Poison Your Mind - Latest Comments

Re: More absurdities from Rand Paul

vicomtepicabia — Wed, 22 May 2013 19:55:44 -0000

"If Romney is an evil rich guy for using the tax system... If
Apple is evil for using loopholes"

I don't think either of them are evil. Under present conditions,
they're acting normally. But those conditions can and should be changed.

  But I don't really understand your position on loopholes. You're defending Rand Paul when he tries to prevent
Congress from investigating the loopholes used by Apple, yes? (Tangentially, I don't even understand Paul's position--I guess it's something like: "Congress is to blame for creating a terrible tax code with many loopholes, but Congress should also not investigate how the loopholes are used nor try to eliminate them.") You seem to be doing so on the grounds that to investigate the use of loopholes is to call the entity being investigated "evil." Then you're on the side of those who want to preserve loopholes. But then you're like, these loopholes used by Biden are terrible, but are they only terrible when Biden uses them? If Biden advocated for lower taxes, would it be cool for him to keep using those loopholes? Is it like that Randian thing, where people who oppose welfare programs are allowed to used them guilt-free, but when those who favor such programs use them, that just proves what losers they are? Is it a prerequisite for advocating the elimination of certain loopholes that one not use them, while someone advocating for the preservation of those loopholes is free to
continue using them? What relevance does any particular individual's use or non-use of a given loophole have to the issue of whether it should be preserved or eliminated? If you're opposed to loopholes, isn't it illogical to support those political figures who strive to preserve them, while opposing those who may try to end them, on the grounds that the latter also personally use the loopholes? Or are you in favor of the loopholes? I still don't know. Which is it?

Re: More absurdities from Rand Paul

Pino — Wed, 22 May 2013 16:41:31 -0000

This is one of those things you say a lot and I simply can't wrap my head around it.

If Obama, or anyone who favors higher taxes, makes a case for that position based on numbers and math and all that, it's one thing. But Obama doesn't do that. He trots out such bullshit as "Not paying his fair share."

He makes it a morality story. He makes it seem that the rich are evil and are keeping more of their money than they have a right too. When, in fact, the opposite is true. They are keeping exactly the amount of money they have a right too.

If Romney is an evil rich guy for using the tax system, then Obama is also an evil rich guy for doing the same.

If Apple is evil for using loopholes to keep their property, then so is Biden for using the same loopholes.

I object to the emotional morality play.

Re: Crazier than Crazy

Pino — Wed, 22 May 2013 16:36:12 -0000

The clause was demanded by Southern proponents of slavery as a way of
enhancing their congressional representation. They wanted slaves to be
counted as full persons but settled on three-fifths. People of African
descent would have had no real rights either way. The inclusion of the
clause greatly enhanced the South’s political power and made it harder
to abolish slavery. The clause was effectively eliminated after the
Civil War by the Thirteenth Amendment.

I've always thought that the South wanted to count slaves for purposes of Representatives but then not allow them to vote. The north, as I understood, saw this as unfair and got the south to agree to count slaves as 3/5ths. Not because those people were really only 3/5ths of value, but as a means of diminishing the reported population of the south and thus, reducing the number of members in the House.

Re: More absurdities from Rand Paul

nickgb — Wed, 22 May 2013 11:01:26 -0000

It weakens his position. While still valid, he would make a much stronger point if he voluntarily paid an amount at his proposed rate.

This is one of those things you say a lot and I simply can't wrap my head around it. When he proposes higher taxes, those apply to him as well, so who cares? It's a policy decision that should be decided on the merits, not whether the President decided to preemptively subject himself to higher taxes for good PR. The idea that it would strengthen his position to pay extra money himself is the kind of thing I expect from some CNN talking head; do you really get swayed on public policy by something like optics?

Re: More absurdities from Rand Paul

Pino — Tue, 21 May 2013 22:43:28 -0000

Yes, it is definitely wrong for a guy who pays a low tax rate to advocate for the imposition of higher tax rates.

It weakens his position. While still valid, he would make a much stronger point if he voluntarily paid an amount at his proposed rate.

But that's not the insult, that's just plain human nature.

No, the insult is the vilification of "The Rich" and during the campaign, Romney, for "not paying their fair share." How many times do we hear of poor old Buffet's secretary?

