Random Political Thoughts

[Kidnostad3]

There's a lot on the web lately about the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of N.Y. investigating the Clinton Foundation.  With the source being a "former senior law enforcement official" it sounds like  this may be yet another retired gman's effort to relive past glory and regain a sense of importance.  Still, if there is anything to it, it would make this dude a happy man and go far to restore my lost confidence in the reality of equal justice under the law.  Could this guy Preet Bharara be another Elliot Ness or John Dewey, a man dedicated to the pursuit of truth, justice and the American way? (Wow, how corny was that?) Seriously, anyone think this will amount to anything? 

PEACE, OUT





* image.jpeg (24.64 kB, 220x308 - viewed 29 times.)

[TigerLily]

Listening to an archive of Art debating Michio Kaku about whether we should go into Iraq.  Easy to tell which one is the genius

[Mind Flayer Monk]

Listening to an archive of Art debating Michio Kaku about whether we should go into Iraq.  Easy to tell which one is the genius

Michio Kaku is the stalker.
It would explain how the stalker had Art's phone number and how he was able to fire and remain hidden (something physics).

[21st Century Man]

I'm not a big fan of John C. Calhoun but he foresaw the problems that we are now dealing with in the country.  I came across this today.

In an extended critique of The Federalist, the pre-Civil War Southern political philosopher John C. Calhoun argued that any system of taxation inevitably divided citizens into two antagonistic groups - the net tax payers and the net tax consumers:

… it must necessarily follow, that some one portion of the community must pay in taxes more than it receives back in disbursements; while another receives in disbursements more than it pays in taxes… The necessary result, then, of the unequal fiscal action of the government is, to divide the community into two great classes; one consisting of those who, in reality, pay the taxes, and, of course, bear exclusively the burthen of supporting the government; and the other, of those who are the recipients of their proceeds, through disbursements, and who are, in fact, supported by the government; or, in fewer words, to divide it into tax-payers and tax-consumers.

My belief is that everyone should be taxed, even those exclusively on welfare. That is the only way we are going to teach society the value of money.  Yes, for those on welfare, it would and should be a pittance but at least it would be something.  Of course, I would make exceptions for social security recipients and those who do not have the mental or physical capacity to earn wages.  There would be stringent requirements to make that list though.  If you have 2 functional hands and a functional mind then you could conceivably be trained to earn a wage so long as you have a computer and internet access.  In such cases, the government would provide educational training,computers, internet access and software as needed.

No more freeloaders and no more waste of taxpayers' money.  Drug, alcohol addicts and such will be given some welfare so long as they go through treatment and pass drug checks.  However, the goal is to make them productive again.  Those that fail these trials will fall through the cracks and it will be up to non-government charities to provide food, clothing and lodging for such individuals. Money only makes their problems worse.  Children up to the age of 18 will be provided for by the government. However, that may mean separation from parents who are drug addicts.  Where children are involved and welfare is being received, parents are required to provide a safe and decent home for the children. They will be subject to routine checks as long as the family is on welfare. Such families would also be exempt from paying taxes as they are giving up a bit of their freedom anyway due to their reliance on welfare.

I'd exclude the elderly from paying taxes for the most part. Also, no income taxes for anyone over 65 and still working but making less than $100,000 annually. They did their time.  Everybody else pays.

Estate taxes and property taxes on family property would be outlawed.  Family fortunes and property were already taxed once already.  No double dips.

Just a few thoughts based on that bit by Mr. Calhoun.

[Humilia Lepus Foramen]

I'm not a big fan of John C. Calhoun but he foresaw the problems that we are now dealing with in the country.  I came across this today.

In an extended critique of The Federalist, the pre-Civil War Southern political philosopher John C. Calhoun argued that any system of taxation inevitably divided citizens into two antagonistic groups - the net tax payers and the net tax consumers:

… it must necessarily follow, that some one portion of the community must pay in taxes more than it receives back in disbursements; while another receives in disbursements more than it pays in taxes… The necessary result, then, of the unequal fiscal action of the government is, to divide the community into two great classes; one consisting of those who, in reality, pay the taxes, and, of course, bear exclusively the burthen of supporting the government; and the other, of those who are the recipients of their proceeds, through disbursements, and who are, in fact, supported by the government; or, in fewer words, to divide it into tax-payers and tax-consumers.

My belief is that everyone should be taxed, even those exclusively on welfare. That is the only way we are going to teach society the value of money.  Yes, for those on welfare, it would and should be a pittance but at least it would be something.  Of course, I would make exceptions for social security recipients and those who do not have the mental or physical capacity to earn wages.  There would be stringent requirements to make that list though.  If you have 2 functional hands and a functional mind then you could conceivably be trained to earn a wage so long as you have a computer and internet access.  In such cases, the government would provide educational training,computers, internet access and software as needed.

No more freeloaders and no more waste of taxpayers' money.  Drug, alcohol addicts and such will be given some welfare so long as they go through treatment and pass drug checks.  However, the goal is to make them productive again.  Those that fail these trials will fall through the cracks and it will be up to non-government charities to provide food, clothing and lodging for such individuals. Money only makes their problems worse.  Children up to the age of 18 will be provided for by the government. However, that may mean separation from parents who are drug addicts.  Where children are involved and welfare is being received, parents are required to provide a safe and decent home for the children. They will be subject to routine checks as long as the family is on welfare. Such families would also be exempt from paying taxes as they are giving up a bit of their freedom anyway due to their reliance on welfare.

I'd exclude the elderly from paying taxes for the most part. Also, no income taxes for anyone over 65 and still working but making less than $100,000 annually. They did their time.  Everybody else pays.

Estate taxes and property taxes on family property would be outlawed.  Family fortunes and property were already taxed once already.  No double dips.

Just a few thoughts based on that bit by Mr. Calhoun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfG9eMzKneE

[Juan]

I generally agree 21st, but keep in mind that people who hire simply won't hire some people.  A lot of folks over 50-could be productive employees, but can't even get interviews.  What are to be done with them.

[JesusJuice]

I generally agree 21st, but keep in mind that people who hire simply won't hire some people.  A lot of folks over 50-could be productive employees, but can't even get interviews.  What are to be done with them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zrv2FuajJZ8

[21st Century Man]

I generally agree 21st, but keep in mind that people who hire simply won't hire some people.  A lot of folks over 50-could be productive employees, but can't even get interviews.  What are to be done with them.

For that, we change the culture.  We make it extremely detrimental for ageism to proliferate in the workplace.  Sure, where hard manual labor is involved, older folks would probably not be up to the task but for other jobs, age and experience is beneficial.  I would think that a few class-action lawsuits could turn that culture around. I generally frown on excessive litigation but in this case, I think it is necessary.

[GravitySucks]

Ridiculous.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/18/obama-administration-enact-rule-mandatory-bathrooms-based-gender-identity/

[TigerLily]

Ridiculous.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/18/obama-administration-enact-rule-mandatory-bathrooms-based-gender-identity/

Yes. Breitbart is ridiculous



National Park Service spokesman Jeremy K. Barnum said this is not a new policy.

“People have always been able to choose the public restroom within the national park system that aligns with their gender identity,” Barnum told The Daily Signal in an email. “The National Park Service has never had a rule that determined nor designated what restroom someone should use according to their gender identity.”

Another department spokesperson also said restroom use by gender identity is not a new policy for national parks, but a continuation of existing nondiscrimination policy. 

-The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation

[GravitySucks]

Yes. Breitbart is ridiculous



National Park Service spokesman Jeremy K. Barnum said this is not a new policy.

“People have always been able to choose the public restroom within the national park system that aligns with their gender identity,” Barnum told The Daily Signal in an email. “The National Park Service has never had a rule that determined nor designated what restroom someone should use according to their gender identity.”

Another department spokesperson also said restroom use by gender identity is not a new policy for national parks, but a continuation of existing nondiscrimination policy. 

