Don't tell me that beside being a scientist, computer specialist, priest, you are also a tax lawyer and we should forget that you didn't even know that employers takes out the tax from the salary or how tax is determined by legal registration of the company and not the geographical place of it's HQ. In your world people will move their HQ to avoid a tax that they don't pay anyway and we should forget that the move is not even relevant to the tax situation of the company.
You have the opportunity to wake me up. Counter my last post with facts. I can easily provide facts to back up what I posted. Instead of reproducing sound bytes that alex jones has instructed you to believe and personal opinions that reflect opposite reality, wake me up. Or, are you confirming yet again, that facts do not matter? The ball is in your court, AGS. Don't try to slime your way out of it. Be a man (or woman??) for once, and debate on the facts.
Instead of questioning others for putting forth information, how about you put something forth yourself? How about the usual gworld tactic of asking someone if they are a lawyer, or asking if they are an economist or any other professional field, in order to be qualified to post? Isn't that what you normally do to avoid debating facts?
Send me your address...I will mail you a copy of the fairtax book which explains it all in rather simple terms...its actually a great book that more americans should be buying and reading...
If it is similar to the nonsense that you are posting then I don't need it. But in order to be fair, I must mention that I don't think that the book is anything remotely similar to your postings, otherwise it would have never been published and the Author would have been laughed out of the publisher's office.
I happened to go to site by chance and end up here. This may apply to lot of people here. HERE IS ONE: Blind Men and the Elephant Blind Men and the Elephant
oh ok, so me explaining it to you just like the book does is stupid...thats why it was a #1 bestseller....it was written by a US congressman as well...of course, none of that matters to you, because rather than discussing Halliburton's move to dubai you would rather attack me...because you know you really can't argue the issue at hand...you're going back on my ignore list.
I already mentioned that I can't even imagine that they print such a nonsense in a book, so the logical conclusion is that you either didn't read it and trying to use some of words that you have heard or if you have read it then you didn't understand it. If the second case is true, my recommendation is to read it again, so may be you get it.
Halliburton was nothing before Cheney became a Sectary of Defense. For whatever reason, Halliburton was awarded contracts during those years. Also note, Cheney spent most of his career in Public Sector (government office). Then he took his first Private Sector Job as a CEO of Halliburton. Now, he is VP. I am not sure why Halliburton was awarded no bid contracts. I will just wait and see what happens.
In the Clinton administration or the Bush Administration? Most liberals had no problem with Clinton doing it when Cheney was actually the CEO. They only take exception to it when the Bush administration gave no bid contracts after Cheney left. Twisted logic, I know...
the libs love to blame it on bush, however, if halliburton wouldn't do the job, who would? I dare someone to name 1 company...
Bechtel. They have done very well out of the disaster in Iraq, and made billions out of it in 2003 and 2004. Closely linked to your hero George W Bush. Do some reading d16man please. The penny might drop eventually.
thanks for naming a company(the exact one I was hoping you would name)....now here is my question: They have been in Iraq for a few years, making loads of money....did they get no bid contracts also? Wait, I thought halliburton was the only country in Iraq? What happened? how can their be two companies if "no bid contracts" were only offered to one??
What your assumption is, I support Liberals. My point is, whoever engage in illegal action, broke the law should be handled accordingly, what party, rich or poor. Its like I go to WalMart and pay the cashier $10 to walk away with $500 item. If I get caught, I and the Cashier will be charged and sent to jail. During Clinton times or even first term of Bush, I wasn't old enough to vote for anyone them. In America, 1/3 will vote Democrats, 1/3 will vote Republicans, no matter what. Other 1/3 will decide what best for the country. The way it seems, Republican Party may not see A DAY IN THE SUN, FOR NEXT 25 YEARS.
Again, go and do some reading before you post mate, you will see that Bechtel removed themselves from Iraq having lost 52 people (plus 49 wounded) in Bush's fake war on terror. Also, Bechtel were connected to the Bin Ladens: http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/05/news/companies/war_bechtel Also, there is no surprise that Pappy Bush and son George W were also connected to Bechtel. http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd05122003.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechtel_Corporation Of course all this will not alarm you as you are just a blind cheerleader for Bush. It's all merely coincidence right?
Whoever? It's sounds like you are talking about yourself here? Are you saying you have guilty feelings about an alleged theft committed at Walmart and want to self-loathe on your (???) country through Halliburton to vent your angst over it. Um, ok... And you are also confirming that you have no problems with liberals giving no bid contracts to Halliburton when Cheney *actually* did profit, through being CEO of the company, but have a problem with the Bush administration giving them no-bid contracts when in fact, Cheney doesn't actually profit from such? Odd, I suppose. Opposite days they are. I'd venture to say that *most* Americans do not share the democrat's enthusiasm for losing wars. Everyone has certain body parts as well as opinions. Some body parts and opinions are more closely matched than others
So how do you come to grips with the cognitive dissonance regarding this position? On one hand, you go to great lengths of rambling to assert that osama was not involved in 9/11 by giving him aid and comfort to absolve him of his admitted crimes. On the other hand, you seek to dishonestly malign every family member related to him, for the crimes, when it comes to corporations that have innocent family members who happen to be involved in some business. Do you not find it odd, that you would tar *everyone* in his family, who have openly denounced osama and exiled him from their family? Yet on the other hand, you defend the very man they exile and denounce from his crimes by suggesting others are responsible for his crimes? How does one twist their peanut mind into such backwards thinking?