Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Logo
Search Members FAQ Portal
  • Navigation
  • Our Hoosier Board
  • →
  • Other
  • →
  • Politics
  • →
  • The second debate
Welcome to Our Hoosier Board!

Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions.

Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful.

Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine!

Cheers,
sirbrianwilson

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
The second debate
Tweet Topic Started: Oct 9 2016, 08:11 PM (545 Views)
rkl15 Oct 12 2016, 07:08 AM Post #61
Member Avatar
All-Star
Posts:
1,970
Group:
Members
Member
#460
Joined:
December 24, 2013
brumdog44
Oct 12 2016, 05:58 AM
Mr Gray
Oct 11 2016, 09:30 PM
brumdog44
Oct 11 2016, 03:50 PM
Mr Gray
Oct 11 2016, 07:21 AM
brumdog44
Oct 10 2016, 10:23 PM
accelerated depreciation would not mean that you are depreciating it over a potential of twenty years -- something that Trump does not deny.
Brum.......the accelerated part is mostly irrelevant. Even if I depreciated them over 5 or 20 years it doesn't change the fact that I'm taking a large depreciation loss while actually growing my net worth.

And the loss can carry over for 100 years if I'm around to file taxes that long. Do you setiously not understand that?
every single site I have read says that year's loss could have possibly allowed him to avoid paying federal taxes for three years prior and fifteen years past 1995.

If you believe that is incorrect, link up sites showing differently.
What? Brum I'm giving you a chance here.....it's not a big deal if you don't understand business tax codes, but don't just make stuff up. Read up on business loss carry over. It does not expire until the loss has been exhausted. You apply the loss against future capital gains at a one to one ratio. It's very conceivable and even likely that trump hasn't exhausted that yet, meaning he hasn't made 900million in capital gains since then to fully offset the loss.
So I'm a liar?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/10/donald-trump-federal-income-taxes


I gave a simple request and stayed that everything I have read analyzing his 1995 tax returns said he could have avoided paying taxes three years prior to fifteen years after.

I never accused you of doing that -- I simply asked for links disputing what I had read. I understand how depreciation works but don't know if there are upper limits to the amount you can claim, which is why I asked for links disputing what I read. That was met with you saying I was 'making stuff up', which clearly I was not. I posted two places where I read it, you can google it and find tons of other places. I don't appreciate the accusation that I was lieing when I simply asked for links that disputed what I read so that the conversation could be moved along.
Hoping this wasn't aimed at me.

Don't remember calling you a liar or anything, just trying to give some links to clarify some
questions I've read on here.

Didn't mean to piss anyone off.

And there are no limitations on the "amount" of depreciation you can claim in any single year.

IRS Depreciation rules
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Oct 12 2016, 10:03 AM Post #62
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Oct 12 2016, 05:58 AM
Mr Gray
Oct 11 2016, 09:30 PM
brumdog44
Oct 11 2016, 03:50 PM
Mr Gray
Oct 11 2016, 07:21 AM
brumdog44
Oct 10 2016, 10:23 PM
accelerated depreciation would not mean that you are depreciating it over a potential of twenty years -- something that Trump does not deny.
Brum.......the accelerated part is mostly irrelevant. Even if I depreciated them over 5 or 20 years it doesn't change the fact that I'm taking a large depreciation loss while actually growing my net worth.

And the loss can carry over for 100 years if I'm around to file taxes that long. Do you setiously not understand that?
every single site I have read says that year's loss could have possibly allowed him to avoid paying federal taxes for three years prior and fifteen years past 1995.

If you believe that is incorrect, link up sites showing differently.
What? Brum I'm giving you a chance here.....it's not a big deal if you don't understand business tax codes, but don't just make stuff up. Read up on business loss carry over. It does not expire until the loss has been exhausted. You apply the loss against future capital gains at a one to one ratio. It's very conceivable and even likely that trump hasn't exhausted that yet, meaning he hasn't made 900million in capital gains since then to fully offset the loss.
So I'm a liar?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/10/donald-trump-federal-income-taxes


I gave a simple request and stayed that everything I have read analyzing his 1995 tax returns said he could have avoided paying taxes three years prior to fifteen years after.

