Messages

[advertisement]

Sure it is if:
If you consider that BP as well as others are subsuidized heavily by taxpayers dollars.
If you do not consider this is advertisement for a major foreign company.
If you do not consider that B.P. stands for British Petroleum.
If you don't consider the economice of the major profit (not the lollipops) going to Britian.

Sure it's a good thing, if you view it with a closed mind.

Millions and millions, possibly billions or trillions of dollars in profit being exported to foreign country's do what to the economic balance of trade? AKA the foreign trade deficit.

Using windpower will not increase the trade imbalance, if anything it will reduce it considering it reduces the amount of foreign oil imported.  The profits that are retained by the corporation are not "trade" and thus do not contribute to the trade imbalance.  Further, if many of the parts of made in the USA, then the trade imbalance would not increase.

I know you won't understand this, but The truth is not fluid.   it is concrete and stone and fixed and is not changed or altered IF IT IS it is not truth its a lie.  Your statement above is not truth therefore it is a lie.

My statement is truth.  When you are making a political or even economic discussion, there rarely exists exact truths.  Economics deals primarily in theories and politics deals in opinions.  When discussing history in school and the constitution, people's perceptions play largely in how it is discussed.

Its a sad day when teaching the truth and facts is considered indoctrination. They are certainly not being taught the truth right now.

It is merely your subjective version of the truth.  Your impression of something does not make it the truth, merely how you perceive it.

IT would require a warrant. 

Depends, plain view doctrine would clearly apply in this case if the camera were positioned on county property, such as roadway/ditch area.  In fact, the search could take place as well without warrant if the 'crop' were in plain view.

This raises another question?  Isn't it illegal to set up a surveillance camera on someone else's property?  Of course, it wouldn't be hard to get a warrant to do this and how do we know that it hasn't been done?  Just because no one has been caught doesn't mean that the case has just been let go.  After all, as Janet used to tell me,  "That is sheriff business, Momma," and it is a current investigation which means that it isn't talked about.

If it were my operation I wouldn't be going back to see what I could salvage.  I wouldn't leave anything of value there anyway.

Set it up on County property adjacent to the property.  Warrant not necessary for that as it would videotape what is in plain sight.

[How the Recent Debt Ceiling Law Affects Gun OwnersFriday, 05 August 2011 11:26Well, the hot debate which dominated the nation for several weeks has finally simmered down. The debt ceiling deal is now law, and both sides of the political aisle are arguing over who won and who lost.But one thing you won't hear about -- in fact, we may not fully know the answer for several months -- is how much gun owners lost in this recent deal.To quote Kentucky Senator Rand Paul from earlier this week: The Super Committee [created by the new law] limits the constitutional check of the filibuster by expediting passage of bills with a simple majority. The Super Committee is not precluded from any issue [including gun control], therefore the filibuster could be rendered moot. Get that? The law raising the debt ceiling creates a Super Committee (in other words, a Super Congress) which will give its recommendations for balancing the budget. This Super Congress can include ANYTHING in its legislation, including gun control. And none of it can be filibustered or amended!!Well, you might think, the Super Congress' recommendations still have to be voted on by each house of Congress. Surely, we can find enough congressmen to shoot down any anti-gun recommendations.Maybe, maybe not ... because here's the problem. Whatever this super-committee reports in November, including gun control, will HAVE to be passed -- or the Pentagon loses a total of $800 billion (effectively shutting it down).]

How the Recent Debt Ceiling Law Affects Gun Owners
Friday, 05 August 2011 11:26

Well, the hot debate which dominated the nation for several weeks has finally simmered down.  The debt ceiling deal is now law, and both sides of the political aisle are arguing over who won and who lost.

But one thing you won't hear about -- in fact, we may not fully know the answer for several months -- is how much gun owners lost in this recent deal.

To quote Kentucky Senator Rand Paul from earlier this week:

   The Super Committee [created by the new law] limits the constitutional check of the filibuster by expediting passage of bills with a simple majority.  The Super Committee is not precluded from any issue [including gun control], therefore the filibuster could be rendered moot.

   

Get that?  The law raising the debt ceiling creates a Super Committee (in other words, a Super Congress) which will give its recommendations for balancing the budget.  This Super Congress can include ANYTHING in its legislation, including gun control.

And none of it can be filibustered or amended!!

Well, you might think, the Super Congress' recommendations still have to be voted on by each house of Congress.  Surely, we can find enough congressmen to shoot down any anti-gun recommendations.

Maybe, maybe not ... because here's the problem.  Whatever this super-committee reports in November, including gun control, will HAVE to be passed -- or the Pentagon loses a total of $800 billion (effectively shutting it down).

read more here if you are interested............

http://gunowners.org/a08052011.htm

While not debating the other substance of the article, I would like to point out that the $800 billion you quote for DoD budget reductions are over the course of a decade and thus could not possibly "shut down" the DoD rather it would reduce its expected budget course by 12% roughly over the course of the decade.  Also, I believe the debt deal specifies 'national security' as the category and not just defense, so theoretically those cuts could take place including Dept. of Homeland Security and thus would be a lower percentage of the total budget course.  I'm not debating whether that cut is excessive just pointing out the difference in perception.

You use judgmental (correct spelling, teach) like it's a bad thing.  Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.  If one stands for something, then they can not avoid making judgments.  Show me anyone who operates otherwise, if you can, and I'll judge them as non-functioning.

How can you judge Red as judgmental... without judging?  Please explain.

Actually she wouldn't be judging Red, she would be observing Red.  If Red were making judgments then those are actions that Red is making and thus we are able to observe them.

No but it is on the rise in the queer population!  You get what ya ask for!  IF they kept it in their pants and out of someones ass they wouldn't have the clap or any other std.

I'm pretty sure that is what a condom was for, no? If they are in a consenting monogamous relationship, I don't see how they are doing anything wrong than any other couple having sex.  Right? None of my business.

<yawn>  ...

I am not sure, reading through my educational law books, that I can find anything that shows precedent for preventing a school from raising revenues by selling ad space on their buses.  Schools have been allowing companies such as Pepsi and Coke to put vending machines in their teachers' lounges, thus raising monies in that way, and that amounts to the same thing, just on a smaller scale.  I guess my opinion, on not wanting it there, is that there is already so much visual "trash" littering our spaces out there.  I get really tired of it.  I would lean toward being more of a purist, preferring to keep the only writing on a bus to that being the name of the school district.

Side thought:  Besides that, larger cities contract through private companies for their busing...I'm not sure a school system could prevent those private companies from selling ad space on the buses, even if they wanted to...

Not really any different then public transit systems operated municipally or regionally, they all sell advertising space on their vehicles which lessens the burden on the riders and taxpayers.

Still being immature. I sure am glad my child isn't one of your students.
He has good teachers.

How irrelevant.  Why is she not permitted to respond sarcastically to your post without ruining her employment potential which is irrelevant to her personal life?