Timmy’s thread for general discussion

Strike · February 25

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

OK. I think that when I use terms like “highly illegal” it should be obvious that I’m stating a subjective opinion and not using a legal argument. In terms of legal arguments the courts can speak for themselves. I am not an attorney and make no claims to be. I have however had a lot of experience in valuing commercial properties, both for loan and tax purposes, so I think this is an area I know a little about. And I know the difference between exaggeration and outright fraud.

The banks who were the supposed victims of Trump's fraud disagree with your assessment.

Engorgeous George · February 25

33 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

OK. I think that when I use terms like “highly illegal” it should be obvious that I’m stating a subjective opinion and not using a legal argument. In terms of legal arguments the courts can speak for themselves. I am not an attorney and make no claims to be. I have however had a lot of experience in valuing commercial properties, both for loan and tax purposes, so I think this is an area I know a little about. And I know the difference between exaggeration and outright fraud.

So then you could define that difference you know which brings us back to the 10 to 20 percent exaggeration level and fraud. Where does that come from?

Also with your expertise perhaps you can enlighten us on the third point. You state the taxpayers were victims here because Trump's evaluations effected the taxes he paid. Frst, show us where there were charges for tax evasion in this suit and then explain to us how Trump's evaluations effected the taxes he paid. Me, I tought we paid taxes on assessed value, not claimed value, and that the assessed value came from the Assessor's office*.

* In New York they call it the Department of Finance. Property Assessments - DOF (nyc.gov)

The Real timschochet · February 25

1 hour ago, Strike said:

The banks who were the supposed victims of Trump's fraud disagree with your assessment.

That’s not relevant. It was the state that was cheated. He avoided paying taxes.

The Real timschochet · February 25

50 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

So then you could define that difference you know which brings us back to the 10 to 20 percent exaggeration level and fraud. Where does that come from?

Also with your expertise perhaps you can enlighten us on the third point. You state the taxpayers were victims here because Trump's evaluations effected the taxes he paid. Frst, show us where there were charges for tax evasion in this suit and then explain to us how Trump's evaluations effected the taxes he paid. Me, I tought we paid taxes on assessed value, not claimed value, and that the assessed value came from the Assessor's office*.

* In New York they call it the Department of Finance. Property Assessments - DOF (nyc.gov)

It’s not my job to show you anything. If you disagree with the judge’s decision on this matter, then it’s up to you to quote where the judge got it wrong. Then I’ll respond to you.

But how about this: you already are going to owe me $500 because you made a sucker’s bet that Biden won’t be the Democratic nominee. How about another $500 bet that the Trump will lose his appeal on this decision?

The Real timschochet · February 25

It’s amazing how many issues @Strike and @Engorgeous George get wrong. It’s not really worth arguing with them; like swatting flies. Somebody offer me some good arguments for once. Anyone?

The Real timschochet · February 25

I am extremely excited because Shogun premiers this week. The previews look awesome. This is my favorite novel of all time, I first read it when I was 10 and must have read it a dozen times since.

The original miniseries with Richard Chamberlain was excellent for its time, but because it was in English it was only able to show things from Blackthorne’s point of view so perhaps 2/3rds of the novel was lost. This new series will have subtitles and most of it will be in Japanese. Can’t wait.

seafoam1 · February 25

23 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

It’s amazing how many issues @Strike and @Engorgeous George get wrong. It’s not really worth arguing with them; like swatting flies. Somebody offer me some good arguments for once. Anyone?

So you said you were going to post less, but yet 14 pages later you are still droning on.

Weird.

Strike · February 25

1 minute ago, seafoam1 said:

So you said you were going to post less, but yet 14 pages later you are still droning on.

Weird.

Dude let him have his safe space. He's super serial about issues!!!!

seafoam1 · February 25

7 minutes ago, Strike said:

Dude let him have his safe space. He's super serial about issues!!!!

Ahhh...the issues....He should rename this thread fbgay's safe space.