I never accused you of doing that -- I simply asked for links disputing what I had read. I understand how depreciation works but don't know if there are upper limits to the amount you can claim, which is why I asked for links disputing what I read. That was met with you saying I was 'making stuff up', which clearly I was not. I posted two places where I read it, you can google it and find tons of other places. I don't appreciate the accusation that I was lieing when I simply asked for links that disputed what I read so that the conversation could be moved along.
you're going to take offense to this, but it seems as you have a very severe fundamental misunderstanding of how this part of the tax code works, and how it is being interpreted in the articles you posted. Given your education level and expertise with numbers, it seems to me that you're either being disingenuous in your conclusion, or your hatred for all things Trump doesn't allow you to think rationally.

1) There are no limits to carry over loss. You won't really find an "article" about this....it's just the basics of the tax code and it's not something that is in dispute (your articles don't even remotely contradict this - I'll explain down below.)

2) There are no limits to depreciation expense. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-regs/depreciation_faqs_v2.pdf

3) As I've explained multiple times now, you can depreciate an asset down to zero (sometimes accelerated, sometimes over time...makes no difference to the end result here), but still own the asset which counts towards your net worth. As I illustrated before, next year my vehicles will show zero value on my books because I will have depreciated them fully and taken the loss (this is fully allowed...not gray area), yet I still own the vehicles. In some cases you depreciate tools or equipment and they may actually increase in value with inflation or situations where a certain machine becomes rare...etc. In those cases your net worth would increase even though you took the loss on the paper depreciation of the items.

Your statement "But the net worth he claims to have doesn't jibe with the deductions he would have sVed." http://s15.zetaboards.com/Our_Hoosier_Board/single/?p=10002599&t=10037326 is completely nonsensical as I have illustrated again above.

4) You said "And the amounts you are giving? Come on. $916,000,000 in losses." http://s15.zetaboards.com/Our_Hoosier_Board/single/?p=10002583&t=10037326 Again, this comment doesn't come from a place of reason or understanding of how taxes and taxable income work....it's nonsense. At this point, his 1995 taxes have certainly been audited and this is the amount that he showed as a loss within the confines of the tax code. I don't know how much of it is depreciation, but as I showed above, there is no limit to depreciation expense, so it could have been a significant amount...especially considering he is in the real estate business dealing with very very large ticket purchases.

5) You said "And what plays even worse is that if he hasn't paid an taxes , why does his tax plan call for even greTer breaks for therich?" http://s15.zetaboards.com/Our_Hoosier_Board/single/?p=10002599&t=10037326 . Just for the record, depreciation expense is available to all of us, not just the "rich", and it is also ABSOLUTELY necessary. Otherwise, when my business purchases a new vehicle, or equipment...etc, I would be out the cash, yet still pay tax on it, because these types of items under today's codes are not "expenses".

6) Regarding the articles you posted: Both of them are citing the same "tax experts" from the Times. If you would have just taken a moment to try to understand what they were saying, you would see how far off you are in your conclusion of their writing. Nowhere did they say that his loss would be limited to 18 years or any other year. They CLEARLY show that they are estimating how long it would take to expire that loss if he were to make $50million per year in subsequent years....which is just a complete hypothetical guess for the sake of the article.
Quote:
 
Although Mr. Trump’s taxable income in subsequent years is as yet unknown, a $916 million loss in 1995 would have been large enough to wipe out more than $50 million a year in taxable income over 18 years.

50 million x 18 years equals about the 900million we're talking about.

The 18 years figure was probably just used because that's how many years we're talking about to take him to the present. Here's how that works if you're following along. He probably hasn't filed his 2015 taxes yet, and won't until this saturday, so we're dealing with his 2014 being the most recent. His carry over loss would have begun in 1996. 1996 plus 18 equals 2014.

The article is written with an obvious slant and perhaps they used these figures to intentionally confuse those who don't actually understand how this works.....and apparently you took the bait hook line and sinker brum.

As I pointed about above, the 2nd article you posted from Vanity fair references the same hypothetical tax analysis from the first article.

