Umm, I think that shows a large degree of ignorance on the prison system. Prisoners do work, and for a fraction of the cost of other laborers. They also continually exploited on the other end, where in-prison prices are jacked up.
11 and 12. I really don't have a huge opinion on immigration on way or the other (at least not ideologically, practicality is another issue), even on ending birthright citizenship. Where I live one parent has to be a citizen in order for a child to be a citizen, even if the parents are residing legally. Though your proposal effectively creates a second-class citizenship, and I think it would be particularly difficult to enact and enforce. You'd effectively have US citizens who are banned from the US. which really don't make any sense.
I should also note the US has negative net immmigration from Mexico. The real question is what to do with the millions people who are here already.
As bad as big pharma can be, from the very brief research I did (AKA wikipedia), it sounds more like a quack alternative medicine with no legitimate scientific backing.
My point is that 'protecting the right of the property owner' is not and cannot be absolute. There are restrictions, as with the example of … morediscriminating based on race. But even other examples of 'religious conviction' could be, like I said, people of other religions, or atheists, or even divorcees etc. Can businesses refuse services to divorcees? The same laws which protect against those kinds of discrimination equally protect against discrimination due to sexual orientation, it's pretty hard to get rid of the one without the other.
Regardless of how immoral I think such a stance is, my main point is that it isn't legally feasible. The only thing I suppose you could remove sexual orientation as a protected class, in which case you also refuse to hire people who are gay (which, unless that was included in the Supreme Court decision, I believe is still legal in a lot of states - and as to the state's where it is illegal, you'd have to amen… [view original content]
"Mao united the Chinese people against the corrupted Nationalists AND fought off the Japanese."
Me: Actually, Mao did jack shit against the Japanese. The Nationalists won the fight with them while simultaneously having their arses kicked by the Communists.
Judge it if I was the American president
The fact a lot of people will sleep on the streets without a meal today In America while the… moreir are so many billionaires in America is a joke in Ireland 5% of population has 50% of the whole wealth of the country so beyond a certain wealth once a billion reached anything beyond it will go straight to taxes and providing food/shelter for the poor and struggling families. No more billionaires in my country while there are people homeless without a meal.
Cut the military budget and use it to make college free and provide a fixed wage so the students can pay rent and eat as well as attend college like my country your genius will no long be decided by the amount of money you have but the work you put in. It make the smartest raise to the top instead of the richest making the country stronger and better in every aspect no more lost potential.
Severely Obese children will now be seen as child abus… [view original content]
It works both ways. If a gay couple owns, say a funeral home and a plot of land, and they want to have a gay only cemetery, nothing he said … morewould prevent them from doing so.
Edit: He's mostly concerned with religious organizations not being forced to do things that go against their beliefs. Now when it comes to their organizations, doing things on their plots of land, I really don't see an issue with it. I don't think places like clothes stores or eateries should be able to discriminate based on gender or sexual preference, but I do think that nonessential organizations should be allowed to have the right to their privacy and self governance.
Agreed but what I don't like is when we're talking about making "emergency housing" for Syrian Refugees (when a lot of them are young males) when we have homeless Americans and veterans, that's what pisses me off.
I'm the same I mean for homeless Americans, poor families and veterans who made America great not refugees after paris attacks never know you could be funding isis with refugees
Well, I'm was born in America, my "Saltlick Birth Givers" are Americans, the meat locker is on American soil and I've never immigrated so if you want to deport me- you'll have to come yourself and throw me out.
Exactly what an illegal would say it's 2016 being a white cis male America citizen makes you an illegal oppressor smh
Well...define "psychology checks yearly"- that seems like a kind of vague term for what you could do..
Just make sure there mentally stable as we all know life can take many turns and tragic events could change people and make them dangerous so important to always monitor to make sure they are ok.
JUST DO IT
Nuke Konami
Create small cash bonus for students in schools and colleges who achieve an A to motivate higher grades
I take away all quotas for gender and race you want to be employed you're going to need the best talents and qualifications are employed by making quotas gives advantages to certain genders and races which is both sexist and racist.
Since I was tagged I'll respond with my personal thoughts on some stuff
The fact a lot of people will sleep on the streets without a … moremeal today In America while their are so many billionaires in America is a joke in Ireland 5% of population has 50% of the whole wealth of the country so beyond a certain wealth once a billion reached anything beyond it will go straight to taxes and providing food/shelter for the poor and struggling families. No more billionaires in my country while there are people homeless without a meal.
Agreed but what I don't like is when we're talking about making "emergency housing" for Syrian Refugees (when a lot of them are young males) when we have homeless Americans and veterans, that's what pisses me off.
Severely Obese children will now be seen as child abuse by the parents they must attend meetings at their local schools about healthy eating and schools will provide lots of afterschool fitness … [view original content]
The brain drain refers to some of the laws passed by Newt Gringrich in 1994. I'm not exactly sure how exactly to explain it, but he basically created bills that got rid of a lot of government-hired specialists. Among those fired were people who wrote laws, researchers, and the folks who briefed legislators on various issues.
To fill the void left over, Newt came up with the brilliant idea of bringing in more think tanks and private firms. Problem is, the government specialists had an obligation to be impartial not feed congresspeople bullshit. Private firms have no such obligations.
Wow, we have almost exactly the same platform. Although I don't know what you mean by "Congressional Brain Drain." I didn't know there was … morea brain to drain. Joking aside, do you mean getting rid of the revolving door? Because as far a brain drain goes, I'd if any job type is doing it it's the brightest giving up science in favor of finance.
I'm also not particularly in favor of collectivization. Organized labor with teeth, yes, but people being able to start and grow their own businesses is important both economically and in terms of rights.
That may only apply to Mormons, since he stated that he doesn't want people to be forced to do things they are morally against on their own property. Mormonism is the only religion I know of that specifically singles out dark skinned people as bad.
Edit: Even so, why would it matter? Black only churches would still be able to exist. I don't see why on private property, and for nonessential things like religion, why it matters if people can invite only the people that they choose to.
The Nationalists won the fight with them while simultaneously having their arses kicked by the Communists.
Actually IIRC, there was a united front between the communists and Kuomintang during World War II. To Mao's credit, the communist did liberate and stabilize sizable pockets of countryside. He just let the KMT do most of the meat-grinder fighting in the cities. Not courageous, but pretty damn smart if you ask me.
"Mao united the Chinese people against the corrupted Nationalists AND fought off the Japanese."
Me: Actually, Mao did jack shit against t… morehe Japanese. The Nationalists won the fight with them while simultaneously having their arses kicked by the Communists.
Ban GMOs and stop the dumping of fluoride in public water.
"Fluoride in the water" isn't a big deal. Trust me, much worse gets dumped.
Ban the Federal Reserve and instill a new currency that the USA can actually call their own.
I'd argue that the banking system is the problem, not the Fed,
Ban nuclear power and nuclear weapons.
I'm cool with banning nukes, but not energy. Nuclear Energy is very clean and efficient as long as the sites are well maintained and people know what they're doing.
Just to name a few:
* Enforce more charitable, peaceful, and rational policies.
* Create a task force to solve USA's homeless proble… morem while improving homeless shelters.
* Make colleges free. Make healthcare free.
* Ban nuclear power and nuclear weapons.
* Make solar and wind power the new standard in energy.
* Ban GMOs and stop the dumping of fluoride in public water.
* Devalue oil and drugs in every aspect.
* Ban the Federal Reserve and instill a new currency that the USA can actually call their own.
"Fluoride in the water" isn't a big deal. Trust me, much worse gets dumped.
I know, and that has to be dealt with too. But fluoride is being purposely dumped when it shouldn't be.
I'd argue that the banking system is the problem, not the Fed.
My idea was that after the Fed Reserve gets banned along with its currency, the US bankers become powerless and dismantled.
