SouthernYankee

jeffmori, To be honest, as an Islanders fan, having to root for the Rangers and/or the Devils is not the best thing, but the hockey has been great nonetheless! Cheers!

You might want to look at some alternative places to read your news, just to get a different view about what is going on. The Washington Post having this editorial should NOT surprise, in fact it would not surprise me if they put it on the front page. I look to read the NY Times whenever I can, because that will usually have the same line of reasoning as the major party on the left, and then I read other places which tend to be more right leaning. Objectivity in the media is a pipe dream! Also, I would urge you to consider which political party has actually voted on and passed a budget this year, how many votes President Obama's budget received in the House of Representatives, and maybe google to find out why the Senate has not even started the committee work on their budget negotiations (fact: Democrats control this chamber). Other than that, I hope Canada is enjoying the NHL playoffs! OUCH!

I read this book several years ago. If I remember correctly, he made some of his early money in real estate deals in Pasadena, CA. I think there were some issues with zoning, which were resolved in his favor, probably thanks to him and his associates knowing the laws involved with the processes. I thought that was very interesting, in a question of ethics sort of way. Besides that, very interesting, and educational. I think my edition had the story about the "perfect" stock in the back of the book as well.

Brooklyn, NY Is this going to count as me only answering "political" threads, now that Parsad and rkbabang have brought it into that realm? Just kidding. Thanks for the site, Parsad. The internet is a powerful tool, with people from all over the world exchanging ideas, freely, and without directive from a central authority! Cheers, and enjoy Brooklyn Lager! And since my Islanders aren't making the playoffs, let's hope the Sharks hold on to a playoff spot! (lived in CA for a while, enjoyed the Shark Tank)

I think the title may be misleading, because he actually didn't lose any money on the sale. -I agree with this statement. It seems when the headline is needlessly sensational, tempers tend to flare more quickly and people start calling other's names, which I thought was frowned upon. It is good that the headline was changed. I lost a TON of money on APPLE, by the way. And the amount keeps going higher and higher! Dang it! Cheers!

Will this thread be deleted?

Thanks for the book ideas, I guess it makes sense that I have heard of several of the people you list. I will wait for your book to come out, after this response with no detail. ;)

“Taxation is theft” "But when you are dealing with generation after generation of people who are convinced that without violence roads could not be built and we’d all turn into savages slaughtering our neighbors for no reason, it is a very difficult point to get across." -rkbabang, A lot of what you have written on this thread, I enjoy reading. It is refreshing to see your perspective. I just think it is a pretty big leap to classify taxation as theft, and to say you need violence to build roads. To get back to the reason for this thread, a man who spoke without thinking about a woman who wants other people to pay for her methods of contraception, and his subsequent business problems (overblown by the MSM of course, which considers him an enemy), seemed to give people their jollies for the week. While I admit some of my tax dollars will go to pay for things which I don't approve, mandating insurance coverage is not the same as taxation, and should be fought. The issue was not TAXATION, but Government telling private companies, religious institutions, and/or individuals what sort of contracts they have to provide for their employees. And also, I believe you mentioned insurance being controlled by the individual. I would like to see us move in that direction. If my wife had more control of our healthcare dollars, my long-term care bills would have a nice nest egg in 20 years time! Like Buffett and Munger say, MARRY UP!!!

"If they are not against the law, then I don't feel I should have to pay for the problems which come up." I have been reading my arguments for the last 20 minutes, and that was one I keep asking myself, "is that what I meant to write, because you could drive a Mack truck through that statement." Good to both of you for calling me on it.

"Taxation is theft." -If that is your angle, run with it. That makes you the law unto yourself; you may run into someone who thinks his law is more important than your law, and take everything from you. Will you expect help from anyone, if that happens? "Currently you are paying extra taxes to lockup the drug users, the prostitutes, the johns, and there might even be the odd dollar wasted on prosecuting polygamy." -That is why I asked the question. I struggle with those questions, if prostitution/drug use/polygamy should be against the law. If they are against the law, society has some responsibility to pay for the costs associated. If they are not against the law, then I don't feel I should have to pay for the problems which come up.

I would vote in favor of legalizing polygamy. I would vote in favor of legalizing prostitution. I would vote to decriminalize drug use. -Would you vote in favor of allowing people who don't believe in those things to refrain from having their tax money going to people affected by said behavior?

"Nope, you assumed my assuming, when I wasn't. That's why I said "right and left" not "southern Yankee"" -You are correct, my fault there. I still wonder if the fact that there was a vote about the war, but no vote about this contraception issue, makes you think differently on the matter. "People can believe what they want to. You are free to believe in talking snakes, people rising from the dead, golden tablets ascending to heaven... whatever floats your boat. You can even believe that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. Just don't force others into your belief system! That's when you are taking away freedom." -Your last sentence is the argument I am making, and so is the Catholic Church. Let us offer our policies the way we want to offer them, if you don't like it, you can either look elsewhere for coverage you want, or get a new job! You just agreed with most of the Republican candidates. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR PROVING THEM RIGHT! "Childbirth costs a lot more than contraception. You would think the right would be very happy to support it given the complaints about runaway costs of healthcare" -"The Right" are worried about the runaway costs for health due to government mandates, and due to certain groups relying on others to pay it for them. I'll second RKBABANG and call for government to get the heck out of the insurance business, and give INDIVIDUALS the tax advantage, instead of corporations. "Just don't force others into your belief system! That's when you are taking away freedom." -Had to copy that again! I love it when a person comes around in his thinking!

"Well since 99% of adult females and 98% of adult female catholics have used birth control, it looks like people are already trampling all over their own religious rights." -That is an INDIVIDUALS choice. You don't understand the difference between the individual and the STATE? "We all have to pay for programs we don't like. That fact doesn't limit anyones right. If you don't like it, form a church so you don't have to pay taxes anymore that could be going towards evil birth control." -There is something called the Constitution which gives authority to the Federal Government to do certain things, it gives some things to the states, some things it totally leaves out. If you feel that the Federal Government should be telling its citizens to pay for someone else's birth control, then I should not be surprised that they already tell us how much water should be in our toilet bowls or what kind of lights we can use in our homes. Nevermind the trillions of dollar in debt, Ms Fluke has a date this weekend! I'll tell you this, if the right foots the bill for the trillions we've spent on war over the last 10 years, I think the left will be more than happy to pay for the condoms/pills. -Let me see, the authorization to use force passes the Senate by a vote of 97-3. The bill authorizing the HHS to mandate insurance coverage of contraceptives passes Congress by a vote of....................excuse me, President Obama never submitted a bill for Harry Reid to try to pass??? Kind of like not passing a budget in over a 1000 days! Not only that, you ASSUME my support of how Bush/Obama handled the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Libya. Ericopoly, Do you have any restrictions on marriage? If you do, by your definition of intolerance, you would be intolerant of anyone who disagree with your restrictions. I wouldn't hold you to such an impossible standard, try not to hold me or other religious people to that same impossible standard.

"It is hate though. It's bigotry, it's intolerance. Perhaps it is codified in his religion, wouldn't surprise me." -As evidenced by your wikipedia selection for age of consent, all of these marriage laws have evolved over time. Your categorizing the position that most religions (Catholicism, Judaism, Islam) think homosexuals should not be united in marriage as hateful shows YOUR INTOLERANCE. Santorum has made some stupid comments about his personal beliefs, but I never heard him calling for the banning of contraception, except maybe the morning-after pill (if he did, just one more reason not to vote for him). He has DEFINITELY said tax-payers should NOT pay for other peoples contraceptives (like Ms Fluke's), especially people who don't believe in contraception/abortion. Their sexual habits should be their own problem. Ms Fluke, by the way, also thinks tax-payers/insurance companies (by mandate) should cover sex-change operations. Talk about FREEDOM! The First Amendment is being trampled on by the Federal Government of the United States, basic religious rights, and people are bringing up banning pornography. It is more likely that Obama will mandate that the Catholic Church pay for all Section 8 housing participants to receive subscriptions to the Red Shoe Diaries than for pornography to be banned! As an aside, I could support the government getting out of the marriage business, and let people do what they will. Of course, I won't be shocked when certain things happen, which is why the laws were passed in the first place.

Ericopoly, The articles you put up just show that Santorum believes MARRIAGE is between a man and a woman. A person who is heterosexual CANNOT marry another person of the same sex, under that definition. So the law is applied the same whether you are hetero- or homosexual. Please do not confuse religious beliefs and/or historical definitions with HATE. It is a conversation worth having. If you immediately call one side "hate-mongers" because you disagree with them, the conversation will not be very fruitful. Also, when the law is simply disregarded, as it was in California, the divisions will probably only harden, instead of soften. Interesting about the state with the parental consent law, never heard that before.

