This is the thread where the fringster comes back with teeth

[robustpuppy]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Quick thoughts:

(1) She is getting help in the form of her therapist, but it doesn't seem to be working. You're not in a position to get her help, but if you feel you must be part of her trainwreck or want to help because you're a good friend, I think you end up trying to talk to her family and see what they're doing.

(2) There is no benefit to anyone in being dishonest to her. If she calls for affirmation, be honest, not politic. "Am I pretty" - "well, the drink is starting to show and you sure as hell don't look great in the middle of or after a bender, but if you got yourself together, yeh, not bad."

(3) She needs a life changing experience - a trip to an Indian ashram, a move to the Farm, peace corpd, religion, etc. - so she'll stop dwelling on her own boring and sick self. Introduce her to Less for some traveling or to Adder just for fun. Or tell her she should join a nunnery for a while instead of rehab. Or invite her to sleep on a beach during a Tsunami.

I see there is still something seriously off about you.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by notcasesensitive

Thanks, guys! It is helpful to hear the advice to step back. I probably will try one heart-to-heart with her at some point (when I've recovered from the most recent visit a bit), because I feel I would regret it if I sat by silently and something bad happened, which is the way this seems to be heading. I've realized over the last few years that she is incapable of being a friend to me, so I'm comfortable with the relationship fading away, though I'd like to know there are some people who are there for her, because she really is pretty isolated at this point.

Partial responses to points you guys raised:

(1) She has cats. And her parents live about an hour away from her. And she has a roommate. Other than her boyfriend, I don't think she has any close friends.

(2) I think when we were closer friends I was unaware of any of these issues. There were probably clues of neediness and I knew her mom was an alcoholic, but I only knew her when she was happily in a relationship, so many of the self-worth problems became apparent when that relationship went away.

my 2 bits- for you to have typed all that you did, and travelled to see her, means that what she once meant is too much for you to just walk away. I mean you describe going to see someone whom you cannot say 1 good thing about, so there must be some solid history.

when you talk to her consider saying that you've seen the change, and frankly where she is now makes it hard to remember why you ever were friends. try to remind her of what she had that was positive and say some guy/booze ain't worth her changing all that about herself.

or just walk

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I realize you're joking, but is this a "she's going to be fat" or "she's going to be gay" uh oh (or both)? Because I don't mind either way.

TM

*Okay, that's not true. I don't want her to be fat, but I'll never give her a complex about it.

I think those who come up with the prevailing stereotypes of the times consider female softball players to be more gay than fat.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This is outright garbage. http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/09...me-to-confess/

"In June 2008, UBS's Bradley Birkenfeld pleaded guilty to helping a U.S. client evade his tax liability, and the case provided information on the bank's internal practices to American officials. In February of this year, UBS admitted that it had violated U.S. securities law and had helped its American clients hide their income from tax authorities. It agreed to pay $780 million in penalties and unpaid taxes in exchange for a deferred prosecution agreement with the Department of Justice. Simultaneously, the IRS and Justice pursued a related civil case (known as the John Doe summons) concerning the names of up to 52,000 account holders with the Swiss bank.

In August, UBS reached a settlement agreement regarding that case and, as part of the deal, agreed to turn over the names of approximately 4,450 UBS account holders suspected of using their Swiss accounts to evade taxes. According to the IRS, these accounts held more than $18 billion at one point. UBS will give the names to Swiss tax officials, who will then determine whether to turn them over to U.S. tax authorities. The agreement, which contains details regarding how the Swiss government will make its determinations, remains sealed for now. The IRS has said that it will unseal the document by Nov. 17."

Not only were many rich people using UBS to avoid paying taxes by setting up secret accounts, but UBS broke our laws as well. Just because they built an industry that (for decades) relied on tax cheats doesn't mean they don't have to follow our laws.

And I don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the lazy US prosecutors not doing their job. It seems like they did a great job in this case and it seems like standard procedure for taking down a criminal enterprise. They found a guy who was breaking the law for an organization. They busted his ass and flipped him. He told them all the crooked shit they do. They used it against UBS, who admitted they violated our laws and paid fines. They then cooperated and gave up information on other motherfuckers with secret accounts. Like the article says, it ain't hard to comply with the law. If you did, the accounts would not be secret and it wouldn't matter that information regarding those accounts were uncovered in the investigation.

The only difference between this and taking down a drug cell is that sophisticated rich people are the ones getting away with the crime. "Reasonable, narrowly-tailored requests to the Swiss citing the basis for release of finite records on individual suspected tax cheats." What a joke. I'm sure this has been done countless times with the Swiss response being, "Fuck off. We're not giving you a damn thing."

I do not understand your thought process. Sometimes I can follow it. In this instance, I don't know what the hell you're thinking.

TM

I don't agree with our taking out drug cells in foreign countries, either. Aside from my sensible and reasonable position that drug use is a personal decision for people to make on their own, and the proof that prohibition is a ludicrous policy, we've no business telling Colombia or Peruvian farmers what they can and can't grow or sell. It's their country. Our interdiction efforts should stop at our borders.

In this case, UBS should be required to cough up the identities of tax cheats who committed their crime in the US through the use of UBS's US operations. I'll concede that. However, US citizens who flew abroad and engaged in tax avoidance through a UBS entity with no ties to the US should enjoy the full protections of the law in the locale where they did their business.* Stated simply, the US has no right to go into another country and demand that a corporation doing business exclusively in that country turn over information regarding its American clients. In any circumstance.

The simplest analogy is working out a small debt with a lender. Say the borrower's in PA and the bank confesses judgment there. Lawyers for the lender immediately move the borrower's money to a DE bank with no branches outside DE, a state where bank accounts can't be garnished. If the lender wants to take action to unwind the transaction, he inevitably has to deal with the DE court system.**

I think you have to protect a person's right to avail himself of the laws of the place where he puts his money. Places like Switzerland make a lot of money by allowing people to avoid taxes. But they have a right to do that, just like DE has a right to grant its bank customers protections neighboring states don't. But the point you and Cletus made about UBS having no right to do business in the US while helping its residents avoid taxes is well taken. The Swiss bank protections should only be absolute for Americans who put their money into Swiss banks which do business exclusively in Switzerland.***

*You know there's a UBS private bank of some sort divorced from the parent specifically for the purposes of avoiding encroachments from foreign courts.

**He can get a PA court to order the borrower to transfer the money back, but if the borrower ignores the order, the PA Court's enforcement capabilities are exhausted.

***And the money has to have come from a locale outside the US. A tax avoider should not be able to take money from the US and merely transfer it to an exclusively Swiss bank. If it's here for any period of time, I think the US Courts then have jurisdiction over it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick

I know what I would do. I would avoid her as much as possible. She's got a therapist and you're not her keeper. I do not know if that is the right thing to do, but it tends to be my MO when my friends/boyfriends/acquaintances have problems that are above my skill level. Probably before I started avoiding her I would strongly encourage her to step up the therapy sessions or get a new one if that one is not working.

2. Be civil, but let the remaining fumes of this friendship fade away.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don't agree with our taking out drug cells in foreign countries, either. Aside from my sensible and reasonable position that drug use is a personal decision for people to make on their own, and the proof that prohibition is a ludicrous policy, we've no business telling Colombia or Peruvian farmers what they can and can't grow or sell. It's their country. Our interdiction efforts should stop at our borders.

In this case, UBS should be required to cough up the identities of tax cheats who committed their crime in the US through the use of UBS's US operations. I'll concede that. However, US citizens who flew abroad and engaged in tax avoidance through a UBS entity with no ties to the US should enjoy the full protections of the law in the locale where they did their business.* Stated simply, the US has no right to go into another country and demand that a corporation doing business exclusively in that country turn over information regarding its American clients. In any circumstance.

The simplest analogy is working out a small debt with a lender. Say the borrower's in PA and the bank confesses judgment there. Lawyers for the lender immediately move the borrower's money to a DE bank with no branches outside DE, a state where bank accounts can't be garnished. If the lender wants to take action to unwind the transaction, he inevitably has to deal with the DE court system.**

I think you have to protect a person's right to avail himself of the laws of the place where he puts his money. Places like Switzerland make a lot of money by allowing people to avoid taxes. But they have a right to do that, just like DE has a right to grant its bank customers protections neighboring states don't. But the point you and Cletus made about UBS having no right to do business in the US while helping its residents avoid taxes is well taken. The Swiss bank protections should only be absolute for Americans who put their money into Swiss banks which do business exclusively in Switzerland.***

*You know there's a UBS private bank of some sort divorced from the parent specifically for the purposes of avoiding encroachments from foreign courts.

**He can get a PA court to order the borrower to transfer the money back, but if the borrower ignores the order, the PA Court's enforcement capabilities are exhausted.

***And the money has to have come from a locale outside the US. A tax avoider should not be able to take money from the US and merely transfer it to an exclusively Swiss bank. If it's here for any period of time, I think the US Courts then have jurisdiction over it.

I do not understand what you are saying here because there are so many loopholes and footnotes that it seems like you're not saying much.

The simple fact is, the US has the right to tax US citizens for money they earn, whether here or overseas. If another country sets up an industry which enables US citizens to hide money they should have and easily could have declared, then we should go after it. It is amazing to me that someone who throws fits on how much and on what we spend our tax dollars would argue that we shouldn't make everyone pay what they owe under our laws.

And as far as UBS goes, they wouldn't have had a problem if they hadn't broken our laws as well. They agreed to give up names in their settlement and I assume sold their clients out to avoid prosecution and/or paying a higher fine than they did. Your anger on this one is completely misplaced.

TM

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick

I think those who come up with the prevailing stereotypes of the times consider female softball players to be more gay than fat.

I give you as counter examples Jennie Finch and every catcher for every team.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

I give you as counter examples Jennie Finch and every catcher for every team.

Here she is getting ready to devour Danica Patrick.

ETA: Damn. I can't find a site that will let me post the photo of them together. The one that makes Finch look like a giantess.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don't agree with our taking out drug cells in foreign countries, either. Aside from my sensible and reasonable position that drug use is a personal decision for people to make on their own, and the proof that prohibition is a ludicrous policy, we've no business telling Colombia or Peruvian farmers what they can and can't grow or sell. It's their country. Our interdiction efforts should stop at our borders.

In this case, UBS should be required to cough up the identities of tax cheats who committed their crime in the US through the use of UBS's US operations. I'll concede that. However, US citizens who flew abroad and engaged in tax avoidance through a UBS entity with no ties to the US should enjoy the full protections of the law in the locale where they did their business.* Stated simply, the US has no right to go into another country and demand that a corporation doing business exclusively in that country turn over information regarding its American clients. In any circumstance.

The simplest analogy is working out a small debt with a lender. Say the borrower's in PA and the bank confesses judgment there. Lawyers for the lender immediately move the borrower's money to a DE bank with no branches outside DE, a state where bank accounts can't be garnished. If the lender wants to take action to unwind the transaction, he inevitably has to deal with the DE court system.**

I think you have to protect a person's right to avail himself of the laws of the place where he puts his money. Places like Switzerland make a lot of money by allowing people to avoid taxes. But they have a right to do that, just like DE has a right to grant its bank customers protections neighboring states don't. But the point you and Cletus made about UBS having no right to do business in the US while helping its residents avoid taxes is well taken. The Swiss bank protections should only be absolute for Americans who put their money into Swiss banks which do business exclusively in Switzerland.***

*You know there's a UBS private bank of some sort divorced from the parent specifically for the purposes of avoiding encroachments from foreign courts.

**He can get a PA court to order the borrower to transfer the money back, but if the borrower ignores the order, the PA Court's enforcement capabilities are exhausted.

***And the money has to have come from a locale outside the US. A tax avoider should not be able to take money from the US and merely transfer it to an exclusively Swiss bank. If it's here for any period of time, I think the US Courts then have jurisdiction over it.

I don't disagree with any of that, but what gave you the impression that the Swiss have agreed to divulge any information regarding people situated as you suggest? The IRS asking for it is a different issue, b/c *of course* they were fishing for more--asking for exactly what you actually want is stupid negotiation.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

I give you as counter examples Jennie Finch and every catcher for every team.

They're not fat, they're just big boned.

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

I give you as counter examples Jennie Finch and every catcher for every team.

I do not buy into the stereotype. I played softball (even broke my nose doing it) and am anything but fat or gay.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I do not understand what you are saying here because there are so many loopholes and footnotes that it seems like you're not saying much.

The simple fact is, the US has the right to tax US citizens for money they earn, whether here or overseas. If another country sets up an industry which enables US citizens to hide money they should have and easily could have declared, then we should go after it. It is amazing to me that someone who throws fits on how much and on what we spend our tax dollars would argue that we shouldn't make everyone pay what they owe under our laws.

And as far as UBS goes, they wouldn't have had a problem if they hadn't broken our laws as well. They agreed to give up names in their settlement and I assume sold their clients out to avoid prosecution and/or paying a higher fine than they did. Your anger on this one is completely misplaced.

TM

I'm saying I agree with you. I'm saying you and Cletus are right that a bank doing business in the US should have to divulge the info.

But I am also saying that a bank which exclusively does business outside the US should not be required to do so. I'm saying that if I make money in France, then take that money to Switzerland and put it in the Swiss bank that has no branches in the US, the US should not have any right to force that bank to divulge anything about my account. The US can try to force me, as a US citizen, to divulge the info, but if I don't, they have no right to compel the Swiss bank which is not maintaining any branches in the US or courting US customers in the US to do so.

I find it deplorable that any nation would try to force a bank in another country, with no ties to the requesting nation, to break its own secrecy laws to aid the foreign nation's prosecution of one of its own nationals. That's a gross, ridiculous over-reach.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick

I do not buy into the stereotype. I played softball (even broke my nose doing it) and am anything but fat or gay.

If I'd know that I would have used you instead of Finch. But I stand by my example of every catcher everywhere.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

I don't disagree with any of that, but what gave you the impression that the Swiss have agreed to divulge any information regarding people situated as you suggest? The IRS asking for it is a different issue, b/c *of course* they were fishing for more--asking for exactly what you actually want is stupid negotiation.

I assume the US is doing exactly what you suggest - asking for everything imaginable. And I think as a matter of precedent, the Swiss should at a minimum make the distinction I've offered in replying.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Here she is getting ready to devour Danica Patrick.

ETA: Damn. I can't find a site that will let me post the photo of them together. The one that makes Finch look like a giantess.

You could link:

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1180736000/nm1701077

But Danica's a wee person, albeit with a Napoleon complex.