Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[whoopassman]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
And by "interesting" I presume you mean "pathetic."

ltl/fb was already taken.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by whoopassman
I do too, I just realize that there is a middle area between the two that not is certainly not wrong and may actually be right. You are apparently too naive or too stupid to do the same. Maybe you should consult taxwonk and ask for the special needs discount.

Wanker, do you feel I need the "special needs" discount to do my taxes?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
He couldn't have meant me. I mean, it isn't like I sit around and have conversations with a bunch of strangers on the internet all day. I know real people who like me. Pets count, right?

If you are implying that sitting around all day having conversations on the internet with strangers makes you a loser, try and think of it in the reverse. Before I started posting here (Feb 2005), I just couldn't figure out why people were so into the internet. For me the Web was like robbing a bank. You go in, get what you want, and get out as soon as you can, before someone gets hurt. People told me they spend hours on line. They would talk about Blogs, and cool websites and I felt like a social cripple because I just had no clue as to what they were talking about. To be with it in todays society you have to be an active web participant. I was not but now I am trying to learn.

[Anntila the Hun]

Originally posted by Spanky
You and Chad really need to get together.

I suspect he is a closet traitor, but I don't know for sure.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Anntila the Hun
I suspect he is a closet traitor, but I don't know for sure.

Funny, I had the same suspicion about you.

[whoopassman]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Wanker, do you feel I need the "special needs" discount to do my taxes?

You may also need a refresher course in reading comprehension, but I don't know who here gives those. Maybe Hank-his work at infirmation is prolific. The point here is not questioning your ability to do your taxes, a chimp can fill out a 1040, it's doing them within the arguable boundaries of the law and regs while maximizing the retention of your income that is the trick. if THK can get a 12% ETR and I am only pulling a 14.2%, I am obviously leaving money on the table. Sure I could just give several thousand more to charity but that doesn't move me the way seeing that cash in my pocket or as fodder for additional acquisiitons does.

[Spanky]

Say-Hello-for-me:

Why do you think Roe v. Wade is about to be overturned? From my count there is only two judges on the Supreme Court who want to overturn Roe. Almost all the judges were appointed by pro-life Republicans. So what makes you think that future judges appointed by Pro-Life Republicans will want to overturn Roe (especially with a Pro-Choice head of the judiciary committee). And that is even assuming the next three judges will be apointed by a Pro-Life Republican. In addition, according to the Christian Science Monitor, GOP appointed judges control 10 out of 13 appeals courts. None of the appeals courts seem to be chomping at the bit to overturn Roe.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
And by "interesting" I presume you mean "pathetic."

I am now mired in despising people who lie on their pension election form and say they are divorced when, in fact, they are not. I'm sure whoopassman would do that too if it would get him a tax break. Perhaps he could certify that he is blind -- I think they get a break of some sort.

Once when refinancing I had hardly any $$$ in bank- the guy thought I needed some more assets or I'd not get approved. I said whatever-

You know how you show up and they put 50 papers in front of you and you start signing? Well I did look at this one and the fuck claimed I owned a 30K boat- I don't. Was it wrong to sign and pretend I didn't see it or should I have raised a stink?

[whoopassman]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Once when refinancing I had hardly any $$$ in bank- the guy thought I needed some more assets or I'd not get approved. I said whatever-

You know how you show up and they put 50 papers in front of you and you start signing? Well I did look at this one and the fuck claimed I owned a 30K boat- I don't. Was it wrong to sign and pretend I didn't see it or should I have raised a stink?

Right on Hank. I once had the same thing happen at a re-fi for my beach house. The scamster broker put down that my personal property totaled 140K. Depends on your method of valuation, but all the same there was a wave of wink and nods around the table and then the money flowed. The law of commerce triumphed.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I am so going to call you at home and leave a lascivious message on the home voicemail/answering machine. Weak my ass.

Make sure that it contains the words "bustier" and "decolletage" -- I find them to be especially lascivious words.

(that's one for you, nineteen for me)

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by whoopassman
Maybe you should consult taxwonk and ask for the special needs discount.

I love it when my re lines live on. It makes me feel almost, like, immortal or something.

Where was I? Oh, yeah. Substance. Sorry.

Looking for deductions and credits that you are entitled to is fine. Lying about whether you are entitled to them is not. The only thing I remember from my tax class is that while tax avoidance is encouraged -- the Code is now intended to drive social policy, after all; tax evasion is a crime. Oh, and also that IRS attorneys love to fuck lawyers whenever possible (the prof had been one).

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Spanky
Say-Hello-for-me:

Why do you think Roe v. Wade is about to be overturned? From my count there is only two judges on the Supreme Court who want to overturn Roe. Almost all the judges were appointed by pro-life Republicans. So what makes you think that future judges appointed by Pro-Life Republicans will want to overturn Roe (especially with a Pro-Choice head of the judiciary committee). And that is even assuming the next three judges will be apointed by a Pro-Life Republican. In addition, according to the Christian Science Monitor, GOP appointed judges control 10 out of 13 appeals courts. None of the appeals courts seem to be chomping at the bit to overturn Roe.

Lots to say on this, but its a bit loose and fuzzy.

1. You don't have to be Pro-Life to be anti-Roe. This ain't a ticket to heaven or a popularity contest on Earth. This is making government what it was intended to be and what people want it to be. Namely, local or non-existent in lots of ways it is not now.