I'm cool with banning nukes, but not energy. Nuclear Energy is very clean and efficient as long as the sites are well maintained and people know what they're doing.
Yeah, but after the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear disasters, I would not want to even risk experiencing any accidents. Nuclear is too dangerous for the environment and everyone else.
Ban GMOs and stop the dumping of fluoride in public water.
"Fluoride in the water" isn't a big deal. Trust me, much worse gets dump… moreed.
Ban the Federal Reserve and instill a new currency that the USA can actually call their own.
I'd argue that the banking system is the problem, not the Fed,
Ban nuclear power and nuclear weapons.
I'm cool with banning nukes, but not energy. Nuclear Energy is very clean and efficient as long as the sites are well maintained and people know what they're doing.
Agree with everything else.
They only acted as support troops, never engaging the Japanese directly. Where they did fight directly on occasion, these victories were small and largely insignificant. Mao even had an agreement with Chiang Kai-shek that the Chinese Red Army would never have to directly engage them. This deal did not last, as one can imagine.
The Nationalists won the fight with them while simultaneously having their arses kicked by the Communists.
Actually IIRC, there was a uni… moreted front between the communists and Kuomintang during World War II. To Mao's credit, the communist did liberate and stabilize sizable pockets of countryside. He just let the KMT do most of the meat-grinder fighting in the cities. Not courageous, but pretty damn smart if you ask me.
I know, and that has to be dealt with too. But fluoride is being purposely dumped when it shouldn't be.
Credible source?
My idea was that after the Fed Reserve gets banned along with its currency, the US bankers become powerless and dismantled.
Well, completely abandoning the U.S. dollar would hurt the bankers but it would also probably cause an unprecedented crash of the world economy. Plus you never stated WHY US currency should be abandoned, or the Fed.
Yeah, but after the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear disasters, I would not want to even risk experiencing any accidents. Nuclear is too dangerous for the environment and everyone else.
i'll take the accidents over completely destroying the planet by continuing our current course. The risks are completely manageable, sensationalization by the media and big oil rhetoric makes it seem more dangerous than it probably is.
"Fluoride in the water" isn't a big deal. Trust me, much worse gets dumped.
I know, and that has to be dealt with too. But fluoride … moreis being purposely dumped when it shouldn't be.
I'd argue that the banking system is the problem, not the Fed.
My idea was that after the Fed Reserve gets banned along with its currency, the US bankers become powerless and dismantled.
I'm cool with banning nukes, but not energy. Nuclear Energy is very clean and efficient as long as the sites are well maintained and people know what they're doing.
Yeah, but after the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear disasters, I would not want to even risk experiencing any accidents. Nuclear is too dangerous for the environment and everyone else.
"Fluoride is a mineral that occurs naturally and is released from rocks into the soil, water, and air. Almost all water contains some fluoride, but usually not enough to prevent tooth decay.
Fluoride can also be added to drinking water supplies as a public health measure for reducing cavities. Decisions about adding fluoride to drinking water are made at the state or local level."
I know, and that has to be dealt with too. But fluoride is being purposely dumped when it shouldn't be.
Credible source?
My id… moreea was that after the Fed Reserve gets banned along with its currency, the US bankers become powerless and dismantled.
Well, completely abandoning the U.S. dollar would hurt the bankers but it would also probably cause an unprecedented crash of the world economy. Plus you never stated WHY US currency should be abandoned, or the Fed.
Yeah, but after the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear disasters, I would not want to even risk experiencing any accidents. Nuclear is too dangerous for the environment and everyone else.
i'll take the accidents over completely destroying the planet by continuing our current course. The risks are completely manageable, sensationalization by the media and big oil rhetoric makes it seem more dangerous than it probably is.
"Fluoride is a mineral that occurs naturally and is released from rocks into the soil, water, and air. Almost all water contains some fluori… morede, but usually not enough to prevent tooth decay.
Fluoride can also be added to drinking water supplies as a public health measure for reducing cavities. Decisions about adding fluoride to drinking water are made at the state or local level."
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/faqs/#fluoride1
Agreed but what I don't like is when we're talking about making "emergency housing" for Syrian Refugees (when a lot of them are young males)… more when we have homeless Americans and veterans, that's what pisses me off.
I'm the same I mean for homeless Americans, poor families and veterans who made America great not refugees after paris attacks never know you could be funding isis with refugees
Well, I'm was born in America, my "Saltlick Birth Givers" are Americans, the meat locker is on American soil and I've never immigrated so if you want to deport me- you'll have to come yourself and throw me out.
Exactly what an illegal would say it's 2016 being a white cis male America citizen makes you an illegal oppressor smh
Well...define "psychology checks yearly"- that seems like a kind of vague term for what you could do..
Just make sure there mentally stable as we all know life can take many turns and tragic events c… [view original content]
You asked for a credible source in response to him saying it was added to the water on purpose. I provided you one.
Edit: Also, just because worse things are dumped doesn't mean less bad things shouldn't be removed.
Actually salt reactors are extremely safe and practically impossible to go catastrophic (because, in laymen terms, they require action to produce energy, whereas older versions (the ones that went nuclear) required action to stop the process). The only downside to new generation nuclear power plants are the radioactive remnants, which can be dealth with rather easily (there's plenty of space in space!).
People play far too much Fallout and hear too much about the devastation of nuclear bombs.
"Fluoride in the water" isn't a big deal. Trust me, much worse gets dumped.
I know, and that has to be dealt with too. But fluoride … moreis being purposely dumped when it shouldn't be.
I'd argue that the banking system is the problem, not the Fed.
My idea was that after the Fed Reserve gets banned along with its currency, the US bankers become powerless and dismantled.
I'm cool with banning nukes, but not energy. Nuclear Energy is very clean and efficient as long as the sites are well maintained and people know what they're doing.
Yeah, but after the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear disasters, I would not want to even risk experiencing any accidents. Nuclear is too dangerous for the environment and everyone else.
I don't think what religions it would apply to matters, it's a theoretical question.
It would matter because often people think that it's okay to do x to gay people such as refusing to serve them, but for black people it's more obvious to them why someone refusing to serve them is kind of grim.
That may only apply to Mormons, since he stated that he doesn't want people to be forced to do things they are morally against on their own … moreproperty. Mormonism is the only religion I know of that specifically singles out dark skinned people as bad.
Edit: Even so, why would it matter? Black only churches would still be able to exist. I don't see why on private property, and for nonessential things like religion, why it matters if people can invite only the people that they choose to.
The brain drain refers to some of the laws passed by Newt Gringrich in 1994. I'm not exactly sure how exactly to explain it, but he basical… morely created bills that got rid of a lot of government-hired specialists. Among those fired were people who wrote laws, researchers, and the folks who briefed legislators on various issues.
To fill the void left over, Newt came up with the brilliant idea of bringing in more think tanks and private firms. Problem is, the government specialists had an obligation to be impartial not feed congresspeople bullshit. Private firms have no such obligations.
It's funny that Fallout players only think about nuclear war, rather than the fact that America in the Fallout timeline uses nuclear energy to advance technology (let's be honest, we all want a Mr Handy robot).
Actually salt reactors are extremely safe and practically impossible to go catastrophic (because, in laymen terms, they require action to p… moreroduce energy, whereas older versions (the ones that went nuclear) required action to stop the process). The only downside to new generation nuclear power plants are the radioactive remnants, which can be dealth with rather easily (there's plenty of space in space!).
People play far too much Fallout and hear too much about the devastation of nuclear bombs.
But why should a theoretically private organization have to serve anyone they don't want to serve? Beyond just religions, what of other private groups? Should communities/organizations built only of Mexican-American individuals start having to let in Chinese? Should religious clubs be forced to allow atheists to become leaders of their group? Basically, can any private group only have the people it wants, or does everything have to be open to everyone all the time?
