The Political Discussion Thread

[Annoyed]

If they're going to do it, yes, the govt. should issue offsetting tax credits or whatever.
But the point I'm making is that the true goal of the enviros isn't really concern for the environment. Their true goal is wealth redistribution in accordance with their wishes.

Heck, even one of the UN policymakers on the topic admitted that back in 2010.

[Gatefan1976]

If they're going to do it, yes, the govt. should issue offsetting tax credits or whatever.

So, the government should not create a tax, without a way to let people avoid the tax?
Is that right?

But the point I'm making is that the true goal of the enviros isn't really concern for the environment. Their true goal is wealth redistribution in accordance with their wishes.

Heck, even one of the UN policymakers on the topic admitted that back in 2010.

Ok, I am gonna give you a big hint, a HUUUUUUUGGGGGGGEEEEEE hint, the best, most well thought out hint with the best words ever written.
If you want to talk about the BS the tree huggers spew (and they spew quite a bit), TALK ABOUT THAT!!
Don't try to bring in taxes, or "lefty agenda's", or "wealth distribution", stick to the damn point you want to make. Point out the fact that the donations people make are chewed up by the "command structure" of the organization rather than get used to grow or protect the cause they claim to advocate for. I used to donate to Greenpeace -years- ago, till I got clued in that my donations were landing 1 dollar in 10 on the cause I believed in. I dropped them like a bad habit, not because I suddenly did not care about the environment, but because they became no more than a "African prince" scam.

There is no problem with being diserning in your support, or even questioning the motivations of people involved, but just because one group is abusing the system, does not invalidate what they claimed to fight for.

[Annoyed]

The best way to judge intent is by the BEHAVIOR of whomever it is you're looking at.
I don't care what they claim, there are approximately as many liars on this planet as there are mouths.

I don't have time a long-winded post right now, but looking at the behavior of the enviros clearly indicate that their true agenda is not concern for the environment, it is wealth redistribution.

Just a few points to support that.

Enviros tend to object to ANYTHING which doesn't drive the cost of something up.
Very often, they want a tax, or carbon credits, or whatever to collect money, and they want to specify where that money goes.
They object to any real, practical alternative, such as Nuclear, Hydro, or whatever.

It is more than clear to my, by their behavior what their agenda is.

[aretood2]

So remember how I said earlier that Black Lives Matter was just another run-of-the-mill leftist movement that didn't care about its declared cause? That it would soon begin blurring lines, expanding their definitions and converging with other generic leftist causes?

Well, they're doing that already. Starting at the usual places.

At this point, I'm not surprised. Just go back to my comment about millennials being stupid.

First off what exactly was the 'slam' Trump said.?? Was his comment of "i wonder why she is not speaking, is it cause she is muslim" a SLAM on someone???
Secondly if you are harping on Trump, why then is there not an equal if not GREATER outrage at GQ magazine or MSNBC for what some of their folk said about Ms Smith??

As Bill O'Reilly said Clinton didn't harp on the Smiths. But Trump did harp on the Khans. We aren't talking about a tv host of some show or a pundit. We are talking about someone who wants to be the President of the United States. They are expected to abide by different standards. The whole point of this is to show how Trump is not willing to rise to those standards. A leader must be above petty insults, Trump obviously isn't. A leader must respect the sacrifice of families and soldiers, Trump does not appear to do so, unless it benefits him.

As for what he said, he's implying that Mr. Khan won't let her speak, as in he's not a good guy. Has it occurred to anyone that she may have chosen not to speak for whatever reason? Did anyone imply that Mrs. Smith is an abusive person?

So you took what i said and changed it effectively..

How so? What did you mean then?

Maybe because the flag stands For our country??

“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Actually I over looked something, it does mention the republic. But then why need to mention the flag? That still doesn't make sense.

Fun fact: The guy who came up with the pledge was a socialist. The whole thing has a fascinating history to it.

Flag burning was a recent (iirc mid 90s) product which came about from a Scotus ruling (IMO incorrect)..

David Dukke's speech is abhorrent to me. But it is right to speak it. The same applies here. You don't have to like something to say that it is protected.

That maybe, part of the reason those 'case workers' are overloaded is cause THEY do have the same people on it year after year.. And maybe that is because of how some do see welfare as a lifestyle, cause they get so much from it (along with EBT, Section 8 housing, section 13 day care offsets, etc)...

Didn't I say that?

