“The defenders of authority dread the advent of a free motherhood, lest it will rob them of their prey. Who would fight wars? Who would create wealth? Who would make the policeman, the jailer, if woman were to refuse the indiscriminate breeding of children? The race, the race! shouts the king, the president, the capitalist, the priest. The race must be preserved, though woman be degraded to a mere machine, — and the marriage institution is our only safety valve against the pernicious sex-awakening of woman. But in vain these frantic efforts to maintain a state of bondage. In vain, too, the edicts of the Church, the mad attacks of rulers, in vain even the arm of the law. Woman no longer wants to be a party to the production of a race of sickly, feeble, decrepit, wretched human beings, who have neither the strength nor moral courage to throw off the yoke of poverty and slavery. Instead she desires fewer and better children, begotten and reared in love and through free choice; not by compulsion, as marriage imposes. Our pseudo-moralists have yet to learn the deep sense of responsibility toward the child, that love in freedom has awakened in the breast of woman. Rather would she forego forever the glory of motherhood than bring forth life in an atmosphere that breathes only destruction and death.”
Okay, now that we’ve had our little fun at his expense, there’s a couple of things that need to be said here:
First off, Mikey, m’dude, you are NOT a “public figure”. You’re a public laughingstock; there is a difference. You put yourself out there in the most idiotic way with your “Danger and Play” blog and your how-to-rape (and get away with it) guides and your pitiable attempts to peddle muscle juice and brainfart pills. Whatever little public attention you get is negative for a reason. You’re not a star, Mikey, and you don’t deserve to be. What you deserve is a good, old-fashioned turn in the good, old-fashioned pillory so everybody can jeer and throw shit at you in the public square like they did in the good old days.
Secondly, if you didn’t want all that negative public attention (and all the splash damage you’ve done to your wife and daughter by calling down that kind of attention on yourself, for fucksakes), you really shouldn’t have tried to set the neo-Nazi bitchboys — oh sorry, Proud Boys — on Vic Berger, and Sam Seder, and whoever else you’ve been harassing and trying to get hounded out of a job. Because for one thing, those guys aren’t going to be intimidated by you or any of the boneheads you try to sic on them. For another, they’ve got actual, working knowledge of what SATIRE means. And for yet another, they’re not going to hesitate to use it on you. Even if, like Sam, they’re family guys themselves.
And, unlike you, Sam and Vic are actually GOOD at using satire. Especially on a target as dumb and shitty and utterly deserving of public contempt as yourself.
Ah, that was lovely. Especially the part where his wife cucks him off-camera. Something tells me that she doesn’t need him to “protect” her, as he’s trying to convey the impression of, after all.
She might want to dump him like his first wife did, though, because something tells me he’s too gross to live with for long.
Does anyone think these two little spoiled, racist brats aren’t representative of pretty much everyone at Turning Point USAstroturf? Because if you do, I’ve got a bridge in New York that I’ll sell to your big-dollar racist donors for a song!
And yeah, maybe it’s time to update the old Circle Game, and take that not-okay white-power sign as a “punch me in the ‘nads” invite. Starting with Tim Fucking Pool, and working your way down. Because the political right is racist, and always has been…all the way down.
Hey! Remember this story? Where a racist cop claimed he “feared for his safety” when he arrested a harmless woman for driving while black? And he got off easy for it? Well, the video from her cellphone has finally come to light, and it shows the ugly truth:
Yup, that’s right. Sandra Bland was arrested — and lynched in jail — for supposedly failing to signal a lane change. A minor traffic infraction that should have gotten her let off with a warning, maybe a demerit point or two — and would have resulted in nothing more, had she been white. Certainly it was nothing worth arresting her over.
And the cop responsible for the whole mess was not only NOT afraid for his own safety, he was quite loudly and needlessly aggressive to her in the process of what should have been just a calm, routine traffic stop. Curiously, he picked a spot right in front of a local black college, which strongly suggests that he was cruising around there to racially profile black drivers. He even made an explicit death threat (which was also caught on his own dashcam):“I will light you up!” He — or one of his colleagues — apparently made good on that threat later, because Sandra Bland later told a friend, in a phone call, that she had been “roughed up”.
And all this hokum somehow passed public scrutiny. Even though it failed the sniff test at every turn.