2. I assume you are talking Thomas and Scalia. My understanding from some fuzzy and distant writings is that there are two others who are believed to have held off on presenting their views on Roe, and will only set them forth to directly address the issue of Roe. Both are supposedly thought to be generally in favor of overturning Roe on the basis that the opinion had no basis (queue the gray mist and "permutations" quote... who's got it again").

3. Pro-choice head of the Judiciary committee? That asshole almost lost that position in November, but promised to put out whatever the White House put in. I was paying attention at the time, and it was after he made a silly public comment. Anyhoo, if he doesn't play ball, I'm sure Rove can find someone who will

4. There is no way an Appeals court can overturn Roe, and it would be fairly pointless for anyone on one of these courts to even make such noises.

Bit I end where I began. You don't have to be pro-Life and/or Catholic. You don't have to believe in God. You don't have to be a strict constructionist. You just have to believe that courts have no business legislating from a bench in a democracy. If the majority of the country wants a national law either way, let em pass a law. Better yet, pass an amendment.

Still, full disclaimer. pro-Life, basically Catholic, believer, text and background matter (i.e., not a strict constructionist), and a firm believer that the federal government shouldn't intrude into community morality and what-have-you. So one could legitimately claim that I started with the answer, and then tried to justify it.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Once when refinancing I had hardly any $$$ in bank- the guy thought I needed some more assets or I'd not get approved. I said whatever-

You know how you show up and they put 50 papers in front of you and you start signing? Well I did look at this one and the fuck claimed I owned a 30K boat- I don't. Was it wrong to sign and pretend I didn't see it or should I have raised a stink?

Malum Prohibitum.

Probably Malum in se.

But, no one is perfect.

S_A_M

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Not Bob
I love it when my re lines live on. It makes me feel almost, like, immortal or something.

Where was I? Oh, yeah. Substance. Sorry.

Looking for deductions and credits that you are entitled to is fine. Lying about whether you are entitled to them is not. The only thing I remember from my tax class is that while tax avoidance is encouraged -- the Code is now intended to drive social policy, after all; tax evasion is a crime. Oh, and also that IRS attorneys love to fuck lawyers whenever possible (the prof had been one).

Oh please. He said more aggressive, not review records more closely. And as for avoidance is good because you are intended to avoid b/c tax is driving social policy -- under that rubric, at this stage of the game (2004 is sooooooo last year), he'd be looking at things to do differently this year, not trying to recharacterize his vacation in Hawaii as a business expense and the tips he paid to the doorman and housekeeper as charitable contributions.

Fucking PollyBob.

ETA I think I might actually have used "rubric" correctly, after looking it up after the fact. I think the connotation is correct. Hmmmmm.

EATA Hm. whoopassman . . . whoopasshole . . . whoopasinine. Ill-considered name.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Lots to say on this, but its a bit loose and fuzzy.

1. You don't have to be Pro-Life to be anti-Roe. This ain't a ticket to heaven or a popularity contest on Earth. This is making government what it was intended to be and what people want it to be. Namely, local or non-existent in lots of ways it is not now.

I never said you did. But again, for Roe to be overturned there has to be at least five judges that want to overturn it. You still need three.

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
2. I assume you are talking Thomas and Scalia. My understanding from some fuzzy and distant writings is that there are two others who are believed to have held off on presenting their views on Roe, and will only set them forth to directly address the issue of Roe. Both are supposedly thought to be generally in favor of overturning Roe on the basis that the opinion had no basis (queue the gray mist and "permutations" quote... who's got it again").

Why so cryptic? Just the fact that you won't name names means to me that they won't overturn Roe. Overturning that decision would be monumental change to this nation. It would take a very confident justice to vote and overturn it. If they were that confident we would know who they are. You definitely could not be referring to: Souter, O’Conner, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Stevens

And I can't believe Kennedy would overturn. I am even doubtful about Rehnquist. So who is going to side with Thomas and
Scalia?

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
3. Pro-choice head of the Judiciary committee? That asshole almost lost that position in November, but promised to put out whatever the White House put in. I was paying attention at the time, and it was after he made a silly public comment. Anyhoo, if he doesn't play ball, I'm sure Rove can find someone who will

Bush probably won't be able to appoint anyone, but if he does it will just be one bite at the apple. Specter won't get replaced in the middle of the process.

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
4. There is no way an Appeals court can overturn Roe, and it would be fairly pointless for anyone on one of these courts to even make such noises.

If they did it would separate the wheat from the Chaff. It would give everyone an idea of what side of the coin people were on.

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Bit I end where I began. You don't have to be pro-Life and/or Catholic. You don't have to believe in God. You don't have to be a strict constructionist. You just have to believe that courts have no business legislating from a bench in a democracy. If the majority of the country wants a national law either way, let em pass a law. Better yet, pass an amendment.

Again you are making a policy argument, when the real issue is who is on the court and which way will they vote. Unless the Supreme Court overturns none of those arguments will mean anything.

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Still, full disclaimer. pro-Life, basically Catholic, believer, text and background matter (i.e., not a strict constructionist), and a firm believer that the federal government shouldn't intrude into community morality and what-have-you. So one could legitimately claim that I started with the answer, and then tried to justify it.

You are trying to justify your position, when that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the court will overturn. It won't overturn for long time to come, if ever.