Comments by "Mat Broomfield" (@matbroomfield) on "David Pakman Show"
channel.
-
545
-
353
-
347
-
204
-
157
-
132
-
127
-
90
-
87
-
81
-
66
-
62
-
58
-
53
-
47
-
47
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
30
-
28
-
27
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
You seem to be suggesting that I was reducing race to skin colour, which I was not, but there ARE broad racial groups: Polynesian, Caucasian, Asian , Mongoloid, Slavic, etc. These groups have broadly similar external physical features, so it's not unreasonable to assume that there could also be broadly similar brain features.
Yes, environment makes a significant difference, but even Erik Turkheimer acknowledges a 10 point IQ difference between black and white Americans, so a 5 or 10 percent genetic component to IQ is MORE than enough to explain this difference, which is well within the reported racial difference.
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
VAT is dreadful. Take it from a Brit who suffers from it. Everything I buy for business, I then have to add 20% and that is a MASSIVE factor in whether or not I buy. I cannot always pass that on to my customers because competitors are importing from China and not adding VAT. Also, the government uses it for behaviour modification - charging more for fuel, tobacco, alcohol, etc. Also, doing VAT returns is a real pain, and because VAT is collected from customers BEFORE you do your taxes, the government is absolutely draconian in its collection methods.
And finally, more money for the government is always pissed away, never spent wisely. In America's case, it'll go on tax cuts for the wealthy and the military.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
David, I lost a little bit of respect for you today. How can you be so partisan and blind? At best, Amanda is painfully naive and out of touch. She (and you) epitomises someone living in the liberal bubble, and she's why people with hardcore liberal values like me, as well as former feminists are ashamed to adopt either label any more.
We've all seen conference after conference destroyed by "liberals" who destroy loudspeakers, tear down posters, set off fire alarms, physically harass delegates and speakers, make so much noise that events cannot continue, and force colleges to cancel amid security concerns. And that's to say nothing of the physicality of Antifa and BLM. David, this is not merely the expression of free speech. Free speech uses ideas to combat ideas. These people and movements are not interested in any ideas that are not their own, and their own ideas are extremely toxic.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Well that was utterly pathetic David. For starters, "legal" is simply a judicially determined rule that has no bearing upon something's "rightness", nor upon the beliefs or values of the people upon whom it is applied. The Social Contract is a concept put forwards by Rousseau, which you butchered. My parents do not have the right to make legal decisions in my childhood that will contractually obligate me to ANYTHING except citizenship as an adult. Rousseau's social contract refers to the agreement of the governed to BE governed providing they receive reasonable value from that governance. Your version amounts to a South Park, redneckian version of "If you don't like it, you can git out," which is about the weakest possible argument that you could make, not least because there is NOWHERE on the planet that you could go to avoid being subject to the taxation of ANOTHER state. Your silly argument about simply not paying taxes is PRECISELY what anti-tax proponents mean when they talk about being forced to pay under threat of violence. It is LITERALLY coercion to obey a rule you had nothing to do with creating and cannot opt out of. As you yourself said, you have almost zero chance of eliminating taxation by lobbying or even standing for office.
The strongest argument in favour of taxes is simply that if you wish to avail yourself of the things that taxes pay for, then you need to contribute your fair share to receive those things. The strongest argument against taxes, is the astronomical misuse of those taxes on weapons, vanity projects, needless drug enforcement, despicable politicians and more.
Frankly, from a man that I respect and usually agree with, this was an embarrassingly poor refutation of the position of those who oppose taxation.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Diplomatic immunity is a nicety, not a place for law breakers to hide. When our police woman was sniped from the Libyan embassy, we should have taken the place by force immediately, or demanded they give up the killers.
As for your comments about holding the rich and powerful accountable, I completely get where you are coming from. That's the dichotomy though. There's no way that Assange is qualified or knows enough background info to know what info is safe to release, but on the other hand, the government does indeed need to be held accountable. Vigilantes make great theatre, but in real life it's a lot more complicated, and as soon as he started releasing Clinton's emails, the illusion that he was a good actor was shattered. He was just another person trying to influence the system. Arguably, he is greatly responsible for the election of the worst despot in the past 100 years of American history.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
People don't like conspiracy theories? Have you been living on Earth the past 20 years? ;-)
Hillary's health, Benghazi, the shape of the Earth, the moon landings, the holocaust, JFK killing, 911, whether Trump is seriously trying to win the election, America's relationship to Saudi Arabia, etc, etc. People LOVE conspiracy theories, and if Trump's campaign could put together something coherent about the Clinton deaths, you can be sure that they'll do so. After all, they have no shame claiming that the election is rigged.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ArvidProductions Everything you say sounds very nice but it's simply wrong to impose it upon people, especially if they have to pay for it. The only reason we live in societies is because it increases our convenience to do so. If you were my neighbour, I'd be pleasant; helpful even but then if you approached me and said "Excuse me, can you give me $3000 so that I can get a masters degree, potentially in some worthless subject", I'd laugh you out of the room! If you were ill, I'd share my meds. I'd even give you some money to help you recover, but even then there would be limits as there certainly would if out positions were reversed. I OWE you nothing. If I am nice it's because I want to be. Taxation is a form of theft. It's theft that we all agree to because we are forced to by law, and then we justify our decision not to simply not pay it by looking at what we get in return for the money. As long as people feel that the return is appropriate to the expenditure, AND the expenditure is largely on reasonable things, people continue to pay tax. When that ceases to be the case, they vote out the government in return for one that is more reasonable.