Fact is, depending upon how much taxable income Trump has had since 1995, he could have years and years worth of carry over still available....and you and I have the exact same ability if we choose to purchase eligible assets. It's not a loophole...it's not "for the rich"....even the smallest mom&pop operations have this available to them, and for very very good reason.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Oct 12 2016, 04:36 PM Post #63
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
So this is the process I see:

1. I ask simply for a link since I stated everything I read had stated that everything I was reading on said he could have avoided paying taxes for three years prior and fifteen years after.
2. You call me a liar.
3. I show you what I had read and say I don't appreciate the accusation. I also state that I wasn't sure if there was a limit to how much depreciation could have been used.
4. You finally provide a links from the irs -- which is all.I.asked.for.in.the.first.place.

So got it, I'm just an ignorant, uninformed liar for you to educate -- the ignorance part I SAID UP FRONT WHICH IS WHY I ASKED FOR LINKS. But no, instead of just providing it you want to poke the bear. Don't bother.

I will point out that your statement of '18 years is probably just used because that would bring us to today' is not true. What I won't do is call your math nonsensical, say you made stuff up, or a very severe understanding how math works.

1996 taxes would have been paid in 1997; that's year 1.
1997 taxes paid in 1998; year 2
1998 taxes paid in 1999, year 3
1999 paid in 2000, year 4.
fast forward 14 more years and that would mean his 2013 taxes paid in 2014 would be the 18th tax year we are talking about.
The most recent taxes paid -- for tax year 2014, paid in 2015 -- would be year 19, not 18.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Oct 12 2016, 06:30 PM Post #64
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Oct 12 2016, 04:36 PM
So this is the process I see:

1. I ask simply for a link since I stated everything I read had stated that everything I was reading on said he could have avoided paying taxes for three years prior and fifteen years after.
2. You call me a liar.
3. I show you what I had read and say I don't appreciate the accusation. I also state that I wasn't sure if there was a limit to how much depreciation could have been used.
4. You finally provide a links from the irs -- which is all.I.asked.for.in.the.first.place.

So got it, I'm just an ignorant, uninformed liar for you to educate -- the ignorance part I SAID UP FRONT WHICH IS WHY I ASKED FOR LINKS. But no, instead of just providing it you want to poke the bear. Don't bother.

I will point out that your statement of '18 years is probably just used because that would bring us to today' is not true. What I won't do is call your math nonsensical, say you made stuff up, or a very severe understanding how math works.

1996 taxes would have been paid in 1997; that's year 1.
1997 taxes paid in 1998; year 2
1998 taxes paid in 1999, year 3
1999 paid in 2000, year 4.
fast forward 14 more years and that would mean his 2013 taxes paid in 2014 would be the 18th tax year we are talking about.
The most recent taxes paid -- for tax year 2014, paid in 2015 -- would be year 19, not 18.
The ignorance part you "said up front". Really? No....this is exactly what you said up front:
Quote:
 
Anyway, he could have saved $50 million per year in federal taxes per year for 15 years afterward. He claims a $10 billion worth. He still would have had to pay federal taxes if his wealth claims were real


That's an absolutely false statement by you and you state it as fact.....no indication of ignorance.

I pointed out your error and you followed it up with this:
Quote:
 
the net worth he claims to have doesn't jibe with the deductions he would have sVed


Again a completely false statement stated as fact with no indication or acknowledgement of ignorance.

so are you lying now?
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Oct 12 2016, 11:26 PM Post #65
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
So if a statement is incorrect, it must be a lie.

Cool story.

So why did you lie about 18 years of taxes bringing it up to today?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Oct 13 2016, 10:11 AM Post #66
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Oct 12 2016, 11:26 PM
So if a statement is incorrect, it must be a lie.

Cool story.

So why did you lie about 18 years of taxes bringing it up to today?
i never called you a liar, but I assume you are equating my comment about you not "just making stuff up" to me calling you a liar. If you took it that way, I apologize....i didn't intend it to call you a liar, rather meant it as further implication that you had no idea what you were talking about regarding the tax code as it related to Trump's situation.

And no....being incorrect isn't the same as lying. That being said, however, yesterday you posted the following:
Quote:
 
So got it, I'm just an ignorant, uninformed liar for you to educate -- the ignorance part I SAID UP FRONT WHICH IS WHY I ASKED FOR LINKS. But no, instead of just providing it you want to poke the bear. Don't bother.