Ah now i get what you were asking.
The reason i was saying that is cause of this.
How would YOU like it if you spent, say 30k and 3 years of time earning X, then saw 10000s of people just flat out GIVEN that same thing cause enough complained loud and often enough that 'they too should have it without having to put in the time and effort to earn it'??
Its that same situation. And i know currently 9 people who HAVE earned their citizenship who DO feel that giving amnesty to illegals is just that, a slap in their face that they went through the proper legal procedure and spent the time and effort earning it...

When it comes to citizenship, fair enough. The citizenship test isn't easy for someone not currently learning about that stuff is school. Then all the paperwork. The years of prerequisite work too. The fees and wait lines. No reason why amnesty should get red of any of that.

It seems like you just TRY to find something to nit pick with what i say.
What i SAID is if all those people out there slamming on trump are doing so cause they felt he was wrong.. THEN WHY is there not as much (if not more) outrage at what all those other people said in relation to Ms Smith..
In otherwords, why is there only outrage from ONE SIDE, towards ONE person and none from that SAME side to those others?? Is it cause those people who SAID those things about Ms Smith are also leftists like they are??

Isn't that what we do? I'm sorry if it irks you the wrong way. Refer to my comment above though.

The best way to judge intent is by the BEHAVIOR of whomever it is you're looking at.
I don't care what they claim, there are approximately as many liars on this planet as there are mouths.

I don't have time a long-winded post right now, but looking at the behavior of the enviros clearly indicate that their true agenda is not concern for the environment, it is wealth redistribution.

Just a few points to support that.

Enviros tend to object to ANYTHING which doesn't drive the cost of something up.
Very often, they want a tax, or carbon credits, or whatever to collect money, and they want to specify where that money goes.
They object to any real, practical alternative, such as Nuclear, Hydro, or whatever.

It is more than clear to my, by their behavior what their agenda is.

What about those who don't do those things?

[Womble]

So there's a video shot by the Palestinian "protesters" which is a spectacular (and unintended) illustration of how the "Middle East conflict" works. There is no actual violence taking place so hopefully it does not violate TOS, but in case the mods decide to remove it, here's the gist:

A Palestinian father approaches the Israeli soldiers with a 4 year old toddler, daring them repeatedly to shoot his child dead because "it's what they do". He then sends the toddler, holding a Palestinian flag, walking towards the soldiers on his own. The little boy comes up to the Israeli border policeman who gives him a high-five and talks to him. This seems to disconcert the father who starts yelling at his son to throw a stone at the soldiers. The toddler picks up a rock and throws it AWAY from the soldier. The father then keeps egging him on to throw a rock at the soldiers.

[aretood2]

So there's a youtube video shot by the Palestinian "protesters" which is a spectacular (and unintended) illustration of how the "Middle East conflict" works. There is no actual violence taking place so hopefully it does not violate TOS, but in case the mods decide to remove it, here's the gist:

A Palestinian father approaches the Israeli soldiers with a 4 year old toddler, daring them repeatedly to shoot his child dead because "it's what they do". He then sends the toddler, holding a Palestinian flag, walking towards the soldiers on his own. The little boy comes up to the Israeli border policeman who gives him a high-five and talks to him. This seems to disconcert the father who starts yelling at his son to throw a stone at the soldiers. The toddler picks up a rock and throws it AWAY from the soldier. The father then keeps egging him on to throw a rock at the soldiers.

You're link isn't working, but I found it on Youtube which lead be through a series of other videos I found interesting. Here's one where a youtuber asks a few Israeli Arabs if they live in an apartheid state. The first few don't even know what that means or understand and are unable to show how they may have different rights or have restrictions that Jews don't have. Some of them even have Jewish friends How scandalous!!! One even praised the treatment he got at a hospital. The horror. Some who do say yes don't want to answer why, they shy away.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3Qirao-NK8

I wonder why some Arabic Israelis are afraid to explain why they think it is an apartheid country. Maybe they don't have an answer, or fear retaliation. But what some of them do say is no different than what happens here in the US, things that have been discussed here and in the other thread. So if I were to treat this as a scientific sample, I'd say Israel is not that different than the US at all.

[garhkal]

Yes, he broke the damn law and got CAUGHT, CHARGED AND CONVICTED.
He falsified official paperwork, he did not use official channels, and he broke the law.
Isn't that what you folks are upset about Hillary about??
OH..........
Except Hillary has not been charged, nor convicted.

