "the year of the woman."

    You think that happens without Anita Hill?

    I don't know.  I thought you were talking about  a dem versus pub thing as that was what was predicted.

    Boxer was a very popular sitting congresswoman when she ran for the senate and the incumbent dem didnt even run for reelection.  

    Murray won election when the incumbent also chose not to run and was under investigation for sexual misconduct and rape.  I would say that had 100x more to do with Murray winning than Anita Hill.

    Feinstein was a very popular Mayor of San Fran and ran against a pretty weak opponent who was only acting as senator due to Wilson leaving and was never actually elected.  

    I would agree that Braun was most certainly helped by the Anita Hill stuff.  But I just do not think 1 senator getting help proves the hearings had much effect.  

    A lot of it is still to be decided.  As it stands right now, I fail to see how there are people out there saying they were going to vote for a republican for senator but will now vote for the dem because of the Kav hearings.  Right now (obviously things will change if more info comes out) I think there are just as many people that support Kav and think he is being unfairly targeted (by both dems and repubs) as there are people that think he is guilty.  I actually think there are probably more people that think this.   This board is such a hyper partisan place that it makes people think certain views are more main stream than they really are.  Without more evidence, I just do not think 35 year old accusations with no proof are going to move the needle for the majority of the country.

  4. 1 hour ago, Mack Tripper said:

    So the first sexual assault is on the house, and it takes two to make the first one credible? 

     

    1 hour ago, Lurch said:

     


    I believe an earlier argument was that it only counts if she can remember the location.

     

     

    1 hour ago, DDD Dad said:

    It's like a dog bite.  Sheeeit.  I said that like two days ago.  This is deja vu.

     

    1 hour ago, Mack Tripper said:

    Or the daily crazy pills kicking in. 

    Solid effort.  Read Briskets post.  

  5. On 8/10/2018 at 10:15 AM, TwiceHorn said:

    I'm not familiar with this practice.  What is the purpose of such transactions?

    Did you get an answer to this?  Are you asking about the sale of private businesses?  It happens everyday.  There is massive investment in private businesses.  The idea in most cases is to provide cash for the business in exchange for a % of the ownership.  The business uses the cash to grow the business.  If a dividend is paid, as stated, it is taxed accordingly.  The hope is that the business grows and then is sold.  Think of the Shark Tank guys.  they have almost no interest in dividends.  They put $100K in a business and get a 10% ownership stake which values the business at $1M.  They business uses the $100K to expand and grow and then they hope to sell the business in a few years for $10M.  The investor gets a gain of $900K on his $100K initial investment and pays capital gains on the $900K.  

    Personally, I dislike all forms of capital gains taxes because the investments are made with post tax dollars.  I see it as double taxation but I completely understand why it exists and realize that it is never going away.

    But in the scenario above, there is certainly no guarantee that the business that is invested in will actually survive and most do not get the growth they envision.  And if you tax the gains from a potential sale at 40% then hardly anyone is going to invest.  The performance of the business would have to be spectacular for the investor to justify the investment.  But it is good for everyone to have that investment.  The investor is likely already rich and needs incentive to fund the endeavors of people that are not rich.  The owner still has 90% of the value and has a chance to get rich.  The business will create jobs.  

    Using investors is usually much preferred to taking on debt.  Debt can be crushing if the business does not ramp up as quickly as hoped.  Hope that helps.

  6. 16 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

    Would you have expected the Anita Hill hearings not to have any effect?  Because every indication we have from the 1992 election is that it had a major effect on the makeup of the Senate.

    Not really.  I had to look it up to remember but in the 1992 senate elections the dems actually were down a seat.   And then they got smashed in 1994.  Maybe I do not understand your point?

  7. 5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    Unless McConnell is ready to hand the Senate over to the democrats, I don’t think Kavanaugh gets confirmed.

    Perhaps that’s a sacrifice McConnell is willing to risk?

    At this point, I can’t tell how valuable Kavanaugh is to the big picture GOP. 

    Perhaps, but I see no way this event will change any persons mind/vote on their senator/congressman.  It just stirs up the already stirred up folks.  For every person that thinks this is an example of the gop supporting a rapist there is another person that thinks this is an example of a cheap political trick that smeared a good man with no evidence.  Zero sum game.

  8. 1 minute ago, Ghost of LL said:

    I'm sorry--you're right.  I misstated.

    Feinstein sent the letter to the FBI, but she redacted the names involved.  The FBI sent it to the White House, which then sent it to the Republicans on the judiciary committee.