You claim that you noted your ignorance on the topic up front....but you did not as I illustrated with my post yesterday. I asked if you were lying about this. I mean....claiming that you said something when you really didn't....that is exactly what Trump did, which you called him a liar for in this thread (as well as many other threads).
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Oct 13 2016, 04:37 PM Post #67
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
I will amend the 'saying it up front' to 'saying it'. It was why I asked a question about whether there was a limit on the amount of depreciation you could claim per year plus asking for a links disputing the 18 years of taxes. It wasn't meant to be an accusation that you were wrong -- it was meant to ask for links contradicting everything I had read(and heard as well -- I'm a news radio kind of guy). Even Fox News on Sirius was saying what I had read (Yes, I mainly listen to CNN and Fox -- Fox because I do want to know what those with an opinion opposite mine are saying). Basically every news outlet I read or heard from -- liberal, neutral, or conservative -- was citing the NYT story and not questioning it. It's why I didn't question it -- the conservative outlets I heard from didn't either. Seriously, when you questioned it the first time I googled to find anyone outlet questioning how the NYT arrived at 18 years -- not a single source, conservative or otherwise, did.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Oct 14 2016, 05:16 PM Post #68
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Oct 13 2016, 04:37 PM
I will amend the 'saying it up front' to 'saying it'. It was why I asked a question about whether there was a limit on the amount of depreciation you could claim per year plus asking for a links disputing the 18 years of taxes. It wasn't meant to be an accusation that you were wrong -- it was meant to ask for links contradicting everything I had read(and heard as well -- I'm a news radio kind of guy). Even Fox News on Sirius was saying what I had read (Yes, I mainly listen to CNN and Fox -- Fox because I do want to know what those with an opinion opposite mine are saying). Basically every news outlet I read or heard from -- liberal, neutral, or conservative -- was citing the NYT story and not questioning it. It's why I didn't question it -- the conservative outlets I heard from didn't either. Seriously, when you questioned it the first time I googled to find anyone outlet questioning how the NYT arrived at 18 years -- not a single source, conservative or otherwise, did.
Well, hopefully you learned your lesson on relying on the New York Times.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Oct 14 2016, 06:25 PM Post #69
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Mr Gray
Oct 14 2016, 05:16 PM
brumdog44
Oct 13 2016, 04:37 PM
I will amend the 'saying it up front' to 'saying it'. It was why I asked a question about whether there was a limit on the amount of depreciation you could claim per year plus asking for a links disputing the 18 years of taxes. It wasn't meant to be an accusation that you were wrong -- it was meant to ask for links contradicting everything I had read(and heard as well -- I'm a news radio kind of guy). Even Fox News on Sirius was saying what I had read (Yes, I mainly listen to CNN and Fox -- Fox because I do want to know what those with an opinion opposite mine are saying). Basically every news outlet I read or heard from -- liberal, neutral, or conservative -- was citing the NYT story and not questioning it. It's why I didn't question it -- the conservative outlets I heard from didn't either. Seriously, when you questioned it the first time I googled to find anyone outlet questioning how the NYT arrived at 18 years -- not a single source, conservative or otherwise, did.
Well, hopefully you learned your lesson on relying on the New York Times.
What news source do you listen to/read that has never been inaccurate?


Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Oct 14 2016, 06:55 PM Post #70
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Oct 14 2016, 06:25 PM
Mr Gray
Oct 14 2016, 05:16 PM
brumdog44
Oct 13 2016, 04:37 PM
I will amend the 'saying it up front' to 'saying it'. It was why I asked a question about whether there was a limit on the amount of depreciation you could claim per year plus asking for a links disputing the 18 years of taxes. It wasn't meant to be an accusation that you were wrong -- it was meant to ask for links contradicting everything I had read(and heard as well -- I'm a news radio kind of guy). Even Fox News on Sirius was saying what I had read (Yes, I mainly listen to CNN and Fox -- Fox because I do want to know what those with an opinion opposite mine are saying). Basically every news outlet I read or heard from -- liberal, neutral, or conservative -- was citing the NYT story and not questioning it. It's why I didn't question it -- the conservative outlets I heard from didn't either. Seriously, when you questioned it the first time I googled to find anyone outlet questioning how the NYT arrived at 18 years -- not a single source, conservative or otherwise, did.
Well, hopefully you learned your lesson on relying on the New York Times.
What news source do you listen to/read that has never been inaccurate?


