Discussion about hot topics trending today

[SoulReaver]

some good news: rusky agent finally behind bars

https://edition.cnn.com/uk/live-news...ntl/index.html

hope he stays there but I chances are King Don will grant him a pardon

[Annoyed]

admittedly I dont know what they were called back then

They weren't called anything, it didn't exist.
It was formed in the 1850's in order to oppose Slavery. Abraham Lincoln was their first President.

[Annoyed]

Nice try, but NO!

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/com...-is-not-spying

Former FBI Director James Comey joined the chorus of Democratic critics complaining about Attorney General Bill Barr’s testimony this week that “spying did occur” against the 2016 Trump campaign, claiming he has no idea what the Justice Department leader is talking about -- and saying he “never thought of” electronic surveillance as “spying.”

Wasn't there a movie a while back.. "Say Anything"

[SoulReaver]

Nice try, but NO!

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/com...-is-not-spying



Wasn't there a movie a while back.. "Say Anything"

there was spying alright - and to see who benefited from it just look at who won

btw the only thing we know for certain about Comey is he helped Trump (the rest is irrelevant) but the Dems are too stupid to point it out apparently

[Annoyed]

And, yet another democrat displays their hypocrisy.

Shouldn't Nancy Pelosi want detainees released into her sanctuary city?

It's a dead giveaway.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., would consider it punishment were her city saddled with more undocumented migrants while they await their court hearings.

The thrust of a Washington Post report on Friday, citing anonymous Department of Homeland Security “officials,” was that the White House had asked Immigration and Customs Enforcement about unloading illegal immigrants detained at the border in places proudly known as “sanctuary cities.”

Pelosi’s office said the suggestion exposed the administration’s “cynicism and cruelty” in “using human beings … as pawns in their warped game to perpetuate fear and demonize immigrants…”

The whole point of sanctuary cities, from the standpoint of their lawmakers, is that illegal immigrants need a safe place to evade deportation. Illegal entrants and asylum seekers, after all, are only here to pursue a better life for themselves and their families (and all the better if Democrats can load them up on welfare).

Why, then, would a city like San Francisco, which lies in Pelosi’s district, not leap at the chance to bring in more of their well-meaning friends?

Outside of providing more beds, free healthcare, and free child services, courtesy of the American taxpayer, Democrats in Congress have shown no interest in doing anything about the hundreds of thousands of migrants making their way to the U.S. from Central America.

Wouldn't these well-meaning foreigners be best served in cities like New York, Boston, and Seattle, where local authorities refuse to comply with federal agents in deporting illegal aliens?

[Annoyed]

And more of the BS regarding tax reform is shoveled away...

Surprise: Most NYers did well by Trump’s tax cuts but very rich at risk

But if the new federal tax law is a low-SALT nothingburger for most New Yorkers, it remains a threat to the state’s finances. That’s because the big losers from the SALT cap are concentrated among the Empire State’s highest-earning residents, the 1-percenters who generate more than 40 percent of the state’s personal-income tax as well as an outsized share of New York City taxes.

I'm confused. Wasn't the opposition to the tax reform package based on it benefiting the 1 percenters?

[SoulReaver]

And more of the BS regarding tax reform is shoveled away...

Surprise: Most NYers did well by Trump’s tax cuts but very rich at risk



I'm confused. Wasn't the opposition to the tax reform package based on it benefiting the 1 percenters?

or maybe this whole article is a crock of **** based on Government propaganda & the truth is altogether different

remember the IRS is more corrupt than ever now so can't trust what they're saying either

[SoulReaver]

and after Annoyed's piece of fake news here's the real news:

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/tax...x-plan-n993046

[aretood2]

The percentage of total population is exactly how the math works, unless it doesn't prove the point of view you're backing, is that it?

Of course the "native population" is going to have more people on welfare, it's a much larger group. To get an accurate comparison, you have to use the percentage of each population.

Counting by household does not give you percent of population, you are counting units of unequal size across the board. Once again, that's not how math works.

Also just looking at percentage of population that uses welfare doesn't work. Because what matters is amount spent. Less money goes to immigrants than to natives. Per capita, Natives on welfare cost 39% more than immigrants on welfare. If five hundred immigrants use Free and Reduced Meals for their kids' school lunches versus one hundred natives who use food stamps, SSI, and WIC cards throughout the year, the 100 natives end up being more expensive than the 500 immigrants.

Inherited, earned, or whatever. What makes anyone else entitled to it? Almost anything you can say is a form of "From each, To each". No matter how someone comes upon his wealth, no one else is entitled to confiscate it.

Life itself is not "fair". Never has been, never will be. Some folks will be dealt a better hand than others. I'm just grateful to fortune, god or whoever that I was dealt a "middle of the road" hand.

That is a harsh fact of life, and nothing you, me or anyone else can change that.

I do agree about the costs of college, it is well beyond absurd. But as I've discussed elsewhere, I believe that is because there is a never-ending supply of govt. money and loans available to the industry's customers, and the industry knows that.

Remove that source of funding, and the prices will fall to reasonable levels, or they will go out of business.

Here you say life is not fair...

Crime, as defined the the laws of of the U.S.? (or whatever jurisdiction) or crime as defined what you consider should be a crime?


But we can't even try to make life "fair". Nothing we can possibly do can achieve that.

(More on this later, I will edit this post to flesh out the details, but I've posted it before)

[edit]
Right from the very start, life is unfair. First there is the genetics lottery. Our life expectancy, intelligence, susceptibility to diseases, mental and physical handicaps and abilities, even our physical attractiveness(which in itself plays a huge part in how our lives progress); just about everything is predetermined before we are born. But people like to maintain the illusion that they control their own lives, so no one accepts this or talks about it. That doesn't mean it's not true.

And then there are the circumstances of our birth. The mental entity that is "me" or "you" can be born to wealth and riches with a golden spoon in your mouth, or we can be born into abject poverty in the worst 3rd world backwater on the planet. Again, it's all a crap shoot. And no, it's not "fair".

But there is absolutely nothing that can be done to change any of it.

Here you say that it's unfair to take your hard earned cash for welfare....well...which is it? Is this about fairness or not? Womble's posts were about how welfare does work, not whether or not it is fair. You made the statement that it doesn't work, Womble proved you wrong. You are wrong, it does work. Whether or not it is fair is completely irrelevant to the point, the point being that it works. This is just a classic dodge tactic of yours just to avoid admitting that you are wrong, you changed the subject (or rather moved the goal posts).

[Gatefan1976]

All it's about is "what is fair for ME" which as you know is not fairness.
That's it.

[Gatefan1976]

And, yet another democrat displays their hypocrisy.

Shouldn't Nancy Pelosi want detainees released into her sanctuary city?

Cool, let's drop all the drop dead morons into red states, they are your people after all. (you may have to move annoyed).
Let's weaponize people.

And if they are weapons, aren't they protected under the 2nd amendment?

[Annoyed]

Cool, let's drop all the drop dead morons into red states, they are your people after all. (you may have to move annoyed).
Let's weaponize people.

And if they are weapons, aren't they protected under the 2nd amendment?

Why don't you stop arguing nonsense and admit it: This is a stroke of genius by Trump. If Pelosi and the dems are as fond of illegals as they claim to be, designating places like SF to be "Sanctuary Cities", what exactly is wrong with having them put their taxpayer's money where their mouths are? If your state wants them so badly, then let your state pick up the tab.

Of course, she doesn't want to do that 'cause her taxpayers will fire her the next chance they get once their taxes start rising.

And just as importantly, her opposition to the idea clearly shows her hypocrisy. Again, a brilliant stroke of genius by Trump.

I just hope that Trump doesn't back down from this plan, like he does with so many others.

[jelgate]

Trump's plan is also illegal

[Annoyed]

Trump's plan is also illegal

Well, there might be a court fight about that. But then, the Democrats/Lefties think Trump taking a leak is illegal, too.

[jelgate]

I call BS again.