WHAT???? You mean? Are you telling me? What you are saying is?
That corporations don’t pay taxes? NO WAY!
And most foreign companies that do business in the United States aren’t paying corporate taxes.
The study says about two-thirds of American corporations paid zero income taxes to Uncle Sam between 1998 and 2005.
Democracy American style baby. Socializing loss Privatizing gain.
This is bad, and I’ve always opposed corporate welfare, but:
“The report doesn’t name names, and the congressional agency didn’t investigate why corporations aren’t paying corporate or income taxes. But the GAO said it could be because of operating losses and tax credits.”
Operating losses mean the company lost money, right? Should they pay taxes if they lose money?
Dontcha get it yet? Taxes are bad.
It is the patriotic duty of every American company to get out of paying them and let middle class suckers take care of that. Just ask Tom Carper.
I purely love paying for the infrastructure that makes it possible for Wal-Mart to rake in the billions — and not have to pay taxes. And sending part of those billions to China. It’s just swell by me.
Operating losses mean the company lost money, right? Should they pay taxes if they lose money?
what a shocker dave is playing dumb again….
It’s not a secret that companies have won the right to be able to write off losses from years prior even when they have made a profit the next year.
Several companies I believe the auto industry for one, has been allowed to write off losses from several years ago in order to avoid paying taxes on the profits they take in now.
Operating losses mean the company lost money, right? Should they pay taxes if they lose money?
As if companies don’t move money around in their General Ledgers.
Your distrust of government is much less than my distrust of Corporate America.
I seriously doubt it’s even mainly because of operating losses, but for the few that didn’t pay for this reason, Dave’s question is a valid one.
Unfortunately with the level of detail that the report seems to contain, it’s not easy to figure out what the real offense is or who the offenders are, only that there very likely is an offense.
This really seems like a poorly executed effort by the GAO.
Think of it this way, showing an operating loss is like how we used to plant victory gardens and have scrap metal drives during WWII.
Moving money around on General Ledgers is patriotic. Why do you hate America?
So two thirds of America’s corporations have operating losses?
C’mon.
Tax credits (read: taxpayer subsidies) is more like the reason why these corporations don’t pay taxes.
I can’t find the damn article. But either this year or last year Bush signed into law a nice little nugget that allowed companies to use their losses several years later to avoid paying taxes.
Used to be you had to write off the losses in a certain time frame. Well, magically that time period got extended so companies could spread their losses out over a longer period of time for tax purposes.
Now they can sit on them and wait…hence why this has come to be.
Sorry, I’ll go with distrust of government over distrust of Corporations anyday.
Especially when the GAO lets stuff like this get into an official published report. Government ineptitude at it’s best.
http://armedcanadian.blogspot.com/2008/06/2995-worth-of-ineptitude.html
The problem is this: when you see “corporations,” you think of Wal Mart.
I think of CoastalSussex.com.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see 2/3 of American corporations have operating losses. It’s tough out here.
great example of just one way a loss is created and will be a gain:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_13/b3826058.htm
So much focus on tax savings, critics argue, results in inefficient uses of capital and resources, and some strange business decisions. Compaq Computer Corp., for example, purchased 10 million American depositary receipts of Royal Dutch Petroleum (RD ) in 1992 and resold them minutes later at a loss. Its brief ownership, however, earned Compaq a $22.5 million dividend and a foreign tax credit for the $3.4 million in taxes it paid on that dividend to the Netherlands. It used the $20.6 million loss from selling the stock to offset another gain, a benefit worth $7 million — thus pulling off a hat trick of tax benefits. After years of litigation, in 2001 an appeals court ruled against the IRS, determining that Compaq acted within the law.
It’s tough out here.
Yet, you keep voting republican and think that the GOP is the savior to small businesses
Also, if you look deep enough, I imagine you’ll find that large corporations are evading more at the state level than they are at the federal level.
Certainly better for businesses than Democrats, especially in their current, far-left leaning state.
The problem is this: when you see “corporations,” you think of Wal Mart
Or you could say, the problem is corporations like wal-mart give the word corporations a bad name.
Also, if you look deep enough, I imagine you’ll find that large corporations are evading more at the state level than they are at the federal level.
