TheRegt

Christian | Married | Father | JD | SOF | Jacked

[TheRegt @144sent]

No. I read the entire thing.

Please recall, you incorrectly stated the reason for the revolutionary war at the very end. So I at-least read sentence one and sentence 1000

Your entire basis for your argument stems from legitimately incorrect definitions.

You rely on emotions—how this impacts families.

You have quite literally no understanding of what you’re talking about.

Let me ask you something—all those sad families—how sad are they going to be when their house is constantly flooded or their septic system doesn’t work?

I fucking hate taxes more than anyone here. But I’m not a fucking idiot. You guys need to grow up.

[TheRegt @144sent]

@blister @DesireeAmerica4 “It’s essentially the same thing”

That’s what you said homeboy.

[TheRegt @144sent]

I see your point—but there’s a ceiling where value stops being justified by banks.

If what you’re saying were true, boomers wouldn’t be winning—they’d be trapping themselves in illiquid assets.

There’s a difference between having a “million-dollar home” and being able to sell a million-dollar home.

[TheRegt @144sent]

My brother in Christ—

These are not the same thing.

Property tax is not an “unrealized gain.” It’s a tax on assessed value—not profit.

Property taxes help maintain the very value being taxed.

Schools, roads, police, fire—those aren’t extras. They’re what make your property worth anything.

What part of this are you not grasping? And why do you not understand about it? This is a very important distinction that someone in your position should he able to fully understand.

If you remove property tax—your “value” doesn’t hold. Because your property flood from lack of maintenance of drainage, etc etc.

—-

And historically—we didn’t go to war over high taxes.

We went to war over taxation without representation—taxes imposed without consent.

That distinction matters—a lot.

[TheRegt @144sent]

“Fantasy land” what I’m about to say you need to understand the best you can.

You think eliminating property tax means you win? You don’t even understand the game.

The government is getting its money. Period. You’re not outsmarting it—you’re just choosing a different way to pay, and most likely a worse one.

This isn’t reform. This is financial illiteracy dressed up as rebellion.

And here’s the part you really don’t want to hear:

Most of you don’t have the money to play the game you’re pretending to play.

You’re arguing for structural changes you don’t understand, with second-order effects you definitely can’t afford.

That’s the tragedy of the commons—people so focused on saving a dollar they walk themselves into losing three.

You’re not beating the system.

You’re volunteering to get beat by it.

[TheRegt @144sent]

I now live in a very similarly situated place. It’s the best hidden secret in central Ohio.

It’s not like Mason in structure, but favors more space in average, larger houses, smaller community, awesome schools

I don’t love my taxes-but I do understand what they have provided me. And there is a reason we have nice things.

There’s room for reform absolutely.

But we all have to be real with the outcomes.

Nice things cost money.

Mason is one of my favorite Suburbs for this reason. And most people in Mason would not like Morrow for a reason.

[TheRegt @144sent]

The “unrealized gains” argument is where this falls apart.

Property tax is not a tax on gains. It’s not a capital gains system at all. You’re not being taxed on profit—you’re being taxed on ownership of an asset that only has value because of ongoing public infrastructure.

Your house isn’t worth what Zillow says because you “held it.” It’s worth that because it has roads that are passable, drainage that prevents flooding, police and fire protection, zoning, utilities, and schools—all maintained every single year.

Remove those, and your “market value” collapses. No road? No drainage? No services? Your house isn’t appreciating—it’s barely sellable.

That’s why reassessment exists. Because the system supporting that value is not static—it’s being funded and maintained in real time.

Calling that “unrealized gains” ignores the fact that the value itself is being actively produced and protected every year.

Now—there is a legitimate conversation around reform.

Rapid increases in valuation can outpace someone’s ability to pay. That’s real. Guardrails, caps, or smoothing mechanisms can make sense.

But freezing values at purchase price—like California—doesn’t fix the issue. It just shifts the burden. Long-term owners pay artificially low taxes, new buyers get hammered, and you create distortions where two identical houses are taxed completely differently.

And abolishing property taxes entirely doesn’t eliminate the cost—it just moves it. You end up with higher income taxes, higher sales taxes, or some hybrid that’s often less stable and less locally controlled.

So yes—reform is a rational position.

But calling property tax a tax on “unrealized gains” is simply not accurate. It’s a payment into the system that gives your property value in the first place.

[TheRegt @144sent]

@phil_denton @DesireeAmerica4 It appears your from Mason.

Absolutely one of the nicest suburbs in the state. Probably the nation.

I grew up in Warren county. Fantastic county.

Mason is smart. They were always ahead of the curve. Nicest facilities I’d ever seen as kid playing against them in sports.

[TheRegt @144sent]

@Wordsofanarchy @DesireeAmerica4 I don’t do “woe is me.”

It’s on the people to hold elected officials accountable.