Strike · February 25

@The Real timschochet Here is a link to the judgment in the NY case:

https://www.scribd.com/document/706231478/452564-2022-People-of-the-State-of-v-People-of-the-State-of-Decision-After-Trial-1688#fullscreen&from_embed

I was a little skeptical of your claims that this was about NY being cheated out of taxes but I haven't followed this case THAT closely. Unlike you, I don't make assertions I can't prove. But I just read through the first 17 pages of this 92 page document. Now, granted, it might be covered in the rest of the document that I didn't read, but I read well past the point of listing the seven causes of action in the complaint. None of them asserts tax fraud against anyone. So, if you could, please point me to the portion of the document having to do with tax fraud. I'd even settle for a news report from one of your vaunted MSM sources alleging tax fraud, and we can go from there.

Anyone else notice a pattern with Tim? He makes assertions, and then when called out on the lack of factual basis for those assertions, he says those of us calling him out are "wrong" and it's our "job" to prove to him what is wrong with his assertion, even though his assertion has no basis in fact. Then he says we're not worth arguing/discussing with and takes his ball and goes home. Yet he says he wants "serious discussion and debate." Like hell he does.

The Real timschochet · February 25

28 minutes ago, Strike said:

@The Real timschochet Here is a link to the judgment in the NY case:

https://www.scribd.com/document/706231478/452564-2022-People-of-the-State-of-v-People-of-the-State-of-Decision-After-Trial-1688#fullscreen&from_embed

I was a little skeptical of your claims that this was about NY being cheated out of taxes but I haven't followed this case THAT closely. Unlike you, I don't make assertions I can't prove. But I just read through the first 17 pages of this 92 page document. Now, granted, it might be covered in the rest of the document that I didn't read, but I read well past the point of listing the seven causes of action in the complaint. None of them asserts tax fraud against anyone. So, if you could, please point me to the portion of the document having to do with tax fraud. I'd even settle for a news report from one of your vaunted MSM sources alleging tax fraud, and we can go from there.

Anyone else notice a pattern with Tim? He makes assertions, and then when called out on the lack of factual basis for those assertions, he says those of us calling him out are "wrong" and it's our "job" to prove to him what is wrong with his assertion, even though his assertion has no basis in fact. Then he says we're not worth arguing/discussing with and takes his ball and goes home. Yet he says he wants "serious discussion and debate." Like hell he does.

First off I’m amazed at how much time and effort you spend trying to prove me wrong. For you, TDS stands for Timmy Derangement Syndrome, truly.

Next, every respectable news outlet, without exception, continually used the words “tax fraud” to describe what the Trump organization did here. An example of dozens:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna65013

It’s in the title of the article. But hey you read 17 pages and it doesn’t use those words. Stop wasting my time with this nonsense.

seafoam1 · February 25

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

First off I’m amazed at how much time and effort you spend trying to prove me wrong. For you, TDS stands for Timmy Derangement Syndrome, truly.

Next, every respectable news outlet, without exception, continually used the words “tax fraud” to describe what the Trump organization did here. An example of dozens:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna65013

It’s in the title of the article. But hey you read 17 pages and it doesn’t use those words. Stop wasting my time with this nonsense.

I think timmy has been officially broken.

Strike · February 25

2 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

First off I’m amazed at how much time and effort you spend trying to prove me wrong. For you, TDS stands for Timmy Derangement Syndrome, truly.

Next, every respectable news outlet, without exception, continually used the words “tax fraud” to describe what the Trump organization did here. An example of dozens:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna65013

It’s in the title of the article. But hey you read 17 pages and it doesn’t use those words. Stop wasting my time with this nonsense.

Tim, are you aware that the article you just linked is a DIFFERENT CASE than the one we're discussing? Also, from your article,

Quote

The lone person charged in the scheme was the company's former chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg.

Weisselberg, 75, pleaded guilty in August and became the prosecution's star witness during the weekslong trial, where he described how top employees and the company evaded paying taxes they owed.

Weisselberg was also the biggest personal beneficiary of the scheme, prosecutors said. He collected $1.76 million in “indirect employee compensation,” including a rent-free apartment, expensive cars, private school tuition for his grandchildren and new furniture. Other executives received similar perks and were paid bonuses as independent contractors, saving the company money in payroll taxes, Weisselberg testified

So yeah the reason it's not in the decision I read is because it's a different case. What a shock that a multi billion dollar company would have multiple cases brought against it!!!!

Strike · February 25

2 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

I think timmy has been officially broken.

He's just so focking ignorant. It gets tiring.

The Real timschochet · February 25

1 minute ago, Strike said:

Tim, are you aware that the article you just linked is a DIFFERENT CASE than the one we're discussing? Also, from your article,

So yeah the reason it's not in the decision I read is because it's a different case. What a shock that a multi billion dollar company would have multiple cases brought against it!!!!

It’s all related. Nearly every article on the larger judgment mentions tax fraud too.

Strike · February 25

Just now, The Real timschochet said:

It’s all related. Nearly every article on the larger judgment mentions tax fraud too.

You're wrong and just making sh*t up again. As I said, I read the ACTUAL judgement. I linked it for you. Go read it. Find a charge of tax fraud in it.

The Real timschochet · February 25

1 minute ago, Strike said:

He's just so focking ignorant. It gets tiring.

Then stay out of the thread. What’s tiring is your constant attempts to catch me on little details. Sometimes I get those wrong; usually not but I ain’t perfect. What I never get wrong is the big picture and YOU DO, almost all of the time. Thats why your posts are so laughable except to a few idiots around here.

TimHauck · February 25

42 minutes ago, Strike said:

@The Real timschochet Here is a link to the judgment in the NY case:

https://www.scribd.com/document/706231478/452564-2022-People-of-the-State-of-v-People-of-the-State-of-Decision-After-Trial-1688#fullscreen&from_embed

I was a little skeptical of your claims that this was about NY being cheated out of taxes but I haven't followed this case THAT closely. Unlike you, I don't make assertions I can't prove. But I just read through the first 17 pages of this 92 page document. Now, granted, it might be covered in the rest of the document that I didn't read, but I read well past the point of listing the seven causes of action in the complaint. None of them asserts tax fraud against anyone. So, if you could, please point me to the portion of the document having to do with tax fraud. I'd even settle for a news report from one of your vaunted MSM sources alleging tax fraud, and we can go from there.

Anyone else notice a pattern with Tim? He makes assertions, and then when called out on the lack of factual basis for those assertions, he says those of us calling him out are "wrong" and it's our "job" to prove to him what is wrong with his assertion, even though his assertion has no basis in fact. Then he says we're not worth arguing/discussing with and takes his ball and goes home. Yet he says he wants "serious discussion and debate." Like hell he does.

I haven’t paid attention to your argument here, but I’m a little skeptical of you being able to properly read 17 pages. Here’s you admitting you couldn’t read 2.

On 11/27/2022 at 3:36 PM, Strike said:

Wow, what a d*ck. Yes, looking at a couple pages of a legal document embedded in a tweet on a 14" laptop screen with 56 year old eyes is difficult. The link only has a couple of pages of the document and I don't see where it lists a bunch of individuals. I see at the top of the doc where it says the lawsuit is the state of Missouri against Joe Biden. Post a link to the actual PDF so I can open it in a proper PDF reader, or specify WHERE in the document it has this list of plaintiffs you claim it does. Otherwise, STFU.

Strike · February 25

Just now, The Real timschochet said:

Then stay out of the thread. What’s tiring is your constant attempts to catch me on little details. Sometimes I get those wrong; usually not but I ain’t perfect. What I never get wrong is the big picture and YOU DO, almost all of the time. Thats why your posts are so laughable except to a few idiots around here.

Why won't you read the judgement? It's not a little detail. it's the crux of the discussion we, I, and EG have been having for the last couple hours. You supposedly want to have "serious discussion." Serious discussion starts with a meeting of the minds on FACTS. You stated that the 400+ million dollar judgment had to do with tax fraud after it was pointed out that the banks didn't consider themselves victims or having been defrauded. I have asserted, and presented evidence (the actual judgment) that this is not true. That's not a focking detail. It's your whole argument to justify why the judgment is valid.

Strike · February 25

1 minute ago, TimHauck said:

I haven’t paid attention to your argument here, but I’m a little skeptical of you being able to properly read 17 pages. Here’s you admitting you couldn’t read 2.

Apparently at that time I was using my laptop. This morning I'm on my desktop with a 40+ inch screen. Hope the notion of people having multiple computers isn't too hard for you to grasp.

TimHauck · February 25

Just now, Strike said:

Apparently at that time I was using my laptop. This morning I'm on my desktop with a 40+ inch screen. Hope the notion of people having multiple computers isn't too hard for you to grasp.

It’s called zooming in you dumbazz.

Strike · February 25

Just now, TimHauck said:

It’s called zooming in you dumbazz.

ROFLMAO. Posting random quotes to try for a "gotcha." So sad.

BrahmaBulls · February 25

10 minutes ago, Strike said:

He's just so focking ignorant. It gets tiring.

He did this at FB Gays in his own thread. He thinks that makes him the dictator of all debate rules. He sh!ts on everyone else's sources, contradicts himself, and declares every one else as wrong. How long before he tells you to just stay out of his thread? He does that to people that make him look like an idiot too. He's a giant ##### tool.

Gladiators · February 25

This is my super serious thread for discussion and debate. Come any, come all! However, if you are here to prove me wrong, stay out of this thread! :cry:

TimHauck · February 25

2 hours ago, Strike said:

The difference between you being wrong and me being wrong is I PROVE you wrong with LINKS and FACTS on a consistent basis. You have NEVER proven me factually wrong. Not once.

I have

Strike · February 25

Just now, BrahmaBulls said:

He did this at FB Gays in his own thread. He thinks that makes him the dictator of all debate rules. He sh!ts on everyone else's sources, contradicts himself, and declares every one else as wrong. How long before he tells you to just stay out of his thread? He does that to people that make him look like an idiot too. He's a giant ##### tool.

As I've said repeatedly, I am fine with debating people on FACTS. We should able to agree on those because they're easily verifiable. It's when someone asserts something as fact and argues with you about it that it gets tiring. And that's Tim. All the time. I posted the actual judgment so he could prove me wrong if his assertion is correct. He refuses to even read the document. I mean, you can lead a horse to water and all that....

Strike · February 25

Just now, TimHauck said:

I have

Right, like when you proved that SBF wasn't going to testify in front of congress because some kid in a gaming chat room told you so?

The Real timschochet · February 25

2 minutes ago, BrahmaBulls said:

He did this at FB Gays in his own thread. He thinks that makes him the dictator of all debate rules. He sh!ts on everyone else's sources, contradicts himself, and declares every one else as wrong. How long before he tells you to just stay out of his thread? He does that to people that make him look like an idiot too. He's a giant ##### tool.

I don’t want Strike to stay out of the thread, really. He said he finds me tiring, that’s why I wrote he doesn’t need to be here. But in truth I don’t want anyone who wants to talk with me not to do so.

BrahmaBulls · February 25

4 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

Bob Costas taking lots of criticism from Republicans for ripping Trump:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/bob-costas-draws-fire-trump-supporters-toxic-cult-great-look-him.amp

Conservatives are embarrassing themselves, and they’re ashamed about it, so they get angry at anyone who tells them the truth.

Like you get angry when I remind you facts about your drunk driving family? You only seem to like certain truths.

Strike · February 25

Just now, The Real timschochet said:

I don’t want Strike to stay out of the thread, really. He said he finds me tiring, that’s why I wrote he doesn’t need to be here. But in truth I don’t want anyone who wants to talk with me not to do so.

I want to have "serious discussion" Tim. I want you to show me where, in the judgment I posted a link to, it says it's about tax fraud. You seem so sure of it.

seafoam1 · February 25

6 minutes ago, Gladiators said:

This is my super serious thread for discussion and debate. Come any, come all! However, if you are here to prove me wrong, stay out of this thread!

The Real timschochet · February 25

All right this won’t be easy to write but…

It appears that Strike was correct and I got the two cases confused. The big judgment appears to be about fraud but not about tax fraud. At least I can’t find mention of it. That contradicts some political pundits I’ve heard talk about the issue.

If there is no tax fraud, then the fact that the banks in question say they were not hurt could be pertinent; at least it’s not a small detail. Does this fact mean that the case should never have been prosecuted? I don’t know. I’ll have to consider that.

In any case I acknowledge that Strike was right and I was wrong, it appears.

TimHauck · February 25

5 minutes ago, Strike said:

Right, like when you proved that SBF wasn't going to testify in front of congress because some kid in a gaming chat room told you so?

That’s the difference between me and you. I admitted I was wrong that SBF was supposedly planning to testify in front of congress (unfortunately we’ll never know if he actually would have). You never do, like in the example I just linked, you said something like “well I just said I doubted it, that doesn’t make me wrong.” Or in the North Dakota thread where you disappeared after I factually proved you wrong. Or multiple times in the Covid thread.

The Real timschochet · February 25

7 minutes ago, BrahmaBulls said:

Like you get angry when I remind you facts about your drunk driving family? You only seem to like certain truths.

I have not, in this forum, invited discussion about my family. I did in a previous forum, and regretted it only after idiots like you chose to use what I wrote to make personal attacks. That you’re continuing to do so here demonstrates what kind of person you are; it’s no reflection on me.

seafoam1 · February 25

2 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

That’s the difference between me and you. I admitted I am gay.

Good for you.

Strike · February 25

5 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

That’s the difference between me and you. I admitted I was wrong that SBF was supposedly planning to testify in front of congress (unfortunately we’ll never know if he actually would have). You never do, like in the example I just linked, you said something like “well I just said I doubted it, that doesn’t make me wrong.” Or in the North Dakota thread where you disappeared after I factually proved you wrong. Or multiple times in the Covid thread.

You bringing up Covid???? ROFLMAO

BrahmaBulls · February 25

5 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I have not, in this forum, invited discussion about my family. I did in a previous forum, and regretted it only after idiots like you chose to use what I wrote to make personal attacks. That you’re continuing to do so here demonstrates what kind of person you are; it’s no reflection on me.

Right. Like everything else in your life, you think you can dictate discussion and fairness. Your family put kids lives in danger. That is a FACT. Just like all the facts you supposedly bring up and insult conservatives and what not. So go F yourself. Stop being a d-bag hypocrite if you don't want to be reminded of it.

IGotWorms · February 25

18 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

All right this won’t be easy to write but…

It appears that Strike was correct and I got the two cases confused. The big judgment appears to be about fraud but not about tax fraud. At least I can’t find mention of it. That contradicts some political pundits I’ve heard talk about the issue.

If there is no tax fraud, then the fact that the banks in question say they were not hurt could be pertinent; at least it’s not a small detail. Does this fact mean that the case should never have been prosecuted? I don’t know. I’ll have to consider that.

In any case I acknowledge that Strike was right and I was wrong, it appears.

It’s one of those things that’s illegal whether you can trace an actual loss or not. It’s to protect the integrity of the system which is important win or lose.

That said, I am sure that many, many people do not prosecuted for this where they could.

So I dunno, it is illegal and should be, but certainly Trump was targeted. Of course you do bring that on yourself being so high profile, and with Trump we’re talking higher dollar figures that many others, but then again only a fool would claim politics has nothing to do with it :dunno:

Strike · February 25

13 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

All right this won’t be easy to write but…

It appears that Strike was correct and I got the two cases confused. The big judgment appears to be about fraud but not about tax fraud. At least I can’t find mention of it. That contradicts some political pundits I’ve heard talk about the issue.

If there is no tax fraud, then the fact that the banks in question say they were not hurt could be pertinent; at least it’s not a small detail. Does this fact mean that the case should never have been prosecuted? I don’t know. I’ll have to consider that.

In any case I acknowledge that Strike was right and I was wrong, it appears.

You owe EG a big apology as well.

Engorgeous George · February 25

2 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

It’s not my job to show you anything. If you disagree with the judge’s decision on this matter, then it’s up to you to quote where the judge got it wrong. Then I’ll respond to you.

But how about this: you already are going to owe me $500 because you made a sucker’s bet that Biden won’t be the Democratic nominee. How about another $500 bet that the Trump will lose his appeal on this decision?

Trying to change the subject from you talking out of your ass by placing me on a position I never took. I've noted before your unwillingness to admit your errors no matter how obvious. its sad, and in a thread where you requested debate.

Timmy’s thread for general discussion

Recommended Posts

Strike 4,026

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Engorgeous George 1,231

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The Real timschochet 3,071

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The Real timschochet 3,071

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The Real timschochet 3,071

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The Real timschochet 3,071

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

seafoam1 1,879

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Strike 4,026

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

seafoam1 1,879

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Strike 4,026

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The Real timschochet 3,071

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

seafoam1 1,879

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Strike 4,026

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Strike 4,026

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The Real timschochet 3,071

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Strike 4,026

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The Real timschochet 3,071

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

TimHauck 1,841

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Strike 4,026

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Strike 4,026

Share this post