Dupont, AZ, Bank of America, Chase,
NO? really?
People aren’t the answer just because of their political party registration.
The answer lies in people who believe the combination of efficient government and reasonable taxation that creates the best value should always be the goal of government and who believe that a combination of freedom and evenly enforced regulation that allows honorable actors to operate in a free market is the best way to sustainable economic growth.
The answer lies in people who believe the combination of efficient government and reasonable taxation that creates the best value should always be the goal of government and who believe that a combination of freedom and evenly enforced regulation that allows honorable actors to operate in a free market is the best way to sustainable economic growth.
this would be one of those times where your actions speak MUCH louder than your words.
what I just read was….blah, blah, blah I still will vote republican…blah, blah, blah I can’t believe I write this crap and actually believe it anymore…blah, blah, blah…vote Copeland and Lee
your comedy stylings are impressive.
Democracy American style baby. Socializing loss Privatizing gain.
*
WORD, our 21st Century.
Please explain how you will tax corporations and not have them pass that cost on to consumers.
Ban supply & demand. Liberals seem to think that approach works for a host of other “inconvenient” problems.
FSP wrote: I wouldn’t be surprised to see 2/3 of American corporations have operating losses. It’s tough out here.
Isn’t that the very definition of capitalism? Only the strong and profitable will survive.
Unless you’re a “victim” of the mortgate mess, then it’s the governments job to bail you out…..
Nothing is more laughable that a small-town shopkeeper who votes lockstep Republican beacuse he thinks it helps his business.
Economically and politically speaking, a small business has much more in common with a middle-class family than with a large corporation.
Corporations SHOULD pass the cost of the tax on to consumers. Why is this a bad thing? All of a corporation’s money comes from consumers. If they can’t make money under those terms, then too bad, let someone else try.
nemski feedin the troll
Ban supply & demand. Liberals seem to think that approach works for a host of other “inconvenient” problems.
I’m assuming you’re talking about gasoline prices which the oil industry has admitted have nothing to do with supply and demand.
Sorry, DBT, it’s like shooting carrier pigeons.
Anon – Are you forgetting that increased taxation is also a cost, and thus gets passed on to consumers. Why should consumers be punished because government decides corporations need to be taxed more heavily?
DV — You just took a whiz on my core beliefs about government…
…but you’re still not hot. At least not Pandora hot.
Consumers aren’t being punished. They are receiving services paid for by those taxes. Their kids are being educated and their old folks are being cared for. Doesn’t sound like “punishment” to me.
Not to mention, unlike other taxes consumers can change their shopping habits to avoid some of the cost.
anon, you’re getting into a battle of wits with a cereal box.
“Not to mention, unlike other taxes consumers can change their shopping habits to avoid some of the cost.”
Isn’t that what corporations are doing? Changing their habits to avoid some of the cost?
“anon, you’re getting into a battle of wits with a cereal box.”
Says the guy who won’t even attempt to defend his arguments.
and FSP, that’s exactly what corps do. Try to avoid costs, in this case in the form of taxes (which ARE a cost and ARE passed onto consumers.)
If the State of Delaware increased cigarette taxes by 200% would the price of cigs go up or down?
If the State of Delaware increased cigarette taxes by 200% would the price of cigs go up or down?
I dunno, let’s try it and see.
I’m trying to wrap my brain around this one…if taxes are passed on to me the consumer yet 2/3 of corporations don’t pay taxes
what am I missing here?
If 2/3 of American businesses are struggling, then I guess you’ll join us in asking BushCo to stop trying to convince us all that the economy is strong.
And those taxes that corporations are supposed to pay (subsidy or no) are already built into the price of the products. They use those subsidies to try to show a profit. The famous case of Cabela’s sucking up $1.37 in tax subsidies for every dollar it takes in is instructive. Certainly not every firm gets this kind of largess, but with the massive tax credit regime it is a good bet that most have access to some subsidies.
I love when trolls try to jump onto legitimate people’s opinions and comments to try to get into the action. (begrudgingly called FSP legitmate)
“If the State of Delaware increased cigarette taxes by 200% would the price of cigs go up or down?
