You're right, Bill. It didn't bother soldiers at all to now be paying thugs in Petraeus' "Enemies to Friends" program that just a few days earlier had been killing all their friends. Everything we know about soldiers tells us they would be just fine with that. I bow to your superior analytical skills.
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
No, here's the truth: they lied.
Rumsfeld went on one of those Sunday morning shows. He was asked point blank if the Admin meant "strongly believed" when the said "know". (about WMDs) Rumseld explicitly rejected that. The Admin even knew where the WMDs were. And then he rattled off the names of a bunch of Iraqi cities. **
You can't know what isn't so.
Maybe you're too young to remember. They found aluminum tubes. Just some aluminum tubes. Completely wrong for the kind that centrifuges used, but those tubes became evidence of a nuclear program. A food vendor truck became a mobile chemical lab. This is the shirt that they sent Powell to the UN with.
During the inspections they found no evidence that there were WMDs anywhere. That lack of evidence became evidence of how sneaky the Iraqis were. Rumsfeld with his penchant for Newspeak coined the immortal, "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence." Parlaying the lack of evidence into a justification.
Maybe you're too young to remember, but criticism of the Bush Admin was equated with treason. (Did you all know that criticizing a president was treason?)
Considering that you don't appear to have watched the video that I posted yesterday, I hate to tell you what your "guarantee" is worth.
**Simiarly, Trump was given the out to modify his claim that Obama and Clinton had created ISIS. Maybe he meant that figuratively. No. They literally created it. Two leading possibilities: he's evil and fomenting sedition or he's crazy.
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
don't play his game. He has been given dozens of links to counter his cheerleading and has been show incapable of processing info that challenges his confirmation bias.
Today after multiple repetitions of his bogus claim that Obama and Clinton created ISIS, Trump now claims he was being sarcastic.
At ease. Smoke if you got 'em.
At ease. Smoke if you got 'em.
They won't be offended in the least by Trump's blatant lying. He might as well hit them over the head with a dump truck on the fact that he is playing all of them for fools and they still won't get it.
He could scream "I THINK ALL OF YOU ARE SUCKERS" and they'd just lap it up and wait for the next shovel.
The "media" are uniform in that, are they? No breaks in the ranks? Where do you get your information from? The aether?
What what
Again, this is the longtime home of cartel operations in the states and the new home of the first sharia law schools in the Western Hemisphere! Progress!
I'm not to young to remember it Moe, More than half of the Dems in the senate voted against it Moe. Yet she didn't? How did that many Dems see through it, but the woman you want to be President today not?
Spare the BS about Rumsfeld going on a sunday morning program. She was a GD US Senator, think she might've had just a little more intel than that? Of course she did, she changed her course when it became unpopular, because that what she does, she isn't a leader.
Why is evil to say they created ISIS? You just point blank called the Bush administration liars, maybe they were simply wrong? Do you not understand that if you argue they didn't , it was actually Bush then by her vote she did in fact have a hand in creating ISIS. Of course you see it, thats why you're dragging Bush lied out of the closet.
She has failed in every position in Govt she's been in, but her name is Clinton.
The MSM only talks about Trump says, but refuses to talk about what Hilary has done. Guess they are concerned about words instead of deeds.
So obvious the bias in the media is really shameful. Journalism is dead.
So obvious the bias in the media is really shameful. Journalism is dead.
WTF are you screaming about? Simply said I saw virtually no signs for either candidate. I don't like Trump or Hillary, and from my 1,000+ mile travels across multiple states---it appears that I'm not alone.
The Sec of Defense has more intel about the military than a Senator. The Defense Department briefs the Senate.
It's evil because he knew it wasn't so. And a series of inflammatory lies will not end well. You wouldn't know of people who have rather ... uh ... strenuous opinions about one of the candidates?
The Bush Admin were given the opportunity to qualify their claim to knowledge and declined. They KNEW, they said. And (say it with me) you can't know what isn't so. What's more: they knew the flimsiness of the evidence that they based their claim to knowledge on.
Bush didn't create ISIS. He was governor when it was created.
There's a funny story (and by funny I mean "tragic") about WMDs in Iraq. In the early days of the invasion, the US military were advancing quickly and soon found a building which blew the meters off of their radiation checking equipment. Here they were! Here they were! WMDs! So, they quickly sent in the techs to check. Instead of weapons, though, they found the waste from Iraq's pre-war** academic research reactor. The barrels had been stored in an unguarded building. Safety R Us. In all of the scrupulous search for radiation before the war, no spy-in-the-sky had detected a small building the glowed in the dark.