And then, then we have Joltin' Joe who not only takes advantage of the income treatment, but actually uses "loopholes" in the tax code that gives him a tax advantage to clean out his attic and closets of old toys, clothes and cowboy boots.

I mean, higher taxes in a valid position. Higher tax revenue from the wealthy only is also valid, wrong, but valid. And when posited by those of us here are are unlikely to be able to take advantage of the code in the way that Obama and Biden do, not to mention Kerry and Pelosi, it's one thing. We're most likely in the same boat. But the idea of being lectured on the tender mercies of taxation by those listed above?

That's the insult. Surly you see a distinction.

Re: More absurdities from Rand Paul

vicomtepicabia — Tue, 21 May 2013 22:32:25 -0000

Yes, it is definitely wrong for a guy who pays a low tax rate to advocate for the imposition of higher tax rates.

Re: Rosengate

mike — Tue, 21 May 2013 21:28:27 -0000

The Washington Post has linked the Affidavit that the DOJ filed to obtain the search warrant to view Rosen's emails, and I highly recommend taking the 15-20 minutes it takes to read it to better understand this issue:

http://apps.washingtonpost.com...

Kim and Rosen were both about as sloppy as you could be in this situation, and that, not Obama's tyrannical despotism, is really why they're in trouble.

However, this does raise some bigger questions. Generally speaking, the press in this country is allowed to operate with great latitude, but do they have an unlimited right to divulge classified information? Moreover, when a leak is discovered, doesn't the DOJ have a right/obligation to continue their investigation simply to make sure the person receiving the classified information isn't spying for an enemy country? That's certainly one plausible explanation for why they chose to request access to Rosen's emails.

In addition, asking or encouraging somebody to commit a crime is usually also considered a crime in America (soliciting a prostitute, for example), so when a journalist solicits a Federal agent for classified information (and is stupid enough to leave a very obvious try) why should that be unequivocally exempt from consideration as a crime? At the very least, shouldn't it depend on the circumstances, i.e. if the journalist is engaged in legitimate muckraking rather than just fishing for hot stories to break to further his career?

If a journalist released details of the next troop surge in Afghanistan, or drone patterns in Yemen, or some other classified operational details of a military operation, should that be legal? Is it legal for Julian Assange to operate Wikileaks? Obviously, Rosen's infraction wasn't anywhere close to this, but the fact is that classified information is classified for a reason.

Re: The even less-truthful GOP

Pino — Tue, 21 May 2013 21:19:52 -0000

We did discuss Reid at the time.

Indeed! I missed it.

At that point you equated Reid's comments to birtherism, so I assume you are equating Paul's with birtherism too?

The characterization of "birtherism" is to ask for a document [birth certificate or tax record] and when not produced use that fact as proof of something else. Here, Paul isn't demanding a document form the IRS.

He's still not being honest when he says he's seen document. If he had, I'm sure we'd have seen it by now.

I started responding to the rest of your comment, but my whole point was that you didn't cover the Reid thing, and you did. I was wrong.

Paul does look silly.

*Unless said document is part of a disclosure to senators that haven't been made public yet and he just slipped.*

Re: More absurdities from Rand Paul

Pino — Tue, 21 May 2013 21:08:07 -0000

I’m offended by a $4 trillion government bullying, berating and badgering one of America’s greatest success stories.

So, there is no small measure of ickiness involved that a government, run by a President and Vice President, who bash people for paying little amounts in taxes, pay little amounts in taxes.

Obama's effective tax rate is lower than Buffet's secretary and Biden used a loophole to write off old shitty clothes and worn out toys he gave to Goodwill.

If you are going to hammer someone for not paying taxes, you should be the guy paying taxes.

There is nothing wrong with trying to find out why one of America’s greatest success stories doesn’t actually pay taxes on most of what it makes.

Indeed. However, most of what Apple makes is sold outside the US. Truth be known, I don't know where I stand on taxation of foreign profit.

In practice, the only way you will get a company like Apple to pay taxes here is if the amount they would pay in taxes is less than the cost of using a tax haven

Yes. Why is this surprising or controversial?

Re: Music Miscellanea (8)

dedc79 — Tue, 21 May 2013 18:07:17 -0000

interesting, I wasn't aware that there was an ongoing dispute about the use of their music.