I dunno, let’s try it and see.”
It was a rhetorical question that invalidated your position on taxes.
“I love when trolls try to jump onto legitimate people’s opinions and comments to try to get into the action. (begrudgingly called FSP legitmate)”
You mean instead of posting illegitimate comments like this that add nothing whatsoever to the discussion.
I discussed cigarette tax to prove a point. It’s a basic fact of economics. You introduce a new cost (I.E. tax) on the producers of a product and they will attempt to offset that cost by passing it onto the consumer.
Cigarettes are different from other commodities. Price behaves differently.
I love the arguement that taxes will be passed onto the consumer like ohhhh boogity boogity
then at the same time we have this thing called inelastic and elastic.
but things like simple economics don’t get in the way of things like fear.
Brilliant! Do away with our tax system! We become unable to fund our standing volunteer military. Let corporations pay the 27K a month to mercenary BlackWater types to engage in immoral wars. But then, which under which flag will they seek shelter?The GE banner or Dubai’s?
The story you linked to buried the lede:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080812/ap_on_bi_ge/corporations_income_tax
“An outside tax expert, Chris Edwards of the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, said increasing numbers of limited liability corporations and so-called “S” corporations pay taxes under individual tax codes.
“Half of all business income in the United States now ends up going through the individual tax code,” Edwards said.”
That’d be guys like me and my crappy little one man LLC.
Lastly; I frequently hear the mantra “corporations must pay their fare share.” Can someone please define “fair”? What is the maximum level of taxation that is “fair”.
You are ignoring the tax breaks you get under the one-man LLC. Drive a leased car? Are you posting this on your tax exempt business computer and ISP?
If your one man corp is making so much money that you are paying significant tax, you need to hire someone else and expand.
“Can someone please define “fair”? What is the maximum level of taxation that is “fair”.”
“Fair” is whatever the government says it is, in order to fund whatever entitlement programs they deem “necessary.”
And since we don’t have the GAO report yet, we don’t know yet how they counted their 2/3 yet, right?
Besides I wonder if they would include most of the LLCs in the count, since (most) by definition would not be subject to corporate taxes.
“Cigarettes are different from other commodities. Price behaves differently.”
Yes, demand for cigs is somewhat inelastic. That said, a large tax increase on them WILL raise the price a consumer pays for them.
“fair”? What is the maximum level of taxation that is “fair”.
duffy, I’ll settle for paying SOMETHING first, then we can get to defining fair.
“Fair” is whatever the government says it is, in order to fund whatever entitlement programs they deem “necessary.”
Well, that is what the “Constitution” says.
Whoa!…..are you seriously insinuating that federal entitlement programs fall under the “neccesary and proper” clause and are thus Constitutional?
Or are you referring to one of the biggest travesties in Constitutional jurisprudence, the “Commerce Clause?”
And why put Constitution in quotes? Oh, I forgot, you folks don’t like certain parts of that document.
I like it all, whereas you just got finished telling us which parts you don’t like.
Irony is always best when the perpetrator doesn’t even realize it.
huh?
Jeez, at least a cereal box is required to have some accurate information on it.
“I like it all, whereas you just got finished telling us which parts you don’t like.
Irony is always best when the perpetrator doesn’t even realize it.”
I was discussing a part which, due to years of jurisprudence, has greatly expanded the powers of the federal government. Surely that’s a part of the Constitution you don’t like?
You folks on the other hand dislike parts of the Bill of Rights. You like the 10th when it comes to localities having the “right” (barf) to enact strict gun laws, yet when it comes to things like relaxed State CCW laws and your desire to ban “assault weapons” Federalism and the 1oth no longer matter. (certainly true of Obama) Apparently that Amendment is only relevant in the context of whether it supports a particular agenda. Otherwise, to hell with it.
Anon: “You are ignoring the tax breaks you get under the one-man LLC. Drive a leased car? Are you posting this on your tax exempt business computer and ISP?”
No, no and no. Silly me paid for my car in cash. I don’t own a business computer and cannot and do not claim my ISP as a business expense. I don’t use the latter enough for business to qualify.
“If your one man corp is making so much money that you are paying significant tax, you need to hire someone else and expand.”