**First Gulf War
You're saying that during the Benghazi hearings (all of them) that Clinton wasn't discussed? No mention of Whitewater? No mention of Vince Foster? No mention of email servers?
And, remember,Trump uses repulsive comments to generate coverage. It's his way of campaigning on the cheap. He's getting negative press by his own design.
I say design, but of course you can't rule out dementia.
WTF are you talking about? I know exactly what you said and Z took your statement and ran with it like you had said you saw no Trump signs only. He gave all reasons as to why there were no Trump signs, but coincidentally left out why there were no Clinton signs either. He was the one who either did not comprehend what you said or didn't want to understand due to his agenda.WTF are you screaming about? Simply said I saw virtually no signs for either candidate. I don't like Trump or Hillary, and from my 1,000+ mile travels across multiple states---it appears that I'm not alone.
Next Trump should probably go with...
"Not only were Obama and Clinton the founders of ISIS, they're actively working to provide them weapons and bring the terrorists to America. It's proven. Obama and Clinton are trying to bring terrorists to America."
Then we can finally discuss Obama and Clinton's destruction of borders and "refugee" importing in the main stream.
"Not only were Obama and Clinton the founders of ISIS, they're actively working to provide them weapons and bring the terrorists to America. It's proven. Obama and Clinton are trying to bring terrorists to America."
Then we can finally discuss Obama and Clinton's destruction of borders and "refugee" importing in the main stream.
We don't know what Intel was seen or not, but I guarantee what Rumsfeld did or did not say on a Sunday morning show wasn't the extent of it.
WTF are you talking about with you can't know what isn't so?
Stop with the talking points, what Trump said isn't evil, good lord. He put Hillary on the spot, and it's obvious by your squirming that you know it.
Hillary told all of us just recently why she voted for the resolution. Bush promised her 20billion for NY. I know this is totally out of carachter for her, but she was bribed.
Trump: "Clinton has killed dozens of people. Dozens. Killed them. All these bodies in her wake, folks. She's dangerous."
MSM: "Clinton has not killed anyone...(goes on to discuss the dozens of suspicious deaths surrounding Clinton at length_"
MSM: "Clinton has not killed anyone...(goes on to discuss the dozens of suspicious deaths surrounding Clinton at length_"
Ttump a liar and you support .Hillary? What an effing hypocrite you are.
WTF are you screaming about? Simply said I saw virtually no signs for either candidate. I don't like Trump or Hillary, and from my 1,000+ mile travels across multiple states---it appears that I'm not alone.
Same here where I live. We had the local elections for dog catcher and landscaping commissioner last week, and now all of those signs have been picked up. Right now you wouldn't know there is even a presidential election this year if you were depending on signs or bumper stickers.
I doesn't take a genius to understand why The Donald may not want to release his tax returns. But the thing is, everything on it is likely perfectly legal for developers. That the loophole was closed for non-developers would surely start another shit-storm as the tone will become to close these types of loopholes for the uber rich. Perhaps this doesn't benefit his campaign which has connected with the non-educated white male demographic.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/12/b...trump-pay-in-taxes-it-could-be-zero.html?_r=0
Mitt Romney was excoriated during the 2012 presidential campaign for paying $4.9 million in federal income tax, or an average of just 14 percent of his adjusted gross income, in the two years for which he released returns. No one should be surprised, though, if Donald J. Trump has paid far less — perhaps even zero federal income tax in some years. Indeed, that’s the expectation of numerous real estate and tax professionals I’ve interviewed in recent weeks.
Even with hundreds of millions in gross revenue from his vast real estate empire, “it’s both possible and legal that Donald Trump would pay little or no income tax,” said Len Green, an accountant and chairman of the Green Group, a tax and accounting advisory firm. Mr. Green is also a real estate investor, teaches at Babson College and is the author of the forthcoming “The Entrepreneur’s Playbook.” “I would expect he’s paying little or no tax,” agreed Steven M. Rosenthal, a veteran tax lawyer and senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy center.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/12/b...trump-pay-in-taxes-it-could-be-zero.html?_r=0
Mitt Romney was excoriated during the 2012 presidential campaign for paying $4.9 million in federal income tax, or an average of just 14 percent of his adjusted gross income, in the two years for which he released returns. No one should be surprised, though, if Donald J. Trump has paid far less — perhaps even zero federal income tax in some years. Indeed, that’s the expectation of numerous real estate and tax professionals I’ve interviewed in recent weeks.
