Internet Sales Tax

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
Raw tyrannical legalized robbery? Magisterial power? Holy shit man…talk about missing the point…I’ve gotta read some Ayn Rand sometime to really see where you nutjobs are coming from. Speaking of “indoctrination”…

So what’s the solution if every business in the world suddenly started conducting business online and there are no sales taxes? We don’t have roads? We don’t have schools? The pont is sales taxes pay for all those things that we all love and enjoy…it is not a tyrannical money grab. The infrastructure was created with a certain expectation of REVENUE coming in, and part of that equation was citizens who are using those “luxuries” contributed a certain portion of it it via taxes, including sales tax.

Since all those citizens are dirty rotten tax cheats and looking for ways to avoid paying for these items, they are now putting the onus on the businesses to collect it and send it back to where its belongs.

[/quote]

Be careful not to fall in the “its either statism or nihilism” thought pattern. There is always another option. I just believe that at this time, with the condition of our economy, we cannot afford to put any more “governmental drag” on commerce. [/quote]

But it is the government that creates commerce.[/quote]

Hyperbole

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
Raw tyrannical legalized robbery? Magisterial power? Holy shit man…talk about missing the point…I’ve gotta read some Ayn Rand sometime to really see where you nutjobs are coming from. Speaking of “indoctrination”…

So what’s the solution if every business in the world suddenly started conducting business online and there are no sales taxes? We don’t have roads? We don’t have schools? The pont is sales taxes pay for all those things that we all love and enjoy…it is not a tyrannical money grab. The infrastructure was created with a certain expectation of REVENUE coming in, and part of that equation was citizens who are using those “luxuries” contributed a certain portion of it it via taxes, including sales tax.

Since all those citizens are dirty rotten tax cheats and looking for ways to avoid paying for these items, they are now putting the onus on the businesses to collect it and send it back to where its belongs.

[/quote]

I thought the establishment of fuel taxes paid for our roads and bridges?

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
It’s just a money grab. Sales taxes pay for the costs a local business imposes on the community (e.g., police protection, fire protection, whatever). The only thing an internet provider imposes is delivery — which is paid by UPS, FedEx, etc.

This is just theft, because, well they can do it.

The more power you let the government have, the more they will abuse it.

The Democrats and the Establishment Republicans are both disgusting.[/quote]

Sheesh, I know…I just hate all these roads to drive on, and schools to indocrtinate…oops I mean “educate” our children, and police to go catch bad guys…

Everyone should just altruistically donate to these organizations, that way there can be NO TAXES AT ALL!!![/quote]

A sales tax is a tax on the business, because, as you note businesses use and enjoy the services of the state where they are physically located.

Out-of-state businesses (say Texas) do not use in-state (say California) roads, schools, etc.

To force them to pay taxes for roads and schools in another state is absurd.

Just because a product is put out in the “stream of commerce” and it ends up in another state does not give the destination state the right to tax it. Such has been the law of the USA since before the USA was the USA and is probably prohibited by Article I, Section 10 of the US Constitution.

Previous attempts at this were found unconstitutional for the above reason.[/quote]

Very well said. I tried to explain this to a co-worker today, but was unable to state it this simply and to the point. Forgive me if I plagiarize for future use. [/quote]

Feel free. It’s not my logic or reasoning. It’s been the law of the USA for 200 years.

There was a case (probably 1880s, not long after the Civil War) back when southern states were attempting to tax manufacturers in the north because their goods were ending up in stores in the south.

The former Confederates made much the same arguments as VTBalla (to sum up: “it’s for the children, we need tax revenue”)

I think Sears Roebuck (remember the Sears Roebuck catalog) was the plaintiff or in one of the cases — shipping basically all consumer goods everywhere.

The Supreme Court said “no way.”

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
Raw tyrannical legalized robbery? Magisterial power? Holy shit man…talk about missing the point…I’ve gotta read some Ayn Rand sometime to really see where you nutjobs are coming from. Speaking of “indoctrination”…

So what’s the solution if every business in the world suddenly started conducting business online and there are no sales taxes? We don’t have roads? We don’t have schools? The pont is sales taxes pay for all those things that we all love and enjoy…it is not a tyrannical money grab. The infrastructure was created with a certain expectation of REVENUE coming in, and part of that equation was citizens who are using those “luxuries” contributed a certain portion of it it via taxes, including sales tax.