Got it in one. He broke the law, and paid for it.
She did the same, but has yet to be held to account.. Clear double standard.

I have every right to dismiss your faith as you have to dismiss mine.

And that you do.. However, i think what SGallia is saying, is we are seeing more and more, efforts to Silence anything to do with Christianity from all places outside of church or one's own home..

Unless they change the law and make carbon tax a law, they cannot, and do not, penalise them.
If they do, they can penalise them for breaking the law.

So change the law just so you CAN penalize them for now not being in compliance..

At this point, I'm not surprised. Just go back to my comment about millennials being stupid.



As Bill O'Reilly said Clinton didn't harp on the Smiths. But Trump did harp on the Khans. We aren't talking about a tv host of some show or a pundit. We are talking about someone who wants to be the President of the United States. They are expected to abide by different standards. The whole point of this is to show how Trump is not willing to rise to those standards. A leader must be above petty insults, Trump obviously isn't. A leader must respect the sacrifice of families and soldiers, Trump does not appear to do so, unless it benefits him.

So its only WHO was speaking that makes what was said offensive/wrong. NOT the content of what was said..
Got it.. "sup my nigga!"

How so? What did you mean then?

If my hair wasn't cut so close i would be going bald, after all the hair pulling you are giving me tood..
If you can't see how "You mentioned that the US was founded on Christian law, so I applied Christian law to an American concept, reverence for the flag", as you altering what i said, i have no idea anymore what WILL make you see it..

David Dukke's speech is abhorrent to me. But it is right to speak it. The same applies here. You don't have to like something to say that it is protected.

Then why is it dems and liberal schools seem to delight in shutting down speach they DISLIKE/DISAGREE with?!?!?!?
And the flag issue as to why i feel the Scrotum court messed up, is i don't SEE burning it as being speech let alone expression, therefore not something protected. I see it as just being flat out disrespectful destruction of property.

When it comes to citizenship, fair enough. The citizenship test isn't easy for someone not currently learning about that stuff is school. Then all the paperwork. The years of prerequisite work too. The fees and wait lines. No reason why amnesty should get red of any of that.

So why then 'give amnesty' so broadly?

[SGalisa]

So, you just admitted you don't know what you were voting for?

No--please stop twisting my words around to make them appear to state something completely different..!

I knew I was voting for improvements on the projects. I did NOT know where the money was coming from at the time, but had a rude education during property tax payment time...! "Why do the taxes keep going up and up and up.. and rarely if ever go down..?" ..Oh. That's also when I learned about how financial support quotas work in industry--let's say a rural area vs some city location that is only a 30 minute drive down the road.

I was fresh out of high school and had to vote "Yes" or "No" on those additional county project referendums being proposed. Proposals such as adding an additional $1.2 million to be poured into our local educational system to provide equipment that would help improve teaching methods, etc... that sort of lingo. Which sounds great on paper.. But unknown to me at that time was where the extra $1.2 million was partially coming from.. Hello TAXpayer!! Me, along with the rest of my neighborhood.

In other words, every referendum that added new monies into a curriculum, was more money that would be taken out of our local property taxes..! That's when I learned how the school's get their funds from. Works the same way with the Federal gov't. Also, learned that one of my school teacher relatives is on the gov't payroll and has a vested pension, paid for by the rest of us TAXpayers. His salary and benefits are paid for by me and the rest of our county residents. Problem is, he can't figure out why the rest of the family is griping over having our taxes increased and not getting better benefits, because his benefits package *plan* is better than ours.

THAT is what I have to hear about whenever the family gets together. He is oblivious to employers working in the private sector struggling to make financial ends meet, and he doesn't see the problems they face in contrast to his breezy teacher payment contracts.

He falsified official paperwork, he did not use official channels, and he broke the law.
Isn't that what you folks are upset about Hillary about??
OH..........
Except Hillary has not been charged, nor convicted.

Maybe other people are.. but I'm more concerned about if/when she gets elected----what she is about to do via imposing in TAX increases, and us having to deal with the oppressions resulting from those new laws passed----rather than getting frantic over some lost emails, that might expose any international classified wheelings and dealings. What's done is done. If other parts of the world are caught up in some sort of corruption deal, there's not much us little folks can do to change the outcome of those issues.

Of course you are surprised, the notion of a free press seems to be anathema to Republicans.
"If I were in charge, I would never have let him do it".