    We don't know when Feinstein sent the letter to the FBI, but it was more than six days ago, as evidenced by the Intercept article that came out a week ago (presumably from leaks outside of Feinstein's office).

     

    Fair response.  Pos rep.

    I also do not see the issue with the support letter.  If GOLL was up for a supreme court nomination and an allegation from 35 years ago suddenly popped up, I think it would be pretty easy to get signatures of support.  Someone writes a letter and emails to friends from that time period and asks for support and asks them to forward to anyone else they have contact info for.  This is a pretty educated and, I am guessing, informed group of people.  I think it would be pretty easy to get 60 people to sign on in less than 24 hours.

  9. 10 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

    The fact is that she didn't sit on it.  She sent it to the White House, which sent it to Senate Republicans.  That's how Grassley was able to produce a letter from 60-something women who knew Kavanaugh in high school within 18 hours of the allegations becoming public.

    The Republicans have known about this for months.  They've sat on it just as much as anyone.

    Perfect example of what I posted up thread.  No factual basis whatsoever but convincingly asserted as fact.  Well done!  Of course your theory now calls Fienstein a liar as she publicly said she did not give the letter or disclose its contents to anyone prior to 6 days ago.

    • Like 1
  10. This is a tough issue.  As usual, the opinions of the zealots on either side of the argument are amusing and, mostly, worthless.  This thread is a great example of why communications are so different and dangerous in todays world.  People take half stories with limited information and conflate supposition with fact and then create plausible scenarios in their own minds based on nothing and then fight like mad to defend their made up theories.  It really is fascinating to watch.

    We really do not know much at all.  Anastasis comes pretty close to a similar opinion of mine.

    I believe that something most likely happened to Ford.  It is possible that she made everything up to garner sympathy at some point in her life (she certainly would not be the first) but I doubt that is the case.

    Based on what we know right now, though, it is hard to do much with her accusation.  I do not know what people expect the FBI to do.  She claims that she can not remember the day of the event or the location of the event.  That obviously makes it almost impossible to question other potential witnesses.  She admits that she did not ever tell anyone what happened until decades later.  Nothing wrong with that except how can anyone outside of the people she identified as being in the room possibly comment on the episode.  

    The FBI has her and the now 3 people supposedly involved.  As to credibility, she may very well come across as very credible.  Obviously Kav is credible as he has been through multiple background checks and has a long history as a judge and attorney.  Not sure how credible the other 2 are but each has already released statements that they were not involved in such an event in any way.  Again, what exactly should the FBI do?  It is almost impossible to ask people about a specific event if no one knows the date or location of the event.  Coupled with the fact that Bird said she told no one, there really isnt even a place to start.

    Also, I am guessing most people do not know how in depth the vetting is for federal judges.  I was interviewed by phone (taped) by the FBI for a potential federal judge that I was only peripherally acquainted with.  The questions were pretty vague but they asked about any negative story or rumor I had heard about the potential judge.  Kav has been through this multiple times.  His circle of acquaintances has been asked to identify anything negative on more than one occasion already.  I would surmise that if there was such an event as described by Bird and if anyone knew about it, then it would have come out.  The fact that it hasnt actually supports Bird's contention that she told no one.

    I would agree that if another woman comes forward with a similar story that it changes everything.  Even a remotely similar event between Kav and someone else would be enough to discredit him.  I disagree with Anastasis that just knowing there was a party where he and she were present is enough.  

    Also, I definitely agree that she needs to come forward and tell her story right away.  She has a doctorate, she is an intelligent woman.  When she sent a letter to Feinstein she absolutely knew where this was likely headed.  Not even the crazies could argue that a person can make extremely strong accusations against someone and expect to then be kept anonymous.  We do not and should not do that in the US.

    I really fail to see where this has much impact on Kav. If she never testifies then he gets confirmed easily.  If she does testify but offers no additional supporting proof then I think he gets confirmed.  And I think he should.  If she offers any type of additional proof then he should not get confirmed.  As to telling her therapist, I do not find that compelling enough.  The decades old story just has so much room for vagueness.  To ruin a persons reputation for life, there is going to need to be more clarity.  If she can tell us where the party occurred, what was the date, who did she come with, who did she leave with, who else was there.  Did she tell her best friend, or parents or siblings.  Anything that can be used to verify or corroborate her story needs to be discovered.   

