As they would if the capital gains tax were raised from it's currently anemic level of 15%. Hell, just match that to the income tax rate for their bracket.
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
GasBandit
Staff member
That'd be a good way to kill just about everybody's retirement funds.
GasBandit
Staff member
A white woman in Spokane has been pretending to be black for years, according to her parents, and she is now also under investigation for violating the city’s code of ethics.
Rachel Dolezal listed herself as African-American on an application for chair of a police oversight commission, to which she was eventually appointed by the city’s mayor.
She is also the president of the local NAACP chapter, an adjunct faculty member at Eastern Washington University in the Africana studies department and she has portrayed herself as an African-American on numerous other occasions.
But as it turns out, she is not black, and her white parents from Montana want her to stop lying to everyone.
“Rachel has wanted to be somebody she’s not. She’s chosen not to just be herself but to represent herself as an African American woman or a biracial person. And that’s simply not true,” her mom Ruthanne Dolezal told KREM 2 News.
They say her background is both German and Czech.
Dolezal's parents, who live in Troy, MT, say Rachel has been deceiving people. They want people to know the truth. pic.twitter.com/sS3aiUwD0H
— Taylor Viydo (@KREMTaylor) June 11, 2015
— Taylor Viydo (@KREMTaylor) June 11, 2015
City officials have announced that they are looking into the matter of the application.
“We are committed to independent citizen oversight and take very seriously the concerns raised regarding the chair of the independent citizen police ombudsman commission,” said Mayor David Condon in a statement. “We are gathering facts to determine if any city policies related to volunteer boards and commissions have been violated. That information will be reviewed by the City Council, which has oversight of city boards and commissions.”
Dolezal was recently interviewed by a reporter with KXLY, who asked her if a picture of a black man she claims to be her father is actually her dad.
He also asks her straight up if she is an African-American, to which she just sort of walks away.
“I don’t understand the question,” Dolezal answered. “I did tell you that yes that’s my dad.”
"Our daughter is Caucasian" say parents of Spokane NAACP President Rachel Dolezal. pic.twitter.com/6VHxm9v4Wt
— Taylor Viydo (@KREMTaylor) June 11, 2015
— Taylor Viydo (@KREMTaylor) June 11, 2015
The post Controversy of the Day: White NAACP President in Washington Accused of Pretending to Be Black appeared first on The Daily What.
There's probably some Latin word or prefix we could use. Maybe it'll be the next Cis and we'll be famous . . . on Tumblr. Blech.
Let's use Greek instead.
This has been pretty open for awhile... the bigger schools can't afford to lose prestige in eyes of their legacies and potential new students, so tuition raises go towards buying stuff that IS worth it (better food, better dorms, better technology, better medical and counseling services) and stuff that generally isn't worth it (celebrity professors, "fun" stuff like climbing walls, new stadiums). It's the leading reason why 2-year schools are popular again: you're not paying for the "college experience" so you're paying like 1/4th as much a year.
Schools change. Someone who graduated from WSU-Whitewater in 1963 would probably not have recognized the UW-Whitewater campus when I graduated in 1989, and I sure as heck would feel lost going around the current UW-Whitewater campus today.
Just like a 1963 Ford Galaxie, a 1989 Ford Crown Victoria, and a 2015 Ford Taurus are drastically different - save the blue oval on the front and four tires on the wheels.
Just like a 1963 Ford Galaxie, a 1989 Ford Crown Victoria, and a 2015 Ford Taurus are drastically different - save the blue oval on the front and four tires on the wheels.
GasBandit
Staff member
Degenerate Art all over again, but this time not enforced, but chosen freely out of a desire for would-be safety and the option to live completely challenge-free. These people are creating "safe" bubbles to live in, and one day the awakening will be all he more painful when they realize most of the world is NOT their playground, but a harsh and painful place where people want to hurt other people to take their stuff and force their thinking - especially of rich white kids.
GasBandit
Staff member
It's beginning to feel a little like 30 years ago.
Isn't that why Charlie left most recently? Because he was being forced to think outside his comfort zone?
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
Oh man. Probably the most delicious political hit piece I've ever read. On Donald Trump, about his announcing his run for the presidency... from National Review of all places, comes this gem: Witless Ape Rides Escalator. Oh man, can you imagine if somebody wrote like this about a democrat candidate?
You know, I hear this A LOT. Unfortunately, I only hear it from more right-wing sources---soooo....for those of you on the left here, what WOULD it be like? What if someone wrote that about Hilary?
