Fuck its silent in here.......

[CBStew]

Every instance in human history where the government stepped in and took away peoples guns, its been genocide.

Nothing like a sweeping, overbroad, unsupported statement to kicks things off.

If you ever wonder why no one takes you seriously around here, it's at least in part because either an inability to reason logically or a simple lack of interest in dealing with actual facts (or maybe both) leads you to places that make no sense in a world of facts and people who reason logically.

And I feel like I can safely say that they sentence above is 100% plainly and categorically false as written. In fact, it's a pretty fucking ludicrous thing to write.

And its why Chicago on a regular basis has 50+ shootings in a weekend, the citizens aren't armed, so it's open season on them.

The majority of Chicago gun violence is gang-related. So most of it is not so much a matter of gun-toting urban youth targeting an unarmed populace as it is gun-toting gangbangers targeting other gun-toting gangbangers and shooting each other along with innocent bystanders.

Well its not like you offer up any evidence to the contrary. Maybe I over generalized with that statement, but taking away gun rights from populations has led to hundreds of millions of deaths in the last 100 years alone. That can not be denied, because the easiest way to control, and even exterminate people is to take away their right of self defense.

The Nazi's didn't enact gun control laws the Weimar Republic did to try and keep weapons out of Nazi's and Communist hands. But like human history has shown repeatedly it only serves to disarm the law abiding citizens, the criminals and the evil people will hold onto their weapons and use them against the disarmed people. The Nazi's used the existing law to target everyone but themselves, and then in 1938 expressly used gun control to prevent Jews from having weapons. We all know what happened to the Jews after that.

Stalin did much of the same thing but did it to his entire peasant class, 50 million or so died.

Mao would kidnap the richest people in his country, hold them for ransom. When the ransom was paid, and the person was returned they would kidnap them again and ask for their guns. This seemed like a hell of a deal, but it was a calculated to plan to disarm the public. 100+ million dead, maybe even more.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao all feared an uprising of their own people more than anything else. And the best way to dominate a country was to disarm its population. After that its pretty easy to kill as many people as you want.

Like i said the Sudan conflict is Genocide happening right now in the name of gun control. Take away peoples right of self-defense and human history has shown that the powerful will dominate the weak. Its happened over and over in human history. to deny it is simply absurd.

I am simply stating why Americans fight so hard to keep their gun rights. Whether you like it or not the founders of this nation knew damn well what human nature was like. The right to keep in bear arms is not only for self defense against criminals but self defense against your own government. And even our founding fathers had a healthy distrust of Federal Government and its actions. Its why their is so many checks and balances. One of those checks and balances is the 2nd Amendment.

Next you have to ask why was that written into our Constitution? Most of it derives from English history and the way they treated people and we didn't want that to happen in America.

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.

In order to remain free, you must have the ability to fight for it, if it becomes necessary.

You're a fucking piece of shit fear-mongerer.  Go fuck yourself.

Yes, we must have guns so we keep the likes of Hitler and Stalin out of our country!  Eat shit.

they didn't keep YOU out.

See?  Doesn't work so well, does it.  And I got in while Reagan was on the watch (although we did start the process during Carter, so never mind).

Whole damn neighborhood went to hell.

[Bort]

Every instance in human history where the government stepped in and took away peoples guns, its been genocide.

Nothing like a sweeping, overbroad, unsupported statement to kicks things off.

If you ever wonder why no one takes you seriously around here, it's at least in part because either an inability to reason logically or a simple lack of interest in dealing with actual facts (or maybe both) leads you to places that make no sense in a world of facts and people who reason logically.

And I feel like I can safely say that they sentence above is 100% plainly and categorically false as written. In fact, it's a pretty fucking ludicrous thing to write.

And its why Chicago on a regular basis has 50+ shootings in a weekend, the citizens aren't armed, so it's open season on them.

The majority of Chicago gun violence is gang-related. So most of it is not so much a matter of gun-toting urban youth targeting an unarmed populace as it is gun-toting gangbangers targeting other gun-toting gangbangers and shooting each other along with innocent bystanders.

Well its not like you offer up any evidence to the contrary. Maybe I over generalized with that statement, but taking away gun rights from populations has led to hundreds of millions of deaths in the last 100 years alone. That can not be denied, because the easiest way to control, and even exterminate people is to take away their right of self defense.

The Nazi's didn't enact gun control laws the Weimar Republic did to try and keep weapons out of Nazi's and Communist hands. But like human history has shown repeatedly it only serves to disarm the law abiding citizens, the criminals and the evil people will hold onto their weapons and use them against the disarmed people. The Nazi's used the existing law to target everyone but themselves, and then in 1938 expressly used gun control to prevent Jews from having weapons. We all know what happened to the Jews after that.

Stalin did much of the same thing but did it to his entire peasant class, 50 million or so died.

Mao would kidnap the richest people in his country, hold them for ransom. When the ransom was paid, and the person was returned they would kidnap them again and ask for their guns. This seemed like a hell of a deal, but it was a calculated to plan to disarm the public. 100+ million dead, maybe even more.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao all feared an uprising of their own people more than anything else. And the best way to dominate a country was to disarm its population. After that its pretty easy to kill as many people as you want.

Like i said the Sudan conflict is Genocide happening right now in the name of gun control. Take away peoples right of self-defense and human history has shown that the powerful will dominate the weak. Its happened over and over in human history. to deny it is simply absurd.

I am simply stating why Americans fight so hard to keep their gun rights. Whether you like it or not the founders of this nation knew damn well what human nature was like. The right to keep in bear arms is not only for self defense against criminals but self defense against your own government. And even our founding fathers had a healthy distrust of Federal Government and its actions. Its why their is so many checks and balances. One of those checks and balances is the 2nd Amendment.

Next you have to ask why was that written into our Constitution? Most of it derives from English history and the way they treated people and we didn't want that to happen in America.

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.

In order to remain free, you must have the ability to fight for it, if it becomes necessary.

You're a fucking piece of shit fear-mongerer.  Go fuck yourself.

Yes, we must have guns so we keep the likes of Hitler and Stalin out of our country!  Eat shit.

they didn't keep YOU out.

See?  Doesn't work so well, does it.  And I got in while Reagan was on the watch (although we did start the process during Carter, so never mind).

Whole damn neighborhood went to hell.

[fork]The Terror of Tiny Town?[/fork]

[Wheezer]

Mao would kidnap the richest people in his country, hold them for ransom. When the ransom was paid, and the person was returned they would kidnap them again and ask for their guns.

Not only that, the fucker brought back the discredited practice of acupuncture as part of the Cultural Revolution.

[Bort]

Mao would kidnap the richest people in his country, hold them for ransom. When the ransom was paid, and the person was returned they would kidnap them again and ask for their guns.

Not only that, the fucker brought back the discredited practice of acupuncture as part of the Cultural Revolution.

Seems weird that he wouldn't just take the guns in the first place. Save a step.

[Slaky]

Mao would kidnap the richest people in his country, hold them for ransom. When the ransom was paid, and the person was returned they would kidnap them again and ask for their guns.

Not only that, the fucker brought back the discredited practice of acupuncture as part of the Cultural Revolution.

Seems weird that he wouldn't just take the guns in the first place. Save a step.

Mao would fuck with your MIND, man. He was deep.

[Bort]

Mao would kidnap the richest people in his country, hold them for ransom. When the ransom was paid, and the person was returned they would kidnap them again and ask for their guns.

Not only that, the fucker brought back the discredited practice of acupuncture as part of the Cultural Revolution.

Seems weird that he wouldn't just take the guns in the first place. Save a step.

Mao would fuck with your MIND, man. He was deep.

No wonder Obama idolizes him.

[Yeti]

Has this portion of the healthcare bill been discussed?

While it may seem like an insignificant part of the bill or tax code in general, this is quite the overhaul. Now, the estimates say this will increase tax revenues around $345 billion due to unreported incomes. That's good. I may advocate lower taxes, but I'm not a fan of tax cheats (YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE CREEKOLDFUCK). So, this will be good in that respect. However, this is going to be an utter nightmare for small businesses. The way it used to work is that you only issued a 1099 to any non-corporation for services rendered. Now, it's anyone you pay over $600 to over the course of the year, regardless of what was purchased, goods or services. So, this is going to mean that small businesses are going to have to collect FEINs and all appropriate tax information (mainly addresses, because if you purchase something from Best Buy, you're sending the 1099 to the corporate office in Minnesota, not the store in Chicago). Once all this is done, it will go smoothly, but the transition is going to blow ass. I'm absolutely dreading 2012 and January 2013 as one of the largest tasks of my job is to prepare the 1099s for my clients. FML. Thanks Obamadong. Bleh

[Oleg]

Has this portion of the healthcare bill been discussed?