If the Democrats *knew* ahead of time what D'Souza was going to do with the info he came across, would they (the DEMs) have permitted him to produce the film at all..? Considering the serious implications he made within the documentary, I just walked away thinking "Wow!!" Also, Whoa.. Nelly!

A long time ago, I read a book on the Knights of the Templar which mentioned some of the dealings of the Illuminati, AND historical figures involved in various global agendas. So, add that info with what D'Souza mentioned as goals of the DEM political party, PLUS, include certain Bible scriptures that reinforce those agendas, and it's just a mind-boggling reaction of "Wow!!!"

..now, just for the record, NOT all Dems are evil. My teacher/relative is a devoted Dem (so is his wife), but he's more on the naive side -- moreso naive than I am..! I dunno.. maybe cause I work with a bunch of devout DEMs (and a few hard-lined Reps) who actually work with the compliance end of gov't regs/laws..? I hear enough from them that can either tickle my ears from overhearing their on-going debates over this rule or that LAW, or they could be dropping wild speculations just to throw the rest of us listening in (sometimes at lunch) when in reality, they're just talking about false bunny trails just to be annoying. ..Plus, it didn't help when I asked point blank about some regulatory thing that I was told the answer might depend on which way the wind was blowing that day.. Really??

I have every right to dismiss your faith as you have to dismiss mine.

Obviously, yes, or I would *hope* so.

Let me guess, Another faith?

Probably---but the question is -- which one..?

What??
No seriously........ WHAT??

If you didn't understand, then without referencing any religious POV's getting in the way of comprehending the LAWs, which "moral codes" should be incorporated into LAW..? I keep hearing dumb comments that Laws were made, so they could be broken. So, if a certain Law didn't exist, and every person on this planet did what they thought was *right* (or correct way of living), what would that or those moral codes look like? How would such law codes or "rules to live / abide by" be written.. say on a global basis?

As -Annoyed- pointed out, to change the Constitution is hard, it's extremely hard to do in the US. Not only that, the power to change the Constitution does not lie in the hands of either the SCOTUS or the POTUS, but the Congress.

Unless some sort of Executive Order is given by the President (or emergency ruling).
For about two years now, there have already been discussions about the Constitution being replaced... not just rewritten, but tossed out and REPLACED. Thus, the 1st Amendment would cease to exist, along with the entire current (USA) "Bill of Rights".

But until that day happens, you and many others will probably look at this (new constitution or whatever it will be labeled as) as some wild conspiracy theory. Actually, it would make sense if a One-World Gov't comes into operation.. it would require EVERY country involved to submit to the NEW World order of Laws and Regulations. I'd say our planet is about half way there already, if not further along in the progress stages. I wouldn't be surprised if such a system starts up within the next 15 years or less.

[Annoyed]

In other words, every referendum that added new monies into a curriculum, was more money that would be taken out of our local property taxes..! That's when I learned how the school's get their funds from. Works the same way with the Federal gov't. Also, learned that one of my school teacher relatives is on the gov't payroll and has a vested pension, paid for by the rest of us TAXpayers. His salary and benefits are paid for by me and the rest of our county residents. Problem is, he can't figure out why the rest of the family is griping over having our taxes increased and not getting better benefits, because his benefits package *plan* is better than ours.

THAT is what I have to hear about whenever the family gets together. He is oblivious to employers working in the private sector struggling to make financial ends meet, and he doesn't see the problems they face in contrast to his breezy teacher payment contracts.

This schoolteacher relative work in NY by any chance? If not, and you want to make them jealous for once...Look into the pay and compensation packages for large urban districts in NY, like Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo..

In Rochester's case, also note that despite the astronomical cost per student, 20,333 per student, the district is one of the worst performing districts in the entire country.

The problem is basically their unions. Mike Walker out of Wisconsin had the right idea. Break their unions, and break them hard.

That is the first step of any education reform package that has a chance of working.

[Gatefan1976]

Got it in one. He broke the law, and paid for it.
She did the same, but has yet to be held to account.. Clear double standard.

9 count them NINE attempts to "hold her to account" and not once has she been charged.
It's not a double standard, it's the fact that no legal case can be made against her.
What you want is mob justice, you want to lynch her without a Judge or Jury and call it Justice.

And that you do.. However, i think what SGallia is saying, is we are seeing more and more, efforts to Silence anything to do with Christianity from all places outside of church or one's own home..

By who?
"lefty ******s"?
Who is calling for it?

So change the law just so you CAN penalize them for now not being in compliance..

