Who Won the Debate?

[yjacket]

And as for a commentary on the criminal whitewashed act Hillary committed, please see

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/06/us/nsa-leak-booz-allen-hamilton.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/06/us/politics/harold-martin-nsa-contractor.html

The criminal charges outline that he had 6 documents obtained from sensitive intelligence sources. This man took TS documents home to his house; at the moment it doesn't appear he did anything with them except collect them at his house.  This man physically takes 6 documents (according to the report-he probably had more but 6 was enough to arrest him) puts them in his house and "stores them". In other words, the charges simply state that he took TS material and stored it at his house (that is it). 

What is the difference between that and Hillary instructing aides to strip the heading turn it into "nonpaper" and having TS documents stored on a server in an unauthorized location?  Riddle me that Batman. 

Her supposed "I didn't know it was wrong"; if that is the case then she isn't qualified to lead jack-least of all the US. If she did know than it was a criminal act.

There are no ifs ands or buts, no hearsay, no he said she said.  It is clear, what she did was wrong, illegal and far less things land people in jail.  Her get out of jail free card is "I didn't know".  If that is the case, she is stupid beyond the pale.

Anyone who has a security clearance knows you don't keep classified material anywhere except on classified systems, anything that classified material touches itself becomes classified.  Your phone receives a classified e-mail-bye,bye phone it gets taken and destroyed.  That Clinton didn't know that is quite frankly an admission of either stupidity or lawyer legalism to get out of jail.

Edited October 6, 2016 by yjacket

[Just_A_Guy]

44 minutes ago, yjacket said:

I never said there was nothing wrong with rape; all I said is that the laws then are different than the laws today.  That's not a comment on whether marital rape is good or bad, just simply a statement of fact.  

But it wasn't fact, YJacket.  Because New York had eliminated its marital rape exception in 1984.  Trump (as per sworn testimony from Ivana) forced himself on his own wife, in New York, in 1989. 

Quote

And as you know as a lawyer, the law is all about what is legal and/or not legal and it isn't a commentary on the moral goodness of the act.

If you could distill that down into five words or less, it would make a great Trump bumper sticker.

As for your statements about the illegality of Hillary's actions--I agree with you.  The only "defense" I've made of Hillary on this issue, is expressing skepticism that she "leaked" (commonly interpreted as "knowingly and deliberately released") the documents.  As terrible as recklessness is, it's still not quite the same thing as specific intent.  You Trumpkins know this, too; which is why @anatess2's graphic used the word "leaked" instead of "wantonly mishandled".

Bottom line:  Both Trump and Hillary are deeply contemptible human beings.  The presidency of either will wound this nation very, very deeply.  But the fact is that one of them will be in the White House both four months from now, and four years from now.  At that point our prognosis will be much, much better if the occupant of the White House is not Trump.

And again:  Five months ago you guys were crowing about how you neither wanted nor needed the #NeverTrumpers on your side.  What changed, YJacket?  If Trump can't come up with an electoral strategy that will stand the test of five months; why do you think he can craft a foreign or domestic policy that will stand the test of four years--let alone a decade, or a century?

The Trump camp is flailing impotently.  And they know it.

Edited October 6, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest MormonGator]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 

The Trump camp is flailing impotently.  And they know it.

Trump could lose like McGovern did in 72. It will be brutal. I blame the Trumperdoodles 100%. The GOP gave them many any other winnable options (Hillary was easily beatable) but the Trumperdoodles ruined it for themselves, the country, everyone. It's so depressing.   

[Blueskye2]

18 hours ago, anatess2 said:

"We cover his taxes"... that's where your perception turns left.

Trump is on that elite station of 1%-ers who are paying 80% of the tax burden.  You are not covering his taxes.  You CAN'T possibly be covering his taxes.  Just the taxes he has to pay for having thousands of employees already pays for a big chunk of government services.  You do know that every business who runs a payroll has to pay a big portion of payroll taxes right?   You can't write off payroll taxes as a loss.  You can't write off property taxes as a loss.  You can't write off sales taxes as a loss.  You can't write off export or import taxes, Etc. etc. etc.

Maybe you need to expand your knowledge of all the number of ways the government is sucking out money out of Trump (or any other businessman for that matter).