It’s not a question of whether or not I’m paying “significant” tax (whatever level that is defined as) but whether or not I’m paying any tax as the article would have you believe. I do. I’m just taxed at normal 1040 rates and not corporate rates.
DV:
“duffy, I’ll settle for paying SOMETHING first, then we can get to defining fair.”
Nice sidestep. You will not define fair because you cannot. You don’t want to limit yourself to the amount of money the government is allowed to take from whichever business is currently unpopular with liberals.
Duffy – they intentionally lack definitions. Hell, we had DBB/DV saying earlier that he’s not “anti-gun” just “pro-gun law” for godsakes.
I didn’t do it as a sidestep intentionally, duffy. I can tell you what isn’t fair that = 0
I can define fair as at least what the average rate for a middle class tax payer is. I’m not sure if that would wash with you.
So let’s say 20% is what I would like to see at a minimum. But, like I said they aren’t even paying 1% and I know that isn’t fair.
ahhhh, now I see. if I want laws it means I am anti something. got it. good to know.
I want the speed limit to be 85 therefore I am anti speeding.
I want strip clubs to be 500 yards from a school. Therefore I am anti strip clubs
I don’t want smoking in bars. Now I am anti smoking
We have laws against criminal actions performed with guns (or other objects) so tell me again why we need gun laws?
From my perspective I’ve always distrusted corporations and government about equally. I have a tremendous problem providing corporations (ala the 1880s interpretation of the 14th Amendment) the due process rights of an individual, and the ironclad rules on limited personal liability are invidious.
I also agree (with some exception for legitimate depreciation in the same fashion I can do it) that losses need to be limited to the fiscal year in which they were incurred.
I would even go to the point of saying many classes of distribution should be required (as they are required of me as an individual) to be taken from post-tax profits not pre-tax (unsure of precise terminology here).
Finally, I have said many times that a basic condition of corporate tax breaks, government subsidies, or outright corporate welfare is that if you take the money you open yourself to greater government regulation. Take the money=accept the limitations. Otherwise make it on your own.
On the other hand, there’s pretty good historical evidence that windfall profits taxes don’t achieve the desired ends: they neither cause prices to go down or corporations to act more ethically. It doesn’t matter whether I think they’re a good idea if they don’t actually work.
People who criticize one-person LLCs usually don’t have any idea what they are are talking about. I make my second income consulting. When I get paid the contractor never takes taxes out–any form. The LLC format allows me to actually regularize how I pay my taxes; the IRS literally forces me into that format, because if I simply report my 1099 income on a Form 1040, I will not only get hit with regular taxes, but they will also hit me for (last year) upwards of $8,000 in self-employment taxes.
My business is individual consulting; I sell my own expertise. It is idiotic to suggest that I need to hire someone else and expand.
DV:
“I didn’t do it as a sidestep intentionally, duffy. I can tell you what isn’t fair that = 0”
Switch to consumption taxes. No escaping those and they’re more fair.
“I can define fair as at least what the average rate for a middle class tax payer is. I’m not sure if that would wash with you.
So let’s say 20% is what I would like to see at a minimum. But, like I said they aren’t even paying 1% and I know that isn’t fair.”
Well, that’s at least some sort of definition. Why not a flat rate for everyone?
“ahhhh, now I see. if I want laws it means I am anti something. got it. good to know.
I want the speed limit to be 85 therefore I am anti speeding.
I want strip clubs to be 500 yards from a school. Therefore I am anti strip clubs
I don’t want smoking in bars. Now I am anti smoking”
So someone who doesn’t want abortions is then not anti-abortion?
Someone who doesn’t want illegal immigrants is not anti-immigrant
Someone who doesn’t want unions is not anti-union.
Be careful you’re undermining much of the rhetoric around here.
If you are “pro-law” meaning you support laws which directly seek to infringe upon my right to keep & bear arms, then yes, you are “anti-gun.”
Mikie the way you keep injecting guns into the discussion and your apparent love of them-makes me think that you are dissatisfied with the size of your penis.Like most gun lovers are.
duffy if I want gun laws that doesn’t mean I am against guns was my point.