-The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation

Not really what I meant. But you knew that. 😎

[GravitySucks]

https://twitter.com/thepowersthatbe/status/766715329401786369

[GuerrillaUnReal]

The moment you realize Western civilization is doomed...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOdO1kv6sp0

[21st Century Man]

https://twitter.com/thepowersthatbe/status/766715329401786369

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8OgkjcW0g4

[PrairieGhost]

https://twitter.com/AngryGoTFan/status/767389501261885440

[TigerLily]

Muslim Americans launch "ISIS Sucks" billboard campaign. Already planned for 17 major cities

[GuerrillaUnReal]

That whole EU thing is going well

http://thinkaboutnow.com/2016/06/eu-its-now-illegal-to-say-drinking-water-prevents-dehydration/

(Telegraph) EU officials concluded that, following a three-year investigation, there was no evidence to prove the previously undisputed fact that water helps prevent dehydration.

Producers of bottled water are now forbidden by law from making the claim and will face a two-year jail sentence if they defy the edict, which comes into force in the UK next month.

Last night, critics claimed the EU was at odds with both science and common sense. Conservative MEP Roger Helmer said: “This is stupidity writ large.

“The euro is burning, the EU is falling apart and yet here they are: highly-paid, highly-pensioned officials worrying about the obvious qualities of water and trying to deny us the right to say what is patently true.

“If ever there were an episode which demonstrates the folly of the great European project then this is it.”

NHS health guidelines state clearly that drinking water helps avoid dehydration, and that Britons should drink at least 1.2 litres per day.

The Department for Health disputed the wisdom of the new law. A spokesman said: “Of course water hydrates. While we support the EU in preventing false claims about products, we need to exercise common sense as far as possible.”

[Humilia Lepus Foramen]

[mikuthing01]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0M_L1BETrSQ

[JesusJuice]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0M_L1BETrSQ

>Big black dildo


They teach college courses on the racial implications of dildos of color.

[Richard Groyper]

>Big black dildo


They teach college courses on the racial implications of dildos of color.

Dildos in America- by James Brown

[Jackstar]

>Big black dildo

https://youtu.be/7HD5SQHg4DE

[albrecht]

Now the Wash Post has picked up the article (same one?), why are they pushing this so hard in the media now? To encourage Obama to send more illegals and 'refugees' there? To get the populace conditioned for some 'necessary' move by some government agency or shock troops to invade the region or force diversity or gun-grabs? To encourage more Hollywood types to buy up huge tracts of land or push money into elections to bring in more taxes, regulations, and leftist politicies?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/wp/2016/08/27/2016/08/27/a-fortress-against-fear/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_americanredoubtnew630%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

[GravitySucks]

One sick Weiner

http://nypost.com/2016/08/28/anthony-weiner-sexted-busty-brunette-while-his-son-was-in-bed-with-him/

[21st Century Man]

One sick Weiner

http://nypost.com/2016/08/28/anthony-weiner-sexted-busty-brunette-while-his-son-was-in-bed-with-him/

Didn't his wife write something in the Islamic Journal talking about the decadence of the West and the promiscuity of its inhabitants?

[GuerrillaUnReal]

Didn't his wife write something in the Islamic Journal talking about the decadence of the West and the promiscuity of its inhabitants?

The one who's scissoring with Hillary?

[Jackstar]

Dildos in America- by James Brown

Look, look--we have a thread for this kind of depravity now.

The one who's scissoring with Hillary?

Do you remember that part in Game of Thrones, when the witch birthed the shadow assassin? Yeah, it's like that.

[21st Century Man]

The one who's scissoring with Hillary?

LOL.  Yeah that one.

[21st Century Man]

The audacity of Obama.  He has no authority to ratify treaties. Or is Bob Corker and friends going to give him the power to ratify it  just like the Iran deal?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/29/obama-will-bypass-senate-ratify-paris-climate-acco/

[Juan]

The one who's scissoring with Hillary?

I don't think Hillary has the stamina or balance for scissoring.