I believe you will find that half of these videos are of precisely that.

>> ^notarobot:

With this video evidence of tens of millions of dollars of damage, and more and more evidence released each year, the real mystery is how Mr. Willis has evaded continued to evade criminal charges for this long.

Would you support the closing of such loopholes used by tax evaders?

>> ^quantumushroom:


Liberals think that raising tax rates = higher revenue. Nope. The wealthy simply put their money in tax-free investments with smaller returns or invest overseas.

With this video evidence of tens of millions of dollars of damage, and more and more evidence released each year, the real mystery is how Mr. Willis has evaded continued to evade criminal charges for this long.

Oscar is living in a trash can to evade taxes!

Thanks to all who commented!

A few extras:

Romneycare: was a state-level experiment, which is permitted. It is also, AFAIK, a failure that had to be bailed out by the feds.

Obamacare is really just Heritage/Romney Creation: rather than try to argue the small stuff...if somehow "HeritageCare" had made it to the Supreme Court, I would have expected it to crumble because of the unconstitutional mandate just the same as it should have under KING Obama.

It's really about expansion of government power: Presumably this law was to stop "freeloaders" of the health care system. If that's the case, what difference will be made insuring 30 million 'deadbeats' at gunpoint, who can't/won't pay a tax/fine any more than they would originally buy health insurance?

Hundreds of businesses got obamacare waivers, creating a dual caste system where the burden of this horrendous law will lay across the backs of the middle class and small businesses. The "evil corporations" that liberals were hoping to punish evaded them once again, in clear violation of the 14th Amendment (equal treatment under the law).

Paltry 'savings' from an extra 500 billion in new taxes: The 11 to 20 million estimated illegals will continue to bankrupt our hospitals via "free" emergency room visits.

Will you promise to leave the country when Obama is re-elected? I don't have to leave America. Unless obama is given a bus-ticket back to chicago come November, America will leave us. It already has.

Romney won't fix it: The end of the Republic is already on its way. Romney may forestall it a little while, but it's coming.

Hoping to spend the next 3 months clean.Must...pass..follicle test for *COUGH job opportunity that may prove fatal as close to four bits as it is for me-
What is a boilermaker anyhow?

Currently unemployed, until next week when I'll be appearing as a maintenance technician at a well-established rural golf course. (Clean-up plan: Work wrenches and lawnmowers for 3 months and bail~Free golf on my days off + 1.

Clean living for chump change then off to a gig that pays with cool hours (2 weeks on, 7-12's, two weeks off)-Plan to save a shitload of cabbage and continue evading federal income taxes like my grandfather before me. (Filed maybe 3 times in the last 30 years)

Oh fuck, Googles' gonna read this and forward it to improper authorities huh?

I don't see how you came to that conclusion. I thought the Dad did a pretty good job of letting the girl know that it was her responsibility to clear the plate, and that carrying on wasn't going to get her out of it. I would have done pretty much the same thing in pretty much the same way, except perhaps not quite so well.

Now if he'd given in and cleared the plate for her... well that leads to a bad place.

How would you have managed it differently?
>> ^messenger:

There are ways to raise kids so they'll want to do household work. This is not that. This is encouraging that kid to consider evading tasks to be "winning", and she'll just get more sophisticated and probably carry this resistance to responsibilities into her adulthood, and find ways to avoid responsibilities long after her parents aren't around to tell her what to do.
My comment is not in any way autobiographical.

There are ways to raise kids so they'll want to do household work. This is not that. This is encouraging that kid to consider evading tasks to be "winning", and she'll just get more sophisticated and probably carry this resistance to responsibilities into her adulthood, and find ways to avoid responsibilities long after her parents aren't around to tell her what to do.

My comment is not in any way autobiographical.

>> ^Porksandwich:

>> ^Darkhand:
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
@Darkhand.
Did you even listen to Cenk's point?
A heavy adult male with a gun stalks an unarmed teen, then claim self-defense..
What logic are you using to conclude Zimmerman is somehow not guilt of murder?
What if Zimmerman had stalked a 17 year old white girl, then shot her dead after she fought back?
What you need to see more evidence then?

