joeyjojojunior's comments

« First    « Previous     Comments 2540 - 2579 of 3,067     Next »     Last »

  joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 12, 11:37am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

I thought innocent people didn't take the fifth?
  joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 12, 4:46pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Anyone who can't tell the difference between a news story and an opinion column isn't qualified to comment on pat.net
  joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 12, 5:03pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

anonymous says
Didn't it ever occur to you that maybe we need to have a fascist dictatorship until Trump solves all of our problems, and only after that can we go back to being a republic.


Yep--that always works out well.
  joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 12, 7:21pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

Wait--so now anonymous sources from CNN are believable again?

Can you give me the code for how you know when they're fake news and when it's truth?
  joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 12, 7:50pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Strategist says
Economy, inflation, interest rates, unemployment, etc


Perhaps you ought to read up on the Federal Reserve and how it's controlled. (hint--the Fed probably played a big role in Reagan's win)
  joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 13, 5:08am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

TwoScoopsMcGee says
The coverage of Trump was unbelievably negative, even more negative than Obama's first 60 days was one big Media panegyric.


You don't think his actions played a role in that?

In related news, coverage of Dylan Bundy and Ted Kaczinksi was unbelievably negative as well.
  joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 13, 7:47am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Why didn't they just bring up something ridiculous during home inspection or the final walkthrough and say it's a deal breaker. Or screw up their financing. I would have thought they could have relatively easily gotten out of the contract legally.
  joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 13, 11:34am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

TwoScoopsMcGee says
Wait the CNN article is fake news?


I'm asking you McGee. You posted on here multiple times that any story with anonymous sources is FAKE NEWS. Especially a CNN story.

How can you now post this on here as if it's true???

Once again I'll say--Hypocrisy, thy name is McGee.
  joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 13, 12:40pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

For anyone to suggest that wages are determined by productivity is laughable. Everything is determined by supply and demand. Period.
  joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 13, 1:34pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

Quigley says
And neither are the other players. The NFL, their employer, is learning that it isn't entitled to fan dollars as their ratings drop and game attendance takes a nosedive. You must always first please the customer.


This should be interesting if the NFL really decides to punish protesting players. Nobody pays to see the owners walking the sidelines or watching the game from their skybox. It would be interesting if the players unite on this issue.
  joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 13, 1:35pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

Patrick says
Yes, this is the core problem with debate in America today.

You will be misrepresented and shamed if you dare to dissent. James Damore is a hero for pointing this out so clearly.


Like if you disagree that the US flag is some sanctimonious object that must be revered?
  joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 13, 2:10pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

mell says
What Obummer did was raising taxes on the middle and upper-middle and upper class while letting the real wealthy people untouched.


>$250K isn't middle class.

mell says
The middle-class and upper middle-class and upper-class will gladly vote for a "Republican" proposal that reduces their taxes as well


Let me know when Trump proposes such a deal. This one raises their taxes.

But, I disagree anyway.

mell says
Raising the taxes on the "wealthy" would be raising taxes on income and other gains on those that make at least one million dollar year per year from their income and other holdings, maybe the bar needs to be set even higher. Anybody making 500K or less working hard is not wealthy, but working for a living.


Exactly. Let's raise taxes on UNEARNED INCOME. Tax capital, not labor. But you'll NEVER see such a proposal from anyone with an R after their name.
  joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 13, 2:38pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

mell says
In the SF bay area and other high state/municipal tax and high cost of living areas (many coastal areas) it is definitely "just" (upper) middle-class unless you plan on staying single without kids forever.


And in those coastal, high cost of living areas, Trump's tax plan will lead to higher taxes as well. Getting rid of the state and property tax deduction will be a killer.

mell says
In my case tax brackets stay the same but deductions double. So I will get a little break. Under Obama my taxes (ACA etc.) and my cap gains went up quite a bit. So if you have the choice between a relief vs a raise on your tax burden the choice is easy. Many are in the same boat.


Many are in the same boat as me and will see their taxes go up. While watching billionaires get huge tax breaks. How do you think that is going to play?


mell says
Sure but not blindly. We have already high capital gains taxes on many things. Tax cap gains at the effective (median) tax bracket for everybody and remove all exceptions such as the mortgage interest deduction and the 250/500K free gains if you "live" in your house for 2 years or any other crony crap. If you lump income and cap gains together you don't have to differentiate between the two and the convoluted tax law can become much simpler. Just raise the taxes on the uber-wealthy.


Raising cap gains tax hits the uber wealthy. Cap the MID or keep the AMT in place.

Who cares about simple?? Why should simple be a desire? Let's make it function well and lead to a prosperous economy, lots of jobs, and real income gains for everyone. If it has to be a bit more complicated, so be it.

There is absolutely NO reason why labor should EVER be taxed higher than capital. None. Unearned income is by definition not earned. The US is awash with capital. The government needs to tax it rather than borrow it.
  joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 13, 2:39pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Quigley says
There's already an established system for punishing players who act against the owners wishes. They get fined. The fines can be quite large! Tens of thousands of dollars per offence! So I think this protest won't be worth it to many if the league gets serious about this. Nobody had to be fired. Fines will deter improper behavior just fine.


Like I said--we'll see. It depends on how unified the players can be.
  joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 13, 7:38pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

mell says
Strategist is mostly right here


No, Strat is 100% wrong here. I don't think he even knows what he's arguing other than welfare queens have cell phones so therefore their life must be better.

mell says
They don't have to work and yet have plenty to eat (so many get fat).


This narrative has been proven to be bullshit so many times I can't even count, but yet it persists by folks like you and Strat. It's really sad.
  joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 13, 7:41pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

TwoScoopsMcGee says
I've posted that the MSM are willing to smear the Administration with unprovenced rumors, yep.


No. You said that you don't believe ANY story with anonymous sources.

And my question is when did you change your mind?
  joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 14, 5:12am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

What's hilarious is that folks on here are using government programs (SNAP, WIC, section 8, Medicaid, etc.) to show that free market capitalism helps the poor.

Perhaps you guys should rethink your argument? If free market capitalism helped the underclass, we wouldn't need those programs.
  joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 14, 5:18am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Someone might even say that Trump is making sure NAFTA doesn't get changed at all, but is able to claim he tried...
  joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 14, 5:20am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

CBOEtrader says
Brilliant analysis Joe. Also, if you lived in communist Russia you should probably starve to death rather than eat the bread you get from the food line. Wouldnt want to be a hypocrite, amirite?


Wtf are you talking about? That is not every remotely hypocritical.

Pointing out that free market capitalism doesn't help the underclass means I can't eat bread in Russia?
  joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 14, 7:17am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

BlueSardine says
It is obvious from recent history that trump always starts negotiations from an absurd position, allowing himself to be negotiated down to the actual numbers he's after.
In this process the opposing party feels they've won by getting massive concessions from trump, while trump hits his target numbers that he planned for all along.
It's called "win win"...


lol--except he's not negotiating against CIC. His high IQ is going to get schooled.
  joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 14, 9:08am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

That's better. Life is good when BlueSardine is back to correcting grammar and spelling.
  joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 14, 9:37am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Strategist says
If the bums were willing to work instead of freeloading, we wouldn't need those programs.


Ah yes, the rationalization that allows Republicans to sleep at night. All welfare recipients are lazy bums who don't want to work. Freeloaders. Right up there with the myth that people who make more money are harder workers...
  joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 14, 9:50am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

mell says
Absolutely not. This narrative has been proven in countless studies


OK great--please post one.

mell says
People who earn more are also more active during the day and engage in more in physical activities - despite having less time from working all day.


Yep--what does that have to do with the topic at hand?
  joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 14, 11:04am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

me123 says
Not a myth, if you would actually work during the day, instead of stealing money from your employer while posting on Patnet, you'd be surprised how much you could earn.

But since you're a "taker" (and Bernie supporter), versus being a "maker", that concept totally escapes you.


And if you could ever stay on a topic rather than trying to make everything personal, you might not be such a troll.
  joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 14, 3:01pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Well, as long as Saudi approves... Didn't think I'd see the day when McGee was hailing a deal as good because Saudi approves...
  joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 15, 10:46am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

PeopleUnited says
Don't be daft.

Devices that hurl projectiles have recreational and self defense purposes when possessed by an individual. They have been safely used for such purposes by the overwhelming majority of civilian owners since their invention. A responsible user can safely deploy these weapons without threatening the safety of others.

The uranium splitting machines are not practical for recreational or self defense use by individuals. They cannot safely be used for recreational or self defense purposes on the continental United States without threatening the safety of others.

Your reasoning is flawed by years of corrupt programming and self induced Taylor Swifting.


Talk about flawed reasoning.. Does the 2nd Amendment mention anything about hurling projectiles? Or recreational/defense purposes?

I'll answer that--NO.

Either you're for the 2nd Amendment or not. Which is it?
  joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 15, 10:48am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

me123 says
Hey Dan, have you figured out yet how a building can appreciate? Since you own so much property, that question should be easy for you to answer


Why don't you tell us?
  joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 15, 11:23am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Here you go--this took about 3 seconds to find:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

"Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes," Wachtel said. Because when they want guns they want them immediately the wait is usually too long for a weapon to be stolen and find its way to a criminal.

In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities."
  joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 15, 1:55pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

me123 says
You do know where these straw purchases are done, the "buyer" lies on the 4473 ATF form, so it is really a criminal buying a gun for another criminal. That is an illegal activity.

So, to refer to Bob's bullshit comment that legal owners selling their guns to criminals, well, he's just full of crap again.


Wow--that's really where you're going to go? lol.
  joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 15, 1:56pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

me123 says
Once again, totally wrong.


Talk to the ATF agent who said it. I'm sure you know much more than he does.
  joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 15, 1:58pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

TwoScoopsMcGee says
Big things are happening with Saudi


lol--whatever you say Lips. If Clinton was President why do I think you wouldn't be talking about the "big things" happening...
  joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 15, 4:18pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

PeopleUnited says
You want to talk about the second amendment? Are you for it? Why do you hold this position? Do you think it means the people have the right to bear nuclear arms? Is that why your panties are in a bunch? If you want to have a conversation you need to actually present some dialog not just more daft questions.


Do I want to talk about it? Yes, I think it's relevant to the discussion.
Am I for it? Not really important. Why do I hold that position? Because I'm not a Supreme Court judge
Do I think it means the people have the right to bear nuclear arms? I think it says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So it depends on your definition of arms. As you referred to them as "nuclear arms", it appears you think they qualify as arms. So, my question is how you can you NOT believe that people have the right to bear them?

Is that why your panties are in a bunch? No idea what you are talking about here.
  joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 15, 4:20pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

joeyjojojunior says
me123 says
Hey Dan, have you figured out yet how a building can appreciate? Since you own so much property, that question should be easy for you to answer


Why don't you tell us?


CIC? Do you plan on answering this or are you going to run like your buddy Goran whenever anyone asks you a question?
  joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 15, 4:34pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

anonymous says
Dan - I'm read your response but if we can carry your hypothetical to the end I think I would understand better.

So if our builder friend bought the land for 200k and spent 50k on building improvements (again new build- not flipping). If he sold for 3 months later for 260k, and the 10k gain was taxed at 100% (meaning he got his original 250k back) where is our builders profit?


I'm not sure what Dan meant, but it'd be pretty easy for the builder to charge his labor at $200/hour and really pad his hours (like a corporate lawyer) and he'd do fine.
  joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 15, 4:36pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

me123 says
Ever fill out and sign a 4473 form??

Didn't think so.


In case you forgot--I'm not the author. You're arguing with an ATF study.

Pretty sure they've forgotten more than you know.
  joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 15, 6:04pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

anonymous says
In my neighborhood land records show in the 1900s row-houses sold for anywhere between $600 and $1,000

Today the old buildings are assessed for 200-400k. Granted many have been maintained/materials replaced.


And the land under them has appreciated. That was Dan's point.

anonymous says
That aside however, today I could pull up my antique hardwood floor and sell it for more than the entire house cost 117 years ago. I know this isn't the norm with most materials being replaced every 15-30 years, but allow it to sit long enough it may become an antique.


Don't forget to inflation adjust them. Regardless, Dan is right that buildings depreciate and land appreciates.
  joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 15, 6:33pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

me123 says
First, I didn't ask YOU the question, I already know your lack of knowledge of the housing market.

Second, I'll give you and Danny boy a hint, see if you can figure it out. Can you say "foreclosure"?


So, I'll take that to mean you can't. Otherwise you wouldn't play stupid games to pretend like you have a point.
  joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 15, 6:34pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

me123 says
I asked you a specific question. Do you know what's on that form and what you attest to when you sign it.


And I answered that it doesn't matter. I didn't write the study so what I know or don't know doesn't matter in the slightest.

Are you claiming that the study author doesn't know what a 4473 form is?
  joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 15, 6:50pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

me123 says
That's because your clueless and didn't even read the quote you posted. If you understood what a straw purchase was, and how it gets processed, you'd understand that the "buyer" committed a felony by purchasing the firearm and committed a second felony giving it to his accomplice


The point is that the buyer is legally able to buy a gun. Obviously when he resells it to a criminal, he is breaking the law. I think everyone but you understands that.
  joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 15, 6:56pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

me123 says
So, I'll take that even with the hint I gave you, you're still clueless. Why am I not surprised?


lol--You're obviously wrong and that's why you can't answer. Just admit it and we can move on.



The Housing Trap
You're being set up to spend your life paying off a debt you don't need to take on, for a house that costs far more than it should. The conspirators are all around you, smiling to lure you in, carefully choosing their words and watching your reactions as they push your buttons, anxiously waiting for the moment when you sign the papers that will trap you and guarantee their payoff. Don't be just another victim of the housing market. Use this book to defend your freedom and defeat their schemes. You can win the game, but first you have to learn how to play it.
115 pages, $12.50

Kindle version available


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions