Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SK in CV
Participant[quote=SD Realtor]I also like High Valley in Poway.[/quote]
I agree with this. Great area. If not for my disdain for the Poway schools, it would be almost perfect.
Participant[quote=Aecetia]”When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”Your mileage may vary.[/quote]
Non-responsive.
Participant[quote=Aecetia]It is not the word, it is the entire aftermath after the attack including what he did afterward. By making the attack about the video for whatever reason. I cannot understand his thinking on this or why he would continue his trip to Las Vegas.[/quote]
If it’s not the word, why are people complaining about the word?
Participant[quote=Ren]This is a little contradictory. If you have hope, that means you don’t know, which means you’re agnostic. If you believe there is no God, you’re an atheist, which is a form of religion in itself – you don’t know that there is no God. There is no incontrovertible proof either way.
[/quote]
Atheism is not a religion. Absence of evidence is not evidence.
Participant[quote=Zeitgeist]What is bullshi+ SK, is that we have a president who cannot bring himself to clearly condemn as “terrorism” the attack against the Ambassador and his staff while they were in Benghazi. All your machinations and gyrations in support of his administration will not change it. Humpty Dumpty has taken a great fall.
Four-score Men and Four-score more,
Could not make Humpty Dumpty where he was before“Owing in part to the inability of either the Libyans or the Americans to mount a serious investigation, American dissections of the assault on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi have become muddled in a political debate over the identities and motivations of the attackers. Some Republicans have charged that the Obama administration initially sought to obscure a possible connection to Al Qaeda in order to protect its claim to have brought the group to its knees.”
First, he did call it terrorism. The day it happened. The following day. And in the days that followed. Unless of course there’s some secret code I’m not aware of that make his words disappear, as if they were never spoken.
I guess what I don’t get is the obsession with the word terrorism. Maybe I do. It was the stupid “war on terror”. There is no such thing as a war on terror. There can’t be. You fight wars against enemies. Terrorism isn’t an enemy it’s a tactic. A tactic used by people who are desperate, fanatical, outmanned, and incapable of fighting a conventional battle, with either words or weapons. It’s used by scizophrenic junkies, by people pissed off at the IRS, by kids who have been bullied their whole lives, and by radical islamists who want us dead. As a practical matter it can’t ever be eliminated.
And the middle east and northern Africa is packed with those sorts of interests. It’s a tiny minority in a population of more than 600 million people, but it’s real and it’s not going anywhere. For what will probably be the rest of our lifetimes, we’ll be playing whack-a-mole. Al Queda is like McDonalds, except there is no franchise fee and no royalties. So these fanatical groups, by whatever name, will pop up everywhere, with their green star and crescents instead of golden arches. Some might be loosely affiliated with other groups and some will have no affiliation at all. And the only real tie that they may have to each other is that they want us and Israel dead. Insisting on calling them terrorists is stupid semantics.
They attacked and bombed a US consulate facilty. They killed a US ambassador. Calling it terrorism doesn’t change anything. Insisting that word is important is moronic. The war on terror SHOULD be dead. It never should have started. We need to fight our wars against enemies. Not tactics.
Participant[quote=Veritas]”The mother of an American diplomat killed during a terrorist raid on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi has hit out at Barack Obama for describing the attack as ‘not optimal’, saying: ‘My son is not very optimal – he is also very dead.'”
“During an interview shown on Comedy Central, Obama responded to a question about his administration’s confused communication after the assault by saying: ‘If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal.'”
That was a bullshit, out of context quote. He was talking about the communication process.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
SK: Wiki cite on use of mortars in Benghazi attack:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_the_U.S._diplomatic_mission_in_BenghaziI think the larger issue is not the use of the phrase “act of terror”, rather, it was the administration’s continued insistence that the attack was “spontaneous” (it wasn’t) and driven by the YouTube video (it wasn’t).
Separate investigations have been underway and have reached significant conclusions that this was a planned attack, especially given that compound layout was not common knowledge and the accuracy of the mortar strikes.
Also, FYI, both DepState and the USMC requested additional security for multiple embassies and consulates throughout the region, as well as trade missions AND the facility where Stevens was domiciled. These requests were repeatedly either ignored and/or rebuffed, with the administration citing concerns over inflaming anger due to the presence of additional armed Americans, either uniformed US Marines or armed AmEmbassy/DepState security (driving distinctive armored SUVs).
Further, considerable signal traffic was received and analyzed, indicating either a heightened al-Qaeda presence or the arrival of al-Qaeda affiliated insurgents, militia or terrorist elements in various regions. Stevens had been repeatedly warned by US-friendly intel assets in Libya and he passed these warnings back, along with continued requests for additional security, due to these warnings that his life was in danger and that a significant attack was in the offing.
It strains credulity that we were somehow surprised by these attacks, especially given the widespread access to up-to-the-second real-time feeds from either KH satellites or drones on station in the area.[/quote]
I wasn’t disputing the issue of the mortars. I did find that exact same thing on wiki and a few other places that I hadn’t noticed before.
I don’t disagree with much you say here. With the exception of the last paragraph.
I’m not sure anyone has claimed to have been surprised. We continue to live in a dangerous world. Ambassador Stevens knew that. We both know the ties between the state department and the intelligence community. Stevens was part of that. He knew the risks.
