ObjectivityIncarnate

Wow, you’re a sharp one, nothing gets past you.

he thought the nazi’s were the good guys

Quote him: “There were no ‘good guys’ in that war.”

It isn’t enough to criticize him for not considering the Allies the good guys, but you just have to go that one step further and claim that he believes something that is directly contradicted by what he wrote?

It’s like people are afraid of encountering someone who is less than 100% wrong/bad/evil, and refuse to believe there is anyone between ‘saint’ and ‘demon’. Must be exhausting living with such a starkly binary outlook.

Most of them have a national ID that everybody gets, not the complex mix of IDs that the US has.

That’s true, but then on the state level, such could be implemented alongside that type of law, within a given state, and then that state would be set up ‘equivalently’, right?

Those two things should go hand in hand, ideally within the same legislation, I’d think.

Don’t more developed countries have voter ID laws than not? It’s interesting to see that this is one metric where ‘everyone else does this except the US’ is not used as an argument for the change that would align the US with the rest.

the windows help “[add] privacy in the toilet facility”

???

You have no idea what prompted the emotions, you just happily assume whatever will give you the excuse to express your misandry.

I’d bet anything that if you read one of the many accounts of women getting genuinely angry at their SOs, even striking them (which is way worse than striking an inanimate object, by the way), based on what they dreamt the guy did, you wouldn’t be blaming her “fragile femininity”.

For all we know, guy had just received some horrible/devastating news.

The assumptions leading to both the ‘framing’ act and the gleeful posting of it on social media are just a manifestation of thinly-veiled misandry.

You left out some pretty important context in that quote to make it seem like it’s saying that realization is arbitrarily decided. In truth, all this is saying is that realization is not confined to reception of cash itself:

While it is true that economic gain is not always taxable as income, it is settled that the realization of gain need not be in cash derived from the sale of an asset. Gain may occur as a result of exchange of property, payment of the taxpayer’s indebtedness, relief from a liability, or other profit realized from the completion of a transaction.

As it says at the end there, the ways to realize gain all necessarily entail “profit”. A loan is not profit, nor is an already-owned asset transform into profit when used as collateral.

The above could absolutely not be used to support your argument, nor refute mine–not when you read it honestly and in context.

Realization is the establishment of value not sale for cash

Absolutely nonsensical massive straw-grasp. If that was true, that would mean that everything that HAS a widely-established market price is instantly and permanently to be considered realized by everyone who owns it.

The United Roviet Rocialist Sepublic?

Anyone seriously talking about the 95% rate can be safely ignored as a liar by omission.

The amount of stuff you could deduct was very different back then. Nobody actually paid 95%, regardless of what the law literally said.

There is a reason this person is not showing you per capita tax revenue over the same time period.

How does this actually make any sense though? All collateral is, is a safety net to mitigate loss for a lender who lends to someone who then defaults on the loan. If the loan is not defaulted on, literally nothing happens to the collateral.

How then does it make any sense to consider the mere act of the loan being given as a realization of the collateral, in other words, equivalent to having sold the collateral, when literally nothing has happened to it?

This feels completely arbitrary. Using an asset as collateral is nothing like realizing it.

The government also told the public that the income tax was going to apply only to rich people, how’d that turn out?

deleted by creator

I’m not the one who wrote out a whole scenario involving a “nightly circle jerk” among Libertarians, complete with sound effects, lol.

The not-so-subtle misogyny of equating adult women with children, depriving them of all agency, strikes yet again.

It’s not victim blaming because he’s not referring to the same women you are. Like it or not, there are plenty of women (no one is saying it’s all or most women, by the way) who will pursue rich men with the desire for a purely transactional “I’ll fuck you so I can have your wealthy lifestyle and/or a part of your fame.” They’re perfectly content with that arrangement, as are said men.

Johnny Depp’s girlfriends for decades have basically all been women in this category, even now that he’s way past his prime aesthetically. The women accusing Trump of sexual impropriety are, obviously, NOT in this category.

Women are not a hivemind–different types of them can exist in the same society, you know.

He was tried and found guilty of raping a woman.

That’s not true. He’s never been convicted of a sex crime. “Found liable” in a civil court and “found guilty” in a criminal court are VASTLY different, and require VASTLY different standards of evidence.

It’s important to be accurate.

It sounds to me as though you have weird fantasies about libertarians, lol

My man I don’t think I give a shit where you think I belong.