Eliminating property taxes isn’t a solution—it’s worse than increases.

The answer is reform and accountability.

Not taking your ball and going home pretending you won.

You won’t.

[TheRegt @144sent]

You think removing property taxes removes the ability of anyone to take your home?

It does not. And this is the worst reason given.

Surface level thinking used by people who do not understand liability or societal impact at all.

It was wrong that our state allowed property taxes to raise like that. Their spending absolutely requires more scrutiny.

But the answer is not property taxes.

Frankly—and no offense—but that’s fucking dumb.

[TheRegt @144sent]

If your not staying strapped these days, your asking for problems.

1. Handgun, extra mag, small trauma kit are bare minimum.

2. Rifle, chest rig, 120 rifle rounds, expanded trauma kit should be standard.

3. Strongly recommend plates with expanded tool sets.

Especially if you have kids.

1 gets you off the x.

2 is for getting after it on the x.

3 is for extended stays on the x.

[Green Beret Nap Time @GBNT1952]

If you are Active Duty military or a veteran, please stay strapped everywhere you go.

I’ve received numerous reports from both AD and retired guys of incidents where activists are looking to attack current and former military members. Talk is also circulating about targeting us in both far left and far right online forums.

One incident was reported by a veteran that parked in a veteran spot at a store and was confronted by a man with a knife as he returned to his vehicle. Luckily, he was armed, pulled his firearm, and the assailant ran off.

Always stay vigilant, especially as social media is being exploited to vilify us all.

DOL, my brothers and sisters.

[TheRegt @144sent]

On fire with… what, precisely?

The guy’s billed as some towering intellectual, yet he has zero clue about foreign policy.

For all the times he smugly demands ‘What is a woman?,’ you’d expect him to actually not think/talk/process like one—rambling, circular, emotionally loaded, the works.

[TheRegt @144sent]

@hodgetwins Hodgetwins Foreign Policy: Do nothing about anything, then.... somehow... do more nothing after anything happens?

Channeling your inner Obama 'Hope' pitch I see. Must be a black thing.

Genius-level statesmanship right there.

And "its the jooooos"

[TheRegt @144sent]

You’re not connecting your own ideas.
1.Yes—most military actions share surface patterns.
https://t.co/xtqXpTDMBF—surface patterns don’t justify your conclusion that a sustained ground war is inevitable.

Here are the facts right now:
3.There is no ground war.
4.Iran’s centralized command has been degraded.
5.The service members killed were not part of a U.S. ground invasion force.

So prove your claim.

What specific evidence shows we’re headed to “Iraq 2.0”—as in sustained ground occupation and nation-building—rather than limited strikes + deterrence + regional posture?

You can’t just point to “people died” and call that proof. Losses are tragic, but they are not a syllogism (you should learn this word—it would fix your entire approach)

If your model can’t distinguish between similar-looking inputs and different strategic outcomes, then it isn’t analysis—it’s doom-posting.

So I’ll ask directly:
What outcome would make you admit you were wrong?

[TheRegt @144sent]

You do understand that military action happens regularly, right?

Foreign actors are constantly attempting to harm U.S. service members and interests. That’s not new. That’s the environment.

Risk—and yes, sometimes death—is inherent to military service. That reality doesn’t automatically transform every engagement into “Iraq 2.0.”

Your logic seems to be: “Someone died, therefore this equals the Global War on Terror.”

Very dull.

Where your argument collapses is in treating ALL military action as synonymous with the GWOT.

If every use of force equals endless occupation, then your framework leaves no room for deterrence, targeted strikes, or consequence.

This is the point where you’re completely discredited.

Which effectively means: hostile actors face no response—up to and including advancing nuclear capabilities while openly threatening destruction.

Thats just absolutely fucking stupid.

And you cannot address this.

The only thing Im surprised you haven’t argued yet—and I’ll give you credit for: “it’s the joos”

[TheRegt @144sent]

@NowThinkFree @RepPatRyanNY Where’s the ground war dude? Where is it? Because I don’t see it.

This is literally your claim. And it doesn’t exist.

[TheRegt @144sent]

Leveraging “lives lost” as rhetorical leverage doesn’t prove your case. It signals you’re appealing to emotion because you lack substance.

Your argument rests entirely on speculation.

That speculation rests entirely on predictions.

And those predictions appear to be borrowed—not built.

You haven’t presented evidence. You’ve presented inevitability as if it’s fact.

You also haven’t demonstrated any real understanding of Iran’s history with the U.S., its proxy structure, or its nuclear posture.

Instead, you selectively elevate facts when they support your narrative and ignore them when they don’t.

It’s confirmation bias.

If you’re not here to test your assumptions, you’re not debating—you’re broadcasting.

[TheRegt @144sent]

@MattWalshBlog Because no one can do two things at once

-Matt Walsh.