TT – I’m sorry you have penile fantasies.
And as usual. I have facts and logic……you have stupid insults and penis jokes. Typical.
DBB – can you simultaneously be “pro-blacks” while supporting laws which discriminate against blacks? I think most people would see the obvious inconsistency in your argument.
mike
I think DBB is making a legitimate point that clarifies his thinking. It is possible to be pro-gun and pro-gun regulation. If a person believes, as DBB and LG do that items that can be misused should be regulated for the public good, then they would consider themselves “pro-gun” if they wanted gun ownership with state regulation rather than confiscation ala Great Britain.
I don’t agree with this perspective (as I have written before in other places) but it is a legitimate argument, and it needs to be dealt with as such before we can have other conversations.
Steve – I agree, I think I’ve just gotten bogged down somewhat with DBB’s blatant ignorance, and yes stupidity on the subject.
I don’t know any gun owner, myself included who believes there should be NO regulation of weapons. Where the problem occurs is that one side is simply fighting to retain their rights in the face of constant assault while anti-gun groups seek to effectively eliminate personal ownership of guns.
I understand that DBB and others may not agree with such an assessment, but I’ve yet to see any gun control group (Brady, VPC etc.) say that all they want is “reasonable regulation” They’ve never seen a gun law or proposed gun law that was too egrigious an infringement upon our rights. Even complete bans are not “infringements” to these folks.
If there was truly any evidence that the anti-rights side really cared about public safety AND respecting 2nd Amendment rights I think we could come to an understanding. Rather than respect we are shown outright contempt, particularly by people like Senator Obama.
The “reasonable restrictions” we need are already in place and most people, including the NRA have conceded that these restrictions are acceptable. Age restrictions, barring the mentally ill, domestic abusers, violent felons from buying guns legally. The basic purchase level restrictions we have here in Delaware are more than adequate, yet one side never stops pushing for even more draconian restrictions.
The NRA doesn’t want to arm everyone. they never have. They just want the rest of America to stop being punished for actions out of their control. The other side however DOES want to disarm everyone, under the guise of going after criminals and “public safety.” The progression of gun control efforts (when unopposed) in other countries shows this to be the case time and time again.
Senator Obama for example has expressly supported laws that would disarm me while I travel and prevent me, and most of America, from buying guns (I.E. federal law banning CCW nationwide and a ban on gun shops within 5 miles of a parks and schools)
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_02_17-2008_02_23.shtml#1203389334
http://blog.ryjones.org/2008/02/23/obama-exclusion-zone-king-county/
Even the most absolutist 2nd Amendment supporter doesn’t advocate we all be able to walk around with SAM’s & RPG’s or own nuclear weapons. This doesn’t stop fearmongerers from claiming this is what we want.
I would be more than happy if the anti-rights side were willing to stop their perpetual attack on our rights and concede to treating the 2nd in much the same way we do the 1st.
It’s really a matter of who you’re dealing with. Until Heller gun-control groups not only worked to infringe upon rights, they advanced the assinine “collective rights ” theory and denied we had any 2nd Amendment rights whatsoever.
Good post Mike W. I have some issues, but good post over all.
Thank you. I’d like to hear where you disagree and why, if it can be done in a civil manner.
And just so we have an idea of what “reasonable regulation” looks like to anti-gun folks I recommend reading the 1994 Brady Bill II. Merely owning 1000 rds. of ammunition would have required an “arsenal license” at the cost of $100 yr. Read the whole thing. It would have effectively eliminated civilian gun ownership in this country had it passed.
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/brady2.html
I don’t know any gun owner, myself included who believes there should be NO regulation of weapons.
Yes…! We win. Game over. Thanks for playing.
This slip up is just the opening I’ve been waiting for in order to make all guns, even bb guns a relic of our savage history.
You win? How can you win without presenting an argument?
And it’s not a slip-up. It’s a logical conclusion to gun control efforts. What has gun control lead to in the UK? Outright bans & confiscation, then the same idiocy with other weapons. In Canada? same thing. D.C.? Again, outright bans, the 2A declared null & void. Illinois? Again, gun control, left unopposed has resulted in outright denial of rights. Keep AND Bear? Obama’s home state has greatly curtained the 1st part of that and outright gutted the 2nd part.