No no... I think you need to start thinking about why you like to wage class warfare.  Because, at the root of that is Envy.  A very effective weapon in the leftist political arsenal - getting people to feel envious of the rich so they wouldn't think twice about using the power of government to take their money that you think belongs to you.

HIS BUSINESS FAILED. A defunct business neither pays taxes or hires employees. He was rewarded for a failed business with 18 years of paying no PERSONAL income tax. 

I'm not running for political office, so really no need for personal insults to try to make a [failed] point.   Employers pay a tax on their employee's labor. Personal income tax is a tax on one's own labor. If your point is, taxing the employee's labor means that a a personal labor tax has been covered, then yeah, conservatives sometimes fall into a habit of voting against their own interests. Worshipping at the feet of the bourgeoisie.   

Edited October 7, 2016 by Blueskye2

[yjacket]

55 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

HIS BUSINESS FAILED. A defunct business neither pays taxes or hires employees. He was rewarded for a failed business with 18 years of paying no PERSONAL income tax. 

I'm not running for political office, so really no need for personal insults to try to make a [failed] point.   Employers pay a tax on their employee's labor. Personal income tax is a tax on one's own labor. If your point is, taxing the employee's labor means that a a personal labor tax has been covered, then yeah, conservatives sometimes fall into a habit of voting against their own interests. Worshipping at the feet of the bourgeoisie.   

You have obviously never run a business (nor done taxes on one).  It is criminal and immoral to make businesses into tax collectors.  Businesses pay a lot in taxes; at least 15-17% for each and every employee. Quite frankly, there is a difference between a business that pays no tax and a successful business; whether or not a business pays income tax and whether or not the business is successful are not 100% correlated. There are businesses that go for years paying no income tax that pay employees, owners, etc. that are well alive-it is all about how well you use the tax code; and with the tax code being 75,0000 pages long! you can mortgage the house on betting there are plenty of ways to legally use the tax code (not cheating in the least bit) to reduce the amount you pay dramatically.

The #1 reason the economy is stuck in limbo-it costs too dang much in taxes to have a small business and employee people; add on ObamaCare at 30 employees and you are in a world of hurt.  It's why if a small business can do it they would much rather receive cash for jobs and pay employees in cash.  Most small businesses run on the smallest of margins and the difference between paying 17% and failing or some other way and succeeding is razor-thin.

Why do you think automation is being a huge thing?  Because while you lay out additional capital as a business owner for machines, you don't pay a tax on it every year to produce something!

Edited October 7, 2016 by yjacket

[Blueskye2]

37 minutes ago, yjacket said:

You have obviously never run a business (nor done taxes on one).  It is criminal and immoral to make businesses into tax collectors.  Businesses pay a lot in taxes; at least 15-17% for each and every employee. Quite frankly, there is a difference between a business that pays no tax and a successful business; whether or not a business pays income tax and whether or not the business is successful are not 100% correlated. There are businesses that go for years paying no income tax that pay employees, owners, etc. that are well alive-it is all about how well you use the tax code; and with the tax code being 75,0000 pages long! you can mortgage the house on betting there are plenty of ways to legally use the tax code (not cheating in the least bit) to reduce the amount you pay dramatically.

The #1 reason the economy is stuck in limbo-it costs too dang much in taxes to have a small business and employee people; add on ObamaCare at 30 employees and you are in a world of hurt.  It's why if a small business can do it they would much rather receive cash for jobs and pay employees in cash.  Most small businesses run on the smallest of margins and the difference between paying 17% and failing or some other way and succeeding is razor-thin.

Why do you think automation is being a huge thing?  Because while you lay out additional capital as a business owner for machines, you don't pay a tax on it every year to produce something!

This is a different issue...though could be tied in with a discussion of the corrupt tax system and how it benefits employers. Or, how employers would like to own the labor of their employees without providing benefits to the employees...which can also be tied to corrupt employers. 

BTW, you shouldn't pretend to know anything about me.  As I said already, my dad is a successful entrepreneur, ran a small business for over 40 years, and ALWAYS made sure his employees had health insurance. He ALWAYS made sure his guys (all his employees were men) made a fair wage, so they could support their families.

Then you have the Walmarts of the world that use tax and labor laws to skirt providing health insurance, or paying a fair wage, which then gets addressed by laws forcing both.

If you can't manage a business in such a way as to pay a fair a wage or provide health insurance, then maybe you shouldn't be running a business. Maybe your employees would be better off working for a business that can do both.