What was the reason for the joy about this ginned up controversy? And "He isn't the only one, just listen to the presidential candidates wanting to limit freedoms for homosexuals." - who is saying what, and which freedoms are they limiting on people who happen to be homosexual? And are they any different from President Obama's views? Just wondering. If the reasons given make sense, maybe it will be a thread worth reading. Otherwise, it will just be someone opining about politics, even though this is SUPPOSED to be an investing forum.

twacowfca, myth, I have explained my reasons for my silence on investment topics. I also explained that reading many different outlets over the years has been a fruitful experience, actually earlier in this thread when PlanMaestro pointed out my lack of comments on investing posts (I answered twacowfca as well). Politics seems to be a topic which comes up at times on this forum, and yes, I do engage. They are discussions which I find important, for the simple fact most posters are at this site TO MAKE MONEY! Most posters try to pay as LITTLE TAX AS POSSIBLE (assumption on my part, but that is why I ask the question), just like Buffett (would it be incorrect to say that avoiding tax increases an investments yield?). So when a thread pops up AGAIN about Buffett wanting to tax the wealthy more, it is very interesting to see who responds and how they respond. Ben Graham - I believe I do know who he is, he is the reason why I bought LVLT at $1.15 (doubled and sold ;D), and then bought again around $1.40 (in the money :) ). When he takes over a thread with ValueCarl (?), I either read it or ignore. Are you NOT able to do that? I am a novice investor, who through divine intervention or dumb luck, has done very well for himself the last 4-5 years. I am reading more books, listening to more audiobooks and radio, lessening my exposure to sports (except from April to June) and celebrity news. Please allow me to continue my perusing of this forum, I don't call people names, and ask questions where I genuinely would like an answer. I also try to find areas of agreement (wrote this earlier in the thread), so that the disagreements don't get blown out of proportion as to the reason why we are here (again - TO LEARN HOW/WHERE TO MAKE MORE MONEY!!). Cheers to you both, I'll be lurking. November 2012 is coming soon!

Quote from: Parsad on Today at 12:09:14 PM Yankee only post on political threads which is unlike any other poster here. Even Ben Graham and that other guy post about LVLT..." Ben Graham has been banned to the abyss! The other guy knows he will get hit on the nose with a rolled up newspaper when he gets out of line. I didn't realize until I attempted to ban Ben Graham, but when I looked on the "ban" administrative panel, he had some 20 IP addresses he was using to post from. I've banned them all, and will try to feret him out if he attempts to re-register. Cheers! Congrats man. The board has been much more coherent over the last few days. It all makes sense. Quote from: Hester on Today at 01:18:17 PM If Ben Graham comes back I think we'll notice him. Luckily for us, he has a very distinct WRITING STYLE given to HIM by the GLORIOUS value investing GODS !!!!!!!!! Post of the day. I thought he was back, when I saw this on the RSS feed. Quote from: twacowfca on Today at 02:21:42 PM Southern Yankee did have one post on investing. He asked what is a short sale. LOL. -Happy when certain posters are banned and laughs at others for lack of knowledge about a subject --- must be a source of pride for you! Cheers!

Liberty, We disagree on who is a demagogue. I don't think Christie is, but I do believe Buffett is being used by my President. Do we agree that we try to limit our taxes and try to improve our return/yield on earned income we have already paid taxes on? Do we think individuals spend their own money more wisely than a government bureaucrat could? I imply nothing. I ask simple questions. I try to learn. I thank those who start these type of forums, they are valuable to me. Cheers.

zippy1, I am trying to find an area of agreement, so that when arguments do occur, at least there is a basis of understanding for why someone would frequent a value investing site. Buffett's main goal throughout his life was to build his pile of dough, not to give the most money to the US TREASURY. I agree with him there, and I am trying to find out if the rest of the posters on this investing board feel the same. If you think you should pay more taxes, charitable donations are accepted by the US TREASURY. But, if you want to use that money to donate to a private charity, or a place of worship, or use it for a vacation, then we can find another area of agreement. Chistie's use of the term "shut up" was not literal, it was simply to say we know what you believe, we believe differently, but you have an avenue for carrying out what you believe, so go ahead, NO ONE IS STOPPING YOU! By the way, do you agree with me? "all (most?) posters are employing tactics to keep the tax which they pay as LOW as they can! Deep down, all (most?) of the people on this forum are here to make money for their own use, NOT for politicians to take and re-distribute to those who can keep them in office."?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-22/buffett-should-just-write-a-check-and-shut-up-governor-christie-says.html More demagogery Doubt he's telling people talking about issues he agrees with to shut up.. -This is how this thread started. Maybe I could suggest to those who start a new thread don't include a statement which reveals a certain bias in the political realm. But of course, if you do, maybe you could let me know if you disagree with these following sentiments: "especially with the knowledge that all (most?) posters are employing tactics to keep the tax which they pay as LOW as they can! Deep down, all (most?) of the people on this forum are here to make money for their own use, NOT for politicians to take and re-distribute to those who can keep them in office. (it will be interesting to see who disagrees with these statements!!)" Anyone?

"Southern Yankee did have one post on investing. He asked what is a short sale." -That is usually at the end of the summer, so department stores get ready for the Fall. See the knowledge I have gained from this forum. ;D Again, Many thanks! "Thanks to all who do reply to any and all questions, and thanks to the Administrators of this forum for not requiring posters to reply to ALL topics equally. I have enjoyed the discussions, even enjoy all of the back and forth, especially with the knowledge that all (most?) posters are employing tactics to keep the tax which they pay as LOW as they can! Deep down, all (most?) of the people on this forum are here to make money for their own use, NOT for politicians to take and re-distribute to those who can keep them in office. (it will be interesting to see who disagrees with these statements!!)" Anyone? Bueller?

"Do you think it is fair that someone who makes 80k/year in income pays 30% in taxes while someone making 80 million/year in income from capital gains pays 15%? Buffett doesn't think it's fair. That's his point." Fairness - I bet my salary/net worth is on the low end of the members/trolls who read this blog. How about we all pool our resources, that way we will all pay the same rate and same amount each year? Is that a good definition of this word?Should government policy have its foundation rooted in FAIRNESS?? One day, I want to be someone who pays 15% on my income from capital gains, and NOT have any other income. That would be sweet indeed. The things I could do with my time, the people I could help. That would be GREAT, no? Or would that be UNFAIR?

"Thanks to all who do reply to any and all questions, and thanks to the Administrators of this forum for not requiring posters to reply to ALL topics equally. I have enjoyed the discussions, even enjoy all of the back and forth, especially with the knowledge that all (most?) posters are employing tactics to keep the tax which they pay as LOW as they can! Deep down, all (most?) of the people on this forum are here to make money for their own use, NOT for politicians to take and re-distribute to those who can keep them in office. (it will be interesting to see who disagrees with these statements!!)" -Anyone? Ericopoly? Plan Maestro? ad hominem - appealing to people's emotions and prejudices instead of their ability to think PlanMaestro, Isn't observation part of thinking? I don't think you are using that phrase correctly. I would fight AGAINST any party or person who would look to ban contraceptive methods. I would also fight AGAINST any party or person who thinks some of those methods should be given out for free, or without consent of a parent (if the person is a minor). RADICAL! Ericopoly, Yes, Republicans seek to vote for a candidate who will institute a ban on contraception. They will also tell you which doctor to go to, they will then tell the doctor how much to charge. They will also tell the doctor if they are allowed to perform certain procedures, depending on the age of the person, or their mental state, or physical state. All of these decisions will be rendered by a 15 member board, completely chosen by the Executive Branch without consent of the governed. Their decisions will be FINAL! Yes, this is what Republicans want. Any passing resemblance to a FEDERAL program some call OBAMACARE is totally unintentional. I still look forward to hearing from those who disagree with my premise posted 3X (it is just a few lines up, take a look). CHEERS!

"Thanks to all who do reply to any and all questions, and thanks to the Administrators of this forum for not requiring posters to reply to ALL topics equally. I have enjoyed the discussions, even enjoy all of the back and forth, especially with the knowledge that all (most?) posters are employing tactics to keep the tax which they pay as LOW as they can! Deep down, all (most?) of the people on this forum are here to make money for their own use, NOT for politicians to take and re-distribute to those who can keep them in office. (it will be interesting to see who disagrees with these statements!!)" -Anyone? -And in regards to the Krugman article, it is old news about certain states which trend Republican receive more Federal largesse. I do not defend those states, but I will also not take seriously an opinion writer who writes that the Republicans are conducting a war against contraception. TOO FUNNY! I was just in a drug store this morning, Elaine from Seinfeld would have no problem finding several different methods to use! (Krugman :-[ )