Since all those citizens are dirty rotten tax cheats and looking for ways to avoid paying for these items, they are now putting the onus on the businesses to collect it and send it back to where its belongs.

[/quote]

Be careful not to fall in the “its either statism or nihilism” thought pattern. There is always another option. I just believe that at this time, with the condition of our economy, we cannot afford to put any more “governmental drag” on commerce. [/quote]

But it is the government that creates commerce.[/quote]

Hyperbole

[/quote]

You liked that didn’t you?

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

Since all those citizens are dirty rotten tax cheats and looking for ways to avoid paying for these items, they are now putting the onus on the businesses to collect it and send it back to where its belongs.

[/quote]

Sales tax has always burdened the Seller, not the Buyer.

If a Seller fails to get it, it pays it, not the other way around.[/quote]

I have had sales tax privilege License (LOL) and they are a burden , but taxes just like Government are a necessary evil. I will agree that shrinking Government , especially in areas that do no good and fuel the fire of waste would be the first to go (Prison Industrial, War Industrial, and the War on drugs )
[/quote]

I don’t think you understand the term “burden” in the legal sense that it is used here.

A tax “burdens” the party responsible for paying the tax.

“Burden” in the legal sense doesn’t mean “burden” in the sense that “it sucks” (although I suppose it does suck).

For a sales tax, the tax “burdens” the Seller because the Seller is resposible for paying it (although most Sellers typically just pass it through to Buyers).

Again, the logic behind a sales tax is the store (or whatever) that is selling places costs the local community by existing and doing business there and thus logically pays the tax. This “cost” on the community does not exist for out-of-state Sellers (no police, no fires, no employees kids in local schools, etc.), making a inter-state sales tax unjust (and probably unconstitutional).

Of course, the Constitution and logic do not matter to “give me all your money you filthy citizen” types that make up typical government employees, the Democrat party, the establishment Republicans, and noted posters on this thread.

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

Since all those citizens are dirty rotten tax cheats and looking for ways to avoid paying for these items, they are now putting the onus on the businesses to collect it and send it back to where its belongs.

[/quote]

Sales tax has always burdened the Seller, not the Buyer.

If a Seller fails to get it, it pays it, not the other way around.[/quote]

I have had sales tax privilege License (LOL) and they are a burden , but taxes just like Government are a necessary evil. I will agree that shrinking Government , especially in areas that do no good and fuel the fire of waste would be the first to go (Prison Industrial, War Industrial, and the War on drugs )
[/quote]

I don’t think you understand the term “burden” in the legal sense that it is used here.

A tax “burdens” the party responsible for paying the tax.

“Burden” in the legal sense doesn’t mean “burden” in the sense that “it sucks” (although I suppose it does suck).

For a sales tax, the tax “burdens” the Seller because the Seller is resposible for paying it (although most Sellers typically just pass it through to Buyers).

Again, the logic behind a sales tax is the store (or whatever) that is selling places costs the local community by existing and doing business there and thus logically pays the tax. This “cost” on the community does not exist for out-of-state Sellers (no police, no fires, no employees kids in local schools, etc.), making a inter-state sales tax unjust (and probably unconstitutional).

Of course, the Constitution and logic do not matter to “give me all your money you filthy citizen” types that make up typical government employees, the Democrat party, the establishment Republicans, and noted posters on this thread.[/quote]

Collecting sales tax never took money out of my pocket other than when the price tag is thousands of dollars , customers would opt. for some one that does not collect sales tax.But not as often as some would think.