Automation is a huge thing because it replaces the labor of people with machines functioning as machines. Machines are not laboring.

Edited October 7, 2016 by Blueskye2

[Just_A_Guy]

6 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

HIS BUSINESS FAILED. A defunct business neither pays taxes or hires employees. He was rewarded for a failed business with 18 years of paying no PERSONAL income tax. 

I'm not running for political office, so really no need for personal insults to try to make a [failed] point.   Employers pay a tax on their employee's labor. Personal income tax is a tax on one's own labor. If your point is, taxing the employee's labor means that a a personal labor tax has been covered, then yeah, conservatives sometimes fall into a habit of voting against their own interests. Worshipping at the feet of the bourgeoisie.   

Yeah, it failed.  In spectacular fashion.  But the thing is--before it failed, it provided employment to an awful lot of people. It did do good; and if the numbers are accurate, the entire enterprise wound up costing Trump a phenomenal amount of money.  (Whether it failed due to mismanagement or criminal conduct is very much an issue for political pundits and securities prosecutors; but I think it has very little to do with the tax code.) 

This will be tedious (for which I apologize), but let me walk you through an example:

Let's say I make $10,000 per year.  I'm in the 15% tax bracket.  I work for ten years, and at the end of it after taxes I have $85,000.  At the beginning of Year 11 I open an ice cream shop downtown, and I pay ten employees $8,500 each.  At the end of that year, the ice cream shop folds and I'm left with nothing.  So I work another ten years at $10K/year.  I continue to pay 15% taxes annually.  At the end of Year 21 I have $85,000 in the bank, I've paid $30,000 in taxes, and basically given away $85,000 of my own money to other people. 

Now, what if I'd never opened my business at all?  What if I worked ten years, took a one-year sabbatical, and then worked ten more years?  By the end of Year 21 I'd have $170,000 in the bank and would have paid $30,000 in taxes.

Note the difference in results here:  In the first scenario I've contributed to society (between taxes and employees) to the tune of $115,000.  In the second, I've only contributed $30,000--but I, personally, am $85,000 richer.

What the federal government is doing with the carried-loss deduction, is saying "JAG, we know that this failed business constituted a net social good at your personal expense.  And we appreciate it.  So we're going to give you a tax holiday on your earnings until you've made up your $85,000 in losses."

And when it's all said and done, my contribution to society is $102,250 ($15K in taxes from years 1-10, $2,250 in taxes on the $15,000 I earned in years 20 and 21 after I'd made up my loss, and $85K in salaries to my business employees in Year 11).  And because of my tax holiday in years 11-19 I have $97,750 instead of $85K in the bank.  The press will inevitably kvetch about how I've been living "tax free" for eight and a half years, but the bottom line is that society is still richer--and I am still poorer--for my abortive foray into the free market.

4 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

Or, how employers would like to own the labor of their employees without providing benefits to the employees...which can also be tied to corrupt employers. 

I have difficulty really processing this argument.  It seems to me that the employee is selling his or her time and effort to the employer for a mutually agreed upon price.  Once the transaction is done I don't see why the employer (aka "buyer") has a moral duty to go back and pay more than the agreed-upon amount.  I mean, if I get a screaming deal on milk at the local SuperWalmart, no one would argue that I should come back a day later and say "you know, $1.75 for a gallon of milk just isn't fair to you as the seller.  Here, take another five bucks."  Of course not!  It's my milk!   I bought it, fair and square, for the price they said they were selling it for!  If they want to build a nicer barn for their cows, they are free to raise the price of milk in the future--just as I am free to look elsewhere for a better deal on milk.

The concern that people have for each other's welfare in a Zion society derives from notions of community, Christlike love and compassion, and universal brotherhood--not from the fact that I happen to get milk from Farmer John instead of Farmer Bob; or that I happened to have hired Dwight rather than Jim to handle my marketing.  Zion's stakes are ecclesiastical units, not commercial ones.

Quote

As I said already, my dad is a successful entrepreneur, ran a small business for over 40 years, and ALWAYS made sure his employees had health insurance. He ALWAYS made sure his guys (all his employees were men) made a fair wage, so they could support their families.