    Finally, if Kav is some sort of creep it is almost impossible to believe that there were no red flags up to this point.  If he is some entitled/elitist snob then it would have come up before now.  The vetting process for a federal judge includes all sorts of political ramifications and polarizing sorts very rarely, if ever, get those nominations.  As far as I can tell, there have not been any stories from people bashing Kav on his personality or behavior.  People take issue with some of his legal decisions which is completely normal but no one has attacked his character until now.  

    • Like 1
  11. 25 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

     

    Regarding the second paragraph:

    Telling someone making 40k to teach in Chicago to move to another state is not realistic. They can probably barely afford rent and a car payment. How about using the market by paying more, which will attract a larger pool from which to select teachers? A larger pool means better talent to chose from, which means better teaching, which addresses your first paragraph.

    I fully support increased teacher pay.  But this was a a typical political stunt.  Illinois is actually pretty good at teacher pay relative to other states.  In the bigger cities teacher pay starts at well above $40K and with a masters it climbs into the $70-$80K range very quickly.  That is solid pay for a teacher.  Plus, there are a myriad of financial aid packages for working teachers and evening and online classes.

    The real problem with your suggestion is that Illinois is essentially broke.  

    https://money.cnn.com/2017/06/29/investing/illinois-budget-crisis-downgrade/index.html

    • Like 1
  12. 15 hours ago, BurntEyes said:

    Well fuck, maybe it was winning % or it was all time vs ND. Fuck my memory sucks now that I'm old. Please don't look it up and come back with more data or facts. Let me live in my delusions, the reality is all too depressing.

    Lol.  Wasn’t posting that to correct you. But I was shocked that Michigan has been so poor over the last nine years as well 

  13. On 9/13/2018 at 12:15 PM, BurntEyes said:

    We got pretty damn close to pass or did pass Michigan at one point. 

    Sigh, 9 years of sucking fucked that all up. 

    Just because I am stuck in an airport I looked this up.  In the last 9 years Mich actually has won only 5 more games than texas.  Less than a game per year difference.  Amazing.

  14. 2 minutes ago, Jiggy-Z said:

    I am just mystified why things are so polar with the population. I'm pretty sure solutions to our problems can be had and that solutions could be agreed upon by about 80% of the population.  My only guess is that, in general, we are ignorant, and would rather feel better about ourselves than become educated and solve problems.

    It really isnt that hard to understand.  The communications in the world are so different today than anytime before.  The 24 hour constant presence of media, both professional and amateur, is new.  There was no medium to get the news out in real time before.  Now there is.  

    People havent changed.  We just never had a way for literally everyone to express their opinions in real time before.  There have always been crazies and zealots but they never had a platform before.  I read an article critical of D Fienstein and the article author quoted a few random twitter responses in support of his position.  That is just ridiculous.  It is like judging the UT fan base based solely on the tweets of the 5 most ignorant belligerent fans out of the million or more fans in total.

    I really do not believe we are any different as a people today than we have ever been.  Imagine the internet and twitter during WWII or Vietnam or the Kennedy assassination or any major event.  The kooks would be out in droves spouting the worst things imaginable and making up ridiculous stories and generally fueling the fire.

     

    As to your last point about actually solving the issues of the country as grown ups- the only way, imo, is strict term limits on representatives where not a single one is ever running for reelection while in office. 

    • Like 1
  15. 7 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

    Had not seen that article.  It seems like I suggested above.  CNN ran with a story based on info from, likely, Davis.  No fault in that to CNN.  CNN is basically saying that Davis is now changing his story and CNN can not be held responsible for that.  Fair enough.  They also seem to imply that Cohen was one of their sources.  Who knows.

    Honestly, I do not trust any media outlet anymore when they quote anonymous sources and this case is exactly why.  There seems to be exactly zero negative ramifications to the sources or news outlets when they rely on sources that are lying.  It happened to Obama, Bush, Clinton too.  It is just too easy in todays world to find a "source".  There is simply no way to get to the truth.

    Just using this particular story, I find it impossible to believe that Davis was not the originator of the story.  So Davis tells the media and then Davis tells other people who the media go to to "corroborate" the story and then, voila, you have multiple sources confirming the story,  it is so incestuous.  

    This is almost exactly like the Carter Page FISA stuff.  The FBI uses Steele and his dossier as evidence.  They ask Steele if he has talked to anyone in the media and Steele says no.  They then use a media story that corroborates the evidence in the dossier and say it is a second stand alone source because Steele swears he did not talk to the media.  Of course then the media guy who wrote the second corroborating story says that of course he talked to Steele and that Steele gave him all of the info for the story.  But by then the warrant is in place and the damage is done.

    • Like 2
  16. I think it is shitty for anyone to leak private conversations from any potus.  I do not get, at all, this notion that anything the potus says or thinks, at anytime, should be public record.  That is just too stupid.  Any potus has to have the ability to strategize openly without the fear that the conversations will go public.  Be it defense, intelligence, trade, immigration, the economy or whatever.

    Questioning the wisdom of renegotiating NAFTA and other trade agreements is fine and a worthy endeavor.  Leaking privileged info that has a direct impact on those negotiations should send someone to jail.  Not just in this case and this potus but any.

    Concerning the Cohen/Davis story, people are just playing semantics.  CNN is standing by the fact that they reported exactly what their sources told them.  So they think they are in the right.  They did not make anything up.  It is not CNN's fault that some of those sources are now claiming something different.  Where they are wrong, imo, is by not at least clarifying that at least one of their sources as well as Cohen himself have now denied the original story.  It appears that CNN was possibly duped by Davis but does not want to admit it.  It is also amazingly disingenuous to make a claim that they did not get a comment from Davis when Davis has now admitted to being one of their sources.  The reality is that only Davis, Cohen or one of his other lawyers are the only possible ones that know the facts.  Davis and Cohen are both now denying the story and CNN should report that.   

     

    • Like 2
  17. 12 hours ago, Ted Lange said:

    Who said wealthy. He is just a piece of shit tax dodger.  He’d be wealthy either way, he just thinks he shouldn’t pay taxes like the rest of us. NEVER trust a rich preacher. That axiom will forever hold true. 

    It is strange the way people let their hatred or bigotry or whatever you want to call it compel them to just post anything they want regardless of truth or facts.

    You can hate religion all you want and you can hate Osteen all you want.  You can argue that churches should be taxed, but the above post is just so stupid.  Osteen pays the same tax rate as everyone else for every dollar that goes to him personally and he pays taxes on every fringe benefit provided to him by the church.  

    • Fuck You 1
  18. 27 minutes ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

    Just like how any company that invests heavily into research and development or donations to charities, something similar could be set up for churches. This would help to weed out the churches that abuse their tax-exempt status and buy their pastor and the church leadership multi-million dollar houses and cars they would never be able to buy were they not in the position they are in.

    Not sure you quite understand this.  Churches can not buy houses and cars for their pastors.  Those assets are in the name of the church and when the pastor dies or leaves or whatever, he gets zero equity from them.  In almost all cases, the pastor is required to pay the nominal amount the irs requires for getting a benefit.

    The big houses thatsome live in, like Osteen, are owned by Osteen and are paid for with after tax dollars and are subject to property taxes.  Any salary or benefit paid to Osteen or any pastor is subject to taxation like anyone else.

    • Like 2
    • Fuck You 2
  19. Osteen is an unusual case.  I personally do not care for his opulence but his message (admittedly I have only seen a few sermons on TV and have never been to the church) seems genuinely good and, obviously, many people find inspiration and solace and peace in his teachings.  Church going and tithing are completely voluntary and I have no problem with people choosing both for whatever reason.

    The tax thing is sort of a misnomer.  For the actual church, as many have mentioned, they do not really make any income.  No business is taxed on their revenue, it is on the income/profit.  Churches typically operate at a loss on a financial statement.  The rely on large donations and fundraisers etc to offset their operating expenses.  So even if there was a movement to tax them, it would yield little or no revenue from an income standpoint.  For property taxes, I think of it the same way as Private Universities.  They have a mission to do good and are recognized as having an impact on the well being of society.  I do not have a problem with that.  Also, church employees pay taxes on their wages just like any other citizen including FICA which the church matches by law.

    As for Osteen personally, he has not received any money direct from the church for many, many years.  His income comes from books and outside speaking engagements and other media.  I think I remember that his most popular book from several years ago sold over 100,000,000 copies.  Osteen, of course, pays personal taxes on all of that income and he pays property taxes on all of his personal holdings.

    The one grey area that I do not like is that the church sort of promotes/advertises his books and stuff.  I think that should be more separated but I am not sure it is a big deal.  

    In short, the churches do not make any money that can be taxed anyway.  Osteen is taxed just like everyone else on his personal earnings.  And I am confident enough that churches do enough good for enough people that giving them a break on their property taxes is just fine.

    As for Harvey, there is not enough info to know the real situation as there are always two sides to a story.  I will say it looked very bad and seemed to be handled poorly by Osteen and the church.  The award, by the way, was really for everything that the church has done and continues to do for Harvey relief.

    • Like 2
    • Fuck You 2
×
×
  • Create New...