placeholder

When asked to point out her lies, this is all you can come up with? You've got nothing.

I saw nothing in her speech that suggested conspiracy theories. She is far from the only person to make effective use of emotion when speaking. (In fact, given whom you support politically, it's clear you're being hypocritical here) and please point out the lies she has made.

Which is why these denialists try to focus on irrelevant details instead of the facts she cites.

Whereas certain so-and-so's here on this forum merely engage in character assassination. Since the facts she popularizes are against you, I guess that's all they've got.

Once again you claim motivations which you have no way of proving. Just more of the same shameless character assassination.

Since the claims she cites are backed by climatologists and other scientists, I suggest you look for evidence of ignorance a lot closer to home.

Here's a link to the entire Reuters video. Is there another video? https://www.reuters.com/video/watch/police-detain-greta-thunberg-at-german-c-id758406741?chan=8gwsyvzx And no, I didn't see a cameraman directing. And how would you see that the person holding the camera is directing unless they were pointing it at themselves? The police did hold her to pose for pictures after she was carried out. Does that mean she staged that? Or were the police responding to requests from reporters?

"Staged" would mean it was planned beforehand with the police. Thunberg didn't cooperate with her when they asked to retreat. She refused so they carried her.

The police have denied it. And she has denied it. They said they carried her away from the edge of the pit because it was dangerous and then put her down. Because she wasn't screaming acting violently that means the incident was fake? You've got nothing.

The judge in the case actually castigated Barr for misrepresenting the report. Mueller wrote in his report that were not for Justice Dept policy prohibiting criminal prosecution of a sitting president, he could have brought 10 criminal charges against Trump.

Really? So they didn't ask questions with the presumption that she had staged that portion of the event when she was carried out by the police?

Good thing you were looking at the complete video and not a highly edited version of it. Oh...wait a minute... And given that so many of the the questions were of the "When did you stop beating your wife" variety, it's those "reporters" who would have gotten the suspension.

They would? You've taken a poll? You've done a survey? Why would anyone answer questions which go under the category of "When did you stop beating your wife?"

You weren't matching and mixing. But Longwood50 was.

Once again you're putting words in other people's mouths. I never once wrote the word "torture". Torture is illegal. There are plenty of legal options open to the Ukrainians.

It wouldn't necessarily take a popular uprising to depose Putin and the War Party.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, income tax only taxes earnings. It doesn't tax wealth. And the wealthier you are, the more likely your wealth depends on such things as bonds and stocks. Taxes aren't levied on these until they are sold. And if they are inherited, no tax is paid on them. So what percenage of America's wealth do the top 1%, 10%, and 50% hold? https://www.statista.com/chart/19635/wealth-distribution-percentiles-in-the-us/#:~:text=10 percent of the richest,of the country's total wealth.

No they do not. Another falsehood from you. Why don't you understand about the difference between total paid for taxes and total paid for federal income tax?

What don't you understand about the fact that there's a range of options between execution and a warm welcome?

The only person doing the insinuation here is you. Which is par for the course. I insinuated absolutely nothing about the Ukrainians executing Russian deserters. There are a lot of options open to the Ukrainians between a warm welcome and execution. Are you referring to the sledgehammer executions inflicted by Wagner on deserters? Or does that not count?

So inherited wealth has been earned by those who receive it? As I have pointed out, the founding fathers had a great distrust of large sums of inherited wealth. They understood the abuses it leads to.

Yes. Using data over those 2 periods is relevant. But it should be the most relevant data. For reasons that I painstakingly explained, the data I offered is. Yours not as much. This is a forum open to all members of aseannow.com. If you wish to have a private conversation with Candide, that's what the PM service is for.

False. As I looked further into this I realized that the figures I cited were total government spending. That includes state and local taxes. The figures nauseus cited were only for Federal spending. What Longwood has done is to mistakenly assign total government spending to Federal spending. In other words, while his his claim about historic federal spending being in the 20% range is true, his claim that that the Federal govt spends 37 percent of GDP or anything like it is false, That's the total for all government spending.

Your point about capital gains tax being avoid when wealth is inherited is an excellent But Longwood clearly doesn't understand the reason why the Federal Govr has taxes inheritance since the 18th century. The founding fathers had seen that inherited wealth in Europe had given tremendous powers to the aristocracy and foiled change. They were determined not to have that happen here. When it came to agricultural wealth, the laws of Primogeniture were abolished so that estates would shrink over time. But when it came to commerce that was obviously not a workable approach. Inheritance taxes were meant to keep too much wealth from being accumulated in the hands of the few. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/resistance-estate-tax/470403/ https://origins.osu.edu/history-news/death-taxes-and-american-founders?language_content_entity=en Their mistrust turns out to have been well justified. And to make it worse, the radical right Supreme Court has removed any meaningful restraints on the wealthy to support candidates of their choice. The power of the wealthy has never been greater than it is today in the USA. The vast majority of Americans, even Republicans, support higher taxes on the wealthy. Yet their tax rates continue to fall.

And how does this graph support Longwood's contention that the federal share has now risen to 37%? Unless of course you believe in the validity of mixing and matching statistics.