Someone stalking you, whether anyone likes it or not, is not a just cause for you to turn around and beat the crap out of them.
If Martin turned around and punched him and knocked him on his ass I think that would have been a justifiable amount of force. But continuing to beat on him as some people suggesting to "knock him out" you don't understand how the body works. You can't tell the difference between "Oh yeah I knocked him out" and "Awesome! Internal bleeding and his brain is swelling now I can get away".
Does everyone here really believe because Zimmerman was being over zealous they feel he deserves to get knocked down and have someone sit on top of him and continuously punch him in the head?

According to the SYG law, which they claim let's Zimmerman walk away with no charges. Yes Trayvon had the right to defend himself from a pursuer if he felt that he was in danger. The level of damage he could inflict was dependent on how much danger he thought he was in. The law defines everything as "reasonable" for the level it has to meet. If someone chased you down in a vehicle, you escaped him and he continued looking until he found you again. That to me is reasonable grounds to assume this person means you harm.
Plus, I still have trouble fathoming how Trayvon got within striking distance of Zimmerman in the first place. I find it entirely unlikely that he would approach his stalker. So I believe that Zimmerman cornered him or caught him in a hiding spot. It just never would have happened if Zimmerman would have 1) not followed him 2) not got out of his vehicle.
And I'll just throw this out, carrying a gun carries with it a certain expectation that you will use said gun otherwise carrying it will end up getting you shot if you draw and don't use it. I think Zimmerman felt confident due to his gun and his willingness to use it. Substitute any other rational adult and they would not hunt down a kid and approach him to within striking distance, it's too predatory to continue forward once you've gotten within speaking distance of someone who has tried to evade you once already. Keep in mind that Trayvon had not committed a crime to warrant the amount of attention Zimmerman was giving him, nor the need to approach him beyond the distance a loud speaking or even shouting voice would carry. I certainly would not approach a kid on public property who ran away from me initially. I may be more inclined to hunt them down if they were on my private property or in a dangerous area, but neither of those fit this scenario.
The act of pursuing someone who is trying to get away is by it's nature aggressive. Martin had the right to defend himself from a stranger demonstrating aggressive behavior. The language and frustration Zimmerman expressed on the phone call also suggests he was not pleased to have someone get away on his watch, and perhaps semi-racist in nature.
On the flip side. If Trayvon had chased Zimmerman and still ended up shot to death, would this conversation even be happening? Trayvon would have been provoking the encounter and even if he never laid a finger on Zimmerman, the law states you can use deadly force if you believe someone means to great bodily harm or commit a felony.
It's a joke that Zimmerman has the right to "defend himself" with deadly force, in an encounter he forced upon a teenager against all advice and all material that Zimmerman had presented at a neighborhood watch meeting. The presenter came forward and spoke about it. Under the law he has to meet criteria as the aggressor. I do not believe the police have released information showing he fulfilled those criteria, and his immunity under SYG should be forfeit.
The language on the call "coon", the lack of a tox screen, and the various other screw ups by police. PLUS not holding him until they at least interviewed everyone they could find within a block of the shooting. Now all of those people are potentially tainted by Zimmerman's presence, the media coverage, and the bias of the sources of this information. It's up to the second investigation to hopefully see that they screwed the pooch and see if it was because they are incompetent, racist, or covering up for Zimmerman.
I don't blame anyone for being outrageously pissed and concerned over this. It essentially means you can walk down the street, stalk any lone person, and shoot them dead if they have anything in their hand you can claim looked like a gun or say anything like "I'll kill you...........................if you come any closer." Just the last part won't make it out of their mouth if you have your gun good and ready to blow a hole in them.


Pork that's the problem though even your own article says "I have my doubts, I don't see how" but we don't know all the facts.

This law should not be under scrutiny until it's actually used and if it actually gets zimmerman off.

And the problem with your Theory about Martin being able to continuously pummel Zimmerman while he is on the ground is not true. Once Zimmerman is on his back the "Perceived Threat" is neutralized. It works the same way here in jersey with self defense but I can't use a gun. I answer force with equal force. Once my opponent is disabled I can't keep wailing on them.

Being stalked, in my opinion, does not allow you to feel like your life is in danger. Martin used his cellphone to text his girlfriend, why didn't he call the cops and try to get help?