You mean sort of like this? http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/15/the-kick-off-hillary-clinton-the-bogus-womens-advocate/
That's honestly the only openly insulting piece I could find with a quick search. Breitbart had a little issue over her not releasing her medical records (?), and O'Reilly had a piece where he said her policies will be same as Obama's and therefore, in his opinion will lead to further "failure". But that's a criticism of policy, not of personhood.
I seem to remember more than a few choice barbs being directed at Clinton, especially during his affairs. And Kennedy, over his Catholicism... and Jimmy Carter (but let's face it, he was kind of a shit president). It just FEELS like it's been forever because it's been 8 years of Obama.
Let's be honest here, though. Donald Trump isn't a republican candidate either. He's a joke, one I'm not entirely certain if he's in on or not.
Can we PLEASE just admit that like 90% of the current Republican hopefuls are in this to make some cash and maybe advance their careers, not because they actually WANT to be President?
The problem is, I can't agree with that. I think a lot of them really think they have a shot, that they're what this country wants or needs. They're hopelessly, unbelievably wrong, but they don't know that.
Thing is that...well, I *have* seen similar take downs of left wing candidates - but not of the normal bunch. Rather, Nader and so forth. The ones no-one thinks can win anyway, who are too extreme or too weird or just plain a joke all around.
I can imagine Trump actually getting votes, but never winning. Also, how is he a successful businessman? I've never quite understood how you can be classed as a great success if your MO seems to be to go broke every couple of years, dig huge holes, and have other people fill them. That's not good business, that's sleazy profiting from losses.
I can imagine Trump actually getting votes, but never winning. Also, how is he a successful businessman? I've never quite understood how you can be classed as a great success if your MO seems to be to go broke every couple of years, dig huge holes, and have other people fill them. That's not good business, that's sleazy profiting from losses.
Fracking accident causes 100 homes to be evacuated. And it wasn't even the first big spill they've had at the site.
It would be different. Trump is a buffoon. Clinton is a serious contender.
And I vaguely recall there being plenty of extremely, sincerely hateful things written about her. Would look for those things but can't be bothered. I'm sure you can lots of misogyny by Fox's little imitators directed at her.
(Also, I only got a couple paragraphs into that Trump piece because Trump's a buffoon not worth reading about . . . but his daughter's hot. Was there anything in the piece about her?)
Necronic
Staff member
This isn't a politics thing, just an insane news story, and I don't really know where else to post it. Remember the woman Dee Dee Blanchard who was killed and those messed up facebook posts about it showed up? And how it turns out it was her daughter? Well, the story is about 20 times more messed up than you thought.
http://thoughtcatalog.com/m-j-pack/...red-mother-and-her-missing-disabled-daughter/
http://thoughtcatalog.com/m-j-pack/...red-mother-and-her-missing-disabled-daughter/
Wow, that's like a particularly fucked up creepypasta come to life.
GasBandit
Staff member
There are times when saying "that's some fucked up shit right there" is a drastic understatement.
GasBandit
Staff member
Alright, you guys knew I was gonna have to talk about this today, didn't cha.
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of the ACA providing national subsidies instead of only to states who set up their own exchanges, the latter of which was the actual law.
Now, I'm not fretting over the health care system any more, that ship has sailed and (as I've said for years) the American populace is entirely content to be kept and subservient to federal authority over the critical aspects of their life so long as they're warm and comfy with a hot pocket in their hand and a spectacle on their HDTV. Completely socialized health care is right around the corner, and inevitable - seeing as how ObamaCare was designed to fail, and fail in such a way that "the market" got the blame, creating a popular mandate (or at least the illusion of one) for a national single-payer healthcare system.
What concerns me is the shortcuts being taken to accomplish it are entirely unconstitutional. Not only was the text of the law plain about only states who set up their own exchanges being eligible for subsidies, this was further explained by the principal architect of the bill as a carrot/stick situation to try and force (primarily republican) governors to swallow their bile and come play along, lest they get ridden out on a rail in the next election when their constituency didn't get health insurance subsidies.
The wording was clear, the intent was explained and elaborated before congress and on the record, and the majority of justices on the supreme court said "well, that doesn't matter, because what matters is what we want" and rewrote the law for the third time, without any congressional involvement whatsoever.
That's not how laws are supposed to work. That's not how the judicial system is supposed to work. That's not what the constitution allows government to do. Words officially now no longer have meaning. There is precedent for ignoring the concept of the rule of law.
Which means the federal government can now do whatever it wants to whomever it wants, no matter what any law says.