That is laudable, and I hope what I say doesn't diminish from your dad's good example.  But . . . the problem of cross-town competitors hiring migrant laborers from third-world countries who will work for 1/3 the wage, probably wasn't as pervasive when your dad built his business.  The problem of an internet that would let one's entire client base know that one's competitor was offering equivalent goods and services for half the price, probably wasn't an issue when your dad built his business.  And your dad most likely wasn't operating in a labor market where men who needed a higher wage--because they were providing for a stay-at-home wife and children--could be undercut by men who could work for cheaper because their wives were working.

Again--I'm sure your dad is/was a stand-up guy; but I think it should be noted that it's relatively easy to be virtuous in a 1960s economy.  Whether those kinds of practice can continue in an economically sustainable way in 2016, is an issue that every business needs to work out for itself.

Quote

If you can't manage a business in such a way as to pay a fair a wage or provide health insurance, then maybe you shouldn't be running a business. Maybe your employees would be better off working for a business that can do both.

The flip side to that is that the employees are welcome to defect en masse and go set up a new business that fully meets their needs while remaining economically viable.  The fact that they usually don't, suggests that maybe things aren't quite that easy.

Edited October 7, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[yjacket]

4 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

BTW, you shouldn't pretend to know anything about me.  As I said already, my dad is a successful entrepreneur, ran a small business for over 40 years, and ALWAYS made sure his employees had health insurance. He ALWAYS made sure his guys (all his employees were men) made a fair wage, so they could support their families.

If you can't manage a business in such a way as to pay a fair a wage or provide health insurance, then maybe you shouldn't be running a business. Maybe your employees would be better off working for a business that can do both.

 

Like I said, I assumed correctly, you've never run a small business nor been involved in business decisions.  Your dad has, but you haven't.  Big, big difference. And for the record, yes, I own part of a small business (not the full owner, but a significant portion).

As spoken like a true liberal living in an ivory tower. You'd rather people have no job, then a job with no benefits.  You'd rather then suck off the government than actually provide value in life.

Yeah it's 100% desirable to provide a "living wage" and "health insurance" and all the wonderful benefits.  But sometimes it's just not possible; the vast majority of small businesses run on extremely thin margins where the actual owner themself is making maybe 100k. If you have 10 employees making 40k and now you have to spend an extra 2k a year per employee providing insurance that's 20k a year, now you're making 80k.  At what point does the boss say screw it, I put in 100 hours a week, I take all the risk, I put my blood, my sweat, my money into this sucker, to heck with this, it's just not worth it?

Typical ivory tower, liberal, inexperienced, the world owes me everything, I deserve it all, response.  Come talk to me when you actually have to try and make payroll.

The stupidity is that if the laws were relaxed many small businesses would have an easier time getting started and while at first they might not be able to provide insurance, etc. as they grew and became stronger then could . .. but typical liberal response-got to have it all right now and they end up cutting off their nose to spit their face.

 

Edited October 7, 2016 by yjacket

[Guest Godless]

29 minutes ago, yjacket said:

The stupidity is that if the laws were relaxed many small businesses would have an easier time getting started and while at first they might not be able to provide insurance, etc. as they grew and became stronger then could . ..

Eh, that depends on the nature of the business. If you're running a simple retail shop with minimal skill requirements, sure, you could get away with paying low wages and not offering insurance. You'll probably see a high employee turnover rate, but that's not a big deal so long as the required job skills are simple and easy to teach. But let's say you have a startup with a more advanced concept (namely skilled labor or anything involving computers/network mangagement). Suddenly you find yourself in a position where it's in your best interest to take good care of your employees from the start, because you're working with a relatively small skill pool to draw from and you don't want people constantly leaving for greener pastures. 

Bottom line: a company's best resource (and most important investment) is its employees. Treat them right, and they will move mountains for you. Give them the bare minimum, and that's what you'll get from them in return. Now, the big question is how much should government regulate how employees are compensated. I don't think there's an easy black-and-white answer to this. Because you're right, mandated employee insurance can easily bury a small business. In the case of the business I manage, insurance would quickly bankrupt a neighborhood bar that right now is fairly profitable. I don't want that, and neither do my employees or the owner (full disclosure, most us already have insurance through our spouses' employers). However, I also believe that very profitable companies should do right by their employees. If I knew that my company could afford to insure my employees, you'd better believe I'd be pressuring the owner to make it happen. However, most businesses don't have "ivory tower" liberals like me fighting for the worker bees. Therefore, government needs to step in at some point, not just to look out for the little guys, but also to ensure that tax revenue isn't being dumped into health care programs needlessly. I believe that, in order to minimize the burden on taxpayers through programs like Medicaid, a company that can afford an insurance plan should be required to implement one. I don't necessarily support the current lower threshold for that requirement (50+ employees, if I'm not mistaken), but I believe that such a threshold is necessary.  Because I'm one of those "special snowflakes" who believes that a trip to the ER shouldn't bankrupt a person (I once allowed on open wound on my chin to get VERY infected because I couldn't afford to get it looked at; I had a full-time job at the time).

