Please state your Obama Lies here

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
Um.... ok, was the place shut down due to tax evasion? How about harborside? Tax evasion as well? It paid all of it's local taxes. I'll grant you G3 was tax evasion but there were other considerations as well. I can't see why the feds would take it upon themselves to enforce local law when they do not do such things in other situations, just pot.


Wait just a minute. I can't call it tax evasion if a normaly operating business is forbidden to deduct standard business expenses and then called to task when they are not allowed to operate like any other business.

When the IRS targets a single industry and then gets heavy on the participants when they try to operate in the same fashion as every other business - there isn't much difference between that and a standard drug bust. Beyond even that, since when has the DEA become the enforcement arm of the IRS?
Click to expand...

A San Francisco Bay area medical marijuana dispensary that promotes itself as the world's largest has been hit with a $2.4 million tax bill following an audit by the Internal Revenue Service, the dispensary founder said Tuesday.
The back taxes, penalties and interest levied against Harborside Health Center came after the IRS examined its returns for 2007 and 2008 and determined a 1982 tax code prohibiting cost deductions for businesses that traffic in illegal drugs applies to the dispensary.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
A San Francisco Bay area medical marijuana dispensary that promotes itself as the world's largest has been hit with a $2.4 million tax bill following an audit by the Internal Revenue Service, the dispensary founder said Tuesday.
The back taxes, penalties and interest levied against Harborside Health Center came after the IRS examined its returns for 2007 and 2008 and determined a 1982 tax code prohibiting cost deductions for businesses that traffic in illegal drugs applies to the dispensary.
Click to expand...


That's my point. No other business but pot would have that burden put on them. I do not believe that it could not have been made exempt from that rule, considering that in that state it was not "trafficing in illegal drugs". We do not see pharmacies approached with this sort of tax issue even though many of the drugs it dispenses are diverted. We also do not see the IRS engaged in crackdowns of tobacco sold to minors nor do we see it in ABC sanctions. Furthermore, we don't see state laws enforced by federal enforcement which is what happend in the initial assault on C3. That of course changed when the C3 guy up and ignored Federal sanctions and warnings so in that case you are correct in the end.


Otherwise, this is a slick way of doing the dance, applying a law meant to stop wholely illegal trafficing to establishments that are attempting to abide by all state laws and still be a legitimate business enterprise. Obama could have shielded these places and he did not. What did he say again? he would not target places that followed all state laws. Harborside and Oaksterdam did follow all state laws. so he lied. Furthermore, NO dispensary or grow could exist in a legitmate business sense if the are not allowed to deduct their legitimate expenses. There is an exception to that, if the company makes so much money that they do not need those deductions. If they do that, then they will run afoul of the non-profit provisions of state law, and they will have the Fed's scorn "there, see? they are just in it to make as much money as they can all they are is drug dealers". Never mind that they have no problem with oh, say, a pharmaceutical company selling as much hydrocodone as possible, after all, they have a duty to their stock holders to.... make as much money as they can.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
That's my point. No other business but pot would have that burden put on them. I do not believe that it could not have been made exempt from that rule, considering that in that state it was not "trafficing in illegal drugs". We do not see pharmacies approached with this sort of tax issue even though many of the drugs it dispenses are diverted. We also do not see the IRS engaged in crackdowns of tobacco sold to minors nor do we see it in ABC sanctions. Furthermore, we don't see state laws enforced by federal enforcement which is what happend in the initial assault on C3. That of course changed when the C3 guy up and ignored Federal sanctions and warnings so in that case you are correct in the end.