While it may seem like an insignificant part of the bill or tax code in general, this is quite the overhaul. Now, the estimates say this will increase tax revenues around $345 billion due to unreported incomes. That's good. I may advocate lower taxes, but I'm not a fan of tax cheats (YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE CREEKOLDFUCK). So, this will be good in that respect. However, this is going to be an utter nightmare for small businesses. The way it used to work is that you only issued a 1099 to any non-corporation for services rendered. Now, it's anyone you pay over $600 to over the course of the year, regardless of what was purchased, goods or services. So, this is going to mean that small businesses are going to have to collect FEINs and all appropriate tax information (mainly addresses, because if you purchase something from Best Buy, you're sending the 1099 to the corporate office in Minnesota, not the store in Chicago). Once all this is done, it will go smoothly, but the transition is going to blow ass. I'm absolutely dreading 2012 and January 2013 as one of the largest tasks of my job is to prepare the 1099s for my clients. FML. Thanks Obamadong. Bleh

Question...

If you're buying more than $600 from someone or some entity, don't you already have their address so you could, you know, pay them?  I mean, just how much of an effect can this possibly have, especially if you're a small business and you're writing off those expenses anyway?

[Yeti]

Has this portion of the healthcare bill been discussed?

While it may seem like an insignificant part of the bill or tax code in general, this is quite the overhaul. Now, the estimates say this will increase tax revenues around $345 billion due to unreported incomes. That's good. I may advocate lower taxes, but I'm not a fan of tax cheats (YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE CREEKOLDFUCK). So, this will be good in that respect. However, this is going to be an utter nightmare for small businesses. The way it used to work is that you only issued a 1099 to any non-corporation for services rendered. Now, it's anyone you pay over $600 to over the course of the year, regardless of what was purchased, goods or services. So, this is going to mean that small businesses are going to have to collect FEINs and all appropriate tax information (mainly addresses, because if you purchase something from Best Buy, you're sending the 1099 to the corporate office in Minnesota, not the store in Chicago). Once all this is done, it will go smoothly, but the transition is going to blow ass. I'm absolutely dreading 2012 and January 2013 as one of the largest tasks of my job is to prepare the 1099s for my clients. FML. Thanks Obamadong. Bleh

Question...

If you're buying more than $600 from someone or some entity, don't you already have their address so you could, you know, pay them?  I mean, just how much of an effect can this possibly have, especially if you're a small business and you're writing off those expenses anyway?

Well, kind of. But often you don't actually mail the check to the company's actual address. For instance, if you buy something from Apple you may send it to a local store or a certain billing address. That's not likely the address the IRS has for them, which needs to be correct for 1099 reporting, or you'll get a nice notice from them. Enough of those and your company will be subject to some hefty fines

As far as writing off the expenses, this isn't really something that's going to affect the expense portion of small businesses. You and I both know small businesses are taking all the expenses they can. The IRS is just trying to make sure small businesses that are incorporated (since individuals and partnerships are subject to 1099s already, along with law firms) are reporting all their income. My point is that this is a pretty big overhaul in the way things are done tax-wise and it just doesn't seem like it's been noticed. There is going to be an inordinate amount of increased paperwork. I estimate that for my normal clients (non-realty holding companies), I issue around 15-20 1099s per client each year. That number is sure to go up to at least 50-60. Now, when you factor in how many companies there are out there issuing 1099s, it's going to be a shitload of paperwork.

I don't want you to think I think this is going to ruin small businesses (although there will be some who may flop or struggle because they were cheating taxes anyway). It is just going to have a decent impact on them in regards to the additional paperwork they have to deal with. Seems to me that it will be quite the pain in the ass and maybe it should have gotten more attention. If businesses were smart, they'd start working on collecting all the information now, since trying to collect it in December 2012 and January 2013 will be sure to suck. Unfortunately, there are a lot of dumbass and procrastinating business owners out there.

[Quality Start Machine]

I'm no expert, but I'm guessing we could balance the budget by stripping religious organizations of their tax-exempt status if they make political endorsements.

[CBStew]

I'm no expert, but I'm guessing we could balance the budget by stripping religious organizations of their tax-exempt status if they make political endorsements.

Can you drop the photo of you flexing and bring back the masked "F" lady as your avatar?

[Oleg]

I'm no expert, but I'm guessing we could balance the budget by stripping religious organizations of their tax-exempt status if they make political endorsements.

Let's get serious about it'd.

[Bort]

I'm no expert, but I'm guessing we could balance the budget by stripping religious organizations of their tax-exempt status if they make political endorsements.

Let's get serious about it'd.

:lowfive:

[Wheezer]

I'm no expert, but I'm guessing we could balance the budget by stripping religious organizations of their tax-exempt status if they make political endorsements.

Let's get serious about it'd.

:lowfive:

Only the Catholic Church stands in the way of the New World Order, you Marxist.

[Bort]

I'm no expert, but I'm guessing we could balance the budget by stripping religious organizations of their tax-exempt status if they make political endorsements.

Let's get serious about it'd.

:lowfive:

Only the Catholic Church stands in the way of the New World Order, you Marxist.

Bakuninite, sir.