Gun bannners continually assault the rights of citizens, keep pushing for more laws, and redefine “reasonable restrictions” until the right, for all practical purposes, cannot be exercized. We would never allow politicians to eviscerate the 1st Amendment in such a manner, so why enthusiastically throw the 2nd Amendment under the bus?
I should also point out that what I’ve said above isn’t just the jaded opinion of a “gun nut” Can anyone honestly tell me the goal of the “Brady II” legislation is public safety?
The goal is to keep guns out of “the wrong hands.” The problem is that anyone who’s not an agent of the State is “the wrong hands.”
In 1976 Pete Shields, chairman of Handgun Control Inc. (which later became The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence) said this,
“The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition–expect for the police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors–totally illegal.”
In other words, they want to ban guns, and we are all “the wrong hands.”
Not to mention of course that the arbitrary licensing of a Constitutional Right makes it not a right but a privilege.
See Murdock v. Pennsylvania
http://www.constitution.org/ussc/319-105a.htm
“A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution.”
We’ll have to ignore the Court’s comment about the Constitution “granting” rights, since it does not, it merely codifies pre-existing rights.
I don’t know any gun owner, myself included who believes there should be NO regulation of weapons.
and in your infentile zest to label me anti gun b/c gasp I am liberal you blocked out that which I was exactly trying to say. Yet, because I don’t own a gun and want gun laws you call me anti gun.
You can’t find 1 instance of me saying ban all guns mike. Not one. YET you made this leap because you are an alarmist. You over reacted and I have sat here over the past 3 weeks dealing with your ignorance.
I have even gone so far as to define myself which isn’t good enough for you. You still choose to define me inspite of me telling you my exact position.
hence why you are a troll. hence why you are derided, hence why you get no love. B/C you don’t listen.
you want a gun fine. You want 2 guns fine. I say you can’t have certain guns and I say you can’t have 1000 of them.
stop being so juvenille and say you are sorry for labeling me anti gun when in one sentence you completely contradicted what you consider to be anti-gun.
“I say you can’t have certain guns and I say you can’t have 1000 of them. ”
And that alone makes you legitimately anti-gun. What right do you have to say I can’t have a certain gun, particularly when you are ignorant on the subject?
Do you support banning “assault weapons?” (ala Biden, Obama, Castle etc.) Do you have any clue what an “assault weapon” is or what such AWB’s actually ban? You might be interested to know that the most popular civilian rifle in the country, the AR-15 (like the one that church raffled off) is classified as an “assault weapon” by anti-gun folks.
Should we ban “assault speech” and entrust the politicians who wish to do so with creating an amorphous definition of “assault speech?” That’s what happens with “assault weapons.” There is no such thing. It’s a politically created term made up by anti-gun politicians.
And that alone makes you legitimately anti-gun. What right do you have to say I can’t have a certain gun
so it is a black or white issue? If I don’t want laws I’m pro gun if I want ONE, just one, teeny weeny, itsy-bitsy widdle law. Then I am anti gun? is that what you are saying?
Even Fig Newton up there agreed with my point that it doesn’t make me wrong. So you are saying Steve is wrong too?
some forms of speech are restricted Mike. I am ok with that. I am not anti free speech though. Everything has limits where as you say that limiting something makes me anti
and
once
again
you
are
wrong
Those restrictions on Free Speech are based on their direct harm to others. There are consequences for engaging in such speech, just as there are consequences for misuse of ones rights under the 2nd Amendment.
The broad a priori restrictions imposed on me by gun control have no 1st Amendment equivalent.
The problem with gun control and the entire anti self-defense mentality can be summarized by this, from the petri-dish of contemporary liberalism that is the UK.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7554912.stm
awww, don’t want to answer the question mikey?
so it is a black or white issue? If I don’t want laws I’m pro gun if I want ONE, just one, teeny weeny, itsy-bitsy widdle law. Then I am anti gun? is that what you are saying?
Yes. If you want to ban “assault weapons” that means you want to ban an entire class of “arms” that is constantly expanded because the term has no true definition.