The pain in the ass is every municipality has a different rate and they all send you forms every quarter to square the monies owed to them . Paper work out the ass. I was a small contractor most times I would do one job that lasted for months but had paper work like I was one of the largest

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

Of course, the Constitution and logic do not matter to “give me all your money you filthy citizen” types that make up typical government employees, the Democrat party, the establishment Republicans, and noted posters on this thread.[/quote]

What a stupid fucking statement. As if the “typical government employee” is somehow exempted from this tax by his very status of employment lol. I could focus on that, but then I would be derailing from the real bullshit of your post, which was this:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

Again, the logic behind a sales tax is the store (or whatever) that is selling places costs the local community by existing and doing business there and thus logically pays the tax. This “cost” on the community does not exist for out-of-state Sellers (no police, no fires, no employees kids in local schools, etc.), making a inter-state sales tax unjust (and probably unconstitutional).[/quote]

Was this from an actual court opinion? Or is this just the all-knowing Jewbacca offering his own Holiday Inn Express opinion on what he thinks it might kinda be? Because according to the state of Virginia, anyone who has sufficient relationship with the Commonwealth is required to pay sales tax. Here is the excerpt from, you know, the actual law:

[quote]
LIS Code of Virginia 58.1-612 wrote:

C. A dealer shall be deemed to have sufficient activity within the Commonwealth to require registration under �§ 58.1-613 if he:

  1. Maintains or has within this Commonwealth, directly or through an agent or subsidiary, an office, warehouse, or place of business of any nature;

  2. Solicits business in this Commonwealth by employees, independent contractors, agents or other representatives;

  3. Advertises in newspapers or other periodicals printed and published within this Commonwealth, on billboards or posters located in this Commonwealth, or through materials distributed in this Commonwealth by means other than the United States mail;

  4. Makes regular deliveries of tangible personal property within this Commonwealth by means other than common carrier. A person shall be deemed to be making regular deliveries hereunder if vehicles other than those operated by a common carrier enter this Commonwealth more than twelve times during a calendar year to deliver goods sold by him;

  5. Solicits business in this Commonwealth on a continuous, regular, seasonal, or systematic basis by means of advertising that is broadcast or relayed from a transmitter within this Commonwealth or distributed from a location within this Commonwealth;

  6. Solicits business in this Commonwealth by mail, if the solicitations are continuous, regular, seasonal, or systematic and if the dealer benefits from any banking, financing, debt collection, or marketing activities occurring in this Commonwealth or benefits from the location in this Commonwealth of authorized installation, servicing, or repair facilities;

  7. Is owned or controlled by the same interests which own or control a business located within this Commonwealth;

  8. Has a franchisee or licensee operating under the same trade name in this Commonwealth if the franchisee or licensee is required to obtain a certificate of registration under �§ 58.1-613; or

  9. Owns tangible personal property that is rented or leased to a consumer in this Commonwealth, or offers tangible personal property, on approval, to consumers in this Commonwealth. [/quote]

Weird how not once are fire and rescue resources, educmacation of the employees kids (what about da kids???), are never mentioned. All one requires is mere advertising int he state (you know cause internet retailer don’t engage in any of that chicanery)

Also weird how blatantly “unconstitutional” (your words, not mine) the Virginia Sales Tax code is. The nerve of these people!!! Wow I bet I would even find one or two other states who are blatantly disregarding The Articles of Jewbacca if I bothered to look!!! How weird?

You say it is “logic” that dictates we shouldn’t have to pay taxes on the shit we buy (you know that same shit we have been buying for decades, just through a new different outlet now) because the seller has been burdened with the cost of paying the taxes. Well no shit, dumbass. If they weren’t, nobody would fucking pay it. The “who is responsible” is pretty inconsequential if you stop jerking off to your Ayn Rand fantasy for a second or two and start actually using real logic. The bottom line is shit needs to be paid for. I happen to not live in a community where all buildings, fire and rescue, edumacation, roads, and parks are paid for out of the generosity of all that live there. Personally, I want these things to continue. And by golly, my state law seems to be right in line with the requirements the Internet Sales Tax actually imposes. Who would have thunk it?

Ya know Jewbacca, you definitely have some guys here that are pretty convinced you are one smart cookie. You might just be. I am still trying to decide if your statements are intentionally stupid and wrong, yet palatable to those who might be inclined to nod their head and agree with you because they aren’t the brightest bulbs in the box. Or if you just might be another e-hero with false credentials. At least your avatar is a picture of yourself.

I hate citing wikipedia, but:

Highlights:
Quill, incorporated in Delaware, did not have a physical location in North Dakota. None of its workers were located there. Quill sold office equipment and stationery in North Dakota by using catalogues, flyers, advertisements in national periodicals, and telephone calls. Deliveries were made by post and common carrier from out-state-locations.

