This is the thread where the fringster comes back with teeth

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by leagleaze

Does Rachel play softball, do you think?

Yes, it's MSNBC's counterpoint to Chris Matthews' show.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Adder

Given that military strategy at the time involved forming up in night lines and taking gentlemanly shots at each other's ranks, the red probably was among the smaller follies.

Although despite their claims, the sun is most definitely setting on the British Empire.

[evenodds]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I love the "he's like Nate Silver" commentary. I <3 Nate.

Finally, something upon which we agree.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

How could you want to purchase anything from that sight after looking at this photo?:



I'd go basic, erring toward longer.



And get it in light grey. Blue pea coats have been played out since '06.

TM

Dude -- you revel in Barbie having black features. He revels in clothing models having white features.

Seriously, seriously white.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I <3 Nate.

Why does this make me think you want to teabag Nate Silver?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Flinty_McFlint

When I was 16, I bought one at a thrift shop. Oh, you like me, you really like me white people!

Oh, please -- like you aren't some pasty-white middle-age golf-playing lawyer drone.

[Flinty_McFlint]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Oh, please -- like you aren't some pasty-white middle-age golf-playing lawyer drone.

In the right light, with the right amount of inebriation in the audience, I have passed as Honduran before. I hope to stay out of the sun a little more and try to pass as Cuban next time.

[a concerned poster]

Originally Posted by leagleaze

Somehow my infrequent visits seem to be somewhat timely. Or is it that on any given day you are discussing lesbians and fat?

As far as the stereotype. I can assure you that I have only once tried to play softball with a bunch of lesbians (or really anyone) and it was several years ago. I fell down in an effort to catch the ball and all the other lesbians came running over to make sure I hadn't broken anything, helped me to a seat and fussed over me considerably. Come to think of it, perhaps I should play softball more frequently.

Anyway, hello to everyone, especially the person who asked me to stop by and say hi. I hope everyone is well.

Phew! Welcome back. I was concerned about you. Glad to see u r ok.

Keep in touch. Tweet me.

[evenodds]

Originally Posted by a concerned poster

Phew! Welcome back. I was concerned about you. Glad to see u r ok.

Keep in touch. Tweet me.

Awwwww, Penske's back, too.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by evenodds

Awwwww, Penske's back, too.

Is it our 10th reunion already?

[Aloha Mr. Learned Hand]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Is it our 10th reunion already?

Better not be at the local VFW hall like my high school one was.

[taxwonk]

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.

The U.S. taxes worldwide income. If you are a US taxpayer, your money earned from any source, in any jurisdiction, s subject to US tax unless there is an exemption. If the taxpayer doesn't like the law, he or she has an option - moving to another jurisdiction and giving up their citizenship.

[LessinSF]

In the poll on what will end the human race, who had an office building in England?

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

This isn't my field, but wouldn't the continued maintenance of the accounts, without disclosure, be a continuing violation? There wasn't really anyway for them to get out from under the prosecution w/o divulging the identity of the subject accounts, was there? Wonk?

That's certainly the position I would take. Of course, they could have simply closed the accounts and returned the balance to the account holders. But I think there are reporting obligations that would have compelled them to disclose transfers from outside the US in excess of a certain amount. So, either way....

[Atticus Grinch]

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

Could there be a greater example of military hubris than dressing soldiers in red coats? Perhaps painting bull's-eyes on their backs too?

Pirate captain is sailing with his crew when he spots the sail of a British frigate on the horizon. "Bring me my red shirt!" he yells. His first mate runs below to fetch it; he puts it on; he and his crew repel the British boarding party in a slashing swordfight. They sail on. Next day, two British sails are on the horizon. "Bring me my red shirt!" he yells. Again, they do; they fight both boarding parties and win again. First mate approaches captain privately and says, "Why do you always put on a red shirt to fight?" Captain says, "If they see I'm injured, my men will lose heart and lose the battle. The red shirt disguises any wounds, and they fight on." Next day, 20 British sails are on the horizon. The crew turns expectantly to their brave captain, about to speak. "Bring me -- my brown pants!"