An assault weapon is whatever an anti-gun politician who writes the law decides it is, that quite often includes WWII era bolt-actions. If you support AWB’s yes, you are anti-gun. No doubt about it.
If you support Obama’s plan to ban gun shops within 5 miles of a school or park you are anti-gun, since that would effectively destroy the ability to purchase guns legally in most of the country.
If you support Obama’s stance that we should have a federal law banning CCW nationwide then yes, you are anti-gun.
how dare you use the terms “black & white” DBB – That’s racist……haha.
that wasn’t my question mike. I said law. I didn’t say ban. Now I see where your disconnect is. You hear the word “LAW” you think ban and go screaming to the hills.
Just like when you hear the word liberal you get all itchy in your pants and hear booo, socialist/communist/nationalized healthcare.
get a grip mike. Law does not mean Ban.
Now you’re just making yourself look stupid DTB. Remember the 1994 assault weapons ban? The one that Clinton said was responsible for the Dems losing Congress. Guess what that was? It was one of those mystical things that gets proposed in Congress, y’know, a LAW.
DBB – What gun laws do you want beyond those already on the books?
LAW mike not BAN.
so my next question is then. Is a LAW a BAN to you? who is stupid?
Are you playing stupid or are you truly as dense as you’re acting?
BTW -the things I listed are all things Obama has stated he wants to be put into law.
here I will answer you first:
What gun laws do you want beyond those already on the books?
who said I did? I just never said I don’t NOT want laws. You made the wild assumptive leaps, which time and again you have proven you like to do.
ok, I’ll answer my own question with your comments then.
Is a LAW a BAN to you?
Yes because Remember the 1994 assault weapons ban? The one that Clinton said was responsible for the Dems losing Congress. Guess what that was? It was one of those mystical things that gets proposed in Congress, y’know, a LAW.
ergo, you are saying that a LAW = a BAN all the time. 100%.
regardless this is a perfect example of the ad-hominem attacks you like to scold “us” for.
I asked you If I don’t want laws I’m pro gun if I want ONE, just one, teeny weeny, itsy-bitsy widdle law. Then I am anti gun? is that what you are saying?
so it is a yes or no question mike. Since I’m stupid. give me one word.
If I don’t want laws I’m pro gun if I want ONE, just one, teeny weeny, itsy-bitsy widdle law. Then I am anti gun? is that what you are saying?
YES
or
NO
RE – comments #68-70 – I’m sorry Nemski – It appears we can’t have civil, substantive discussion when DBB gets involved.
yes
or
no
Mike. Civil it will be.
Even the most absolutist 2nd Amendment supporter doesn’t advocate we all be able to walk around with SAM’s & RPG’s or own nuclear weapons. This doesn’t stop fearmongerers from claiming this is what we want.
so then you are anti 2nd ammendment. Because I declare that ARMS are tanks, bazooka’s and RPG’s! who are you to define ARMS?
Man you’ve really got little if any cognitive ability eh DBB? I give you detailed answers, you can’t grasp them. I feel sorry for you.
Since you want one word I’ll go with YES. Happy now?
Civil? – You’re incapable of civil discussion.
yes
or
no….
waiting
thank you.
and there in lies your problem. For all the rambling you do. In the end all I have to do is get you to answer a few basic questions to prove my point.
You are (YOU ONLY) not your entire blogospher buddies. YOU like to make wild assumptions and stereotype everyone based on some irrational fear that your play thing is going to be taken away from you.
Mommy says you have to be in bed by 10pm. then that Law that says mike must be in bed by 10pm is ANTI-TV.
I say I don’t want you to have 1000 lbs of dynamite. I am anti dynamite. I didn’t say you couldn’t have 10lbs. But since I want to limit something, I am anti something.
grow up mike. The world isn’t black and white.
Do you really want to get into Constitutional Jurisprudence, definitions, and the meaning of “Arms” DBB?
You could certainly use some education on the subject. You argue from a position of ignorance and claim superiority.
“For all the rambling you do. In the end all I have to do is get you to answer a few basic questions to prove my point.”
No, all you did was ignore everything I said in an attempt to pigeonhole my argument into a YES or NO question, which it is not.