And anyone who is comfortable with that idea so long as republicans are getting egg on their face right now, is part of The Problem.
You might feel differently when politicians pushing agendas you consider abhorrent are able to further their aims with no recourse, using this methodology.
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of the ACA providing national subsidies instead of only to states who set up their own exchanges, the latter of which was the actual law.
Now, I'm not fretting over the health care system any more, that ship has sailed and (as I've said for years) the American populace is entirely content to be kept and subservient to federal authority over the critical aspects of their life so long as they're warm and comfy with a hot pocket in their hand and a spectacle on their HDTV. Completely socialized health care is right around the corner, and inevitable - seeing as how ObamaCare was designed to fail, and fail in such a way that "the market" got the blame, creating a popular mandate (or at least the illusion of one) for a national single-payer healthcare system.
What concerns me is the shortcuts being taken to accomplish it are entirely unconstitutional. Not only was the text of the law plain about only states who set up their own exchanges being eligible for subsidies, this was further explained by the principal architect of the bill as a carrot/stick situation to try and force (primarily republican) governors to swallow their bile and come play along, lest they get ridden out on a rail in the next election when their constituency didn't get health insurance subsidies.
The wording was clear, the intent was explained and elaborated before congress and on the record, and the majority of justices on the supreme court said "well, that doesn't matter, because what matters is what we want" and rewrote the law for the third time, without any congressional involvement whatsoever.
That's not how laws are supposed to work. That's not how the judicial system is supposed to work. That's not what the constitution allows government to do. Words officially now no longer have meaning. There is precedent for ignoring the concept of the rule of law.
Which means the federal government can now do whatever it wants to whomever it wants, no matter what any law says.
And anyone who is comfortable with that idea so long as republicans are getting egg on their face right now, is part of The Problem.
You might feel differently when politicians pushing agendas you consider abhorrent are able to further their aims with no recourse, using this methodology.
I actually agree with their reasoning, if only because it's following one of the most cherished and abused methodologies that people like to drag up whenever they argue anything the Supreme Court decides: "What were the Founding Fathers trying to do here?" or rather, in this case, "What were the original law makers trying to do here?". In this example it's perfectly clear: they wanted people to be able to afford the healthcare they are mandating because the point of the ACA was to get more people insured. The wording was to intended to encourage states to get involved in the process in a way that was for the benefit of their residents, not to give the states a method to deny people the means to afford healthcare. Why would it when the ACA was designed around getting people access to healthcare? Why force people without it to endure hardships because of bad government until they got a chance to remove the problem YEARS after it started?
Ironically, this is probably the most compelling argument the gun lobby could use to settle the 2nd Amendment once and for all. Whatever my harder left compatriots try to argue, the point of the 2nd Amendment was clearly to allow the people the means to fight a corrupt government and to prevent it from trying to remove them as a threat. If the logic behind the ACA decision was applied here, it would clearly be in favor of the Gun Lobby. We reap what we sow and this ruling has all sorts of fun/horribly awful applications.
In any event, this entire thing has been the Supreme Court deciding that the ACA can't work the way it's designers tried to sell it from Day One. We already had them decide that it's legal to tax people for this (and the only way ti could work), despite the Obama's administration's constant portrayals that it wasn't a tax. It's not surprising that they'd tell them again that "No, it works like THIS, and this method is perfectly legal so SUCK IT." Maybe it's time to start writing some amendments to more narrowly define the role of the Supreme Court?
Ironically, this is probably the most compelling argument the gun lobby could use to settle the 2nd Amendment once and for all. Whatever my harder left compatriots try to argue, the point of the 2nd Amendment was clearly to allow the people the means to fight a corrupt government and to prevent it from trying to remove them as a threat. If the logic behind the ACA decision was applied here, it would clearly be in favor of the Gun Lobby. We reap what we sow and this ruling has all sorts of fun/horribly awful applications.
In any event, this entire thing has been the Supreme Court deciding that the ACA can't work the way it's designers tried to sell it from Day One. We already had them decide that it's legal to tax people for this (and the only way ti could work), despite the Obama's administration's constant portrayals that it wasn't a tax. It's not surprising that they'd tell them again that "No, it works like THIS, and this method is perfectly legal so SUCK IT." Maybe it's time to start writing some amendments to more narrowly define the role of the Supreme Court?
If, as @GasBandit suggests, "...the federal government can now do whatever it wants to whomever it wants, no matter what any law says," then adding additional amendments would do nothing, as those amendments would also be ignored.
--Patrick