In National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Illinois, 386 U.S. 753 (1967), it was held that a business whose only contacts with
the taxing state are by mail or by common carrier lacks the “substantial nexus” required under the Dormant Commerce Clause.

The supreme court thus reversed the decision of the North Dakota Supreme Court requiring Quill to collect and remit “use” taxes on purchases made by customers from that state.

But…

In Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, the Supreme Court ruled that a business must have a physical presence in a state for that state to require it to collect sales taxes. However, the court explicitly stated that Congress can overrule the decision through legislation

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

Again, the logic behind a sales tax is the store (or whatever) that is selling places costs the local community by existing and doing business there and thus logically pays the tax. This “cost” on the community does not exist for out-of-state Sellers (no police, no fires, no employees kids in local schools, etc.), making a inter-state sales tax unjust (and probably unconstitutional).[/quote]

Was this from an actual court opinion? Or is this just the all-knowing Jewbacca offering his own Holiday Inn Express opinion on what he thinks it might kinda be? Because according to the state of Virginia, anyone who has sufficient relationship with the Commonwealth is required to pay sales tax. Here is the excerpt from, you know, the actual law:[/quote]

He is basically saying that being an e-seller doesn’t establish nexus, which if true his opinion would more than likely hold true.

You are then posted the nexus rules of Virgina… None of which would establish nexus, IMO. (My opinion being that of a licensed professional that deals with tax laws and various state filings on a regular basis.) Based on what you posted, if I were filing a return for an e-seller out of say, NY, that had no employees or real property in VA, I would not file in VA, based on what you posted, irrelevant of how many products they shipped to online buyers in that state via fedex or UPS.

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
All one requires is mere advertising int he state (you know cause internet retailer don’t engage in any of that chicanery)

Also weird how blatantly “unconstitutional” (your words, not mine) the Virginia Sales Tax code is. The nerve of these people!!! Wow I bet I would even find one or two other states who are blatantly disregarding The Articles of Jewbacca if I bothered to look!!! How weird?

[/quote]

I doubt Amazon ads on websites would fly in court as establishing nexus, and you are so busy being smug I can’t tell if you don’t understand nexus, or your just so hot to put down another poster you are intentionally missing his point…

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
All one requires is mere advertising int he state (you know cause internet retailer don’t engage in any of that chicanery)

Also weird how blatantly “unconstitutional” (your words, not mine) the Virginia Sales Tax code is. The nerve of these people!!! Wow I bet I would even find one or two other states who are blatantly disregarding The Articles of Jewbacca if I bothered to look!!! How weird?

[/quote]

I doubt Amazon ads on websites would fly in court as establishing nexus, and you are so busy being smug I can’t tell if you don’t understand nexus, or your just so hot to put down another poster you are intentionally missing his point…[/quote]

Intentionally missing his point? My point is that fucking buildings and roads need to be maintained and the state uses SALES TAX to do it, and the share of that revenue is ever decreasing due to a technology shift and resulting consumer outlet for buying shit. This is an UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE of e-commerce, and the Internet Sales Tax bill is doing the right thing to put that money that people were spending in the state (because it’s REALLY them that are paying it, not the fucking company) so I can drive down the goddamn road without busting my fucking tire open on a pothole.

But apparently that makes me a money grabbing liberal who just wants to take take take…jesus fucking christ.

You don’t think amazon advertising on websites is sufficient? Why not? When the sales tax laws were written, before Al Gore invented the internet and global warming, they thought it prudent to address the PREDOMINANT forms of advertising at the time. You know, newspapers and tv ads transmitted through the state. Does an e-commerce advertisement not sorta kinda meet those same definitions when looking at it in light of how we do business in 2013?

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

Intentionally missing his point? [/quote]

Look I’m just confused, because you guys aren’t really saying different things in a macro sense.

You both agree the purpose of the sales tax, and it seems you are both okay with it. His issue is the circumstances in which they are collected, so he brought up nexus. So apparently are okay with forgetting about nexus, which is fine because it is your opinion, but doesn’t make him the dolt you tried to call him.

Anyway, the rest of your post cleared some things up.

One alternative to this is the way a state taxes sales. Things you have to buy in person, perishable goods, gas etc, can still be taxed, but everything else would be better off being tax free and increasing the income tax a fraction of the sales tax.

My main gripe with the Internet Sales tax is the unintended additional costs that will come along with this. Pitt was talking about his paper work piling up and he was a small potato, the administrative costs that come along with this will be high. I’ll get to bill more, that is for sure, and I’m not the only one that will do so.

Well in ways you are both correct. The costs of taxes are added to the price of goods, so everyone pays it really.

For what it is worth you are pretty left of the general tone of this board, but I wouldn’t call you much left of center outside the context of this board. (Not trying to start the whole "the country itself has shifted left bit by bit over the last 200 years conversation…)

Because they aren’t specific in targeting consumers based on a particular region. Unless certain ads are run to IP’s in the northeast and different ones are run to IP’s in the southwest, it is pretty hard to say that someone like Amazon is micro targeting VA consumers because they post an ad to blog someone in VA might read.

[quote]When the sales tax laws were written, before Al Gore invented the internet and global warming, they thought it prudent to address the PREDOMINANT forms of advertising at the time. You know, newspapers and tv ads transmitted through the state. Does an e-commerce advertisement not sorta kinda meet those same definitions when looking at it in light of how we do business in 2013?

[/quote]

(I lol’ed at the Gore comments)

Well, they should update the code in that case to lay out the fact they feel e-ads meet the nexus rules. Whether or not that would stand up in court would be interesting. The law in question would make that moot, but point being, I don’t know if a federal court would uphold a state’s right to tax an out-of-state e-seller based on online ads creating nexus. Because a smart lawyer should be able to punch a hole in that pretty quick.

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

What a stupid fucking statement. As if the “typical government employee” is somehow exempted from this tax by his very status of employment lol.

[/quote]

I said nothing regarding a “typical government employee is somehow exempted.” My reference was to how so many typical government employees view non-government employees as simply prey from whom to steal money. In short, it’s a parasitical relationship.

That said, yes, a government employee is not a “seller” of goods, so sales tax does not burden that employee. (Note the legal meaning of “burden” discussed above.)

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Was this from an actual court opinion? Or is this just the all-knowing Jewbacca offering his own Holiday Inn Express opinion on what he thinks it might kinda be?
[/quote]

Actually a series of court opinions. One of which was cited below, albeit with the typical wikipedia spin. Put in context, I doubt any statutory scheme could pass muster.

[quote]
Because according to the state of Virginia . . . . . weird how blatantly “unconstitutional” (your words, not mine) the Virginia Sales Tax code is. The nerve of these people!!! Wow I bet I would even find one or two other states who are blatantly disregarding The Articles of Jewbacca if I bothered to look!!! How weird? [/quote]

You clearly don’t understand the concept of federal supremecy.

I don’t doubt Virginia and a host of other states attempt to overreach and leave unconstitutional laws on their books. States leaving unconstitutional laws on the books is pretty standard and why Westlaw and Lexis (and Shepards Citations before that, to show my age – I used to check them by hand in a seris of books and pocket parts) exist — to check and see if a given case or law on the books has been overturned.

To take the concept of such unconstitutional statutes out of this context, there are many states with laws on the books that state “abortion is illegal and murder” (or shades of the foregoing). These laws are unconstitutional per Roe v. Wade, but still sit on the books.

Similarly, there are laws against homosexual sodomy and a host of other things that sit on state books, but which cannot be enforced.

There are lots of reasons states leave such laws on the books, from simple stubborness of the state leglisature, to political posturing, to laziness, or, more commonly, because a statute is only partially invalid and re-writing it causes a series of other problems (e.g., ex post facto laws).

The Virginia sales tax law (which I didn’t read – I am assuming it is sales tax and not income or franchise tax, both of which are different analysis), to the extent used to collect sales tax from an out-of-state seller with no physical building in Virginia is unconstitutional per the cases cited in this thread.

Regarding your beef with the “logic” of the cases, take it up with the circuit courts and the Supreme Court, as well as the Founders of the USA. The reasoning is not mine.

+++++++++++++++++++

As a further aside, you made a number of personal attacks. It is clear you hate being shown up.

I’d don’t mean this ugly, but I can tell you are a smart guy, but pretty much a failure at life. And no, I don’t mean “a complete loser,” but you clearly failed to live up to yout potential.