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, Godless said:

  I'm one of those "special snowflakes"

Sheer evil!

(yes, I'm playing) 

[Blueskye2]

21 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Yeah, it failed.  In spectacular fashion.  But the thing is--before it failed, it provided employment to an awful lot of people. It did do good; and if the numbers are accurate, the entire enterprise wound up costing Trump a phenomenal amount of money.  (Whether it failed due to mismanagement or criminal conduct is very much an issue for political pundits and securities prosecutors; but I think it has very little to do with the tax code.) 

This will be tedious (for which I apologize), but let me walk you through an example:

Let's say I make $10,000 per year.  I'm in the 15% tax bracket.  I work for ten years, and at the end of it after taxes I have $85,000.  At the beginning of Year 11 I open an ice cream shop downtown, and I pay ten employees $8,500 each.  At the end of that year, the ice cream shop folds and I'm left with nothing.  So I work another ten years at $10K/year.  I continue to pay 15% taxes annually.  At the end of Year 21 I have $85,000 in the bank, I've paid $30,000 in taxes, and basically given away $85,000 of my own money to other people. 

Now, what if I'd never opened my business at all?  What if I worked ten years, took a one-year sabbatical, and then worked ten more years?  By the end of Year 21 I'd have $170,000 in the bank and would have paid $30,000 in taxes.

Note the difference in results here:  In the first scenario I've contributed to society (between taxes and employees) to the tune of $115,000.  In the second, I've only contributed $30,000--but I, personally, am $85,000 richer.

What the federal government is doing with the carried-loss deduction, is saying "JAG, we know that this failed business constituted a net social good at your personal expense.  And we appreciate it.  So we're going to give you a tax holiday on your earnings until you've made up your $85,000 in losses."

And when it's all said and done, my contribution to society is $102,250 ($15K in taxes from years 1-10, $2,250 in taxes on the $15,000 I earned in years 20 and 21 after I'd made up my loss, and $85K in salaries to my business employees in Year 11).  And because of my tax holiday in years 11-19 I have $97,750 instead of $85K in the bank.  The press will inevitably kvetch about how I've been living "tax free" for eight and a half years, but the bottom line is that society is still richer--and I am still poorer--for my abortive foray into the free market.

I have difficulty really processing this argument.  It seems to me that the employee is selling his or her time and effort to the employer for a mutually agreed upon price.  Once the transaction is done I don't see why the employer (aka "buyer") has a moral duty to go back and pay more than the agreed-upon amount.  I mean, if I get a screaming deal on milk at the local SuperWalmart, no one would argue that I should come back a day later and say "you know, $1.75 for a gallon of milk just isn't fair to you as the seller.  Here, take another five bucks."  Of course not!  It's my milk!   I bought it, fair and square, for the price they said they were selling it for!  If they want to build a nicer barn for their cows, they are free to raise the price of milk in the future--just as I am free to look elsewhere for a better deal on milk.

The concern that people have for each other's welfare in a Zion society derives from notions of community, Christlike love and compassion, and universal brotherhood--not from the fact that I happen to get milk from Farmer John instead of Farmer Bob; or that I happened to have hired Dwight rather than Jim to handle my marketing.  Zion's stakes are ecclesiastical units, not commercial ones.

That is laudable, and I hope what I say doesn't diminish from your dad's good example.  But . . . the problem of cross-town competitors hiring migrant laborers from third-world countries who will work for 1/3 the wage, probably wasn't as pervasive when your dad built his business.  The problem of an internet that would let one's entire client base know that one's competitor was offering equivalent goods and services for half the price, probably wasn't an issue when your dad built his business.  And your dad most likely wasn't operating in a labor market where men who needed a higher wage--because they were providing for a stay-at-home wife and children--could be undercut by men who could work for cheaper because their wives were working.

