Originally Posted by notcasesensitive (Post 401740)

(1) She has cats.

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane? (Post 401738)

Uh oh.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 401745)

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.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 401745)

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.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 401720)

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.

Originally Posted by notcasesensitive (Post 401740)

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.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 401745)

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.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 401604)

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

Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick (Post 401724)

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.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 401752)

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.

Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick (Post 401751)

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

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 401757)

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

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 401752)

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.

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 401757)

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

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 401757)

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

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 401755)

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

Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick (Post 401763)

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

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller (Post 401761)

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.

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane? (Post 401760)

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.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 401765)

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.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 401771)

So the "gross, ridiculous over-reach" you're talking about doesn't exist. You act like you've got some prosecutor walking into Bank of Zurich and demanding that they release information on every US citizen that has an account there.

Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick (Post 401763)

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

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 401771)

I don't disagree with any of this. But your complaint really has nothing to do with the facts. We are not running around the world forcing companies with no US ties to give up a bunch of information as it pleases us. Part of UBS' settlement for the crime they committed was turning over information about other criminals they are hiding. They did not have to do that. They could have taken the full penalty. They chose not to. They rolled on their clients instead. Why didn't you draft a post about how shitty UBS acted concerning the crime they committed and the resulting sell-out of their clients to save their own skins?

And as yesterday's article stated, the Swiss government will decide what information gets passed along to ours. And I bet UBS and other Swiss banks who do business here want their government to cooperate.

So the "gross, ridiculous over-reach" you're talking about doesn't exist. You act like you've got some prosecutor walking into Bank of Zurich and demanding that they release information on every US citizen that has an account there.

TM

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 401775)

They started with 52,000, and now they're down to 4,450. Shows what kind of borderline bad faith went into the initial request.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 401775)

And don't think for a minute that the US wouldn't make the argument that it had the right to demand info from exclusively Swiss banks on some "minimum contacts" theory based on allegations that the banks marketed secrecy to Americans traveling or living abroad if they could.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 401775)

We don't know how broad the initial request was, and having dealt with Federal prosecutors, I'd be shocked - shocked - if it didn't include a demand for everything imaginable, including the exempted category I cited. As Cletus noted, if you want 5, ask for 25. They started with 52,000, and now they're down to 4,450. Shows what kind of borderline bad faith went into the initial request.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 401775)

And don't think for a minute that the US wouldn't make the argument that it had the right to demand info from exclusively Swiss banks on some "minimum contacts" theory based on allegations that the banks marketed secrecy to Americans traveling or living abroad if they could.

Originally Posted by robustpuppy (Post 401748)

I see there is still something seriously off about you.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 401765)

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.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 401771)

They could have taken the full penalty. They chose not to. They rolled on their clients instead.

TM

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 401773)

No stereotype that is entirely false will catch on.

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 401768)

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

Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick (Post 401763)

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

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 401773)

No stereotype that is entirely false will catch on. No stereotype that is entirely true is useful.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 401775)

And don't think for a minute that the US wouldn't make the argument that it had the right to demand info from exclusively Swiss banks on some "minimum contacts" theory based on allegations that the banks marketed secrecy to Americans traveling or living abroad if they could.

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller (Post 401787)

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?

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 401806)

Good question. I don't know. There must be a difference between the nature of the accounts. Otherwise, why would they request info on 50,000 and only get 4,000?

TM

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 401805)

You appear to be ranting about something that you recognize has never happened, and that you know is impossible.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 401802)

'scuse me?

Originally Posted by bold_n_brazen (Post 401803)

I played softball too, and was even the catcher! Yay me!

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 401818)

Hell, I played rugby and lacrosse. I'm not a lesbian.