I said "rely on"....you said "listen to/read"...different things. I mean...you made a hate filled accusation on bad information that was extremely easy to look up and refute.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Oct 15 2016, 03:26 AM Post #71
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Mr Gray
Oct 14 2016, 06:55 PM
brumdog44
Oct 14 2016, 06:25 PM
Mr Gray
Oct 14 2016, 05:16 PM
brumdog44
Oct 13 2016, 04:37 PM
I will amend the 'saying it up front' to 'saying it'. It was why I asked a question about whether there was a limit on the amount of depreciation you could claim per year plus asking for a links disputing the 18 years of taxes. It wasn't meant to be an accusation that you were wrong -- it was meant to ask for links contradicting everything I had read(and heard as well -- I'm a news radio kind of guy). Even Fox News on Sirius was saying what I had read (Yes, I mainly listen to CNN and Fox -- Fox because I do want to know what those with an opinion opposite mine are saying). Basically every news outlet I read or heard from -- liberal, neutral, or conservative -- was citing the NYT story and not questioning it. It's why I didn't question it -- the conservative outlets I heard from didn't either. Seriously, when you questioned it the first time I googled to find anyone outlet questioning how the NYT arrived at 18 years -- not a single source, conservative or otherwise, did.
Well, hopefully you learned your lesson on relying on the New York Times.
What news source do you listen to/read that has never been inaccurate?


I said "rely on"....you said "listen to/read"...different things. I mean...you made a hate filled accusation on bad information that was extremely easy to look up and refute.
'Hate-filled accusation'???
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Oct 15 2016, 04:26 PM Post #72
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Oct 15 2016, 03:26 AM
Mr Gray
Oct 14 2016, 06:55 PM
brumdog44
Oct 14 2016, 06:25 PM
Mr Gray
Oct 14 2016, 05:16 PM
brumdog44
Oct 13 2016, 04:37 PM
I will amend the 'saying it up front' to 'saying it'. It was why I asked a question about whether there was a limit on the amount of depreciation you could claim per year plus asking for a links disputing the 18 years of taxes. It wasn't meant to be an accusation that you were wrong -- it was meant to ask for links contradicting everything I had read(and heard as well -- I'm a news radio kind of guy). Even Fox News on Sirius was saying what I had read (Yes, I mainly listen to CNN and Fox -- Fox because I do want to know what those with an opinion opposite mine are saying). Basically every news outlet I read or heard from -- liberal, neutral, or conservative -- was citing the NYT story and not questioning it. It's why I didn't question it -- the conservative outlets I heard from didn't either. Seriously, when you questioned it the first time I googled to find anyone outlet questioning how the NYT arrived at 18 years -- not a single source, conservative or otherwise, did.
Well, hopefully you learned your lesson on relying on the New York Times.
What news source do you listen to/read that has never been inaccurate?


I said "rely on"....you said "listen to/read"...different things. I mean...you made a hate filled accusation on bad information that was extremely easy to look up and refute.
'Hate-filled accusation'???
yeah man....if you could step back and take an unbiased view of the tone of your posts when your talking about Trump or formerly Cruz.....it's way different than your norm....much more "fly off the handle", "type before I think" type of stuff with a very strong tone of hate and disgust.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sirbrianwilson Oct 15 2016, 05:15 PM Post #73
Member Avatar
Stemlerite
Posts:
22,404
Group:
Admin
Member
#1
Joined:
February 4, 2008
I don't see hating trump as necessarily a weird thing.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Oct 15 2016, 06:43 PM Post #74
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
sirbrianwilson
Oct 15 2016, 05:15 PM
I don't see hating trump as necessarily a weird thing.
Nobody said it was weird.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sirbrianwilson Oct 15 2016, 08:50 PM Post #75
Member Avatar
Stemlerite
Posts:
22,404
Group:
Admin
Member
#1
Joined:
February 4, 2008
Mr Gray
Oct 15 2016, 06:43 PM
sirbrianwilson
Oct 15 2016, 05:15 PM
I don't see hating trump as necessarily a weird thing.
Nobody said it was weird.
I was just making a statement.

br
Posted Image
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 7:52 PM Jul 10
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy