Comments by "3namechangezalowd Evry90dayzlernmor" (@3namechangezalowdevry90day7) on "Forbes Breaking News" channel.

@butterfly597 "do do we"? Might want to fix that. The man's always been a sleaze. Cheated on all 3 of his wives. Audio of him bragging about being able to do "whatever he wants" with women, even "grab them by the pu$$y". Too bad he's white or he could play the race card and complain about a "high tech lynching" like Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain did!
1
Nobody should be above the law, not Trump, not Clinton, not celebrities. Or else there will be no trust in the legal system. Just because a politician has enemies doesn't mean all accusations are automatically fake. Or do you believe that public servants never commit crimes?
1
That's not the type of book that needs ro be banned. It sounds pretty clean.
1
Saving lives is the point. If you were a cop and you saw someone strangling a child, you'd be justified in tackling and cuffing them. You'd have no problem restricting what they can do with their body.
1
@@JJ-kh7ul Nobody should be above the law, not Trump, not Clinton, not celebrities. Or else there will be no trust in the legal system. Just because a politician has enemies doesn't mean all accusations are automatically fake. Or do you believe that public servants never commit crimes?
1
Who knows, it might actually be to someone's advantage to pay a little tax on their cap gains ( such as home equity) ahead of time, while they're young and in a low bracket, rather than getting taxed in a much higher bracket when they sell their starter home and have to take the profits all in one year! One thing's for sure, whatever laws are enacted, people will roll with the punches and exploit any loopholes in the tax codes that exist.
1
@MariselaR.da1daOnly Around 3:27 Bowser says "Chief Conti joined the police academy at 17 and rose through the ranks". That's what we were talking about.
1
He does better with a memorized stump speech where he can get applause for his athletic past than he does answering debate questions. How is having a mental problem "falling short of the grace of God"?
1
@ceresdog5362 Many of the staff are actually cynical gaytheists . "Excessive morality" is not a problem.
1
Would you believe a Democrat with Trump's track record? Cheated on all 3 of his wives. Audio of him bragging about being able to do "whatever he wants" with women, even "grab them by the pu$$y". Too bad he's white or he could play the race card and complain about a "high tech lynching" like Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain did!
1
@@JJ-kh7ul When someone accused of a crime refuses to take the stand, but then runs their mouth when they're NOT under oath, it just makes it look like that person's afraid to be cross-examined. Or to be charged with perjury (lying while under oath).
1
@@JJ-kh7ul "That is he side of the story"? Take some American English lessons! Also, whether or not someone's political opponent is incompetent at their job has NOTHING to do with whether that person is a sex offender or not. You're deflecting.
1
@@JJ-kh7ul Really? Trump "the only one calling out the trouble America is in"? Look at DeSantis, Abbott, or just about anybody else. Even Lori Lightfoot says there's an emergency because too many migrants are in Chicago. Politicians are hypocrites. They complain about their opponents doing the same stuff they're doing themselves. For example Hillary had documents on her server, Trump had them at Mar A Lago, Biden had them in the garage...
1
Women get to live in fear of pervs and psychos. That's not an advantage. There are plenty of male doctors who also kill babies for a living.
1
He's the disgrace. Trump's never been a moral conservative. Cheated on all 3 of his wives. Audio of him bragging about being able to do "whatever he wants" with women, even "grab them by the pu$$y". Too bad he's white or he could play the race card and complain about a "high tech lynching" like Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain did!
1
@JonahPleatherbooth if you have a van, you're not that homeless. Salvation Army weren't actually that religious in my experience.
1
@abcaabca6364 Sometimes, something's true some of the time but not all the time. Economics is an incredibly complex subject! If you give a yes/ no answer to a complex question, you conceal part of the truth. For example, let's say someone asked you if a person who needs money should take it from their 401k, yes or no. An answer of either "yes"or "no" is going to screw some people, because what's best depends on the individual's situation! Someone under 59 1/2 will be penalized, while an older person won't be and might want to spend from their 401k ( or pay taxes and convert the money to a Roth IRA) to avoid problems with Medicare eligibility and having to take required minimum distributions. The longer answer is often the more accurate answer.