Otherwise, this is a slick way of doing the dance, applying a law meant to stop wholely illegal trafficing to establishments that are attempting to abide by all state laws and still be a legitimate business enterprise. Obama could have shielded these places and he did not. What did he say again? he would not target places that followed all state laws. Harborside and Oaksterdam did follow all state laws. so he lied. Furthermore, NO dispensary or grow could exist in a legitmate business sense if the are not allowed to deduct their legitimate expenses. There is an exception to that, if the company makes so much money that they do not need those deductions. If they do that, then they will run afoul of the non-profit provisions of state law, and they will have the Fed's scorn "there, see? they are just in it to make as much money as they can all they are is drug dealers". Never mind that they have no problem with oh, say, a pharmaceutical company selling as much hydrocodone as possible, after all, they have a duty to their stock holders to.... make as much money as they can.
Click to expand...
IRS didnt come after them for selling weed and not paying taxes
The IRS came after them for taking deductions for tax purposes on the sales of marijuana which is still a federally illegal drug.

I also dont think it helped shoving it in the feds face with a tv show
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
Congress on Wednesday signaled it won’t close the prison at Guantanamo Bay or allow any of its suspected terrorist detainees to be transferred to the U.S., dealing what is likely the final blow to President Obama’s campaign pledge to shutter the facility in Cuba.
The move to block the prison’s closure was written into a massive year-end spending bill that passed the House on Wednesday evening on a vote of 212-206, part of a last-minute legislative rush by Democrats to push through their priorities before ceding the House to Republican control in January.
News of the Guantanamo provision brought a quick and sharp rebuke from the Obama administration Wednesday.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/8/congress-deals-death-blow-gitmo-closure/#ixzz2F4Sy5jMf
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Click to expand...
Conservative news site Daily Caller, less than 3 hours ago.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/14/obama-quietly-releases-gitmo-report-amid-news-of-conn-shooting-rampage/

The truth lies between these two stories and the fact of the matter is that Gitmo lies completely within the jurisdiction of the executive branch. It requires no congressional oversight and while Congress indeed agreed to fund it, Obama would have been completely within his powers to unilaterally close the facility and end the unlawful detention with out trial and torture going on there. There is no international agreement keeping the place open either. Furthermore, he signed NDAA. This piece of work gives the federal authorities the power to indefinitely detain any US citizen with out trial. This, in my view solidifies his stance, and that we live in a world policed by the US federal government.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
after the "fiscal cliff" how much you want to bet GITMO gets massively scaled back or shut down in the next year?
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
abandonconflict said:
Conservative news site Daily Caller, less than 3 hours ago.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/14/obama-quietly-releases-gitmo-report-amid-news-of-conn-shooting-rampage/

The truth lies between these two stories and the fact of the matter is that Gitmo lies completely within the jurisdiction of the executive branch. It requires no congressional oversight and while Congress indeed agreed to fund it, Obama would have been completely within his powers to unilaterally close the facility and end the unlawful detention with out trial and torture going on there. There is no international agreement keeping the place open either. Furthermore, he signed NDAA. This piece of work gives the federal authorities the power to indefinitely detain any US citizen with out trial. This, in my view solidifies his stance, and that we live in a world policed by the US federal government.
Click to expand...
That, and extending the Bush tax "cuts", and not dismantling the Patriot Act but actually strengthening some of its more odious provisions, and keeping our military in the sandbox, and and and. Jmo. cn
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
That, and extending the Bush tax "cuts", and not dismantling the Patriot Act but actually strengthening some of its more odious provisions, and keeping our military in the sandbox, and and and. Jmo. cn
Click to expand...
We are getting out of the sandbox
read sone news
 
sgt john

sgt john

Well-Known Member
Johnny Retro said:
Obama told me it was unpatriotic..so I voted for him. Then he went behind my back and did it. :( And I thought this thread was about Obama, not bush?
Click to expand...
Seems like they are of the same stock..
Dont you know, if we say Obama, you have to mention Bush...
 
  • Like
Reactions: kgp
echelon1k1

echelon1k1

New Member
[video=youtube;gF3MC-TkpRQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gF3MC-TkpRQ&feature=youtu.be[/video]

"That means no more illegall wire tapping of american citizens" 2008 Campaign
 
nontheist

nontheist

Well-Known Member
I will make fixing immigration my top priority! No the dream act wasn't a fix before you libs tard out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top