***Official Political Discussion Thread***

1,334
3,740
Joined Jul 15, 2018
The "Michael" Obama ppl crack me up. The woman has a whole *** book detailing her childhood until today. Dates, addresses, pictures, quotes.... but a photoshop on the internet is what they CHOOSE to believe
I believe Melania Trump was an undocumented immigrant who had a anchor baby with Trump.

Prove me wrong!
 

Methodical Management

Staff member
Co-Founder
6,464
22,214
Joined Dec 8, 1999
An Appeals Court sided with Republicans so the voter suppression tactic of having o ly drop off location per county remains. Here is the kicker...

So voter suppression goes forward because of seats Mitch stole from Obama.

****ing infuriating
Further proof, if proof were needed, that you can’t simultaneously support the appointment of “conservative judges” and oppose racist voter suppression.

At minimum, this represents a conscious decision to prioritize government regulation of women's reproductive decisions and government deregulation for businesses over state-sanctioned White Supremacism.

Yes, it would entirely change the tenor of his post if he used the word allegedly.

Instead he made a sweeping proclamation that I committed a crime based on information you concede that he doesn't have.

The defense of "semantics" to handwave outright lies is astounding. He stated I "stole PPP funds;" I didn't. I received a grant for my eligible business.

At best, you are saying "it is not unfair to gather your business was ineligible for the grant." But that is not the same thing, and you know it.

It would not be unfair to gather that anyone that received an EIDL grant had an ineligible business, based on your logic, with the same limited knowledge.
The user made an unflattering characterization of your behavior, which you're choosing to interpret as literally as possible to suit your defense. Are you aware of any readers who seriously interpreted his use of the word "steal" as anything other than figurative? When factoring in his prior objections to your behavior, it's clear that he isn't accusing you of committing an Oceans Eleven style heist to infiltrate and abscond with $1,000 from the US Treasury.

The underlying premise here is that you took money that was never intended for someone in your situation and exploited an urgent government relief program whose benefits are trifling for you, but essential for the intended beneficiaries who too often failed to claim it before shameless opportunists greedily lapped it all up. You didn't need the loan advance to begin with. You could easily repay it if you wanted to. You'll keep it simply because you can and cite their failure to stop you as proof of its propriety. You dislike this framing, but none of these essential elements are in dispute.



Focusing on semantics, as you so often do, is an especially poor tactic in this instance. It comes across as though you're complaining about details because you can't argue against the substance. What's more, now you're openly lobbying for the censorship of any criticism on the matter you feel portrays you in an especially negative light. These aren't generally indicators of a strong position.

All you had to say was "I didn't need the loan, but this isn't the hobby business you assumed. I may not have registered the business as a company, but I pay self-employment taxes and file a schedule C with the IRS just like any other self-proprietor. You can argue that the law was intended to provide relief for those in dire need and I admit I'm not in that category, but that's not how the law was written and my case is far from the most egregious out there. You don't have to like it, but it's legal."

People will still think that what you did was unethical, and, critically, maintain the right to those opinions, but it would be harder to argue that it was illegal, if that's all that matters to you.

Instead, you chose to split hairs and accuse him of "lying" because he used the word "loan" instead of "grant," and then impugned the integrity of our community moderators for permitting this.

Incidentally, here you are in July stating that you received a loan advance, which, you'll note, is so named because it is a portion of a loan issued in advance.

I got an advance for a loan that does not need to be repaid.
Now you're trying to claim that you never received "any loan at all," and anyone who states otherwise - as you yourself did in July - is telling "outright lies."

This is like Bernie Madoff arguing that the real injustice is that he was called a "thief" when his victims all gave him money voluntarily and of their own free will. You're missing the point.


It would not be unfair to gather that anyone that received an EIDL grant had an ineligible business, based on your logic, with the same limited knowledge.
For someone whose go-to move is presenting distinctions without a difference, you went full opposite lock with this swerve.

What you're basically trying to say is "if my loan isn't legitimate, no one's is." That's quite a stretch. The information you've disclosed about this loan may be inadequate to establish its eligibility, but not inadequate to establish the basic eligibility of all such loans.

If a professional chef applied for an EIDL to save their only restaurant, we have enough information to distinguish their business from a hobby. We know that they're operating a small business and likely depend upon its income. We know that this, at least superficially, appears to be the sort of situation for which the program was created. They're not running the Rainforest Café, nor are they requesting an emergency loan for a lemonade stand. It passes the smell test.

Per your disclosures: you're a corporate lawyer who sought a $1,000 loan advance with no intent to repay in association with a Stock X account. You've admitted that you do not need the loan to keep that business going, nor do you rely on the income you derive from it. It shouldn’t have caught you off guard that people might find this galling, especially given your stance on other forms of public assistance.


Again, the mere receipt of the loan advance does not definitively signify its propriety. The program was administered in haste, with the goal of expeditiously delivering emergency funds to those in dire and urgent need. The OIG has since recognized that many of these loans were improper, and should not have been issued.