The mortars change everything, yet change nothing. I think we both know the nature of the facility in Benghazi. Ambassador Stevens knew what it was. Which is probably why there is slim evidence that any additional security was requested through state for that particular facility. If more security was needed for that facility, it wouldn’t have gone through state, and it’s highly unlikely that request would have been declined, and there is no way in hell that request will ever become public. (Issa shut down his hearings for a reason. And it certainly was not because there was a shortage of political capital.) Which leads me to believe that there was no intelligence which indicated an attack on Benghazi was imminent. If there had been, Ambassador Stevens wouldn’t have been there. I think it’s more likely, just the opposite, that Benghazi was believed safe.
I don’t know whether this attack was entirely planned or partly spontaneous. I don’t suspect we’ll ever know. (The mortars would lead me to believe it was at least partially planned.) Nor do I think it’s terribly pertinent. There was a failure here. But it wasn’t a state department security problem. It was an intelligence problem. And we don’t get to find out about intelligence problems. Nor should we.
ParticipantThe additional security was not requested for the consulate facilities in Benghazi. They were requested for the Embassy facility in Tripoli. Extended security was requested this summer by Ambassador Stevens for the facility in Benghazi, maintaining a minimum of 3 security agents. At the time of the attack, there were 5 security agents on duty, more than had been requested for that facility. The two additional were escorts for the ambassador.
What you’ve said makes sense about the mortars. The reports I’ve seen haven’t mentioned mortars, or at least if they did, I missed it.
I’m still more than a bit confused about why whether it was planned or spontaneous is important. Either can fit the definition of a terrorist attack, if that label is preferred. And Obama acknowledged it as such. (The significance of that also escapes me.)
Participant[quote=ucodegen][quote=SK in CV]And the attack on the USS Cole 12 years ago? Despite the fact that it was widely described as a terrorist attack, it was not.[/quote]I think you are overreaching on this one. Your contention is not supported by facts in evidence.. show your supporting evidence for your contention that the attack on the USS Cole was not a terrorist act.[/quote]
Because it doesn’t fit the definition provided.
Participant[quote=Veritas]definition of terrorist attack
a surprise attack involving the deliberate use of violence against civilians in the hope of attaining political or religious aims.
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn[/quote]
And this. Interesting. So that would make it a terrorist attack when the guy flew his small plane into the IRS office in Texas a few years back. But I never heard it called a terrorist attack.
And the attack on the USS Cole 12 years ago? Despite the fact that it was widely described as a terrorist attack, it was not.
Participant[quote=Veritas] SK you know what he said and why and when he said it. [/quote]
I do know what he said. I do know when he said it. I think you’re alluding to some mystery contained in his words. I have no idea what that mystery is. Was he talking in some esoteric code that I’m not qualified to understand? Enlighten me, please.
Participant[quote=Veritas]I don’t know which is worse, his lying or his defenders lying for him.
“You cannot face what will happen, so you lie. You are afraid of the consequences for telling the truth, such as these:
* Your status may suffer
* You may be punished
* You will look stupid
* Someone will get angry
* You would have to admit you were wrong”.“Lies are told because one is afraid of the consequences* should one tell the truth.” — L. Ron Hubbard (*consequences = effects, results)
http://tipsforsuccessblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/tipsforsuccess-consequences-of-lying.html
Good to know the new talking points have made the rounds.[/quote]
Ok, I read the washington times link. Not a single lie even implied there. Though I do find it kind of funny that they quote the administration saying it was a terrorist attack, and then apparently criticize the administration for not admitting that it was a terrorist attack.
A related question. What is the difference between a terrorist attack and a non-terrorist attack? Is the difference the least bit important in this situation? Was the theater shooting in Aurora a terrorist attack? If it had been a crazy Arab doing the shooting, would it have been a terrorist attack?
Participant[quote=Veritas]SK- Right you are, but you are turning into a buzzkill tonight.
By the way, I got it wrong. Here it is: the Ambassador died; Obama lied. (Until he got caught). Time to call in a drone strike.[/quote]
Ok. So what was the lie? If there was a lie, what was the damage caused by the lie?
October 17, 2012 at 9:15 PM in reply to: rental sale pending- need interest bearing ideas for proceeds #752757Participant[quote=no_such_reality]You may be right, if it’s an offical promissory note, then it’s interest and not wages. I was thinking taxed as wage income. Hence, current tax advantage for dividends instead of income.
If you have an LLC, you can distribute profit as dividends and not wages.
Also, was in an investment business, the expenses related to traveling to said location for checking on the investment/business, are business expenses, reducing the net profit that is then subject to tax. He could also use the LLC to cover other valid expenses related to the investment business and thus have a smaller tax exposure.
AS for retaining the earnings, if he doesn’t need them, then up to certain thresholds, the LLC could retain the earnings, not paying tax now on them, and allow the LLC to use the earnings for business purposes.
But has I intended with the don’t quote me, the specifics are very pertinent and I may be misinterpreting.[/quote]
No. Distributions from LLC’s are not taxable. LLC income is taxable (whether or not distributed), in exactly the same way as if the income is recieved directly by the taxpayer. Interest remains interest. Travel expense deductions related to debt obligations would be difficult to defend, whether incurred by an LLC or an individual taxpayer.
-
AuthorPosts