Re: Endure The Tyranny Of The DIsallowed

dedc79 — Tue, 21 May 2013 17:52:53 -0000

Hard to tell how much to read into this, but you don't typically ban candidates who would have no shot of winning, do you?

Re: More absurdities from Rand Paul

dedc79 — Tue, 21 May 2013 15:18:29 -0000

I agree with you. Twice in two days! They're not saying Apple broke laws. It's a hearing to let the american people know that Apple is evading taxes. That the evasion happens to be legal (or appears to be) doesn't mean the government can't ask questions about it, find out how it happens, and try and come up with ways to close the loophole.

Levin may not be great on all issues (ahem, filibuster reform), but his committee is basically the only congressional committee that actually looks into this kind of stuff and makes concrete recommendations to fix things.

Re: Music Miscellanea (8)

vicomtepicabia — Tue, 21 May 2013 13:29:37 -0000

Now I just hope John Densmore can outlast Robbie Krieger. http://www.oregonlive.com/book...

Re: The even less-truthful GOP

nickgb — Tue, 21 May 2013 11:41:12 -0000

Now now, this isn't Britain. Though their politicians are a hell of a lot sturdier than ours; crybaby Boehner would have been booted the second his eyes watered up. (Not that that's a strictly GOP characteristic, we've got plenty of sensitive fee-fees on our side too, at least British standards).

Re: The even less-truthful GOP

dedc79 — Tue, 21 May 2013 11:29:10 -0000

Clearly you missed my "Breitbart is Dead Music Mix." Ok, I didn't make one, but kind of wishing i had.

Re: The even less-truthful GOP

nickgb — Tue, 21 May 2013 11:21:20 -0000

Okay, I'm late coming to this game here, so forgive me if I step on some other comments, but I wanted to get to this one right away.

Harry Reid claimed that an investor at Bain Capital told him that Romney hadn't paid taxes in 10 years. Even if that call did happen and Reid was informed as he describes, it is still just hearsay, a rumor, etc. Someone repeating what someone else has said is a lot less forceful than someone who claims to have seen the original proof. That's the entire essence of this Jonathan Karl debacle, as I linked in this post.

The reason Paul's comments cross the line for me is that he is simply stating that there IS a written policy, not that he heard there was one. The obvious conclusion is that he's seen it, just as when Karl said ABC News had reviewed the White House emails. When pressed on it, he eventually puts it back on the media, claiming that he's repeating what "is being reported", which of course is silly because no one in the media has reported that (as far as I've seen), it's just a little word game politicians play because no one ever asks them "Who said that originally?"

If I tell you that my friend is certain that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, then you'll judge that "fact" on its own merits because you don't trust my friend. If I tell you that there is a document that proves it, then you'll judge that fact based on its merits and also my trustworthiness, because you have some opinion on whether I would lie, mislead, etc. That's the fundamental difference, Reid's comments depending on the reputation of an unnamed friend of his at Bain, which was so ludicrous as to be dismissed offhand. Paul is trading on his own reputation, which as a Senator is a bit higher than that.

We did discuss Reid at the time. (At that point you equated Reid's comments to birtherism, so I assume you are equating Paul's with birtherism too?) Your argument back then was that birtherism and Reid's friend were the same because they both relied on the absence of proof to establish a fact. That was silly even then, of course, because there was actual that Obama was born in Hawaii. The real point is that we know Romney had tax returns, we knew most presidents made theirs public for a certain amount of time, we knew Romney wasn't turning his over. As I said in my reply to you then:

No one is saying that Romney isn't qualified to be President. We're saying that the fact that he won't give up the tax returns should give rise to an inference that the tax returns (which are a standard release for all candidates) are seriously damaging.

I also said at the time that I didn't believe Reid, and that I wish that we wouldn't deal in rumors, but that Romney left us no choice because he wouldn't do the routine disclosure that most presidents did:

For my part, I believe this story is 100% BS (okay, maybe 50-75%), but when a candidate is unwilling to tell the truth, he cannot defend himself very well from speculation. I wish we didn't trade in rumors, but when we don't know anything for certain, that's what we've got. Romney is the only person who can put these to rest, by choosing to do what every serious candidate does, and he refuses to do so.

