carlfense

And it is the way I believe the founders intended.

I'm not sure how that makes me any more of an armchair internet judge claiming absolute authority than you.

 

^^^See! There is still a shred of doubt! Let's ignore this!$$$$$

So scientists put out the headline warmest year ever to get headlines with no data then a couple days later release a new report silently that well there's a 38% chance it was. Just more spin on the climate change doomsday, I don't doubt there is global warming but I do doubt the severity and agenda.

 

It wasn't . . . it isn't . . . and you don't.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Friday barred local and state police from using federal law to seize cash, cars and other property without warrants or criminal charges.

 

Holders action represents the most sweeping check on police power to confiscate personal property since the seizures began three decades ago as part of the war on drugs.

 

. . .

 

The decision follows a Washington Post investigation published in September that found that police have made cash seizures worth almost $2.5 billion from motorists and others without search warrants or indictments since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

 

The Post found that local and state police routinely pulled over drivers for minor traffic infractions, pressed them to agree to warrantless searches and seized large amounts of cash without evidence of wrongdoing. The law allows such seizures and forces the owners to prove their property was legally acquired in order to get it back.

^^^See! There is still a shred of doubt! Let's ignore this!

$$$$$

So, because I believe marriage should stay defined the same as it has been since, I would argue, the beginning of civilization, and certainly, the same way our founders defined it, I'm I right wing religious nut who should move to Russia? I'm quite confident that since I am defining marriage the same was as the writers of the constitution did, I'm on pretty solid ground here.

Appealing to the founders is a sad little exercise. The biggest tragedy of the analytical framework that Scalia (not the founders) created is that it allows a legion of armchair internet judges to claim absolute authority. Originalism is one way of interpreting law. (I'd also add that Scalia works backwards from his desired outcome.)

 

 

 

 

Looking at the redefinition of one of the foundations of our society by judges with no basis in the original intent of the constitution, when there is disagreement in the federal appellate courts, seems like a pretty good use of the Supreme courts time to me. But, I have no desire to argue to point, just felt like someone should say it.

You have no idea what a 'foundation of our society' actually is. Your religion is not the basis for society. Our Constitution forbids using your religion as a basis of law. Our Constitution requires at all people are treated equally. Marriage existed centuries before your religion was invented. It does not belong to you, and the real world is tired of outdated mythology setting rules in the modern world.

This! And this is exactly why Scalia shouldn't be a justice

Actually, we should have 8 more justices just like Scalia.

 

 

 

Carlfense, I don't give a sh#t about the BP spill because it has nothing to do with the pipeline in question.

Which oil spills do you give a sh#t about?

 

If the only relevant oil spill cleanups are those of the unbuilt pipeline in question I think that we might get a skewed picture, eh?

You are the one comparing a leak that was 5100 ft underwater to one that "could" be 5-10 ft underground. Big difference don't you think?

Carlfense, I don't give a sh#t about the BP spill because it has nothing to do with the pipeline in question.

If the only relevant oil spill cleanups are those of the unbuilt pipeline in question I think that we might get a skewed picture, eh?

. . . with no basis in the original intent of the constitution . . .

. . . when there is disagreement in the federal appellate courts . . .

So just trying to say that you can be a conservative republican and be against this.

That tells me that it's a huge (and fake, I might add) issue for Republicans. I think that less than 20% of GOP voters disapprove.

As far as the property issue. TransCanada is wanting to buy easement for the pipeline and people think that they lose control of that land. That is wrong also as the property owner still gets to use the property and do what he wants with it but just has to be careful around the line and follow safety guidelines with the line.

If there ever was a leak, the landowner gets compensated for any damage to the land, even the one that the pipeline is on. The land has to be returned to a better condition then what it was before hand. This is a law and is strictly enforced.

As a nurse, do you routinely post passive aggressive articles on Facebook about how unappreciated and thankless your job is?

(Kidding . . . but a pretty high proportion of nurses that I'm FB friends with do the above.)

 

Can someone tell me what viewpoint I'm supposed to have on the pipeline, and why? I genuinely have no idea.

Someone answer plz

 

I haven't been following this issue at all

 

Are you concerned about private property rights and the ability of the government to take private land against the landowners wishes? If so, you're against the pipeline because a foreign corporation is using the US government to take privately held land even if the landowner doesn't want to sell.

Are you concerned about the inevitable spills of oil and the secret cocktail of chemicals that Transcanada injects into the oil? If so, you're probably against the pipeline or at least want to ensure that it is as safe as possible.

Personally, I see virtually no benefit for the US and plenty of risk and trampling of property rights. That said, I do expect the pipeline to be built eventually and I wish that we would make that completion conditional on Transcanada paying a set amount into an account for each and every barrel of oil pumped through the line. That account, up to a certain dollar amount, should be held to pay for cleaning up spills. Every dollar collected in excess of that amount should be dumped into the general fund, or the highway trust, or SS, or wherever. Otherwise I don't see any reason why we should accept these risks to benefit a foreign corporation and China.

But I do know that for my boss to give me a raise that allows me to take home another $80 a month, it costs him roughly $200 a month, but somehow according to those who espouse the "white privilege" crap, I'm supposed to be angry at "the man" for not paying me more, and thankful for the government that's taking the other $120.

Interesting but really doesn't answer my question.

 

What it actually did was made the rich richer and now they have to cut benefits for the poor to pay for it.

 

So basically, it's the GOP in a nutshell.

And their base is largely Christian, and GOP policies & the effects of those policies are the antithesis of what Christ calls Christians to do. It's baffling.

 

Also, if you want to be depressed read What's the Matter with Kansas.

Hailed as "dazzlingly insightful and wonderfully sardonic" (Chicago Tribune), "very funny and very painful" (San Francisco Chronicle), and "in a different league from most political books" (The New York Observer), What's the Matter with Kansas? unravels the great political mystery of our day: Why do so many Americans vote against their economic and social interests? With his acclaimed wit and acuity, Thomas Frank answers the riddle by examining his home state, Kansas-a place once famous for its radicalism that now ranks among the nation's most eager participants in the culture wars. Charting what he calls the "thirty-year backlash"-the popular revolt against a supposedly liberal establishment-Frank reveals how conservatism, once a marker of class privilege, became the creed of millions of ordinary Americans.

 

A brilliant analysis-and funny to boot-What's the Matter with Kansas? is a vivid portrait of an upside-down world where blue-collar patriots recite the Pledge while they strangle their life chances; where small farmers cast their votes for a Wall Street order that will eventually push them off their land; and where a group of frat boys, lawyers, and CEOs has managed to convince the country that it speaks on behalf of the People.

You can't not tax both and expect to have tax revenue.

What it actually did was made the rich richer and now they have to cut benefits for the poor to pay for it.

So basically, it's the GOP in a nutshell.

So, in essence.....if you own a business, you pay no income taxes.

 

Well, that's just silly.

Now if your business employs secretaries . . . of course they have to pay taxes.

Edit: grammar

 

 

 

barb shelly ‏@bshelly 2m2 minutes agoTopeka, KS

Zero state income tax for the "pass through" businesses would continue under Brownback's new tax proposal. #ksleg

What are "pass through" businesses?

 

A pass-through business is one whose income, for tax purposes, is claimed directly by the owners, rather than by a corporation. Examples include sole proprietorships, limited liability partnerships and S corporations. A one-person landscaping or graphics arts business could be a pass-through entity. So could a farm, real estate business or gas exploration firm.

 

Along with passing income tax cuts in 2012 and 2013 that disproportionately favor the wealthy, Brownback and the Legislature made Kansas the only state to completely exempt the owners of pass-through businesses from income taxes.

 

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/barbara-shelly/article3326556.html#storylink=cpy

 

OK, then I am a little confused.

 

I know it's been quite a while ago, but, I used to own a sole proprietorship in Iowa. I am almost positive that the business didn't have to file income taxes. It was all considered my own income and we filed once just for us personally.

 

So, what is different from that and what Brownback has going on?

 

But, knapplc! Both sides!

 

barb shelly ‏@bshelly 2m2 minutes agoTopeka, KS

Zero state income tax for the "pass through" businesses would continue under Brownback's new tax proposal. #ksleg

What are "pass through" businesses?

 

A pass-through business is one whose income, for tax purposes, is claimed directly by the owners, rather than by a corporation. Examples include sole proprietorships, limited liability partnerships and S corporations. A one-person landscaping or graphics arts business could be a pass-through entity. So could a farm, real estate business or gas exploration firm.

 

Along with passing income tax cuts in 2012 and 2013 that disproportionately favor the wealthy, Brownback and the Legislature made Kansas the only state to completely exempt the owners of pass-through businesses from income taxes.

 

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/barbara-shelly/article3326556.html#storylink=cpy

 

The approach to law enforcement by America's police are partly to blame for these deaths as well. Or "scheme" to put it in a football term. Nebraska's defensive scheme couldn't stop the run, and were getting historically gashed on the ground this year, all because of scheme. Teams that faced our opponents didn't fare nearly as badly as we did, and for the most part we had better athletes.

 

America's legal system and approach to law enforcement is very different than the rest of the world. It is not an accident that we have a much larger number of police officers KIA compared to our European counterparts, nor is it an accident that we have vastly more people incarcerated than other first-world nations.

 

Choose a better scheme/approach and you'll get better results, including fewer deaths of officers and citizens.

What are the major differences between how a police officer in the US does his job compared to one in Britain, Germany or Italy?

 

I wish they would just build/expand that Kinder Morgan leg instead of taking and risking US lands.