You seem to think that society is like a party that we all opt to attend. It's not. It's something that we are born into and for better or worse, we stay within because it's virtually impossible to opt out of.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If this was a court case, it would be decided on the balance of probability. Pakman has a several year long history of using EVERY conceivable opportunity, every trick, every incentive, every pressure sales tactic, every dubious technique to increase membership. Based upon his past record, there would be enough to suggest that this was just one more means of gaining greater patronage.
Yes, it 's entirely conceivable that he is only interested in the opinions of those who are willing to support him financially, but asking those who ALREADY support him, over the massive, massive majority who do not would be short-sighted in the extreme given that he wishes to grow his pool of patrons.
As for your silly win some lose some, I wasn't aware this was a school yard competition, but if you gain some small validation by erroneously claiming a victory, be my guest.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hopefully the police ready to arest him on the Whitehouse lawn, followed by lynching in the street, followed by life in prison for him, his family and cronies. Be great to see McConnell, Barr, Kavanaugh, Graham, Hannity, Ingram, Pirro, and Fucker Whoreson join them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"I meant it's quite literally too late, we have gone past the tipping point"
So you have 100% confidence in climatologists and scientists? Despite the fact that they have revised the age of the earth every 20 years for the past two centuries, they have vacillated between the belief in global warming and global dimming, have no idea about many fundamental mechanisms of our own planet, much less the solar system or universe, have recently been proven totally wrong on the role of dark matter in galaxy formation, frequently report "impossible" planets, stars, and weather systems on other planets, revise their predictions on the rate of global warming frequently, and have careers dependent upon climate change?
And no, I'm not a man made climate change denier. What I DO deny, are the conclusions that they reach. Our planet is too complex a system to be certain about anything on a global scale based merely upon a few degrees of temperature increase.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Christopher Kevin RasmussenThere should be NO expectation of an additional financial exchange beyond the price on the menu. NO other form of exchange has a ticket price, then says to you "We pay the staff so poorly that they depend upon your generosity to survive". If you are impressed by the service and want to show appreciation, then YOU should get to decide what that service is worth. It's not a negotiation.
Personally, I would say that asking upfront is completely silly. Now you don't even know if the service you receive merits a gratuity. In Britain, I believe the norm is 10%, and 20% in America, but I pay what I feel the service merits from zero to whatever. A charming, well informed waiter/waitress might receive as much as 25% on a good day, but given that you cannot even guarantee that tips go in the pocket of the server, again, I repeat, it's a pathetic system.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheCheese1988 It amazes me how an intelligent person as you clearly are, justifies theft and a sense of entitlement to other people's money. Let's unpack this. At its most basic level, taxation is designed to provide support for the infrastructure that enables society to function: roads, army, police, government, safety regulation, etc. It was NEVER intended as a form of wealth redistribution nor SHOULD it be. By what right does a poor person who has made bad life choices have any expectation to share in the income of those who earn more? Nobody CHOOSES to be born into the society that they live in. I believe it was Rousseau who coined the term "the social contract" the tacit agreement of the population to be governed by laws that they did not explicitly choose. The only way that ANYONE would voluntarily agree to that is if those laws are perceived to be both fair and necessary. On a fundamental level, providing social infrastructure is both fair AND necessary. Ignoring idiot libertarians who think that they can somehow pay only for what they use (somehow forgetting about foreign adversaries, immigration control, law and order, health and safety and a million other things that they cannot possibly pay for on a "by the use" basis.
Don't get me wrong, I think that healthcare IS a human right, and affordable tertiary education benefits society, but it is not the DUTY of the wealthy to benefit society. YOu say that "a person profiting from a country and its citizens gives a share of their wealth back" and by "a share", you actually mean a GREATER share as a percentage, but this is where you are thinking like an uber-lib. Society has no RIGHT to their money. Except for those who make their wealth from investing, the wealthy have already more than given back to society in terms of jobs, and services required to support their businesses. Take Amazon - your example. They employ 566,000 people worldwide. That's over half a million people who would possibly not even HAVE jobs were it not for Amazon. Again we can definitely talk about minimum wage but that's a different conversation. Then talk about all the other industries that benefit - the fuel industry that puts gasoline in all those worker's cars, the taxation levied upon the gas to deliver all those goods, the delivery drivers (not employed by Amazon), the packaging manufacturers, plus the manufacturers of all the things they sell. The ripples of income generation for society and the goverment is massive. So when you talk about the benefis Basos takes from society, he pays every step of the way for that benefit, and society would be far worse off without Basos than the other way around.
Now you have proposed that people who, through their own labour or that of family members before them, earn much more than the average, should simply have more of that income stolen from them. Why? Did they use more of society's resources to accumulate it? You say that being taxed on their earnings is "ergo fair". They ARE taxed on their earnings. If they earn 20 million and you earn 200k, if you are both taxed at a flat 20% THAT is fair.
You are absolutely spot on in assessing that the wealthy are able to use their wealth to exploit a plethora of tax avoidance schemes and I would argue that THIS is what needs addressing. In a sense, simply increasing the tax rate for ALL high earners is the same as a regressive tax for the poor in that it penalises ALL wealthy for the crimes of just a percentage of them. Take Jeff Basos or Elon Musk - a bigger pair of scumbags you could not hope to meet. Perhaps they pay their staff minimum wage and hide their money offshore. Then take Bernie Sanders. I assume that he is straight down the line with his taxes. Why should he pay a higher tax bracket because scum like Musk avoid their share?
The solution is not simply to raise taxation on ALL higher earners (I realise Sanders would never be in the same tax bracket as Basos). The solution is to ensure that the wealthy are not able to exploit loopholes that their wealth enabled them to have implemented in the first place. And the solution is to take money out of politics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1