And even worse: The local “news” station didn’t think that this shocking video, which was available to them at the time, was “newsworthy” enough to publish in their coverage of the case. How the hell is that possible, unless they were as racist — and determined to cover up the prevalent societal racism — as the cops who claimed Sandra Bland, a totally non-suicidal person, “hanged herself” in a jail cell?
And they would have all gotten away with it, too, if not for one gutsy reporter who didn’t let the story go.
If you still believe the “official” version of the story, or ever believed it, you might just be as racist as that cop, the local police in this case, and the media who protect them.
Donald Trump said Wednesday that his businesses purposely lost more than $1 billion over the course of a decade as a way of avoiding paying taxes and gaming the system.
“You always wanted to show losses for tax purposes….almost all real estate developers did — and often re-negotiate with banks, it was sport,” Trump tweeted.
The U.S. president was responding to a bombshell New York Times report published Tuesday evening that explained how Trump’s businesses lost $1.17 billion between 1985 and 1994.
The report, which was based on a review of printouts from Trump’s official Internal Revenue Service tax transcripts, said that in 1990 and 1991 alone, Trump lost more than $250 million, which appeared to be more than double what any other U.S. taxpayer lost that year. He lost so much money in his casino, hotel, and real estate businesses that he was able to avoid paying income taxes in eight of the 10 years covered by the transcripts.
But it was all on purpose, the president claimed Wednesday:
“Real estate developers in the 1980s & 1990s, more than 30 years ago, were entitled to massive write-offs and depreciation which would, if one was actively building, show losses and tax losses in almost all cases.”
While depreciation is a completely legal and common way for real estate developers to lower their tax bills, Trump’s use of the tax break to justify $1 billion in losses goes well beyond what could be considered normal.
Over the years, Trump has made no secret of his fondness for using depreciation as a way to lower his tax bill. As a private citizen in 1991, he lobbied Congress on the benefits of depreciation, and defended his use of the tax break in a presidential debate in 2016.
When asked if he used a $915.7 million loss in 1995 to avoid paying personal federal income taxes, Trump responded: “Of course I did. Of course I did. … A lot of my write-off was depreciation.” He added: “I pay tax and I pay federal tax too. But I have a write-off; a lot of it is depreciation, which is a wonderful charge. I love depreciation.”
What sets Trump apart, however, is that not only did he claim massive, consistent losses, posting a negative adjusted gross income every year from 1985 to 1994, he did so with other people’s money. By the mid-1990s, Trump had amassed millions of dollars in personal debt.
He also financed an Atlantic City casino through a bond offering that raised hundreds of millions from the public.
“Depreciation for buildings that are not suffering wear and tear, that is a generous tax benefit, every developer gets that,” says Steven Rosenthal, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. “But taking deductions on other people’s money, that goes beyond what other real estate developers would do.”
Taxpayers don’t recognize income when they borrow money. But if the borrower is forgiven some or all of the debt, they need to report the difference as taxable income.
Trump seems to have aggressively worked to avoid reporting taxable income after restructuring debts, says Rosenthal.
By deducting other people’s money and not offsetting those deductions at the time his debts were restructured, Rosenthal says, Trump was able to avoid paying taxes by using millions of dollars of net operating losses over several years to soak up future profits — if there were any.
“He is misdirecting the public by focusing on deductions,” says Rosenthal. “Sure, he took deductions. They were probably lawful. But he borrowed money to take those deductions. When loans were forgiven, he never picked up any income.”
Yeah, I’ll just bet he loves depreciation. That’s why his flagship tower in NYC is such a fucking dump, amirite? And if he’d bothered with the upkeep of it, he’d have had to spend money. And to do so, and to be able to write a cheque that didn’t bounce like one of those rubber balls from the gum machines, he’d also have to report his forgiven loans as income, and make sure his own books reflect the fact. And we all now know how allergic he is to actually having an income, when he just lives to fool around with money and never pay up on what he owes…as his prior dealings with contractors show all too clearly.
Is he a shitty businessman, a fraud, or both? I know which of them my money’s on…
The real question is, why is this motherfucker still squatting in the Oval Office?
Fear doesn't travel well; just as it can warp judgment, its absence can diminish memory's truth. What terrifies one generation is likely to bring only a puzzled smile to the next.
--Arthur Miller, "Why I Wrote 'The Crucible'", The New Yorker, October 21, 1996
All opinions here are the brain-wrackings of Sabina C. Becker, unless otherwise credited. If you cite them, please give credit where due.
