3 ms·

Please think before you write. Lobbying is legal, as it is the bread and butter of lawmakers. So I never accused them of anything illegal when it comes to tax l

Please think before you write. Lobbying is legal, as it is the bread and butter of lawmakers. So I never accused them of anything illegal when it comes to tax loopholes.

res0nat0r 13y ago
This is true, but I still don't see any evidence of actual money from Google being paid to lobbyists on behalf of protecting tax shelters.
- bsullivan01 13y ago
  but I still don't see any evidence of actual money from Google being paid to lobbyists on behalf of protecting tax shelters. OK, how deep have you looked for evidence? Ah, I see. Once you pay off a congressman or senator you can ask them for anything.
  - res0nat0r 13y ago
    Have to go with the obligatory... Burden of Proof: You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove. The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
beambot 13y ago
I always think before I write. I used quotes because I'm borrowing an analogy from police investigations. You provided "motive", ie. "Google has a good reason to pay lobbyists for tax loopholes: money." But you did not provide evidence of said "crime", ie. "You have not shown direct evidence that they pay for lobbying for the purpose of tax loopholes -- rather, that they pay for lobbying (ostensibly for other purposes like net neutrality)."

Please think before you write. Lobbying is legal, as it is the bread and butter of lawmakers. So I never accused them of anything illegal when it comes to tax loopholes.

res0nat0r 13y ago

This is true, but I still don't see any evidence of actual money from Google being paid to lobbyists on behalf of protecting tax shelters.

bsullivan01 13y ago
but I still don't see any evidence of actual money from Google being paid to lobbyists on behalf of protecting tax shelters. OK, how deep have you looked for evidence? Ah, I see. Once you pay off a congressman or senator you can ask them for anything.
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  Have to go with the obligatory... Burden of Proof: You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove. The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

beambot 13y ago

I always think before I write. I used quotes because I'm borrowing an analogy from police investigations. You provided "motive", ie. "Google has a good reason to pay lobbyists for tax loopholes: money." But you did not provide evidence of said "crime", ie. "You have not shown direct evidence that they pay for lobbying for the purpose of tax loopholes -- rather, that they pay for lobbying (ostensibly for other purposes like net neutrality)."