Umm........ yes?
How do you think you got drink driving laws, or Drug laws, or damn near any law over history. Society finds something unacceptable, and rather than getting together a lynch mob as we used to, we use the judicial process. Everything is "allowed" and unpenalized, until it is no longer allowed.

[SGalisa]

Another nail in the coffin of the enviros as far as I'm concerned.

In twist, environmentalists fight proposed carbon tax – because it doesn't grow gov't

Maybe they're finally coming to their senses, and realizing the folly of what they were started out trying to impose on the rest of us..?

I've mentioned this before, but will do so again. Federal ruling of
40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 98 is a fairly new rule that came out a few years ago. It is about Greenhouse Gases and the carbon tax and penalties being enforced currently at the industrial level. Eventually, these same regs will affect the Residential community levels.

40 CFR Part 98 is still having the kinks worked out to refine the regulations enough to make them into a permanent law (or Act). For the past 3 years, this rule has undergone at least 300 pages of revisions for each of the past 2 years with this year probably being no different.

So, whether some folks realize it or not, our laws are MUCH closer to getting that CARBON FOOTPRINT tax enforced, than to see it repealed back into oblivion where it belongs. Some folks do NOT have GREEN thumbs, nor the space and means to recycle like some families with lots of acreage and home living space, etc.. So just because of that -- the folks *who do not have* such abilities get punished with a hefty penalty fine?

What a bunch of liars. If their true motivation is concern for the environment, they wouldn't oppose this.
But concern for the environment has little to do with their true goals, apparently. They just want to use it as a backdoor tax, the proceeds of which are to be spent as they decree.

oOOOOOOOOOOO! More taxes!! just what we all need.. NOT.
Backdoor, front door, doesn't matter which door any more, not at this point in time. *sigh*

Got it in one. He broke the law, and paid for it.
She did the same, but has yet to be held to account.. Clear double standard.

Yup. I tried to say that, but it sort of came out lost in the translation somewhere...

And that you do.. However, i think what SGallia is saying, is we are seeing more and more, efforts to Silence anything to do with Christianity from all places outside of church or one's own home..

That is SOOoooooooooooooooooooooo true! I get it at work.. It's really *challenging* working with a staunch Democrat who also claims to be an agnostic and PRO-Hillary this&that.. She and I have had our "religious" chat(s), and chose to ignore each other in the interim. Works out better that way. But it doesn't make the situation okay.. I'm being silenced on my breaks and lunches because of her dislike towards my faith? And there's also a few other folks with just as grumpy reactions, because they dance, hang out at saloon/bars, drink (liquor at social parties, thrive on the wild side during off-work hours) and swear like a sailor, and I don't. I'm more reserved in those areas.

Anywho, She seems to hate my presence, except when she needs me to work on a project for her, then she's often all smiles; unless she's teasing me into fear of some unknown punishment, because she *can* (her being boss/superior in job position to mine) and because she likes to how people react to her being a ruthless authoritarian (all in good teasing, so she claims afterwards!). It took me months to figure out that her behaviors are part of her personality, but to do that in casual conversation mixed with work -- it took some doing to separate her "work" face from her "teasing" face. Seriously, because she is sometimes deliberately 2-faced, which she claims is just for fun, I find it difficult to trust her with all of my heart, mind, and soul/being.

Then why is it dems and liberal schools seem to delight in shutting down speach they DISLIKE/DISAGREE with?!?!?!?

It seems with people I actually know -- in the neighborhood or at work (past and present), the Dems and liberals take the greater chunk of honor in doing exactly that. And they also bitterly complain (for now--) about "Christians" being in their face with *this* or *that*. In my situation, it's been a matter of identification, and singling me out as being different from them.. That is also sometimes a personality barrier, which is another realm of them protecting their own spacial turf zone. Be careful when *generic* you invade someone else's SPACE zone.. it might just be them, tho, and not some religious barrier.

[SGalisa]

This schoolteacher relative work in NY by any chance? If not, and you want to make them jealous for once...Look into the pay and compensation packages for large urban districts in NY, like Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo..

No. He worked in NJ.. rural zone, so his pay and pension wasn't as high as in the urban areas. He's retired now and rubbing it in without actually trying to, while my hubby and I keep trying to explain we can't retire because the retirement money just isNOT there!! Fault of moving to new jobs due to layoffs or company closing its doors. Our teacher/relative just cannot comprehend what it's like to live with such uncertainty, when he's stayed in the same job/field school system his entire working life. He's vested with a guaranteed pension.