"Getting away with it" doesn't make the loan proper, let alone ethical.

You could clear a lot of this up yourself by differentiating your Stock X account from those with which our community members are broadly (and, in many cases, personally) familiar.
How many items do you sell per year? Do you purchase more sneakers for yourself than you do for your business? What percentage of your “inventory” is in your own shoe size? Do you pay the self-employment tax? Do you file a Schedule C to report your profits? Do you file a personal property return in your state? Have you done so in years prior to your EIDL application, or are you only now treating it as a business?


While you ought to be prepared to answer such questions should the SBA-OIG investigation ever wind its way to your doorstep, you've deliberately left this vague and open to speculation on our forums. That's your prerogative, as it is the prerogative of any other user to voice their opinion on the information you've thus far provided.


Our moderation team has proactively removed scores of posts that have been categorized as "personal attacks" against you. Your use of the EIDL is not beyond reproach or criticism. Focusing on the use of the word "steal" instead of "potential misappropriation" is captious and petty. The facts of the matter as you've presented them are scarcely more flattering.

In the same way that we don't have to like all of the loans issued by the SBA in order for them to be legally obtained, you don't have to like all of the criticism you receive for it to be considered "in bounds."

The user was not, in my judgment, making up lies about your conduct. He used figurative language to negatively characterize an act that you voluntarily disclosed on our forums. (We’ve helped you maintain relative anonymity despite these disclosures.) Mistakenly referring to the source of the loan as the PPP rather than an EIDL is immaterial to the central criticism, and he quite clearly - in my view and in the view of seemingly everyone other than you - used the word "steal" to mean "taking something that was not intended for you."


I can't begin to tell you how many times over the past six months alone that somebody has posted a revealing comment about their views on race and racism in America, and subsequently pleaded with the staff not to allow anyone to “attack their character” by calling them racist.
Should we ban anyone who accuses another user of being a "racist" if that user believes it to be a "lie?"

It would not serve our community well to conflate criticism of a user's statements or actions with base insults and name calling.

It's ironic that you're alleging a double standard when you're the one requesting preferential treatment.


If you have any further concerns about this, feel free to take it to my inbox. This thread has enough sources of distraction as it is, and it's clear that you strongly dislike further public discussion of your EIDL advance.
 

junglejim

Supporter
16,147
24,086
Joined Dec 15, 2012
You could clear a lot of this up yourself by differentiating your Stock X account from those with which our community members are broadly (and, in many cases, personally) familiar.
How many items do you sell per year? Do you purchase more sneakers for yourself than you do for your business? What percentage of your “inventory” is in your own shoe size? Do you pay the self-employment tax? Do you file a Schedule C to report your profits? Do you file a personal property return in your state? Have you done so in years prior to your EIDL application, or are you only now treating it as a business?
He has already been asked for some of this information and could have cleared this up but chose not to.

Since he is choosing not to provide any details, I'm choosing to believe he committed fraud.
 
9,713
1,849
Joined Dec 30, 2006
So, let me get this straight, someone accuses me of committing a crime and I’m to prove myself innocent by submitting myself to questioning from fake internet tax auditors?

Or else the assertion that I “figuratively stole” is reasonable.

Gotta love the guilty until proven innocent standard :rolleyes

I didn’t report junglejim junglejim ’s post by the way. He offered “criticism” and I responded to the nonsense. So in the same way he can critique meI can critique his critique.

If you have any further concerns about this, feel free to take it to my inbox. This thread has enough sources of distraction as it is, and it's clear that you strongly dislike further public discussion of your EIDL advance.
So after publicly critiquing me, I am supposed to go to your inbox when no such request is made of the person who brought the entire matter up?

I didn’t report his post. I didn’t request anything from the mods. You asked me about the preference of the “allegedly” language and I responded.

This feels like you’re using a bully pulpit to publicly condemn me and then telling me I need to respond to your public condemnation in private.
 

junglejim

Supporter
16,147
24,086
Joined Dec 15, 2012
So, let me get this straight, someone accuses me of committing a crime and I’m to prove myself innocent by submitting myself to questioning from fake internet tax auditors?

Or else the assertion that I “figuratively stole” is reasonable.

Gotta love the guilty until proven innocent standard :rolleyes

I didn’t report junglejim junglejim ’s post by the way. He offered “criticism” and I responded to the nonsense. So in the same way he can critique meI can critique his critique.



So after publicly critiquing me, I am supposed to go to your inbox when no such request is made of the person who brought the entire matter up?

I didn’t report his post. I didn’t request anything from the mods. You asked me about the preference of the “allegedly” language and I responded.

This feels like you’re using a bully pulpit to publicly condemn me and then telling me I need to respond to your public condemnation in private.
Technically you brought it up. I wouldn't have known that you stole the money without you offering up the details.
 
Top Bottom
  AdBlock Detected

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks some useful and important features of our website. For the best possible site experience please take a moment to disable your AdBlocker or head over to our upgrade page to donate for an ad-free experience Upgrade now