1
@auskip07 It's not about " punishing" the wealthy, though. Governments take from those who HAVE because it's just not economically practical for a government to get money from those who don't have it. They'd just end up paying out more than they made to jail non-payers and in welfare ( plus administrator salaries) because their tax pushed more people under the poverty line. That's why we have a progressive bracket tax system. That being said, a wealth tax is probably going to be anticipated ( if it gets close to passing) and dodged by the ultra rich.
1
@braceyourselvesfortruth2492 I see what you're saying about the top bracket. Real estate is also an investment/ stock market hedge for a lot of Americans not in that top tax bracket. Paying a little tax (while in a lower bracket) as opposed to a huge tax ( when your cap gains from a sale put you in a higher bracket that year) would save you money, so I would consider that an investment. Plus, everybody in the top bracket didn't start out there. (For example, a medical student isn't making the household income of a cardiologist married to another cardiologist). The concern being expressed in the comment section is that the wealth tax, if implemented, is going to end up being spread gradually onto the middle class, since the IRS won't make the revenue it projects off the ultra wealthy ( due to their use of loopholes and tax havens).
1
@robertkubrick3738 I agree with what you're saying about the buying power of money, but I think it applies more to people paying off mortgages rather than investing, not to people potentially reducing their tax burden by paying over several years instead of in one high bracket lump sum. Unlike an non adjustable rate mortgage, the future tax rates can go up, which could easily cancel out any profits you'd have made by investing rather than pre-paying on your cap gains(if that were to become possible). Saving on taxes is like paying off high interest debt. It's a sure thing, unlike profit from investments. If we were going to higher percentages of tax on each bracket, (such as when the TCJA expires), people would definitely want to pre-pay. The rate of inflation could also fluctuate back down. Hyperinflation could happen, but it's not guaranteed to happen.
1
@ColonelFredPuntridge The cells in the heart would be alive until they died. What does this have to do with abortion? A fertilized ovum begins growing by cell division. Dead things do not grow by cell division. You could make the excuse that someone brain dead has heart and lung function, but is dead, but this doesn't apply to a fetus.
1
@armandoperez7108 That's inaccurate. We have no idea when self consciousness occurs and it's false that babies don't feel pain.
1
@drackoni-han13 From the time you were an embryo, you grew by cell division. Dead things such as pencils, do not grow by cell division.
1
@vicom134 Fetuses aren't "grown in vitro". An embryo or zygote is implanted in the mother and grows into a fetus.
1
@amiehulscher7156 Ma'am, that's just dumb. They know what the mother's heart beat sounds like by listening to it. They know what the "artifact" sounds from the equipment sound like because they use the equipment every day. An unborn baby's heart rate is more rapid than an adult human's. A baby's heart can also be visually observed to be beating using an ultrasound.
1
@ColonelFredPuntridge That's a weird argument because right to privacy only goes so far. You don't get to kill whoever as long as they're within the "jurisdiction" of the house you own. You don't even legally get absolute bodily autonomy. For example, you can be jailed for doing drugs or fined for not wearing your seatbelt.
1
@ColonelFredPuntridge So , if you don't want the fetus in you, why not deliver the baby? "Castle doctrine" doesn't exactly apply to a member of the family that you let in and who did you no harm.
1
@sanai2256 What debate? Is it a duck fetus? Is it an elephant fetus? No, if it's inside a human mother, it's a human fetus. That's a fact. A pro-abortion advocate will try to shift away from scientific fact to philosophical concepts such as "personhood".
1
@ColonelFredPuntridge So, wait until it's viable.