Again--I'm sure your dad is/was a stand-up guy; but I think it should be noted that it's relatively easy to be virtuous in a 1960s economy.  Whether those kinds of practice can continue in an economically sustainable way in 2016, is an issue that every business needs to work out for itself.

The flip side to that is that the employees are welcome to defect en masse and go set up a new business that fully meets their needs while remaining economically viable.  The fact that they usually don't, suggests that maybe things aren't quite that easy.

Blah blah blah....I happen to have worked in business for 27 years, in several management positions. I work for a non profit now, my switch out of the business world had a lot to do with what I could just not stomach any longer, among my business peers. All of whom happened to be LDS. When it comes to business, people can get squishy with their ethics and morals. I've seen it dozens of times. I've seen some things that nobody should see. I'm not perfect, but I can't live a double life of ethics and morals out of the office and throw that all out the window in office. 

Now I own a business, very small, no employees yet, and most likely won't have any for quite some time as I still work full time at the nonprofit. And no, I wouldn't consider hiring anyone until I could pay a fair wage and provide benefits. It is the choice for my business plan, and that is the choice that all businesses make. To include their employees in their business planning as an asset, or view them as a liability. 

A bunch of uber successful Republican business people said yesterday they could not support Trump for President, because of the way he runs his businesses. One saying they would not be able to sleep at night if they ran their business how he does.  The thing is, how a business treats their employees, how they treat other people, is indicative of how they do business. It is indicative of the kind of person they are, what sort of fiber their character is made of. It is indicative of the type of leader they are.

But whatever, I think I've made my voting decision, so I leave y'all to it. 

Edited October 8, 2016 by Blueskye2

[yjacket]

5 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

Now I own a business, very small, no employees yet, and most likely won't have any for quite some time as I still work full time at the nonprofit. And no, I wouldn't consider hiring anyone until I could pay a fair wage and provide benefits.

Well that's great; you have the comfort and luxury of a fall-back position.  You probably won't have any additional employees for a while b/c you're not making enough money to support yourself.  The platitudes of "I wouldn't consider hiring anyone until I could pay a fair wage" are a lot of hot air." Let's say you make a bunch of phone calls all around the country and you need some help organizing things. What's a fair wage? 5/hr, 10/hr, 15/hr.  You can say 15/hr and that's all great and dandy, until you realize that is more like 18/hr and to hire someone full-time will cost you around 40k a year no benefits, more like 60k/year with benefits. And then you realize, that unless you've got miracle grow, you start to realize that it becomes harder and harder to support just one other person. What about if you just need someone part-time for 10/hours a week to help you organize? According to you, you wouldn't hire them until you can provide a fair wage?

Again, you haven't lived in the real world of a small business-you like to think you have-but you haven't.  

And I guarantee you there are plenty of people who are willing to take the part-time work or even full-time work with no benefits just to have a job.  My wife did it when we were first married, made something like 8/hr just being a temporary secretary no benefits.  Worked out great.  The problem with liberals is they live in this idealistic world where everything is perfect and it just isn't so.

[Just_A_Guy]

On 10/8/2016 at 10:03 AM, Blueskye2 said:

Blah blah blah....

Really, @Blueskye2?

Really???

[Blueskye2]

On October 9, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

Really, @Blueskye2?

Really???

Yes, really.

[Just_A_Guy]

11 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

Yes, really.

Blah blah blah.

(See what I did there? )

A little less snarkily:  Did you want to engage about the merits of the net-operating-loss carryforward provisions of the tax code?  Did you want to talk about the insulation from homelessness, starvation, and general poverty that even unsuccessful business ventures provide to employees in the years before they go belly-up?  I thought you were trying to open a substantive discussion on those issues.  If not, then my apologies.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[unixknight]

@Blueskye2 Just a word of friendly advice... when people take the time to put up a detailed, thoughtful post like @Just_A_Guy did, it's considered intensely rude to be dismissive and reply to it with  something like "blah blah blah."  It's perfectly fine to disagree, but to reduce someone's efforts to verbal noise (which is what's represented by "blah blah blah") is a great way to show people that you aren't willing to be polite and respectful of others.  Why then should they put any weight on what you say after that?

[Blueskye2]

2 hours ago, unixknight said:

@Blueskye2 Just a word of friendly advice... when people take the time to put up a detailed, thoughtful post like @Just_A_Guy did, it's considered intensely rude to be dismissive and reply to it with  something like "blah blah blah."  It's perfectly fine to disagree, but to reduce someone's efforts to verbal noise (which is what's represented by "blah blah blah") is a great way to show people that you aren't willing to be polite and respectful of others.  Why then should they put any weight on what you say after that?

Oh an internet scolding. Gosh thanks. 

The argument:  paying for someone's labor is somehow a form of charity, and that "charity" is a thankful tax write off for the person who did not actually do the labor. A benefit for all of society, in fact, thank God! Add to that we're discussing a nearly billion dollar failure! So the argument is we are all defacto in on every failed business, for the good of society. And that every person who ever used a corrupt tax system to personal benefit, is a saint. God bless them all, especially Donald Trump.

That is in fact verbal noise, to my view.

Shame, shame, on me!

 

Edited October 12, 2016 by Blueskye2

[unixknight]

6 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

Oh an internet scolding. Gosh thanks. 

Sure you can believe I view an argument that paying for someone's labor is somehow a form of charity, is in fact verbal noise. 

Not a scolding, just advice.  But if you feel like being belligerent is the way to go then go ahead and stick with it.  See how far you get with that, my friend.

[Just_A_Guy]

9 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

Oh an internet scolding. Gosh thanks. 

Sure you can believe I view an argument that paying for someone's labor is somehow a form of charity, is in fact verbal noise. Shame, shame, on me!

My argument wasn't that it's charitable.  It was that it's socially beneficial.

[Blueskye2]

1 hour ago, unixknight said:

Not a scolding, just advice.  But if you feel like being belligerent is the way to go then go ahead and stick with it.  See how far you get with that, my friend.

Expressing my opinion is being belligerent. Got it.

My input isn't to your liking and therefore requires changing the topic to shaming me, is a friendly overture. Also noted.

[Guest]

FYI: I like all three of you.  So, when I see three people I like arguing with each other, I could intervene and try to be peacemaker, I could ignore it, or I could sit and watch. 

I'm finding this too informative to ignore.  And I just don't see myself being able to be peacemaker because, geez! Donald Trump.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Guest

[unixknight]

1 hour ago, Blueskye2 said:

Expressing my opinion is being belligerent. Got it.

My input isn't to your liking and therefore requires changing the topic to shaming me, is a friendly overture. Also noted.

Well, there's expressing your opinion and then there's sarcasm, rudeness and dismissiveness.  I've been nothing but polite to you and I'm getting back snark and a distortion of what I said.  I'm not gonna wrestle with you on this one.  Just don't be surprised when people tend to disregard your comments if you can't be reasonable about it. 

@Carborendum I'm going back to the peanut gallery.  Can I get some of that popcorn? 

[yjacket]

Oh this junk is starting to get real.

The information is there it requires people to put it together (or a non-corrupt bought out news media that actually did their job).  

Wikileaks is doing the drip, drip, drip of information.  We now know of journalist that forwarded debate questions to the Clinton team who then responded back with her answer. We know of journalists who where in the pocket of Clinton. We know of the private vs. public facade. We know of a journalists who bragged to Clinton about destroying Trump at a debate.  We know of Podesta talking with individuals who planned to flood the Colorado caucuses with ineligible voters.

Now it appears that Wikileaks will be releasing the 30k+ deleted e-mails in 4 batches plus they have video of Clinton and bribery. This may make her look like a saint compared to Trump. 

Trump is a cad, a jerk, an immoral person.  But this system is so incredibly corrupt; I will vote for him just to burn it all down. Sorry Utahns, thinking you'll be able to through the election to McCullin or someone else just isn't going to happen, but I get it if you can't stomach it.

No ifs/ands/buts, we are a banana republic, Clinton should be in jail. I've worked in security environments my entire life-there is no way anyone (and I don't care if they said I don't remember 40 times) would not be prosecuted and at the very minimum have a misdemeanor for this crap.

Burn, baby Burn.  I want some fireworks.

Edited October 13, 2016 by yjacket

[Guest Godless]

17 minutes ago, yjacket said:

Oh this junk is starting to get real.