I’ve seen shades of you a hundred times. Sometimes even associates who we hire that chaff under the hard work and drugery of being a baby lawyer.

Indeed, I have a niece who is a MENSA member, like you.

She had a 1500 SAT, but B- student is school. She didn’t get into an Ivy League school – went to Boston College. She was a B- student in college, dropped out, and now a night manager at some hotel.

Dates a fat guy who drifts between assistant rabbi jobs who is also a MENSA member.

Like you, she’s a rabid liberal Democrat.

Like her, instead of looking to yourself and actually working hard, you are hostile to those that succeed, thinking yourself superior to them — and yet they do better at you in life, probably in all respects.

The reason you hate conservatism is it requires, above-all, personal responsibility. To someone like you, who SHOULD have been great, personal responsibility is the last thing you want, because you would have to recognize the reason you are a nobody – despite the great potential of your intellect – are your bad life choices.

Similarly, you like liberalism, because it tears down the successful who work hard. You envy and hate the successful. (Actually, the correct word is “chamad,” and makes its apperance in the 10th commandment.) Because of your “chamad” you enjoy them being victims of theft, and you undoubtedly justify it to yourself.

In short, you are a perfect foot soldier for the Democrats.

Smart, but resentful. Full of hate and envy — of chamad. Fearful of having to be answerable for your actions, and thus a willingly dependent slave of your masters.

It’s a sad way to go through life, and I feel very bad for you.

LOL thank you for that analysis Dr. Freud…holy shit…are you also an e-psychologist as well as an e-lawyer, e-engineer, and e-paramilitary trooper? You are quite the internet swinging dick.

I’m just fine at my station in life there partner, which is why, unlike some people on here, I never really bitch about it. And unliike you, I don’t feel the need to make a laundry list of why my life is great for my e-buddies to read.

“?Heroes are not known by the loftiness of their carriage; the greatest braggarts are generally the merest cowards?”
–Some smart French guy

And just to be clear, the reason I seem to hate conservatism is because the “conservatives” that speak their mind so much recently are so full of shit, it starts to stink. What with the Obama birther bit, that you can pay for shit without some form of taxes because of the charitable goodwill of people, and that global warming is not a scientific consensus. There is so much stupidity coming out of the party that represents the conservative fan base, I would be embarrassed to even begin to support it. And that’s just the establishment Republicans I’m talking about–the Tea Party is a whole 'nother realm of stupidity that I barely feel worthy of mentioning in a serious discussion.

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
LOL thank you for that analysis Dr. Freud…[/quote]

Nice way to avoid the entire substantive discussion, to which I note you had no reply.

I apologize for trying to help you. My intentions were sincere. I am happy to keep the discussion on the topic.

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
And just to be clear, the reason I seem to hate conservatism is because the “conservatives” that speak their mind so much recently are so full of shit, it starts to stink. What with the Obama birther bit, that you can pay for shit without some form of taxes because of the charitable goodwill of people, and that global warming is not a scientific consensus. There is so much stupidity coming out of the party that represents the conservative fan base, I would be embarrassed to even begin to support it. And that’s just the establishment Republicans I’m talking about–the Tea Party is a whole 'nother realm of stupidity that I barely feel worthy of mentioning in a serious discussion.[/quote]

You say this like your average liberal actually thinks before they open their pie hole either.

I like how you toss fringe bullshit in there and project it all over the entire spectrum of conservatism. Just like a liberal to put everyone into neat little sterotype boxes so they can judge indivduals as a collective. (Yes I’m doing what you did on purpose.)

Statements like this are nothing but polization and partisain bullshit.

polization? Good lord, that is so bad I’m not going to bother to try and fix it, lol.

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

Nice way to avoid the entire substantive discussion, to which I note you had no reply.

[/quote]

Well unfortunately that’s what happens when you say things thta are so stupid and so far outside of the realm of reality–some things just don’t get a reply. Sorry brother, not all opinions are created equal.

But just keep throwning shit out there and see what sticks though bro, you may find something eventually. You’ve moved from claiming I am a semi-illegal drug user to poor pathetic loser that does nothing with my life. That is getting a bit sad. I would say you are above that, but I’m really not sure since you have built up such a different e-life from your real-life.