Sunny TV

Posted by khalling 8 years, 5 months ago to Entertainment
202 comments | Share | Flag

most of you know where I disagree. But. I think this woman's work is important and "we" suck at getting the word out.
love,
k

All Comments

  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I wasn't excluding secular progressives as Blarman suggested. They are are the most immediate danger to individual and group freedom that we face. Starting with the wannabe in the white house.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You got that exactly right. So I put them as the extremists in my version of the political spectrum which starts with Citizens over government back at the Center - the constitution - those who really want to have less government and are not with the constitution are spread out in between.

    Which brought up that former Weatherman Terrorist turned college professor in Chicago - Obama's buddy - who described himself as a Marxist Anarchist. Two polar opposites as far to the extreme left and right as you can get. Which means Professor what's his face is either mentally deficient, doubtful, or was pulling the reporters chain big time.

    His wife made no comments she's so far left she makes Soros and Lakoff look like moderates. Well moderate left wing extremists anyway.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 5 months ago
    All right you hooked me I did google and found the website address and now it's a daily addiction. After two months of Lakoff I needed a take off! With soccer I now have two reasons to watch tv....on the internet. We're getting more bandwidth today or the bulk of the cruisers are leaving the area....finally peace and semi quiet with cooler weather. Life is Sunny and Sweet!

    With many thanks ....
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "they are going to have to renounce at least that part of ISLAM"
    Almost everyone renounces the bizarre medieval stuff from their cultural heritage. This is a problem that does not exist.
    "at any time they can be "radicalized""
    Isn't that the nature of crime? People start out not being murders, and at any point in their lives they may start conspiring to commit murder. That's a fact of human existence and not a new problem.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The problem is that deep in their religion is the idea of jihad and killing non believers. As long as a pereson claims to be muslim, they are required to uphold the tenets of Islam. So at any time they can be "radicalized" and go on a killing spree. I find that to be a real problem. If they want me to accept them, they are going to have to renounce at least that part of ISLAM... Would you want someone who believes in killing non-believers living next door to you?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The new license was easier. I applied by email and explained I was on the other side of the world. The new one is the enhanced version. A buddy int he Border Patrol showed me how detailed the information. I went to a new bank and gave them nine numbers and no name and that card. No problem they had a complete look at my history. Previously just providing the nine numbers (my national name) was sufficient the card made it easier.

    Street names are in letters, national name is in numbers.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    ed; I understand, but if you accept/rationalize gov't having any % of some measure, in the next or 2 or 3 generations or the next 2 or 3 crisis, they'll either adjust the composition of the controlling measure or use the crisis to increase.

    That was the idea at the inception of the Constitution and immediately the Federalists led by Hamilton and Washington, begin attacking that through the whiskey tax. They've been attacking it ever since until we're at the point that we can think that 20% is a good idea.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The government doesn't care about loyalty. Those who are get dissed.Those who aren't are welcome. Disloyal from the get go new citizens are a dime a dozen maybe a penny each. The story is always the same. Once I've made my pile in your country I'll return to my county. It's all a big game and they know and they know you know it. All the same...Not the one's who have no country waiting for them. They are the keepers they will do anything not to go back.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by edweaver 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree. My point is it should cost no more than 20% of GDP. As it is right now it is more like 60% when it is all added up.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Why should it be 20%? Why should it be any % of GDP or any other measure? The right to tax is the first step toward tyranny.

    It should only be what it actually costs to maintain the police and judicial system and the Militia and the Navy. The Judicial could well be covered mostly by fees, at least the civil side.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by edweaver 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That would be my first choice. Basically be the value they are worth right now.

    I have no problem with a limited tax as long as they are only living up to the Constitution. I've been saying for years that the total tax burden from all forms of government (federal, state & local) should not exceed 20% of GDP. And that may be on the high side.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Shouldn't have anything to do with income. Dump income tax regain control . Keep income tax be controlled. When I hear see GDP I automatically ask what's the NDP? The answer is zero but they don't want to say it. I just keep asking...

    The budget if based on a citizen controlled end user consumption tax would be based on the amount of money coming in and not one penny more. That would include digging out of holes, transferring unworkable socialist vote buying programs into something useful and honest and allow for debt ONLY in the event of declared war or horrendous natural disaster and then addressed in whole as the first item of the next years budget. If the government couldn't make ends meet on the end user consumption tax paid in then quit we'll hire a new servant class.

    As for the 'what if's' there are few worth addressing the rest is simile. Do you have the money in excess of the current budget? Yes. Is it needed to pay off current bills or debts? No. After that what is left over? Nothing. Then yo get nothing - try next year.

    Exceptions.

    A Right To Life Exemption on the tax on purchases based on the principle the government has no business in stealing from the citizens that which is necessary merely to live.

    A deduction in the tax on purchases equal to the amount they put into two types of accounts. One is Medical, one is Retirement.

    That's it.

    I would tie the maximum amount one could receive in additional welfare or similar to the minimum wage. Makiing it profitable to work rather than mooch. i would allow the States to adjust the amount of Right To Life and the items or services within to fit local conditions. They would be operating and funding it anyway.

    That's it.....I'm campaigning again.....The closed minded will say ranting..I....Do....Not....Care..... what a bunch of couch potato's think or think they think. Time they quit debating and starting doing. Time for me to quit 'ranting' and move on....

    But you get a fair explanation.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by edweaver 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Personally, I believe. It needs to be capped lower than a percent of income or gdp but a good stat is not more than they take in.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 5 months ago
    The cap is not spending more than they have available without borrowing.

    What you will hear is "The people want all this and all that!" What you will not hear is "We are sent here to do certain specific jobs and funding them is enough." What you will also not hear is "But how do you expect us to buy all those votes we need so we never have to work ever again?"

    So the way of looking at it is . "Live within your means and if not resign we will find someone who can."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by edweaver 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I hear you and have said the same about taxes. Whatever tax there is, we need a cap on the amount of money ever level of government can get. I've also been thinking as of late, all money that federal government receives should come from the state government. States would have power to quit paying if the feds get out of hand and people could move to a better state if the state was out of hand. Time to get back to 50 States United instead of 50 clones.
    Reply | Permalink  
    • MichaelAarethun replied 8 years, 5 months ago
  • Posted by strugatsky 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There is a popular misconception that Muslims, and Arabs in particular, are killing Westerners in response to American, Israeli or other Western aggression. This is the story sold to us by the mainstream media, with lots of input from C.A.I.R. The facts, however, tell a different story. First, I would refer you to the excellent video provided earlier in this thread by Jpellope. Islam, from its inception, has been conquering, e.g., killing, people in every direction of the Globe. Over the centuries, Islam has been stopped only by geography (Atlantic Ocean, Sahara) or by superior arms and technology (European cannon). When the Muslims would have even local superiority, they invariably attacked (Barbary pirates). The Muslim attacks on the Slavs for acquisition of slaves where only stopped by Catherine II's demolishment of their armies. The Muslim world finds "excuses" for their barbarism in blaming Israel of mistreatment of the Palestinians. But few Muslims even know where Palestine is located and they themselves never gave a damn for the Palestinians. Just look up origins of "Black September" - yes, the well known Palestinian terrorist organization that specialized in hijackings and mass murder. They owe their name to Jordanian army machine-gunning about 30,000 Palestinians as a payback for the Palestinians trying to kill the Jordanian king. Somehow, that too was the fault of Israel and the West, so they blew up Western airliners.
    Here I've concentrated on the Arab Muslims, but a larger part of Muslims are not Arabs - Indonesia and much of the Pacific Rim are Muslim, and they are not conquering and killing other people - for now. I would submit that they are bound by geography and stronger armed neighbors, such as China, Japan, India. If and when they become as strong, there is as much danger in their awakening as resulted from the Arab Spring.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo