BoatBanter.com - Obamanomics....

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)

- - Obamanomics.... (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/104702-obamanomics.html)

jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 14:52:32 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 14:09:56 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 13:35:14 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 10:03:51 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 21:24:30 -0400, DK
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 19:58:56 -0400, DK
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 19:37:06 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 18:40:21 -0400, BAR wrote:

wf3h wrote:
On May 8, 8:22 am, BAR wrote:
... trickle up poverty.
the rich have just given us trickle down poverty

payback's a bitch
Rich people employ poor people. Poor people employ no one.
Poor people service rich people. The world wouldn't work very well
without poor people. Rich people are far more expendible, as the
French proved.
I am now forced to ask when are you going to go the way of the rich French?
I'm not rich. I'm comfortable but far from rich.
Sucks to be you.
And you're clearly in the **** hauling business. Can't stay away from
sniffing people's asses on usenet.
Where did you get that, fruitcake? You know enough about what I do.
Remember the S corp discussion?

Sucks to be you.
I'm sure it's something equally as foul, as to match your personality.

I recall the S corp discussion wherein we established that its use by
you is for avoidance of the corporate tax rate.
As long as it is legal you have noting to whine about.
Just like torture.
Legal is legal regardless of the activity.
Subject to misinterpretation by the highest legal authorities in the
land.

It's also legal to have a PO box in the Cayman Islands to avoid
taxation in the US.

Doesn't make it any less scummy.
Scummy is not a legal opinion.
No, it's a moral choice.
I didn't know law was based upon morality? Who arbitrates morality
within the law?

Just like it's okay to torture but it's not okay to have Arab
translators in the military who admit to being gay.
Change the law. It is that simple.

When those whose interests are best served by leaving well enough
alone and they're the ones with the resources to sway opinion, guess
what happens.

Get off your lazy ass and work for what you want. Stop whining about the
other side.

That's right, the laws that would serve the greater good get thwarted.

Preservation of the individual's rights should be paramount to the
greater good.

Tax evaders are scummy, even if their methods are legal.
Killing babies still in the womb may be legal but it is scummy.

The knife cuts both ways.

Glad your wife or daughter were never raped and impregnated.

As I said before. Life is life. The child in the womb did not do
anything to deserve to die.

jps wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 21:24:30 -0400, DK
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 19:58:56 -0400, DK
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 19:37:06 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 18:40:21 -0400, BAR wrote:

wf3h wrote:
On May 8, 8:22 am, BAR wrote:
... trickle up poverty.
the rich have just given us trickle down poverty

payback's a bitch
Rich people employ poor people. Poor people employ no one.
Poor people service rich people. The world wouldn't work very well
without poor people. Rich people are far more expendible, as the
French proved.
I am now forced to ask when are you going to go the way of the rich French?
I'm not rich. I'm comfortable but far from rich.
Sucks to be you.
And you're clearly in the **** hauling business. Can't stay away from
sniffing people's asses on usenet.
Where did you get that, fruitcake? You know enough about what I do.
Remember the S corp discussion?

Sucks to be you.

I'm sure it's something equally as foul, as to match your personality.

I recall the S corp discussion wherein we established that its use by
you is for avoidance of the corporate tax rate.

Then you should know it's legal and doesn't avoid anything other than
double taxation.

"DK" wrote in message
...
jps wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 21:24:30 -0400, DK
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 19:58:56 -0400, DK
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 19:37:06 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 18:40:21 -0400, BAR wrote:

wf3h wrote:
On May 8, 8:22 am, BAR wrote:
... trickle up poverty.
the rich have just given us trickle down poverty

payback's a bitch
Rich people employ poor people. Poor people employ no one.
Poor people service rich people. The world wouldn't work very well
without poor people. Rich people are far more expendible, as the
French proved.
I am now forced to ask when are you going to go the way of the rich
French?
I'm not rich. I'm comfortable but far from rich.
Sucks to be you.
And you're clearly in the **** hauling business. Can't stay away from
sniffing people's asses on usenet.
Where did you get that, fruitcake? You know enough about what I do.
Remember the S corp discussion?

Sucks to be you.

I'm sure it's something equally as foul, as to match your personality.

I recall the S corp discussion wherein we established that its use by
you is for avoidance of the corporate tax rate.

Then you should know it's legal and doesn't avoid anything other than
double taxation.

How dare you use the "laws" to your advantage.

On Sun, 17 May 2009 18:15:29 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:

Then you should know it's legal and doesn't avoid anything other than
double taxation.

How dare you use the "laws" to your advantage.

The same excuse used by all the tax scammers, "double taxation."

Capital gains shouldn't be taxed.

Estates shouldn't be taxed.

Roads should be paved with fairy dust.

Schools should be built with chocolate.

There should be no tax.

I know the kind of scammin' asshole that considers everything double
taxation.

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 May 2009 18:15:29 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:

Then you should know it's legal and doesn't avoid anything other than
double taxation.

How dare you use the "laws" to your advantage.

The same excuse used by all the tax scammers, "double taxation."

Capital gains shouldn't be taxed.

Estates shouldn't be taxed.

Roads should be paved with fairy dust.

Schools should be built with chocolate.

There should be no tax.

I know the kind of scammin' asshole that considers everything double
taxation.

How dare someone use the "LAWS" to their advantage.

On May 16, 3:09*pm, jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 14:52:32 -0400, BAR wrote:
jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 14:09:56 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 13:35:14 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 10:03:51 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 21:24:30 -0400, DK
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 19:58:56 -0400, DK
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 19:37:06 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 18:40:21 -0400, BAR wrote:

wf3h wrote:
On May 8, 8:22 am, BAR wrote:
... trickle up poverty.
the rich have just given us trickle down poverty

payback's a bitch
Rich people employ poor people. Poor people employ no one..
Poor people service rich people. *The world wouldn't work very well
without poor people. *Rich people are far more expendible, as the
French proved.
I am now forced to ask when are you going to go the way of the rich French?
I'm not rich. *I'm comfortable but far from rich.
Sucks to be you.
And you're clearly in the **** hauling business. *Can't stay away from
sniffing people's asses on usenet.
Where did you get that, fruitcake? *You know enough about what I do.
Remember the S corp discussion?

Sucks to be you.
I'm sure it's something equally as foul, as to match your personality.

I recall the S corp discussion wherein we established that its use by
you is for avoidance of the corporate tax rate.
As long as it is legal you have noting to whine about.
Just like torture.
Legal is legal regardless of the activity.
Subject to misinterpretation by the highest legal authorities in the
land.

It's also legal to have a PO box in the Cayman Islands to avoid
taxation in the US.

Doesn't make it any less scummy.
Scummy is not a legal opinion.

No, it's a moral choice.

I didn't know law was based upon morality? Who arbitrates morality
within the law?

Just like it's okay to torture but it's not okay to have Arab
translators in the military who admit to being gay.

Change the law. It is that simple.

When those whose interests are best served by leaving well enough
alone and they're the ones with the resources to sway opinion, guess
what happens.

That's right, the laws that would serve the greater good get thwarted.

Tax evaders are scummy, even if their methods are legal.

Killing babies still in the womb may be legal but it is scummy.

The knife cuts both ways.

Glad your wife or daughter were never raped and impregnated.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Pffffttt. I wonder what percent of abrotions are because of rape? It
is a red herring to be sure, intellectually dishonest, who'd a thunk?
LOL

On May 18, 9:09*am, HK wrote:
wrote:
Pffffttt. I wonder what percent of abrotions are because of rape? It
is a red herring to be sure, intellectually dishonest, who'd a thunk?
LOL

What could be funnier than *you* trying to discuss something based upon
intellectuality?

Most men who oppose the right of women to seek safe abortions have one
thing in common: they feel the need to try to control women.

Pffttt, screw you.. Go back to hiding under your desk dummy...