But then again I'm not a lawyer OR a judge and nobody else is. So everything I say here could be wrong. We don't have all the facts so anyone claiming to know EXACTLY what happened is wrong.

It's just funny because it seems to me that liberals are siding with Martin and Conservatives and siding with Zimmerman. Everyone seems to have their own set of "Facts" and nobody is willing to believe that their own side (Liberal Media or Conservative Media) is injecting facts that may or may not be 100% credible into the case.

Everyone seems to be using this case as a means to push their own policy whether it's gun control reform, minority rights, or personal security. Everyone seems to just be ignoring the tragedy that some kid has had the rest of his life taken from him. Because really that's all we do know!

>> ^Darkhand:

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
@Darkhand.
Did you even listen to Cenk's point?
A heavy adult male with a gun stalks an unarmed teen, then claim self-defense..
What logic are you using to conclude Zimmerman is somehow not guilt of murder?
What if Zimmerman had stalked a 17 year old white girl, then shot her dead after she fought back?
What you need to see more evidence then?

Someone stalking you, whether anyone likes it or not, is not a just cause for you to turn around and beat the crap out of them.
If Martin turned around and punched him and knocked him on his ass I think that would have been a justifiable amount of force. But continuing to beat on him as some people suggesting to "knock him out" you don't understand how the body works. You can't tell the difference between "Oh yeah I knocked him out" and "Awesome! Internal bleeding and his brain is swelling now I can get away".
Does everyone here really believe because Zimmerman was being over zealous they feel he deserves to get knocked down and have someone sit on top of him and continuously punch him in the head?


According to the SYG law, which they claim let's Zimmerman walk away with no charges. Yes Trayvon had the right to defend himself from a pursuer if he felt that he was in danger. The level of damage he could inflict was dependent on how much danger he thought he was in. The law defines everything as "reasonable" for the level it has to meet. If someone chased you down in a vehicle, you escaped him and he continued looking until he found you again. That to me is reasonable grounds to assume this person means you harm.

Plus, I still have trouble fathoming how Trayvon got within striking distance of Zimmerman in the first place. I find it entirely unlikely that he would approach his stalker. So I believe that Zimmerman cornered him or caught him in a hiding spot. It just never would have happened if Zimmerman would have 1) not followed him 2) not got out of his vehicle.

And I'll just throw this out, carrying a gun carries with it a certain expectation that you will use said gun otherwise carrying it will end up getting you shot if you draw and don't use it. I think Zimmerman felt confident due to his gun and his willingness to use it. Substitute any other rational adult and they would not hunt down a kid and approach him to within striking distance, it's too predatory to continue forward once you've gotten within speaking distance of someone who has tried to evade you once already. Keep in mind that Trayvon had not committed a crime to warrant the amount of attention Zimmerman was giving him, nor the need to approach him beyond the distance a loud speaking or even shouting voice would carry. I certainly would not approach a kid on public property who ran away from me initially. I may be more inclined to hunt them down if they were on my private property or in a dangerous area, but neither of those fit this scenario.

The act of pursuing someone who is trying to get away is by it's nature aggressive. Martin had the right to defend himself from a stranger demonstrating aggressive behavior. The language and frustration Zimmerman expressed on the phone call also suggests he was not pleased to have someone get away on his watch, and perhaps semi-racist in nature.

On the flip side. If Trayvon had chased Zimmerman and still ended up shot to death, would this conversation even be happening? Trayvon would have been provoking the encounter and even if he never laid a finger on Zimmerman, the law states you can use deadly force if you believe someone means to great bodily harm or commit a felony.

It's a joke that Zimmerman has the right to "defend himself" with deadly force, in an encounter he forced upon a teenager against all advice and all material that Zimmerman had presented at a neighborhood watch meeting. The presenter came forward and spoke about it. Under the law he has to meet criteria as the aggressor. I do not believe the police have released information showing he fulfilled those criteria, and his immunity under SYG should be forfeit.

The language on the call "coon", the lack of a tox screen, and the various other screw ups by police. PLUS not holding him until they at least interviewed everyone they could find within a block of the shooting. Now all of those people are potentially tainted by Zimmerman's presence, the media coverage, and the bias of the sources of this information. It's up to the second investigation to hopefully see that they screwed the pooch and see if it was because they are incompetent, racist, or covering up for Zimmerman.

