Why are so many college students far-left liberals or socialists?

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And you're wrong, anyway. As things stand at present, leaving "the territory of the US" does not release you from any tax obligations.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong again. Source.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, what?

Here's what I read there: "United States citizens living abroad are required to file annual U.S. income tax returns and report their worldwide income if they meet the minimum income filing requirements for their filing status and age."

[/ QUOTE ]
You must have "accidentally" missed the second next sentence. It was even in the same paragraph you're incompletely quoting. Crazy how those little "accidents" happen, eh?

"For the United States income tax return, you will have several options available to you regarding claiming a foreign tax credit or excluding some or all of your foreign earned income."

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh huh. "You might be able to exclude some of your income" = "released from tax obligations".

Wow.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're misremembering what we're talking about. Let me refresh your memory. You said:
[ QUOTE ]
And you're wrong, anyway. As things stand at present, leaving "the territory of the US" does not release you from <u>any</u> tax obligations

[/ QUOTE ]
So once again, you are wrong. Please man up and say so. (I should save this to a word doc so I can copy/paste it.) As always, I won't hold my breath.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, rules nit. Except, not nitty enough.

Go back one more level, to what you said, which I was responding to:
[ QUOTE ]
As far as I'm concerned, as mentioned before, you can stop paying as soon as you stop using the benefit. (As things stand at present of course, you must also leave the territory of the US.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Implying, obviously, that moving out of the US would exempt you from *all* obligations. So yes, I used a wrong word. But you still haven't backed your claim.

[/ QUOTE ]
I implied nothing of the sort. Moving out of the territory of the US relieves you of a large portion, but not all, of your tax burden just as it removes a large number, but not all, of your benefits. (For example on the reduced benefits side, while traveling abroad, you may or may not be entitled to an attorney if you're accused of breaking the law, but if you are, it won't be a benefit of being a US citizen; it will be a function of the laws of the place in which you're traveling. However, you do retain some benefits: you can consult with US embassies and consuls under many conditions, not to mention having the priviledge of returning to the US when you decide that France (or wherever) sucks. On the reduced cost side, while abroad you do not pay US sales taxes, local taxes, State taxes, or most federal taxes.)

If you want to relieve yourself of ALL obligations, you must relieve yourself of ALL benefits. In the present state of things, this means you in addition to leaving the country, you would need to renounce your citizenship as well, thereby giving up all benefits of the (US) State.

[ QUOTE ]
As you might say, "me being technically incorrect =/= you being right."

[/ QUOTE ]
True but not relevant in this case, since you read something into my assertion that was not there.

[/ QUOTE ]

"you can stop paying" + "you need to remove yourself". For a rules nit, you use incredibly impercise language. Words mean somehting, you know.

[/ QUOTE ]

They sure do, and you're wrong yet again. I said:
[ QUOTE ]
As far as I'm concerned, as mentioned before, you can stop paying as soon as you stop using the benefit. (As things stand at present of course, you must <u>also</u> leave the territory of the US.)

[/ QUOTE ]
I said that as things stand at present, if you both leave the territory of the US and stop employing ALL benefits of being a citizen, including the right of return, access to embassies, etc, you can stop paying ALL taxes.

It was at this point that you wrongly said leaving alone offers no benefits, and I corrected that error as well.

Needless to say, I am (still) right and you are wrong again. Please man up and say so (again). Blah blah.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
They sure do, and you're wrong yet again. I said:
[ QUOTE ]
As far as I'm concerned, as mentioned before, you can stop paying as soon as you stop using the benefit. (As things stand at present of course, you must <u>also</u> leave the territory of the US.)

[/ QUOTE ]
I said that as things stand at present, if you both leave the territory of the US and stop employing ALL benefits of being a citizen, including the right of return, access to embassies, etc, you can stop paying ALL taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't true, unless you're really poor. The IRS won't let you renounce if you have any significant amount of assets.

