Clent

joined 1 year ago
[–] Clent 11 points 4 days ago

I'm not sure which is funnier, that he is disparaging his own expert witness or that he admits to have excellent forgery skills.

[–] Clent 5 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Is there more to this I'm not seeing?

Things are not true simply because they are said by someone on the site former known as Twitter.

[–] Clent 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

4chan is anonymous. That leaves only the turds that can handle the stink.

Things like Usenet were only semi-anonymous.

I actually think the internet works better with personas that stick to the person. There are issues there but they are solvable.

A forum where anyone can spin up new accounts is closer to anonymous/4chan than Usenet was.

[–] Clent 2 points 5 days ago (4 children)

Yep. I would jump at the chance to be in a forum that didn't have moderation. The early internet did just fine without moderation.

Learning to ignore the crazy person on the street corner is a life lesson. Having them arrest or otherwise disposed of because, "it's wrong because..." is not workable approach. No one has executed it successfully, even billion dollar companies fail at it.

[–] Clent 1 points 6 days ago

There are other articles that have pictures and more details

Example

[–] Clent 11 points 6 days ago (2 children)

This is often the case with abusers. Actual abuse victims rarely want to talk about their abuse with people they are close with, let alone random internet strangers.

Someone who runs around telling anyone who will listen how they were abused or mistreated is more likely to be the perpetrator of abuse than the victim of abuse. The more recent the abuse the more likely this is true.

[–] Clent 10 points 6 days ago

Farms should be required to treat any animal run off for the same reason we treat any human sewage. This is a solved problem, we just need force them to apply the solution.

[–] Clent 1 points 1 week ago

I assure you, I put no effort into being an internet fuckwad.

[–] Clent 0 points 1 week ago

Nope. The richest US billionaire has 500 billion. So the spread of billionaires exists only in half the space of millionaires. Assuming even distribution between both bounds the most it can be is 500x.

But that's only part of the problem. Billions buys an entire accountant team to protect their wealth. Billions buy one politicians to create tax loopholes leaving the IRS with nothing.

The IRS is not going to fix our billionaire problem.

[–] Clent 1 points 1 week ago

You're not only bad at math and reasoning about large number, your reading comprehension is terrible.

I don't know how you can read any of what I've written in this thread and think I have any interest in protecting billionaires. Dumbfounding.

[–] Clent 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Only if you assume those people all have only one million dollars.

Billionaires also have 1000x times the resources to pay for accounting firms to back up their tax loop holes. They are often generational wealth so they learned to hide it from birth. The only option is to remove them from the ecosystem. Taxing them isn't even a half measure. They shouldn't exist, hence why they should be plated.

I don't want a few millions of a billionaires assets taxed. I might accept a taxation rate back to 99% like it allegedly was before Ronnie took us down this dark timeline back in the 1980's but the older I get, the hungrier I become.

[–] Clent 3 points 1 week ago (6 children)

There are fewer than 1,000 billionaires in the US.

There are over 20,000 millionaires.

Opportunity cost indicates they should finish going through the millionaires first.

We should be eating the billionaires and save the IRS the future effort.

 
view more: next ›