|
The Vatican is worth 16 billion by itself ... etc. So it is essential for these top "brass" to make sure we follow otherwise the church will crumble. The same goes with Muslims and Jews. In one Hindu Temple, they recently found 22 Billion dollars worth of gold.
All the antiquated rituals need to be removed as they have no place - especially the ones talking about converting others, or the items that be little others.
Once the rituals and rites have been removed - you will be left with faith and that is what matters the most.
|
|
|
|
|
Men and Women are equal - but different. The two make a whole.
My feelings on this align to yours. The religions of the world need to have a review what is written in the scriptures. When these "documents" were created by MAN and not God, they were set-up to discriminate, exclude, and ultimately to push the message we are better than all of the other religions. Each one of them is like that. Before the democratic reforms that swept Europe, the Church was a big influence in law and power. Today, religion is a big business - 170 Billion in the US alone.
|
|
|
|
|
Most controversial:
1. Lower taxes and remove all deductions aka loopholes. No one deserves a tax credit just for wanting a house, a kid, or an ivy league education.
2. Single payer healthcare although for the sake of the economy and choice allow varous options through insurance companies. The big thing would be unhooking healthcare from being still largely based on employers and high deductible plans.
3. Remove finance reform and replace it with full contribution disclosures. It doesn't matter who gives how much to a campaign as long as it's not anonymous.
|
|
|
|
and
Amend Constitution to explicitly ban corporations and other liability-shielding business structures from being considered to have Constittuional rights
Allow government regulators a stipend and a job in human resources and ban them from taking any private sector job that is not far removed from any business sectors that they regulated in their government position for a period of 4 years.
Amend the Constitution to set a lower limit on the reserve ratio of private banks to 40%.
This implicitly gets rid of corporate income tax. It's stupid that entities other than individual humans were ever considered to have Constitutional rights. It doesn't implictly get rid of anything. Corporations are legal fictions, and are subject to whatever legalities that legislators want to come up for them. It's silly to think taxation of an organization and Constitutional rights are somehow inseparable. What's to prevent governments from banning certain organisations it deems nasty--like your typical union or non profit? Or your newspaper? And Rigon,so no more PIRGS? Ralph Nader would be unamused. The right of actual humans to peaceably assemble. Of course, a corporation is NOT a human -- it is explicitly detached from any particular human. It should be subject to exactly nothing more than the privileges a legislature grants in the charter -- it certainly shouldn't be the case where a piece of paper in a govt filing cabinet is successfully claiming to have a religion. Okay but why should a newspaper have the right to freedom of the press? It's not an individual. Firstly, a newspaper business doesn't need to incorporate. Secondly, even if people do choose to incorporate a news business, a news corp doesn't need a right to freedom of the press. A corporate charter has never crawled out of its file cabinet to write a news article. Every article has a human journalist, so only journalists need freedom of the press. It doesn't take a judicial scholar to sense that the publication of news articles would easily be protected as rights of the articles' authors, even if their employer does not have Constitutional rights. Corporate charters already are written to absorb liability, it would hardly be some crazy new thing for them to absorb the liability of the journalists as well, if ever needed. The bottom line is that corporations explicitly are legally detached from humans. If you want to exercise the Constitutional rights then run your business under a human. It is ridiculous that people want to be shielded from human obligations and liability by having their businesses treated as non-human but then still want that non-human have a full set of human rights to be recognized. It's not. And it makes sense to allow corporations to have the same rights as individuals. Your idea would make it so no one would want to run a business. It makes absolutely no sense for them to have Constitutional rights. You do realize the vast majority of businesses are not corporations.................................... |
|
|
|
|
The older I get, the more cynical I get. I'm at the point where I think it's best if things escalate totally out of control, and the resulting deaths and destruction on both sides are so horrid they agree to stop. I don't know if that would work out, but I truly doubt there is any other solution to this shit.
Both sides share a lot of blame, and I can't say I have much sympathy for any of the combatants. Blaming Israel alone is naïve, especially when you consider that every school anywhere in the middle east has maps that show that Israel doesn't exist, and they are constantly taught that Israel took their land and are evil. That is undeniable, and it forces a continuation of generational blood feuds. It's never ending hate propaganda.
Defending Israel is equally ludicrous. When you get right down to it, Israel is a theocracy...or the next best thing to that...trying to say it's a liberal democracy. It cannot ever be a liberal democracy, because the Palestinians would take control of the country in very few years.
|
|
|
|
Yes, sana, I am amongst the center. I lean left, but I am, overall, a moderate. In fact, Alaska, this issue is one of those that PROVES I'm part of the middle. I don't support bans on civilian ownership of guns. I DO support gun ownership, and even concealed carry. I just support reasonable regulation on both. What regulation of guns do YOU support?
I suggest that maybe you've isolated yourself among like minded people for so long that you may have lost track of what 'normal' is. See, that's where the problem begins because in my experience, people who have to say they support 'reasonable' regulation generally support nothing of the kind. "Reasonable" becomes indicative of anything but reasonable. Oh, well that's easy. Have you been convicted of a violent crime of any sort? No gun for you, for 10 years. (back ground check by state governments). Have you used a gun to commit a crime? (aggravating factor at sentencing). Are you under the care of a psychiatrist/psychologist? A word from them to the local police... no guns for you. Are you a convicted felon? No gun for you. Sorry, zolace. A felony isn't necessarily a 'violent crime'. It still precludes you getting a permit to carry a gun in MOST cases, 'violent' crime or not. http://www.gunlawsbystate.com/felons-and-firearms/Which is a good example of why folks like me think of governments as ham fisted and distrust them. And yet you're a government worker, an enforcer. This is a problem, sana. Cognitive disconnect. Not at all. I was born into this country, a nation that whose national government has lost its mind and is self destructing. Pragmatically speaking, there isn't a damn thing I can do about that so... I look out for myself and my own. While doing that, I try to sound the alarm. Perhaps its useless but... there it is. The federal government is going to collapse. How violent it becomes as it dies, remains to be seen. The soviet union died without bloodshed. One hopes unka sam is at least as good as the soviet union in that respect. Hope for the best, plan for the worst. The state governments will be the only entities capable of resisting the might of the feds if the feds decide to start killing people. "We've made too many compromises already; too many retreats. They invade our space and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!" J. Picard speaking of the Borg. The US federal government has become very much like the Borg. The federal government is going to collapse. How violent it becomes as it dies, remains to be seen. The soviet union died without bloodshed. One hopes unka sam is at least as good as the soviet union in that respect. Hope for the best, plan for the worst. Many millions believe this and have planned for it. Peaceful or violent many will die either from the violence or just starve to death. We are never farther in time from total anarchy than the next meal once all systems fail. Similar to "Lucifer's Hammer"... |
|
|
|
|
What is to stop these corporations simply moving their Headquarters out of the US and thus sidestepping this issue.
If the argument is that the corporations are US based, so then US law applies unilaterally to other countries they don't have an argument if those corporations move to a more business friendly country and say the damn same thing back to the US government - EVEN for US based servers!
|
|
|
|
Private eyes using drones to catch cheating spouses Investigators are taking drones to new heights — using the remote-controlled aircraft to catch New Yorkers cheating on spouses, lying about disabilities and endangering their kids. “People want you to believe there’s all this negativity associated with drones . . . but they could be a very helpful tool,” said Olwyn Triggs, a gumshoe for 23 years and president of Professional Investigators Network Inc. in Glen Cove, LI. Triggs recently used a drone to find an upstate man suspected of insurance fraud. Signs on his rural property warned that trespassers would be shot, so she sent in her 2-pound, foot-long Phantom 2 Vision quadcopter, which costs about $1,000. “He was supposedly fully disabled,” she said. “We knew he was active but couldn’t prove it because of the layout of the property. I couldn’t risk being shot.” So, as a drone hovered above, snapping images of the man chopping wood, Triggs manned the controls from behind a vehicle about 1,000 feet away. PIs are also using drones to catch cheating spouses. Matthew Seifer recently pretended to test-fly a drone in Central Park. He was actually recording a husband fooling around with a female coworker from 100 feet away. “Sometimes the best thing is to be right there in plain sight,” said Seifer, president of Long Island- based Executive Investigations.“We had to get in and get out real quick,” he added. “We deployed a drone for eight minutes and got five minutes’ worth of video. That was the closure our client was looking for.” In another recent case, Seifer was having trouble tailing a fast-driving Long Island doctor suspected of hanky-panky. So the PI parked behind a steakhouse where the doc had taken a lover. “We raised the drone above the restaurant, [and] he was engaged in a sexual act in the front seat of his car,” the investigator said. “Clients are amazed,” Seifer said. “The drones are a game changer.” http://nypost.com/2014/07/13/private-eyes-using-drones-to-nab-scammers-cheating-spouses/Insect drones: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cJv4O2zEOw If you're up to some hanky-panky better keep your eyes on the sky. I suspect its harder to get away with anything these days what with all the cameras and drones flying around looking for evidence or just spying for the hell of it. I recently saw a video [see link] about the military creating insect drones. They are hard to differentiate from the real insect. No doubt in the future these miniature drones will be of considerable use for the military and police but the threat of the government using them to illegally spy on citizens will be present as well. Is all this a good idea or should laws exist to control the uses of these things? Once the cat is out of the bag its hard getting it back in. What do you think? There needs to be some legal constraints on what can be done with a drone. I am not totally against them, but I think there needs to be some legislation on them. |
|
|
|
What I'm saying is that a national policy will help in two major ways - first, it will reduce availability (notice I said reduce, not eliminate) of black market guns by shutting down at least PART of the flow source by making unregistered sales illegal everywhere.
What's your source for making that claim? It's called an opinion - and one based in sound logic. The problem you and I have is that you seem to think I'm calling this a magic bullet - which I'm not, and without a magic bullet, you're unwilling to consider ANY measures. I'm willing to consider any measure that is guaranteed to drastically cut down on crime without violating our right to keep and bear arms. If you can't guarantee that, then no, I will not support another useless law on top of the 29,000 already on the books. That's your copout way of saying that you would not support any regulation. You demand absolute guarantee. You ain't gonna get that. And NO law is going to INSTANTLY solve the problem - or likely even completely eliminate it. There is no magic bullet. But I'll give you a chance here - show me you can be reasonable. Don't lay down demands for guaranteed results from a suggestion of mine - you tell me - specifically - what measures YOU would support. Go ahead. By the way, I'm talking about REPLACING the "29,000 already on the books" with one national policy that is standard everywhere. My proposal does not stack anything on top of what is already there. But again, I'm eager to hear YOUR idea for a solution. Lay it on me. Nothing you suggested will have any effect on criminals, so why would I support something that only burdens law abiding citizens? In your desperate zeal to do something, anything, you lose sight of common sense. Your ideas are hysterical non-starters, and you admit yourself that they are not solutions, so no, I won't support them. Don't be so stupid. |
|
|
|
|
Its not the law but Obama. Do the righties even have any idea just how stupid that statement is..
|
|
|
|
|
The high consumption of sodas (and sugar added "juices") and fried potatoes and trans-fat laden processed foods is what makes people fat .Obesity is tied with global climate change. Even the global cooling hiccup is factored in there.
|
|
|
|
and
Amend Constitution to explicitly ban corporations and other liability-shielding business structures from being considered to have Constittuional rights
Allow government regulators a stipend and a job in human resources and ban them from taking any private sector job that is not far removed from any business sectors that they regulated in their government position for a period of 4 years.
Amend the Constitution to set a lower limit on the reserve ratio of private banks to 40%.
This implicitly gets rid of corporate income tax. It's stupid that entities other than individual humans were ever considered to have Constitutional rights. It doesn't implictly get rid of anything. Corporations are legal fictions, and are subject to whatever legalities that legislators want to come up for them. It's silly to think taxation of an organization and Constitutional rights are somehow inseparable. What's to prevent governments from banning certain organisations it deems nasty--like your typical union or non profit? Or your newspaper? And Rigon,so no more PIRGS? Ralph Nader would be unamused. The right of actual humans to peaceably assemble. Of course, a corporation is NOT a human -- it is explicitly detached from any particular human. It should be subject to exactly nothing more than the privileges a legislature grants in the charter -- it certainly shouldn't be the case where a piece of paper in a govt filing cabinet is successfully claiming to have a religion. Okay but why should a newspaper have the right to freedom of the press? It's not an individual. Firstly, a newspaper business doesn't need to incorporate. Secondly, even if people do choose to incorporate a news business, a news corp doesn't need a right to freedom of the press. A corporate charter has never crawled out of its file cabinet to write a news article. Every article has a human journalist, so only journalists need freedom of the press. It doesn't take a judicial scholar to sense that the publication of news articles would easily be protected as rights of the articles' authors, even if their employer does not have Constitutional rights. Corporate charters already are written to absorb liability, it would hardly be some crazy new thing for them to absorb the liability of the journalists as well, if ever needed. The bottom line is that corporations explicitly are legally detached from humans. If you want to exercise the Constitutional rights then run your business under a human. It is ridiculous that people want to be shielded from human obligations and liability by having their businesses treated as non-human but then still want that non-human have a full set of human rights to be recognized. |
|
|
|
and
Amend Constitution to explicitly ban corporations and other liability-shielding business structures from being considered to have Constittuional rights
Allow government regulators a stipend and a job in human resources and ban them from taking any private sector job that is not far removed from any business sectors that they regulated in their government position for a period of 4 years.
Amend the Constitution to set a lower limit on the reserve ratio of private banks to 40%.
This implicitly gets rid of corporate income tax. It's stupid that entities other than individual humans were ever considered to have Constitutional rights. It doesn't implictly get rid of anything. Corporations are legal fictions, and are subject to whatever legalities that legislators want to come up for them. It's silly to think taxation of an organization and Constitutional rights are somehow inseparable. What's to prevent governments from banning certain organisations it deems nasty--like your typical union or non profit? Or your newspaper? And Rigon,so no more PIRGS? Ralph Nader would be unamused. The right of actual humans to peaceably assemble. Of course, a corporation is NOT a human -- it is explicitly detached from any particular human. It should be subject to exactly nothing more than the privileges a legislature grants in the charter -- it certainly shouldn't be the case where a piece of paper in a govt filing cabinet is successfully claiming to have a religion. Pardon me but are you on drugs? lol, want some? |
|
|
|
and
Amend Constitution to explicitly ban corporations and other liability-shielding business structures from being considered to have Constittuional rights
Allow government regulators a stipend and a job in human resources and ban them from taking any private sector job that is not far removed from any business sectors that they regulated in their government position for a period of 4 years.
Amend the Constitution to set a lower limit on the reserve ratio of private banks to 40%.
This implicitly gets rid of corporate income tax. It's stupid that entities other than individual humans were ever considered to have Constitutional rights. It doesn't implictly get rid of anything. Corporations are legal fictions, and are subject to whatever legalities that legislators want to come up for them. It's silly to think taxation of an organization and Constitutional rights are somehow inseparable. What's to prevent governments from banning certain organisations it deems nasty--like your typical union or non profit? Or your newspaper? And Rigon,so no more PIRGS? Ralph Nader would be unamused. The right of actual humans to peaceably assemble. Of course, a corporation is NOT a human -- it is explicitly detached from any particular human. It should be subject to exactly nothing more than the privileges a legislature grants in the charter -- it certainly shouldn't be the case where a piece of paper in a govt filing cabinet is successfully claiming to have a religion. |
|
|
|
1. No more corporate citizenship
2. No more corporate citizenship
3. No more corporate citizenship
that should solve most problems.
Citizenship? I believe i meant "corporate personhood." Woops.Meaning corporations should not be afforded the right to donate to political campaigns. Our legislators are currently bought and sold by corporate interests, on both sides. |
|
|
|
|
1. No more corporate citizenship
2. No more corporate citizenship
3. No more corporate citizenship
that should solve most problems.
|
|
|
|
Again, most gun deaths are the suicides you liberals support. Most of the rest are inner-city gangs killing each other, so if you are not suicidal, not a gang member, don't deal in drugs, and you are not a cop, your chances of being shot in America are near zero.
The gun 'crisis', like so many other 'emergencies', is liberal hogwash being used as an excuse to further limit the rights of We, the People. There is no gun crisis, and if you are as smart as you claim you are, then you damn know it.
That's bullshit and has always been bullshit. Unless you live in Chicago you are more likely to be shot by your lover or spouse or someone who knows you. Its the "lawful gun owner' who generally kills his wife and children in their beds....not gang members or criminals. How many people a year are killed by a "lawful gun owner' who generally kills his wife and children in their beds"? I'll make it easier...what percentage of Americans will not be killed by the " 'lawful gun owner' who generally kills his wife and children in their beds"? Show us the stats and prove that there's a 'crisis'!You run your big mouth all the time with wild accusations and hyperbole, but you never prove it. Well, I don't want to be hyperbolic or anything: Houston Crime 4 children, 2 adults shot dead in Spring; prompts hours-long http://www.khou.com/news/crimeRelated: Neighbors react to mass shooting in north Harris Countyadd to reading list http://www.khou.com/news/crime/Neighbors-react-to-mass-shooting-in-north-Harris-County-266535081.htmlSPRING, Texas – Six people were shot dead, including four children, Wednesday afternoon in north Harris County, according to Harris County Pct. 4 deputies. The incident happened at a home in the 700 block of Leaflet in the Enchanted Oaks subdivision. Deputies responded to a shooting and found the victims. The sole survivor, a 15-year-old female, told authorities the gunman was on his way to another home to kill more relatives. The deputies beat him to that home. A three-hour long standoff took place in a cul-de-sac on Countrymeadows near Country Canyon. Neighbors were forced out of their homes as the situation unfolded. “The sheriff’s hostage negotiators have successfully resolved this,” said Constable Ron Hickman. “He’s removed from the vehicle without incident.” The victims were ages five to 40. Four children and two adults died. According to authorities, it was a domestic dispute between a man and his estranged wife. Authorities did not release the victims' identities and did not say how they might be related to each other or the suspect. “Our hearts go out to the families involved in this tragedy,” said Hickman. Do 6 deaths out of a population of 330,000,000 represent a crisis? Let's see your 4 kids get shot dead by a guy in a "domestic dispute" (usually is a guy going after an 'estranged' wife and kids or anyone nearby; assorted relatives) and see if you call it a crisis. If that's a crisis then certainly 12 dead and 60 wounded in Chicago is a crisis. And that crisis happens just about every weekend. Do you think those gang members care about gun laws or getting their guns legally registered? Of course it would be a personal crisis, but not a national crisis. It would be terrible and I would be grief stricken, but unlike that liberal lawyer in California, I would blame the shooter, and not use the incident to promote the liberal agenda of disarming America. Around 30,000 per year are shot to death. Most are suicides, and of the rest, most are gang killings. 30,000 out of a population of around 330,000,000. That means that 99.99909% of Americans will not be killed in a given year. There is no gun crisis. There is a gang crisis, but liberals are not interested. There is also a suicide crisis, and liberals would solve that by licensing doctors to assist in the suicide. Rose points out that around 1,000 women a year die at the hands of a man. That has been going on since we lived in caves, so girls ought to be taught in schools that if a boy hits them once, he will always hit them. He will not change, and he might eventually kill them, so tell the police and have him arrested. Three arrests for hitting a woman should get him life in prison, where he belongs. If such men have no gun, they will use a knife or a club. Remember OJ simpson? |
|
|
|
|
Here's a thought. Why are you so obsessed with the religion of others?
Unless they are infringing on my inalienable rights I could care less what they worship.
That said, you certainly can't compare Christianity and all has done for people to Islam. And don't bother going back a thousand years to make some useless comparison.
|
|
|
|
Better yet, why don't you take some of the tax money liberals like myself give to you to take care of your mom, since you will be damned if you'll spend any of your own, and go buy a dictionary for me. And, in the meantime, before gifting it, look up the following words, which followed in the CBO statement your word "unsustainable", as in at current revenue levels. It has been pointed out to you 40 million times that the statement was that current spending was unsustainable at current revenue levels. Yet you always manage to forget that part of the phrase.
Been spending too much time with your intern of late to forget that one word does not in this case the sentence make?
Please, keep going. It's entertaining.  The fact that you would respond to me with mockingly throwing out words like "how pure and noble" is telling. It takes neither of these things to lift a finger to help someone, and I'm proof of that. You see those things as something unrealistic and something nobody really does; that's not my reality at all. In my world, flawed, normal, everyday people do these things as part of their lives. It's unfortunate that you don't have that experience. |
|
|
|
There would never be any domestic violence... or any other sort of violence... if there were no guns.Didn't you know that?
I've heard that criminals wouldn't use guns if they were illegal but I didn't 'hear that men would stop beating and killing their wives if there were no guns. It's true! And wives would stop beating and killing their husbands, too!If only we could make all the guns go away. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