[ QUOTE ]
It was at this point that you wrongly said leaving alone offers no benefits, and I corrected that error as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're overstating the "benefit" of leaving alone. Vastly. Again, unless you're talking about poor people.

[ QUOTE ]
Needless to say, I am (still) right and you are wrong again. Please man up and say so (again). Blah blah.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're wrong.

And I'm done with this thread, since all you seem to want to talk about are these meaningless sideshows you keep throwing out there to derail the discussion away from the actual points, where you haven't put up any fight at all.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And of course, the fact that someone might be a hypocrite has zero bearing on whether his arguments are correct or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously wrong. All other things being equal, if someone behaves in a way that he argues against (IE, if he is a hypocrite), his arguments are less likely to be true than are the arguments of someone who practices what he preaches.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you figure that?

[/ QUOTE ]
Using math and logic, although common sense will also get the job done. There is necessarily a chance that the hypocrite's motive for his hypocrisy is that he knows his argument is flawed or false. There is no such necessary chance (because there is no such hypocrisy, and therefore no such motive) for the non-hypocrite.

The common sense approach is similar but less rigorous: "He doesn't do what he says. Chances are he doesn't believe it himself."

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They sure do, and you're wrong yet again. I said:
[ QUOTE ]
As far as I'm concerned, as mentioned before, you can stop paying as soon as you stop using the benefit. (As things stand at present of course, you must <u>also</u> leave the territory of the US.)

[/ QUOTE ]
I said that as things stand at present, if you both leave the territory of the US and stop employing ALL benefits of being a citizen, including the right of return, access to embassies, etc, you can stop paying ALL taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't true, unless you're really poor. The IRS won't let you renounce if you have any significant amount of assets.

[/ QUOTE ]
Source?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And of course, the fact that someone might be a hypocrite has zero bearing on whether his arguments are correct or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously wrong. All other things being equal, if someone behaves in a way that he argues against (IE, if he is a hypocrite), his arguments are less likely to be true than are the arguments of someone who practices what he preaches.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you figure that?

[/ QUOTE ]
Using math and logic, although common sense will also get the job done. There is necessarily a chance that the hypocrite's motive for his hypocrisy is that he knows his argument is flawed or false. There is no such necessary chance (because there is no such hypocrisy, and therefore no such motive) for the non-hypocrite.

The common sense approach is similar but less rigorous: "He doesn't do what he says. Chances are he doesn't believe it himself."

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether someone believes something or not doesn't make it true or false. More importantly, the fact that X is more likely to be true if Y doesn't mean that Y is a *reason* X is true, which is a critical distinction, and what I was saying when I said that "the fact that someone might be a hypocrite has zero bearing on whether his arguments are correct or not."

Bearing. "Relevant relationship or interconnection." These things are not interconnected. They are independent. Corrollated, loosely, perhaps, but correlation is not causation.

Words mean something.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They sure do, and you're wrong yet again. I said:
[ QUOTE ]
As far as I'm concerned, as mentioned before, you can stop paying as soon as you stop using the benefit. (As things stand at present of course, you must <u>also</u> leave the territory of the US.)

[/ QUOTE ]
I said that as things stand at present, if you both leave the territory of the US and stop employing ALL benefits of being a citizen, including the right of return, access to embassies, etc, you can stop paying ALL taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't true, unless you're really poor. The IRS won't let you renounce if you have any significant amount of assets.

[/ QUOTE ]
Source?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/...onal/article/0,,id=97245,00.html

http://www.debito.org/naturalization2.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=24084

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=777267

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And of course, the fact that someone might be a hypocrite has zero bearing on whether his arguments are correct or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously wrong. All other things being equal, if someone behaves in a way that he argues against (IE, if he is a hypocrite), his arguments are less likely to be true than are the arguments of someone who practices what he preaches.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you figure that?

[/ QUOTE ]
Using math and logic, although common sense will also get the job done. There is necessarily a chance that the hypocrite's motive for his hypocrisy is that he knows his argument is flawed or false. There is no such necessary chance (because there is no such hypocrisy, and therefore no such motive) for the non-hypocrite.