The information is there it requires people to put it together (or a non-corrupt bought out news media that actually did their job).  

Wikileaks is doing the drip, drip, drip of information.  We now know of journalist that forwarded debate questions to the Clinton team who then responded back with her answer. We know of journalists who where in the pocket of Clinton. We know of the private vs. public facade. We know of a journalists who bragged to Clinton about destroying Trump at a debate.  We know of Podesta talking with individuals who planned to flood the Colorado caucuses with ineligible voters.

Now it appears that Wikileaks will be releasing the 30k+ deleted e-mails in 4 batches plus they have video of Clinton and bribery. This may make her look like a saint compared to Trump. 

Trump is a cad, a jerk, an immoral person.  But this system is so incredibly corrupt; I will vote for him just to burn it all down. Sorry Utahns, thinking you'll be able to through the election to McCullin or someone else just isn't going to happen, but I get it if you can't stomach it.

No ifs/ands/buts, we are a banana republic, Clinton should be in jail. I've worked in security environments my entire life-there is no way anyone (and I don't care if they said I don't remember 40 times) would not be prosecuted and at the very minimum have a misdemeanor for this crap.

Burn, baby Burn.  I want some fireworks.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the fence, we have new allegations of sexual harassment/abuse being made against Trump. We have a 1992 video surfacing in which he points out a 10 year-old girl and casually says, "I'll be dating her in 10 years". The man is a predator. We know that with a level of clarity that we didn't have with Bill Clinton in the 90s. He is a pervert, and we would do well to heed his own warning about perverts.

 

[yjacket]

19 minutes ago, Godless said:

Meanwhile, on the other side of the fence, we have new allegations of sexual harassment/abuse being made against Trump. We have a 1992 video surfacing in which he points out a 10 year-old girl and casually says, "I'll be dating her in 10 years". The man is a predator. We know that with a level of clarity that we didn't have with Bill Clinton in the 90s. He is a pervert, and we would do well to heed his own warning about perverts.

 

Lol, right okay.  Look, you're telling me that about basically a year of "vetting" that this stuff is just now coming out.  Give me a break. This is a calculated takedown.

Come on man, you've got to have better info. that that

" The Entertainment Tonight video was just released on CBS News. You can't see Trump in the video, which was recorded around Christmas time inside Trump Tower. CBS says he was looking at a group of 10-year-olds walking past him when he made the comment, and you see the group of girls on a nearby escalator right after the comment. "

Give me a break.  looking at a 25 year old tape in which, he isn't visible where CBS (who is confirmed in bed with Clinton) says he was looking at them.

Could he be a predator, sure; I've learned in life to never be surprised by what people do-but if that is your evidence, you are going to have to do a lot better than that!

You'll believe that, but won't believe the Clinton corruption coming out of her e-mails . . .sigh no wonder we are screwed.

And now there are multiple women accusers . . . oh right.  This is as clear a political takedown as I've seen.

You don't think, CBS, NBC, etc. were looking for accusers over the last 6 months? But now, 3 weeks before an election they come out? These women didn't have any thought to contact the news media prior to this last week.  They didn't contact the media when Clinton attacked him in the first debate? They couldn't simply contact the corrupt journalist who are in bed with the Clinton Campaign 3 weeks ago?  But now, simply b/c he denied it on national TV, now they come out?

This is a takedown of the highest degree, coordinated and planned.  Get him to deny on TV that he ever sexually assaulted women, give it a few days then find several to corroborate.

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't-but regardless this is a targeted, planned, political takedown.  And yes, I've witnessed a few locally and the news media can be extremely harsh.  This is why non-politicians don't stand a chance.  If you don't kiss the ring of whoever the party boss/bosses are they control the media they will take you down.  I've seen good people I've worked with get elected to office, not kiss the ring and walk right into a trap and get taken out by their own party.

I'm actually at the point, that you know what, if he gets elected and is a predator, then you legitimately will have a trial and he will go to prison and/or impeached.  I'd rather have that scenario happen, knowing that if he did something illegal he will be prosecuted, than have a corrupt two-faced, very sick, completely immune from any scrutiny President.

And if you don't think she's physically ill, watch the left portion of her neck at :07.  Something is very, very wrong.  Neck muscles/nerves do not involuntarily spasm that much.  Maybe the news media should actually dig into her health?

 

Edited October 13, 2016 by yjacket