In comparison, there has already been an investigation of this IRS debacle, there will undoubtedly be more, and if there's a written policy it'll come to light. Paul is simply speculating in the dark, wanting to know who know about the hypothetical written policy and when did they know it, which is a pretty irresponsible thing to say without acknowledging the large "IF" implicit in his questions.

Re: The even less-truthful GOP

dedc79 — Tue, 21 May 2013 09:08:53 -0000

Part of it is pure laziness. So easy to write an intro, throw in a few quotes from "both sides" and call it a day. Even better because you can't be accused of taking sides. It doesn't even require making the effort to understand what you are writing about.

Re: The even less-truthful GOP

vicomtepicabia — Tue, 21 May 2013 02:15:30 -0000

The timing of all this is interesting as well. I'm stealing somebody else's ideas here (can't remember whose), but I think the R's long believed that Obama personally, and his policies, and the economic devastation they were sure to cause, would be so toxic they could simply oppose him on the merits. Mysteriously, such proved not to be the case, so they've had to go to Plan B.

Re: The even less-truthful GOP

mike — Mon, 20 May 2013 22:45:15 -0000

Honestly, I think the bigger issue is the media's complete failure to report the news in context.

It's been said a million times on this site and others, but the media will report that Harry Reid says there are green martians hidden at Area 51, and they will also report that Rand Paul says there are not green martians hidden at Area 51, and then in the interest of fairness, let you "decide".

Look at the scandal that broke today about the Fox News correspondent today. The news has reported the comments of Michelle Clemente, Fox's executive VP of news, as follows: "We are outraged to learn today that James Rosen was named a criminal
co-conspirator for simply doing his job as a reporter. In fact, it is downright chilling. We will unequivocally defend his right to operate as a member of what up until now has always been a free press"

This, of course, is a factual statement, in and of itself. Michelle Clemente actually said that. Of course, if anybody had bothered to read the affidavit the DOJ filed against Rosen, which has also been leaked, you'll find that the DOJ found emails from Rosen while investigating a known source of leaks from within the government, and in those emails they found that Rosen was actively soliciting the illegal release of classified information, so that, in his words, he could break stories earlier than his competitors.

Soliciting drugs from a drug dealer is a crime. Soliciting sex from a prostitute is a crime. Soliciting classified information from the government to further your career is...a right?

I guess you get to decide!

Re: The even less-truthful GOP

Pino — Mon, 20 May 2013 22:21:18 -0000

Fair.

Re: The even less-truthful GOP

Lamb — Mon, 20 May 2013 22:03:20 -0000

It is fair, though, to criticize you for going easy on Breitbart when he did his family a favor by suddenly dropping dead. Will calling Sean Patrick Hazlett an idiot bring him out of hiding so we can further discuss? This will show up on Google.

Re: The even less-truthful GOP

dedc79 — Mon, 20 May 2013 21:50:18 -0000

We're not a newspaper, we're three (lazy) bloggers. We don't cover all news items and i don't think it's fair to characterize our not covering Reid's irresponsible remarks, while covering Rand's irresponsible remarks, as tribalism. For what it's worth, I do think Reid should have been grilled regarding his statements about Romney's taxes.

Re: The even less-truthful GOP

Pino — Mon, 20 May 2013 20:25:03 -0000

Saying that there is a written report that claims Obama ordered the IRS to act

Ooops...

Paul did not claim that Obama ordered it, sorry. He claimed that there is written policy. Written by whom is not identified, just that it was written.

Again, sorry.

Re: The even less-truthful GOP

Pino — Mon, 20 May 2013 20:08:57 -0000

Is speaking about the existence of a rumor the same thing as spreading a rumor?

I would say it's a distinction without a difference.

Saying that there is a written report that claims Obama ordered the IRS to act is no different than saying a Bain investor called my office and said Romney didn't pay his taxes.

Both Paul and Reid are representing things that are not true as true.

Re: The even less-truthful GOP

vicomtepicabia — Mon, 20 May 2013 19:40:39 -0000

Is speaking about the existence of a rumor the same thing as spreading a rumor? Or to put it another way, are these statements equally mendacious?
A: "There's a rumor floating around that Clark Kent is Superman."
B: "There are written documents that prove Clark Kent is Superman."