The common sense approach is similar but less rigorous: "He doesn't do what he says. Chances are he doesn't believe it himself."

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether someone believes something or not doesn't make it true or false.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it merely increases or decreases the likelihood that it is true or false, precisely as I said.

[ QUOTE ]
More importantly, the fact that X is more likely to be true if Y doesn't mean that Y is a *reason* X is true, which is a critical distinction, and what I was saying when I said that "the fact that someone might be a hypocrite has zero bearing on whether his arguments are correct or not."

[/ QUOTE ]
Causality is irrelevant. Correlation is the only issue. I don't know whether hypocrisy caused a bad argument, or a bad argument caused hypocrisy, but I know they are positively correlated, which is precisely what is required to say "If I see hypocrisy, the chances that the hypocrite's argument are bad have gone up."

[ QUOTE ]
Words mean something.

[/ QUOTE ]
Glad you agree.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They sure do, and you're wrong yet again. I said:
[ QUOTE ]
As far as I'm concerned, as mentioned before, you can stop paying as soon as you stop using the benefit. (As things stand at present of course, you must <u>also</u> leave the territory of the US.)

[/ QUOTE ]
I said that as things stand at present, if you both leave the territory of the US and stop employing ALL benefits of being a citizen, including the right of return, access to embassies, etc, you can stop paying ALL taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't true, unless you're really poor. The IRS won't let you renounce if you have any significant amount of assets.

[/ QUOTE ]
Source?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/...onal/article/0,,id=97245,00.html

http://www.debito.org/naturalization2.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=24084

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=777267

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm having trouble finding anything on these links that supports your claim. In fact I'd already looked at two of them before you posted. (They came up blue. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]) Please quote the portions that you believe support your argument.

[ShakeZula06]

WHY WON'T THIS THREAD JUST DIE!!!

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]


But again, none of this, however, suggests that communism is an ideology focused on "obedience". There's no special value placed in communism on obeying orders from others.

[/ QUOTE ]


State centered communism (Maoism, Stalin/Lenninist communism) demand that all major decisions be left up to a central authority. All actions that contradict the central decisions are deemed illegal. What the hell would you call that? Free will, personal choice? Communism demands obedience to the decisions of a central authority.


[ QUOTE ]
As TOAFK pointed out, many communists see the eventual dissolution of the state as an end.

[/ QUOTE ]

And who is supposed to decide when to dissolve the state? And through what mechanism? Again all individuals are "asked" (under pain of death/prison) to defer these decisions to a highly powerful highly centralized authority whose word is final.

[ QUOTE ]
Would we say feminists are focused on "obedience" because they see equality for women as an end? Again, one of the foundations of feminism is to create changes in the social order; and yet they seek to "further an end". Are feminists valuing "obedience", despite the fact much of their ideology is focused on a repudiation of the oppression they claim to encounter in society?


[/ QUOTE ]

If feminists advocated the formation of a group who would make all decisions for what the definition of equality would be and what actions would be taken to further those ends and what punishments should be doled out to those who attempted something different then yes, feminism would demand obedience. This is what state communism (and state socialism) demands.

[ QUOTE ]

Calling for strict adherence to doctrine isn't "obedience"; calling for strict adherence to an ideology isn't a command to "obey". "Strict adherence to doctrine" is nothing more than ideological discipline, and it's valued by ideologues or all stripes, be the communists or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Demands that OTHERS strictly adhere to your ideology or doctrine does demand obedience.

[ QUOTE ]
The recent debate among the ACist camp about the morality of voting for Ron Paul should demonstrate that. Can we conclude that ACism values "obedience" because ACists like tomdemaine and Nielsio are troubled by ACists who are supporting Paul? Are they "obedient to a piece of paper"?

[/ QUOTE ]

During that debate one side was trying to convince the other that supporting Ron Paul is a bad idea. They were not saying "listen to me because i say so" they were saying "here is my argument trying to sway your opinion".