U.S. Politics

Page 890 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
No one seemed to have a problem with a Pope getting involved in politics when John Paul II was propping up Solidarity and working against the Russians and the Eastern Bloc. It suited all of our interests then (actually as Francis' observations on the climate do now) so it was all OK. The views of Pope Francis happen to be at odds with certain right-wing agendas, so now he needs to "stay out of politics" and certain agenda-driven politicos "don't get their political views from the Pope"...except when they do.

At some point I hope we all get weary of how wrong the right is on almost every topic.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Re:

Alpe d'Huez said:
Unfortunately, most politicians in the US really don't give a damned what the rest of the world, or the Pope has to say about such things. Those mean nothing compared to their plutocratic puppet masters filling their coffers and wishes with lives of luxury.

Remember what Rick Santorum said about him? Fran should leave the science to the experts. Unless I'm mistaken, I believe one of the Pope's degrees is in chemistry. Not that he actually isn't agreeing with the experts at the highest level, because, well, he is.
What science do you think Santorum believes the Pope should stay out of and leave to the experts, do you suppose - the science of contraception and reproduction? Cloning? Embryonic development? Fetal tissue? Or is it just climate-change-related science? The Pope wouldn't have much to say if he had to leave the science to the experts.

As to Marx, I'd be really surprised if more than a handful of politicians in Congress, or most any state house really, has actually read any of Das Kapital, or really could tell you what it's about. Not that I definitively could. It's thick, and heady. But I did try to, and got a bit of a grasp on it at least. Here's a little clue, Marx wasn't talking about a proposed Soviet Union, nor about what Devin Nunes thinks in that confused, silly putty brain of his.
I know, it's just funny to me when the right throws around these terms like "Marxist" and "socialist" (or calling Obama a "Muslim" for that matter) that they've picked up somewhere without having a clue what they actually mean, so they've just become these labels that they stick on anyone who they disagree with.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Re:

red_flanders said:
No one seemed to have a problem with a Pope getting involved in politics when John Paul II was propping up Solidarity and working against the Russians and the Eastern Bloc. It suited all of our interests then (actually as Francis' observations on the climate do now) so it was all OK. The views of Pope Francis happen to be at odds with certain right-wing agendas, so now he needs to "stay out of politics" and certain agenda-driven politicos "don't get their political views from the Pope"...except when they do.

At some point I hope we all get weary of how wrong the right is on almost every topic.
Most of us reached that point a long, long time ago, but unfortunately the right never seems to get weary of how wrong they are on almost every topic - dunno if you've noticed but they want Donald f**king Trump to be the next prez;)
 
Re:

red_flanders said:
No one seemed to have a problem with a Pope getting involved in politics when John Paul II was propping up Solidarity and working against the Russians and the Eastern Bloc. It suited all of our interests then (actually as Francis' observations on the climate do now) so it was all OK. The views of Pope Francis happen to be at odds with certain right-wing agendas, so now he needs to "stay out of politics" and certain agenda-driven politicos "don't get their political views from the Pope"...except when they do.

At some point I hope we all get weary of how wrong the right is on almost every topic.

Let's see....who have these right wing-nuts alienated so far(alien--get it?)
Women
Asians
Hispanics
African-american
Muslims
Catholics
Gay/Lesbian
The young
The educated

Most thinking white males and females.

Forget anybody? I think their numbers in the general election may be lowest ever.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Re:

VeloCity said:
Can someone please explain to me how it is that this jackass is the current favorite to be the Republican nominee for president? I've heard all of the "outsider" explanations and such but I'm no longer buying it.
Because the party is about to implode. The forward thinking, moderate, centrist wing of the Republicans have been completely vanquished, replaced by the lunatic fringe, bribed by the wealthy elite. Even the Tuesday Group and Main Street Republicans (if anyone recalls them) have been basically silent, or shifted to the near extreme right as well, following the money. Maybe, just maybe, after the party continues to lustfully gravitate to the money, and swings even more to the right after losing this election, and the Congress, some sense will get into some of the party leadership and someone like Susan Collins, or John Kasich for that matter, will rise up.

This graph and link here shows you just how much of an endangered species moderates are in the GOP, especially in Congress.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/02/this-astonishing-chart-shows-how-republicans-are-an-endangered-species/
 
Oct 6, 2009
5,273
0
0
Re:

VeloCity said:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/254681-trump-shrill-hillary-is-the-original-birther

Can someone please explain to me how it is that this jackass is the current favorite to be the Republican nominee for president? I've heard all of the "outsider" explanations and such but I'm no longer buying it. I now believe that they support a jackass for the simple reason that there's a large chunk of Rs who are jackasses. I don't see any other possible explanation.
It looks like Trump watched Morning Joe this week. They were pushing that story about Hillary's 2008 campaign being the source of the Obama-as-Muslim narrative. Video is here, for those who can stomach it.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/scarborough-clinton-obama-muslim/2015/09/21/id/692496/
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Re:

red_flanders said:
No one seemed to have a problem with a Pope getting involved in politics when John Paul II was propping up Solidarity and working against the Russians and the Eastern Bloc. It suited all of our interests then (actually as Francis' observations on the climate do now) so it was all OK. The views of Pope Francis happen to be at odds with certain right-wing agendas, so now he needs to "stay out of politics" and certain agenda-driven politicos "don't get their political views from the Pope"...except when they do.

At some point I hope we all get weary of how wrong the right is on almost every topic.
I'm a bit amused how some on the left will use what the pope says or does as propaganda/anti depending on the subject then come up with something like the above - ridiculing political opponents - given the left's view of religion in general and Christianity in particular.

But I'm sure you think nothing of it. This stuff just rolls off the your key pad without much effort.

At some point I hope we all get weary of the in-bred Alynskyisms and start treating those with whom we disagree with a bit more respect and willingness to consider alternative opinion before slipping in to the auto-castigation mode.

Unlearning decades of knee jerking will be difficult I'm sure.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Re: Re:

Bustedknuckle said:
red_flanders said:
No one seemed to have a problem with a Pope getting involved in politics when John Paul II was propping up Solidarity and working against the Russians and the Eastern Bloc. It suited all of our interests then (actually as Francis' observations on the climate do now) so it was all OK. The views of Pope Francis happen to be at odds with certain right-wing agendas, so now he needs to "stay out of politics" and certain agenda-driven politicos "don't get their political views from the Pope"...except when they do.

At some point I hope we all get weary of how wrong the right is on almost every topic.

Let's see....who have these right wing-nuts alienated so far(alien--get it?)
Women
Asians
Hispanics
African-american
Muslims
Catholics
Gay/Lesbian
The young
The educated

Most thinking white males and females.

Forget anybody? I think their numbers in the general election may be lowest ever.
It's as if 2014 never happened.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
There is really no way I can buck up against he Pope Brah! I do think it is a bit ironic how much support JonP got when he was helping to prop up Poland for the solidarity. I want to say the way we left Poland during the split after WW2 was very embarrassing when you consider the sacrifice they made against the Germans and Communist.

So when the Pope speaks people listen much like EF hutten,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Now the rightwing nutters who are uninformed will of course draw him down. Who cares.

I noticed that the real facts are now coming out about the kid and his "homemade clock". We are a nation of idiots. I have to admit that fact. Look at how the Polar sides are represented here.

Great graph Alpe! So freaking true.
 
Oct 6, 2009
5,273
0
0
And yet there remains a lingering sense among many Democrats that a Sanders' nomination would spell doom for the party in 2016 — a sentiment highlighted by the fact that not a single Democrat in either chamber has endorsed the No. 2 primary contender.

"Bernie Sanders is raising some issues that are important," Rep. Steny Hoyer (Md.), the Democratic whip and a Clinton supporter, told reporters last week. "But I don't think there's an expectation that's he's going to be president of the United States."

The dynamics surrounding Sanders' campaign present Democrats with an uncomfortable question: If the candidate trumpeting the party's agenda most loudly and clearly is unelectable, what does it say about the agenda, itself?

Hastings, another Clinton backer, said the answer lies in political expediency. He said he supports Sanders' economic agenda to a tee. But he also remembers too well the losing presidential campaigns of liberals George McGovern and Eugene McCarthy — both of whom he supported in the Civil Rights era — as well as the saga surrounding Ralph Nader, the consumer-rights advocate turned third-party candidate he blames for securing George W. Bush's victory in 2000.

"Some argue, and I do, that Ralph Nader cost us that election … and I don't have time for that. And I think that's what members are saying: That I don't have time for fringes, at this point. And that's where Bernie is, and it's regrettable," Hastings said.

"Mine and Bernie's philosophies regarding the disparity of economic well-being of America's citizens [are] in direct alignment with each other. I agree with him — [but] I support Hillary Clinton."
The doubts surrounding Sanders' electability are hardly universal. A growing number of lawmakers are pushing back as Sanders gains prominence in the race.

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), a 2016 Senate candidate who has not endorsed a primary contender, characterized Sanders as one of Congress's most effective legislators, saying all claims that he's unelectable are "politically motivated attacks" designed to undermine his bid.

"Bernie has the appeal of being able to demonstrate to people that he can get good things done. He is not some kind of liberal stick figure; he's someone who has a record of actual accomplishment," Grayson said. "If Bernie's the nominee, then Bernie very likely will be the next president of the United States."

Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) echoed that message, warning that Democrats, by doubting Sanders' viability as a candidate, risk undermining the party's agenda.

"The expectation that he will fade, I think, is not true because the agenda he's putting forward, instead of tamping down momentum, it's increasing momentum. … He's ignited the base in a way that we haven't been able to do for six years," said Grijalva, the head of the Progressive Caucus who has not yet endorsed in the primary. "So I would be very careful to marginalize the man. Because in a sense then you're marginalizing the message."

Asked why Sanders hasn't won any Democratic endorsements, Grijalva predicted that would soon change.

"It'll come," he said.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/254280-democrats-sanders-is-unelectable
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Re: Re:

VeloCity said:
Alpe d'Huez said:
Unfortunately, most politicians in the US really don't give a damned what the rest of the world, or the Pope has to say about such things. Those mean nothing compared to their plutocratic puppet masters filling their coffers and wishes with lives of luxury.

Remember what Rick Santorum said about him? Fran should leave the science to the experts. Unless I'm mistaken, I believe one of the Pope's degrees is in chemistry. Not that he actually isn't agreeing with the experts at the highest level, because, well, he is.
What science do you think Santorum believes the Pope should stay out of and leave to the experts, do you suppose - the science of contraception and reproduction? Cloning? Embryonic development? Fetal tissue? Or is it just climate-change-related science? The Pope wouldn't have much to say if he had to leave the science to the experts.

As to Marx, I'd be really surprised if more than a handful of politicians in Congress, or most any state house really, has actually read any of Das Kapital, or really could tell you what it's about. Not that I definitively could. It's thick, and heady. But I did try to, and got a bit of a grasp on it at least. Here's a little clue, Marx wasn't talking about a proposed Soviet Union, nor about what Devin Nunes thinks in that confused, silly putty brain of his.
I know, it's just funny to me when the right throws around these terms like "Marxist" and "socialist" (or calling Obama a "Muslim" for that matter) that they've picked up somewhere without having a clue what they actually mean, so they've just become these labels that they stick on anyone who they disagree with.
No actually. It's the right's version of what you do... it put's a person immediately on the defensive. Racist, bigot, homophobe. All descriptors that are almost solely used to ridicule.

You play that way so expect it in return.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Re:

Beech Mtn said:
And yet there remains a lingering sense among many Democrats that a Sanders' nomination would spell doom for the party in 2016 — a sentiment highlighted by the fact that not a single Democrat in either chamber has endorsed the No. 2 primary contender.

"Bernie Sanders is raising some issues that are important," Rep. Steny Hoyer (Md.), the Democratic whip and a Clinton supporter, told reporters last week. "But I don't think there's an expectation that's he's going to be president of the United States."

The dynamics surrounding Sanders' campaign present Democrats with an uncomfortable question: If the candidate trumpeting the party's agenda most loudly and clearly is unelectable, what does it say about the agenda, itself?

Hastings, another Clinton backer, said the answer lies in political expediency. He said he supports Sanders' economic agenda to a tee. But he also remembers too well the losing presidential campaigns of liberals George McGovern and Eugene McCarthy — both of whom he supported in the Civil Rights era — as well as the saga surrounding Ralph Nader, the consumer-rights advocate turned third-party candidate he blames for securing George W. Bush's victory in 2000.

"Some argue, and I do, that Ralph Nader cost us that election … and I don't have time for that. And I think that's what members are saying: That I don't have time for fringes, at this point. And that's where Bernie is, and it's regrettable," Hastings said.

"Mine and Bernie's philosophies regarding the disparity of economic well-being of America's citizens [are] in direct alignment with each other. I agree with him — [but] I support Hillary Clinton."
The doubts surrounding Sanders' electability are hardly universal. A growing number of lawmakers are pushing back as Sanders gains prominence in the race.

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), a 2016 Senate candidate who has not endorsed a primary contender, characterized Sanders as one of Congress's most effective legislators, saying all claims that he's unelectable are "politically motivated attacks" designed to undermine his bid.

"Bernie has the appeal of being able to demonstrate to people that he can get good things done. He is not some kind of liberal stick figure; he's someone who has a record of actual accomplishment," Grayson said. "If Bernie's the nominee, then Bernie very likely will be the next president of the United States."

Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) echoed that message, warning that Democrats, by doubting Sanders' viability as a candidate, risk undermining the party's agenda.

"The expectation that he will fade, I think, is not true because the agenda he's putting forward, instead of tamping down momentum, it's increasing momentum. … He's ignited the base in a way that we haven't been able to do for six years," said Grijalva, the head of the Progressive Caucus who has not yet endorsed in the primary. "So I would be very careful to marginalize the man. Because in a sense then you're marginalizing the message."

Asked why Sanders hasn't won any Democratic endorsements, Grijalva predicted that would soon change.

"It'll come," he said.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/254280-democrats-sanders-is-unelectable
The parallels are pretty amazing. The DEMe and GOPe are not super happy with folks they think they can absolutely count on. Maybe the current consultant class will go by the wayside? Who knows.

Btw, please give me more Alan Grayson. :D
 
Re: Re:

Alpe d'Huez said:
VeloCity said:
Can someone please explain to me how it is that this jackass is the current favorite to be the Republican nominee for president? I've heard all of the "outsider" explanations and such but I'm no longer buying it.
Because the party is about to implode. The forward thinking, moderate, centrist wing of the Republicans have been completely vanquished, replaced by the lunatic fringe, bribed by the wealthy elite. Even the Tuesday Group and Main Street Republicans (if anyone recalls them) have been basically silent, or shifted to the near extreme right as well, following the money. Maybe, just maybe, after the party continues to lustfully gravitate to the money, and swings even more to the right after losing this election, and the Congress, some sense will get into some of the party leadership and someone like Susan Collins, or John Kasich for that matter, will rise up.

This graph and link here shows you just how much of an endangered species moderates are in the GOP, especially in Congress.

-img-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/02/this-astonishing-chart-shows-how-republicans-are-an-endangered-species/
According to the article there are more extreme Republicans because the voters elect more extreme candidates.

My question: if they follow the money, why does the 'money' want more extreme candidates? Why has this changed the last.. 40 years?
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Re: Re:

l.Harm said:
Alpe d'Huez said:
VeloCity said:
Can someone please explain to me how it is that this jackass is the current favorite to be the Republican nominee for president? I've heard all of the "outsider" explanations and such but I'm no longer buying it.
Because the party is about to implode. The forward thinking, moderate, centrist wing of the Republicans have been completely vanquished, replaced by the lunatic fringe, bribed by the wealthy elite. Even the Tuesday Group and Main Street Republicans (if anyone recalls them) have been basically silent, or shifted to the near extreme right as well, following the money. Maybe, just maybe, after the party continues to lustfully gravitate to the money, and swings even more to the right after losing this election, and the Congress, some sense will get into some of the party leadership and someone like Susan Collins, or John Kasich for that matter, will rise up.

This graph and link here shows you just how much of an endangered species moderates are in the GOP, especially in Congress.

-img-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/02/this-astonishing-chart-shows-how-republicans-are-an-endangered-species/
According to the article there are more extreme Republicans because the voters elect more extreme candidates.

My question: if they follow the money, why does the 'money' want more extreme candidates? Why has this changed the last.. 40 years?
....an old saying, " money makes you stupid " may help explain that....as for the specifics it would best be to turn to the foibles of the individuals/entities involved ....

Cheers
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
...and find below an great example that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt Putin is evil and insane and the greatest threat to world peace since Attila the Hun or maybe Genghis Khan....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sott.net/article/302356-Russian-govt-completely-bans-GMOs-in-food-production
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cheers
 
Re: Re:

blutto said:
....an old saying, " money makes you stupid " may help explain that....as for the specifics it would best be to turn to the foibles of the individuals/entities involved ....
Well, if we take into account that nowadays a lot of people with a lot of money:
- did not work for that but simply inhereted it (thus requiring no special skills, but often thinking they must have some special skills *because* they are rich)
- that predominantly males got rich back in the days
- that rich males tend to mary handsome women rather than intelligent women
- that their sons, who often got a dominant position in daddy's company, inhereted most of their intelligence from their mothers, because IQ is linked to the X chromosome (and daddy delivered their Y)

It is logical that nowadays, many rich men are actually stupid and completely unaware of being stupid, thinking that whatever they say is gold because - you know - they're rich and thus successful.

I cut some corners here and there, but I think that the saying is supported by science - clearly.
Now if I could only think of someone famous fitting that description. Hmmm....
 
Read an interesting post-mortem to the Walker candidacy. Nothing really ground-breaking, but what caught my eye was the potential shift in how SuperPACs were going to operate in the race.

"The super PAC, which had about $20 million available, looked into hiring field staffers in South Carolina and other early states — preparing to take over many communications and political functions from the campaign, rather than staying in the traditional role of running TV ads."
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/scott-walker-2016-fall-213956
 
Trump, Carson and Fiorina had me thinking better of Bush, for a while:

In my administration, every regulation, including those issued by so-called independent agencies such as the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, will have to satisfy a rigorous White House review process, including a cost-benefit analysis. Regulations will be issued only if they address a major market or policy failure.
So regulating polluters or energy suppliers, e.g., wouldn’t happen because endangering the future health or safety of citizens doesn’t count as a market or policy failure.

My administration will also supercharge infrastructure projects by restructuring the permitting process for roads, highways, bridges, ports, pipelines, wind farms and other vital infrastructure projects. Permitting decisions will be made within two years instead of 10.
And if some of the projects destroy valuable wilderness or wetlands, or one of the accelerated bridges later collapses, too bad.

As president, I will repeal the Environmental Protection Agency’s new rule extending federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act over millions of acres of private land, its new regulation of carbon dioxide under the Clean Power Plan, and its new and costly coal-ash standards for power plants.
Because clean air, water and land is not a priority. Making money is.

I will also work with Congress to repeal significant portions of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial law, and … I will announce a detailed agenda to repeal and replace ObamaCare.
Dream on. How does this square with “I will sign legislation to prevent frivolous litigation”?

http://www.wsj.com/article_email/how-ill-slash-the-regulation-tax-1442961807-lMyQjAxMTE1MTIzNDcyMjQ2Wj

 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
Re:

Merckx index said:
Trump, Carson and Fiorina had me thinking better of Bush, for a while:

In my administration, every regulation, including those issued by so-called independent agencies such as the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, will have to satisfy a rigorous White House review process, including a cost-benefit analysis. Regulations will be issued only if they address a major market or policy failure.
So regulating polluters or energy suppliers, e.g., wouldn’t happen because endangering the future health or safety of citizens doesn’t count as a market or policy failure.

My administration will also supercharge infrastructure projects by restructuring the permitting process for roads, highways, bridges, ports, pipelines, wind farms and other vital infrastructure projects. Permitting decisions will be made within two years instead of 10.
And if some of the projects destroy valuable wilderness or wetlands, or one of the accelerated bridges later collapses, too bad.

As president, I will repeal the Environmental Protection Agency’s new rule extending federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act over millions of acres of private land, its new regulation of carbon dioxide under the Clean Power Plan, and its new and costly coal-ash standards for power plants.
Because clean air, water and land is not a priority. Making money is.

I will also work with Congress to repeal significant portions of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial law, and … I will announce a detailed agenda to repeal and replace ObamaCare.
Dream on. How does this square with “I will sign legislation to prevent frivolous litigation”?

http://www.wsj.com/article_email/how-ill-slash-the-regulation-tax-1442961807-lMyQjAxMTE1MTIzNDcyMjQ2Wj
Dream weaver
I've just closed my eyes again
Climbed aboard the dream weaver train
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Re: Re:

Jagartrott said:
blutto said:
....an old saying, " money makes you stupid " may help explain that....as for the specifics it would best be to turn to the foibles of the individuals/entities involved ....
Well, if we take into account that nowadays a lot of people with a lot of money:
- did not work for that but simply inhereted it (thus requiring no special skills, but often thinking they must have some special skills *because* they are rich)
- that predominantly males got rich back in the days
- that rich males tend to mary handsome women rather than intelligent women
- that their sons, who often got a dominant position in daddy's company, inhereted most of their intelligence from their mothers, because IQ is linked to the X chromosome (and daddy delivered their Y)

It is logical that nowadays, many rich men are actually stupid and completely unaware of being stupid, thinking that whatever they say is gold because - you know - they're rich and thus successful.

I cut some corners here and there, but I think that the saying is supported by science - clearly.
Now if I could only think of someone famous fitting that description. Hmmm....
....great foible analysis right there....so if I got straight I got my mom's brains and my dad's good looks...f%@king scary that.... :D

...as for the saying....ran into an interesting saying the other day that kinda sorta runs along the same lines...

...the saying, butchered, errr, paraphrased by moi...." one of the devil's greatest achievements was to put the alphabet into math"...along those lines Korzybski, in talking about what he called The Aristotelian Fallacy, said, " the map is not the territory " ....and Bertram Russell's Paradox plays into this as well ( roughly paraphrased, "a set is not a member of itself "...its a different logic type eh...)

...what that kinda sorta boils down to is once you start working at a certain level of abstraction your grasp of reality becomes, errr, abstract....and as a result decisions that involve reality can very easily produce problems when said decision runs headlong into reality...or.... some would say that our society is screaming toward an awful end at the bottom of a very steep and high cliff because it is build upon a alphabet infused math ( use of variables etc ) and mostly powered by money...you see, the problem is 9x5=42....

....just a thought...so what about them Jays eh !....

Cheers
 
Re:

Merckx index said:
In my administration, every regulation, including those issued by so-called independent agencies such as the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, will have to satisfy a rigorous White House review process, including a cost-benefit analysis.
Under that thinking, we should quickly get rid of departments like the NTSB and FAA. I mean, what kind of profits do they bring? They very likely cost the airline industry heaps of money having to bend over backwards dealing with regulations that make air travel as safer than driving a car. If a few planes crash, so be it. The airline would then absorb the costs, and the free market would dictate whether people want to fly or not.

We should also get rid of National Parks, and the USFS as well. That's a lot of land that would be much more profitable if opened up to private development. Think of the real estate value of somewhere like Yosemite Valley. And think of oil, gas and timber money that could be made from public lands. It would certainly dwarf the profits from entrance fees to these places. And if the forests catch fire and burn uncontrollably, even into adjacent lands, the onus is on the private land owner to deal with that. The courts can decide their culpability, and the market will then dictate if their land is still of value.

This would cut the deficit, and result in private job creation as well.

What do you think guys? Is there room for me in the next GOP debate?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
MarieDGarzai Non-Cycling Discussions 2
Similar threads
The Politics of Sport

ASK THE COMMUNITY