1
@ColonelFredPuntridge You're still trying to claim "castle doctrine"? Castle doctrine applies to a threatening intruder, not an innocent family member you invited in and who can't leave for medical reasons. If you're mentally unable to comprehend that sex results in offspring, you shouldn't legally be having sex.
1
@sanai2256 I'm saying facts matter to rational people. Whether something is alive or not is a fact. Some people are irrational but their opinion doesn't change facts.
1
@armandoperez7108 Being able to recognize yourself isn't the same as being aware you exist. Are you for allowing only the more humane abortions performed before the baby's nervous system has connected with the brain?
1
@armandoperez7108 Being able to recognize yourself in a mirror isn't self consciousness any more that IQ result is intelligence. It's a test that may vary in accuracy. For instance, if you had an elderly confused person, they might not recognize themselves in a mirror, but they're aware that they're a person with needs..
1
@Lilackitty417 You don't understand the discussion. I'm responding to this guy Puntridge who's arguing that BECAUSE you can kill someone in your house due to castle doctrine, therefore you can have an abortion due to his concept of "body doctrine". I'm telling him neither doctrine is absolute.
1
God-awful syntax. "GOD is the You"? Hoping this is a bot, or the school system's in even worse shape than we thought.
1
Sometimes, something's true some of the time but not all the time. Economics is an incredibly complex subject! If you give a yes/ no answer to a complex question, you conceal part of the truth. For example, let's say someone asked you if a person who needs money should take it from their 401k, yes or no. An answer of either "yes"or "no" is going to screw some people, because what's best depends on the individual's situation! Someone under 59 1/2 will be penalized, while an older person won't be and might want to spend from their 401k ( or pay taxes and convert the money to a Roth IRA) to avoid problems with Medicare eligibility and having to take required minimum distributions. The longer answer is often the more accurate answer.
1
Also, to be fair, "Why do y'all want to punish wealthy people?" is a loaded question. It's not about punishment, it's just that it's impossible to take from those that don't have! You can't take more money from the poor, because then you'd waste more money than you got jailing them for non- payment or you'd end up having to pay out more in food and housing aid (plus admin costs) because you just made the poor poorer. That's why we have a progressive tax code. Then the billionaires dodge by moving their HQs to offshore tax havens and the middle class gets screwed.
1
Cheap, cop-patrolled public parking lots with camping spaces.
1
@scottb4579 No. There needs to be cheap housing for the working poor. The government created homelessness when it got rid of slums and cheap rent. Don't waste the jail cells on people who can't afford rent!
1
 @thepigwillfly5869 So, you'd get more violent crime! Because the jail cells would be full of the poor and you'd have no place to "disincentivize" the criminals! GREAT PLAN!😂
1
@traviso7810 Well, DUH, robbery is illegal! But survival is the law of nature, which outweighs our man-made legal system. If there are no legal options, you would steal food/ shelter to survive as well.
1
Depends what books...
1
@chaosopher23 The normalization of degeneracy and underage "adult" activity in kids' books has ramped up quite a bit since the 80's. You sound blissfully ignorant.
1
@Ninjustin PRN is not a protected form of freedom of speech. It should not depict or be given to kids!
1
@Arltratlo Liberals censor like crazy as well! They're after Dr Seuss, Roald Dahl and many others.
1
@Xgerl Wake up, Wokie. Libs ban and alter books as well.
1
@Ninjustin Pern is not a protected form of freedom of speech. It should not depict or be given to kids!
1
But WHY? Trump's a disgrace. He makes Republicans who support him look like hypocrites when they rightfully complain about s€xual deviance in kids' books! He's never been a moral conservative. Cheated on all 3 of his wives. Audio of him bragging about being able to do "whatever he wants" with women, even "grab them by the pu$$y". Too bad he's white or he could play the race card and complain about a "high tech lynching" like Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain did!
1
Put income brackets in the flood insurance assistance so that it helps the poor people living in low-lying areas but not the priple with multiple investment properties.
1