Even with hundreds of millions in gross revenue from his vast real estate empire, “it’s both possible and legal that Donald Trump would pay little or no income tax,” said Len Green, an accountant and chairman of the Green Group, a tax and accounting advisory firm. Mr. Green is also a real estate investor, teaches at Babson College and is the author of the forthcoming “The Entrepreneur’s Playbook.” “I would expect he’s paying little or no tax,” agreed Steven M. Rosenthal, a veteran tax lawyer and senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy center.
Last edited:
- No one should be surprised....if Trump pulls the wings off of baby butterflies.
- Indeed, that's the expectation of....someone who thinks Trump eats live bunnies with a knife and fork.
- It's both possible and legal....that Trump had sex with Rachel Maddow.
- I would expect he's ....really a transvestite planted by George Soros.
... probably killed someone.
The fun is in catching this person that thinks he is so much smarter than everyone else being such a complete hypocrite and dumbass That's why he isn't on ignore.
Last edited:
Is anybody really surprised that trump supporters aren't putting signs in their yards or bumper stickers on their cars? Just look what happened to his supporters outside of some of his rallies.There are Trump supporters being murdered now just for wearing Trump shirts.
Hell I'm a Trump supporter and I don't have a sign or bumper sticker cause I'd rather not be shot or stabbed for having a different opinion than some crazy wack job leftist.
Hell I'm a Trump supporter and I don't have a sign or bumper sticker cause I'd rather not be shot or stabbed for having a different opinion than some crazy wack job leftist.
But its too easy; like shooting fish in a barrel.
He's been on Ignore for long time; I guess I just have a low tolerance for really stupid people.
Pity the tax story won't just go away but he's a real estate developer with hundreds of LLC's who just so happens to be running for president in the most bizarre manner ever. I suppose the sheep simply need to cope with the MSM response to The Donald tabloid news cycle.
Bummer.
Bummer.
Screwduke---I saw virtually no Hillary signs/stickers either. And, once I started paying a little more attention, I noticed more Bush/Cheney, Obama, etc. stickers than I did Trump/Hillary combined. Old Reagan t-shirts seemed to be even more prevalent than Trump or Hillary.
Really strange election dynamics.
Really strange election dynamics.
Jameslee is the perfect example of why the tax return thing is a great talking point for the left. Just keep the ignorant masses repeating ignorant talking points.
No one, not the uber rich, not you and me, not anyone, can deduct passive activity losses in excess of passive income.
That "loophole" wasn't closed for "non-developers". It was closed for all passive investors in business activities. Real estate is by default a passive activity unless you meet certain qualifications, qualifications which most real estate developers would by definition meet.
Man, call something a loophole and act like it only applies to a select group of people and you can get the ignorant up in arms.
I see the irony of a system that allows the burden of infrastructure investment to fall on others yet candidates like The Donald feel the need to play these tax games and also make these types of promises to voters. As best as I can tell, minimum down payments and high expenses leaves investments of this kind difficult and charitable giving unnecessary for tax purposes or for those with the greatest need.
Greed simply outlaws some of the very things candidates promise for the most part.
Critics have called like-kind exchanges an outrageous tax loophole that benefits wealthy real estate developers and other investors to the tune of $33 billion in lost tax revenue a year. The Obama administration has called for repealing it, and several bipartisan measures to do so have been introduced in Congress, all to no avail given the gridlock over tax reform.
“It’s a big loophole,” Mr. Rosenthal said of the like-kind exchange provisions. “It allows well-to-do and well-advised taxpayers to defer their tax liability potentially until death."
Hildagarde's tax return has claimed a 34% effective tax rate and a 10% charitable rate just released today. Meh.
Greed simply outlaws some of the very things candidates promise for the most part.
Critics have called like-kind exchanges an outrageous tax loophole that benefits wealthy real estate developers and other investors to the tune of $33 billion in lost tax revenue a year. The Obama administration has called for repealing it, and several bipartisan measures to do so have been introduced in Congress, all to no avail given the gridlock over tax reform.
“It’s a big loophole,” Mr. Rosenthal said of the like-kind exchange provisions. “It allows well-to-do and well-advised taxpayers to defer their tax liability potentially until death."
Hildagarde's tax return has claimed a 34% effective tax rate and a 10% charitable rate just released today. Meh.
Similar threads