I don't blame anyone for being outrageously pissed and concerned over this. It essentially means you can walk down the street, stalk any lone person, and shoot them dead if they have anything in their hand you can claim looked like a gun or say anything like "I'll kill you...........................if you come any closer." Just the last part won't make it out of their mouth if you have your gun good and ready to blow a hole in them.

What you're saying here is demonstrating the problem I was speaking about earlier. You bought the narrative of the story but failed to investigate the facts. Romney is paying the same tax on that money that he would if it were invested in the USA. He hasn't done anything illegal. The cayman island *used* to be a tax haven, which is why there is this stigma. It isn't anymore. The banks fully cooperate with the IRS. Romney could have the money there simply to attact foreign investors. Do you think that no one is allowed to invest their money anywhere but in the United States?

Here is a statement his campaign released..he doesn't even control the fund that invested that money:

"The Romneys' investments in funds established in the Cayman Islands are taxed in the very same way they would be if the Romneys held their shares of the fund investments directly in the US rather than through a Cayman fund.

Nothing is changed from four years ago in relation to these funds. Governor and Mrs. Romney's assets are managed on a blind basis. They do not control the investment of these assets. The assets are under the control and overall management of an independent trustee.

Furthermore, only the sponsor of the fund decides where it is established. That responsibility is totally outside the control of a passive investor like Gov. Romney or the trustee of this blind trust.

Also, in regards to the Unrelated Business Income Tax: Governor Romney’s IRA is tax deferred, just like the IRA’s of every other American. Its investments are in compliance with rules created to keep it tax deferred, just like it was intended to be."

I wouldn't vote for Romney but the story itself is deliberately portrayed as if Romney has done something illeagl, which he hasn't. They're counting on people not to investigate the facts, which is why I came to state what they are.


>> ^volumptuous:
The guy is running for President of The United States and yet he is evading taxation on the wealth he has generated in our country. (leaving aside the fact that a lot of it came from other people's misery)
Yes, I have an enormous fucking problem with that as do most people in this country.
He's not just your average rich fucker, he's the guy who is running for POTUS. How can you NOT have a problem with him doing this shit? He obviously doesn't give enough of a fuck about the citizens to pay his fair share. He's bilking this country, and firing scores of people his entire life. Fuck this guy in the face.

The guy is running for President of The United States and yet he is evading taxation on the wealth he has generated in our country. (leaving aside the fact that a lot of it came from other people's misery)

Yes, I have an enormous fucking problem with that as do most people in this country.

He's not just your average rich fucker, he's the guy who is running for POTUS. How can you NOT have a problem with him doing this shit? He obviously doesn't give enough of a fuck about the citizens to pay his fair share. He's bilking this country, and firing scores of people his entire life. Fuck this guy in the face.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^ghark:
@bcglorf - It's called news - if specific elements of what he says are untrue then feel free to disprove them - all you've done is used his involvement in a 9/11 movement as your 'proof' which is circumstantial at best. Marbles didn't make the video, he posted it, this site is called "Videosift" - a place where, you know, video's can be sifted. If you disagree with the message then attack the facts not the guy who added to the value of the site with an informative video. Unlike journalists where you seem to get your news from, Tarpley has (apparently) visited the country and talked to the people, there would be very few journalists that could give his perspective if this is true.
PS Was wondering when I'd see you next bcglorf, I missed you.

Al Jazeera has multiple journalists in Syria, all of whom are well agreed that the protests all started peacefully and were met with deadly force from the regime. The Arab league, who's member nations each have embassies in Syria with multiple diplomats living in the country, are also well agreed that the protesters were the victims of regime death squads. The Syrian refugees that fled to Turkey are all well agreed that the protesters were the victims of regime death squads.
The ONLY source that in any way corroborates Tarpley's story here is Assad's own media. I do believe that in itself calls into question Tarpley's veracity. When his sole evidence is basically his own word, trust him, I think it worth noting his past record of trustworthiness.
As for contributing, I don't consider propaganda bought and paid for by the Syrian regime a positive contribution to the plight of the Syrian people.



You do realise that people willing to spend 10 seconds on a Google search can verify whether your statements are true or not right?

Back in April alone:
(links available from http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/04/video-reporting-possible-ciasaudi.html)

The Al-Alam News Network reports that Saudi/CIA snipers are on rooftops firing at both protesters and Syrian forces

CNN reported that an unknown armed group had been firing on both protesters and Syrian forces alike (they go on to presume that it was Syrian forces that apparently opened fire on themselves which I find odd).

China's XinhuaNet reported that armed gangs had clashed with protesters and Syrian forces, killing members of both sides.

The Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) reported equipment from these armed forces had been recovered, there were non-Syrian SMS cards and other tools to spread fake repression of protesters.

Ynet also reported a similar story, finding fake bottles of blood and other items - they reported that "the phones and cameras were carried by members of an armed criminal group that attacked a military location in Rakhem al-Hirak area in Daraa countryside"
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4059951,00.html

The assistant US secretary of state for human rights and labor (Michael Posner) in an AFP report said that the US had budgeted $50 million in the past 2 years to help 'activists' evade authoritarian Governments.
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/04/us-trains-activists-to-evade-security.html

In terms of who the actual gunmen are, there is only circumstantial evidence from what I've seen - some of it is discussed here:
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/04/video-reporting-possible-ciasaudi.html

There appears to be links with a group called Gen-next, and there is a precedent to this type of interference with local uprising - that link talks about armed units killing both Thai military and protesters alike in 2010.

And more information on them (with working vids of the Thai attacks) here:
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/04/color-revolutions-mystery-gunmen.html

Anyway, it's the same old story with you, your comments are abrasive towards those opposed to your abhorrent ideology and your 'facts' are verifiably untrue. It's a shame because you seem more intelligent than some of the other trolls so you have potential to improve, you simply decide not to.

The real story is that these gunmen are a mystery to almost everyone, they appear to be showing up frequently, they appear to be corporate backed, they don't appear to be part of the local armed forces because they routinely attack them. Making a bold statement about their intentions seems difficult due to the circumstantial evidence against them, however the fact that they are operating in multiple countries and the US is pouring millions of dollars into these kinds of efforts (and has done over and over again in the past) indicates that it is likely not of Syrian origin.

>> ^shinyblurry:

@petpeeved I noticed you are evading the central issue, in that I don't expect necessarily expect you to believe my claims. Before I came to know God exists, if you had told me such a thing I wouldn't have believed you either. The point is though that I did tell you exactly how you could find out for yourself. Getting to your example, I was not raised with religion nor did I have any predisposition towards it. In fact, I was a strict materialist, who saw no evidence for such claims. You can't so easily write off the claims of billions of people. There are going to be innumerable cases which fall outside your narrow definition.
>> ^petpeeved:
"Do you honestly think people are just picking up the bible and saying to themselves "oh, that sounds lovely" and then just start blindly believing it?"
No, actually. Glad you asked. Most believers I have known, heard interviewed or simply researched are brainwashed when they are at a very impressionable age with whatever religion is the dominant one in the household and/or culture. A belief system acquired this early in life becomes invested with an enormous amount of emotional power and it's not at all surprising that this should later manifest in a psychosomatic incident later defined by the believer as 'personal revelation'.



"Before I came to know God exists..." Priceless!

@petpeeved I noticed you are evading the central issue, in that I don't expect necessarily expect you to believe my claims. Before I came to know God exists, if you had told me such a thing I wouldn't have believed you either. The point is though that I did tell you exactly how you could find out for yourself. Getting to your example, I was not raised with religion nor did I have any predisposition towards it. In fact, I was a strict materialist, who saw no evidence for such claims. You can't so easily write off the claims of billions of people. There are going to be innumerable cases which fall outside your narrow definition.

>> ^petpeeved:
"Do you honestly think people are just picking up the bible and saying to themselves "oh, that sounds lovely" and then just start blindly believing it?"
No, actually. Glad you asked. Most believers I have known, heard interviewed or simply researched are brainwashed when they are at a very impressionable age with whatever religion is the dominant one in the household and/or culture. A belief system acquired this early in life becomes invested with an enormous amount of emotional power and it's not at all surprising that this should later manifest in a psychosomatic incident later defined by the believer as 'personal revelation'.