Nice spin Navywife. I never called TP a crazy secessionist in my post directed to you. I called him a secessionist in posts addressed to other people because I think it’s like saying “I joined the Klan, but I have no problem with minorities, unlike some other members, or the freaking founder”. “I’m just unhappy with the government.” No I’m not comparing AIP to the Klan, but you get the analogy. Look again. I know you want clarity, and I’m telling you that if MO(or Mrs. Biden for that matter) had the same secessionist ties, or contacts as TP, you and every other rightwinger would be raising hell about it, and questioning BO’s judgement in marriage. Is it possible that TP could be a member of a group whose founder was an anti-American secessionist, and had active secessionist members, but rejected that particular philosophy? Sure, I guess so. I do know that if MO had the exact same “relationships”, your ilk would be disgusted, or at least put on a show of disgust. I’m no psychic, and I could be wrong, but based on my experiences with the rigthwing, I doubt it. I’m not saying it’s wicked, or evil, or even bad, I just think it’s intellectually dishonest. It’s all about the team, I guess.

That’s not all. Can you imagine if Michelle Obama had been caught red-handed stealing medicine from a children’s charity to get high? Or what if Obama had carried on an affair with Michelle while still married to his injured wife? Or how about if Obama had a teenage daughter that got knocked up out of wedlock?

We would never hear the end.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/wardrobe-mysteries-linger/

Gist: many of the stores where robo-caller Jeff Larson supposedly bought clothing for Sarah Palin have NO RECIEPTS for the purchases and do not recall any purchases of that nature.

So here’s the apparent incredible storyline-

1) $150,000 for a month’s worth of clothing for Sarah Palin? Wha…?

2) Wait. NOT $150,000 and maybe Jeff Larson, scumbag robo-caller is doing some under the table accounting? And for WHAT exactly?

We are through the looking glass here, people. Truly awesome.

I wanna to at least thank you guys for the most entertaining campaign in my lifetime. What a dog and pony show.

Do not take what anybody says here as accurate and by all means run all information you have received in any conversation by your own tax professional.

Spoken like a true lawyer (Not sure if you are one, just sayin…)

On October 23rd, 2008 at 1:29 pm, chapoutier said:

it is also people like you that are the reason our codes and regs and rulings and case law extend page after page after page. You try to get too cute by half, so the Treasury or the Service has to come in and make new, more specific regs to try to beat down the people who are gaming the system.

You might be surprised to learn that I partially agree with you on this.

One problem in this country is that we now have so many laws that people tend to think legal=ethical. I personally know plenty of wall street examples which painfully exemplify this.

To some extent over-regulating certain activities can cause this (I’m NOT making a case for deregulation here).

The tax code is a great example. It’s a disgrace. It is by far the worst regulating instrument in this country. And it is so detailed, so controlling, that it’s silly to think that something which doesn’t violate the code shouldn’t be considered unethical.

I notice when you say this it says nothing to the fact of whether or not you actually are in a business or whether you are engaging in a hobby.

Plainly speaking, what’s the difference? Obviously not enjoyment level. I LOVE my business more than most people like their hobbies. On the other hand, some people probably run their hobbies more business-like than a many business owners. You tell me, plainly speaking.

It is all about manipulating the standards, isn’t it?

I appreciate this comment – seriously, and I’ll admit partial guilt here. I don’t engage in neutralizing techniques, but I’ve sat and thought long and hard about many, many tax issues – and if the tax code wasn’t such a disaster it would be much easier to draw lines.

Really? I suppose that’s why you did not do so on this thread. You were tired of responding. If you’d care to link to the thread where you DID respond?

Otherwise I’ll have to keep asking you.

I will answer what I want when I want and if you care to seek out other threads with me commenting you are welcome to do so on your own time. it is not my job to catch you up on my 15 months or so worth of posting here.

And corkie, if you knew the standard why did you fail to even begin to state it correctly? You failed to even demonstrate you know the difference between revenue and profit. I am sure you are all super fancy with your tax returns and that is cool, but it is also people like you that are the reason our codes and regs and rulings and case law extend page after page after page. You try to get too cute by half, so the Treasury or the Service has to come in and make new, more specific regs to try to beat down the people who are gaming the system.

It’s easy to tailor expenses to show profitability during certain years. That’s why revenue basically becomes the defacto standard.

I notice when you say this it says nothing to the fact of whether or not you actually are in a business or whether you are engaging in a hobby. It is all about manipulating the standards, isn’t it?

I just think it’s intellectually dishonest. It’s all about the team, I guess.

Stop projecting your own faults onto the rest of the world. We are far harsher critics of people on our “team” than you are of people on yours.

If McCain had the associations which Obama does he’d never have gotten within a light year of the GOP nomination. He’d never have become a Senator. We police our side very well. How come you don’t do the same in your party?