My hubby kept getting pushed away in several jobs just before he could get vested. Now, my hubby is again near being vested and getting hassled into potentially losing his job for health issues (heart operation).. or the work place closing its doors.. (so, what else is new on the financial disaster menu..?!)

It'd be nice to be able to have a nice house with a lovely swimming pool and big enough yard to grow a beautiful garden of veggies, and know the neighbors wouldn't be waltzing thru the yards at night to steal what's hanging on the veggie vines. Plus, it'd be really nice to enjoy living out a few years of contented retirement without fretting over whether our bills would get paid on time or not.

[aretood2]

So its only WHO was speaking that makes what was said offensive/wrong. NOT the content of what was said..
Got it.. "sup my nigga!"

What? That's the exact opposite of what I said (which btw, I merely repeated Bill O'Rielly's assertion). Why do you keep tagging me as a liberal? Sure I argue with you a lot, but that's because liberals aren't spewing their nonsense here right now. It's mostly conservative/right win populist nonsense.

I clearly stated that the content of Hillary's comments was different from the content of Trump's comments and even described how. I even referenced a well known hardline conservative whose views on the subject echo mine. Yet somehow you twist that into some sort of liberal rant even though I am not a liberal?

If my hair wasn't cut so close i would be going bald, after all the hair pulling you are giving me tood..
If you can't see how "You mentioned that the US was founded on Christian law, so I applied Christian law to an American concept, reverence for the flag", as you altering what i said, i have no idea anymore what WILL make you see it..

You and me both.

I'm going to assume that you didn't really mean that it was founded on Christian Law but that it was founded on Christian principles. On that, I would whole agree in that Christian principles directly and/or indirectly did play a role in the minds of the founders and was central in people's hearts during the early years of the Republic. That's the distinction I was aiming for.

Then why is it dems and liberal schools seem to delight in shutting down speach they DISLIKE/DISAGREE with?!?!?!?
And the flag issue as to why i feel the Scrotum court messed up, is i don't SEE burning it as being speech let alone expression, therefore not something protected. I see it as just being flat out disrespectful destruction of property.

Why ask me? Why not ask a liberal? But to answer your question. It's because they are just like conservatives. Self serving idiots. And whose property, pray tell, are they destroying? If they bought those flags it's their property. Burning the flag is a statement. However illogical or offensive a statement is, it is protected. You don't see it. You are doing the same thing. You disagree/dislike flag burning and so you wish to shut it down. How is that any different than what they do? This is why I have such a hard time identifying with either conservatives or liberals. you're all the exact same thing. To sides of the same coin.

I don't agree with flag burning. I don't agree with David Dukke. I don't agree with BLM's specific speeches. I think "Pro Palestinian" speeches and Facebook memes and protests, are full of idiocy and downright deceitful. I find people's boisterous waving of the confederate battle flag insulting. I hate what half of the atheists outhere have to say and I find people like Satan Temple to be offensive and wrong and anti-religious. But by God they all have the right to do all of those stupid offensive things and government has no place in shutting any of it down.

So why then 'give amnesty' so broadly?

Who says I want to give it so broadly? You. That's who. Not me.

[Gatefan1976]

No--please stop twisting my words around to make them appear to state something completely different..!

What did I twist?
I quoted you, directly. I did not chop or change, I did not interrupt, I let the whole paragraph stand.

I knew I was voting for improvements on the projects. I did NOT know where the money was coming from at the time, but had a rude education during property tax payment time...! "Why do the taxes keep going up and up and up.. and rarely if ever go down..?" ..Oh. That's also when I learned about how financial support quotas work in industry--let's say a rural area vs some city location that is only a 30 minute drive down the road.

Where did you think the money would come from?
You keep cutting federal tax, which is by and large where most tax cuts come from, and the states are -forced- to pick up the difference to pay for things. Then you want them to cut local sales tax, so they raise property tax to make up the difference.
How is this a mystery?

-Cut story time-

Maybe other people are.. but I'm more concerned about if/when she gets elected----what she is about to do via imposing in TAX increases, and us having to deal with the oppressions resulting from those new laws passed----rather than getting frantic over some lost emails, that might expose any international classified wheelings and dealings. What's done is done. If other parts of the world are caught up in some sort of corruption deal, there's not much us little folks can do to change the outcome of those issues.

How badly taxed do you think you are?
Here, read for yourself:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/brief...nternationally
Please, please, read it.

If the Democrats *knew* ahead of time what D'Souza was going to do with the info he came across, would they (the DEMs) have permitted him to produce the film at all..? Considering the serious implications he made within the documentary, I just walked away thinking "Wow!!" Also, Whoa.. Nelly!

Yes, because he is free to do it, same as Michael Moore was allowed to do it, Michael Bay was allowed to do it.

A long time ago, I read a book on the Knights of the Templar which mentioned some of the dealings of the Illuminati, AND historical figures involved in various global agendas. So, add that info with what D'Souza mentioned as goals of the DEM political party, PLUS, include certain Bible scriptures that reinforce those agendas, and it's just a mind-boggling reaction of "Wow!!!"

By Odins one good eye............

..now, just for the record, NOT all Dems are evil. My teacher/relative is a devoted Dem (so is his wife), but he's more on the naive side -- moreso naive than I am..! I dunno.. maybe cause I work with a bunch of devout DEMs (and a few hard-lined Reps) who actually work with the compliance end of gov't regs/laws..? I hear enough from them that can either tickle my ears from overhearing their on-going debates over this rule or that LAW, or they could be dropping wild speculations just to throw the rest of us listening in (sometimes at lunch) when in reality, they're just talking about false bunny trails just to be annoying. ..Plus, it didn't help when I asked point blank about some regulatory thing that I was told the answer might depend on which way the wind was blowing that day.. Really??

Personal anecdotes simply don't cut it SG, I'm sorry.

Obviously, yes, or I would *hope* so.

Of course you do.

Probably---but the question is -- which one..?

Within the legal framework of the US, does it matter?

If you didn't understand, then without referencing any religious POV's getting in the way of comprehending the LAWs, which "moral codes" should be incorporated into LAW..? I keep hearing dumb comments that Laws were made, so they could be broken. So, if a certain Law didn't exist, and every person on this planet did what they thought was *right* (or correct way of living), what would that or those moral codes look like? How would such law codes or "rules to live / abide by" be written.. say on a global basis?

It would look like the laws we have now. What you seem to be mistaking/conflating is "my religion says something about X crime, so therefore the law is based on my religion", and that is simply not the case.
"The laws are based on the 10 commandments because there is a statue of Moses holding them in the Supreme court"
Well, no, they are not because there are statues and friezes of 15 -other- famous legal personalities throughout history there as well, including (brace yourself) Muhammad!!, so your law is already based in Sharia!!
No?
There is one of Hammurabi as well, so your law is based on Babylonian religion!!
No?
Religion can inform secular law, no doubt, but it does not control it, unless you live in a theocratic state, in which case, you are not really living in a secular state, are you.

Unless some sort of Executive Order is given by the President (or emergency ruling).
For about two years now, there have already been discussions about the Constitution being replaced... not just rewritten, but tossed out and REPLACED. Thus, the 1st Amendment would cease to exist, along with the entire current (USA) "Bill of Rights".

The POTUS cannot write an executive order to change the constitution, the position does not hold that power. If the Constitution -were- to be replaced wholesale, it too would fall under the jurisdiction of the congress. If you -eliminated congress- you could do it, but then you really wouldn't have the USA either.

But until that day happens, you and many others will probably look at this (new constitution or whatever it will be labeled as) as some wild conspiracy theory. Actually, it would make sense if a One-World Gov't comes into operation.. it would require EVERY country involved to submit to the NEW World order of Laws and Regulations. I'd say our planet is about half way there already, if not further along in the progress stages. I wouldn't be surprised if such a system starts up within the next 15 years or less.

If we got a N.W.O. then yes, we would need to negotiate a worldwide legal system.
Does that scare me?
Not really.

[aretood2]

If we got a N.W.O. then yes, we would need to negotiate a worldwide legal system.
Does that scare me?
Not really.

First of all, the origin of NWO has to do with the ideology of Jews controlling everything and ruining the world. So it's a sure bet that I don't buy into that tinfoil nonsense one bit. (Forget normal tinfoil hats, they need Tin plated hats lined with lead for that level of neurotic paranoia)

But super large governments don't work well at all. If we ever go into space, we may need supranational government, but such a scheme means that there would still be independent states largely managing their own internal affairs. Part of me feels that the US has just that problem. It's too darn big and that breeds a monstrous government out of necessity but is a double edged sword that cuts both ways.