I don't think what religions it would apply to matters, it's a theoretical question.
It would matter because often people think that it's… more okay to do x to gay people such as refusing to serve them, but for black people it's more obvious to them why someone refusing to serve them is kind of grim.
So many comments, so little time, but finally I have some time to actually review them. Since you mentioned the "all black churches", I must say that that in itself is racism. No matter what your skin color, by refusing another person because the color of their skin differs from yours is racism.
Yet for some reason, particularly in the eyes of the Liberal media, it's okay for the black race to have "All Black Churches". And yet if the white race was to have "All White Churches", they would immediately be crucified - no pun intended.
And since I mentioned Liberals, who are members of the Democratic party, they like to maintain that they stand against racism, and stand for racial equality, yet history shows time and again that Democrats were in favor of Slavery, as they were with segregating the American Indians. It was the Whig party, which later became the Republican party in 1861, that objected to these things.
Davy Crockett was a member of the Republican party, and as most historical oriented people know, he fought to defend the Indians from being removed from their native homelands and forced onto reservations, unlike then president Andrew Jackson, who was a Democrat, and who instigated the Indian Removal act, which stipulated that the Indians be moved to reservations. It is noteworthy that given Davy Crockett's history with the Indians, people who murdered his Grandparents, and who forced him to leave his family to fight in the Creek War of 1812, it is remarkable that he stepped up do be their defender, even though Jackson's legislation greatly benefited his Tennessee constituency.
President Abraham Lincoln, who was also of the Republican party, fought to end slavery. Unlike Confederate President Jefferson Davis, who was fighting to keep slavery going, and who was along a Democrat.
Not to mention the Democrats are hung up on Political Correctness. And the problem with that is is that Political Correctness basically stipulates that non-white races are so sensitive, that you can't laugh and joke with them like you would any other person. And thus it not only sucks the fun out of life, but also serves to divide people, instead of uniting them.
And on a sidenote, I would rather live in a world where I can laugh and joke with a person, regardless of their skin color and risk offending them, than have to walk eggshells every time I'm around someone of a different skin color, or who's ethnic background is different from my own.
Now I'm NOT saying that modern democrats are in favor of slavery and racial segregation. But that is historically what their political party has stood for.
But I digress!
And let be very clear, my stance has nothing whatsoever to do with racism, as certain users seem to be implying. I'm simply stand for equal treatment, and protecting the rights of individuals. If Gays want to marry, that's their business. But they should not be allowed to bully others when they don't get their way.
That may only apply to Mormons, since he stated that he doesn't want people to be forced to do things they are morally against on their own … moreproperty. Mormonism is the only religion I know of that specifically singles out dark skinned people as bad.
Edit: Even so, why would it matter? Black only churches would still be able to exist. I don't see why on private property, and for nonessential things like religion, why it matters if people can invite only the people that they choose to.
Drugs are so easy to get that I don't know if it'd really make that much of a difference. I'm sure it would, it's just astonishing how easy it is to get drugs right now though.
Drugs are so easy to get that I don't know if it'd really make that much of a difference. I'm sure it would, it's just astonishing how easy it is to get drugs right now though.
Increase funding into education, medical, and scientific institutions.
Attempt a more isolationist and peaceful foreign policy based on less military intervention on non-aggressive foreign countries and only intervening on the worst case scenarios. Most Middle East countries look unfavorably on the US Government because of the military intervention during times like the Bush administration.
Put in several attempts to limit gun violence. No one blames the gun, to assume that is stupid, people blame the shooter for using the weapon. First, putting in better regulations and restrictions with weapons can help limit the amount of violence people can use it for. Secondly, putting in better awareness for weapons. I support Concealed Carry, and the best way to correctly connect the Constitution with it is having all people who own guns commit to courses on gun safety and use in order to properly be prepared to use it in the case they have to, thus creating a true well-regulated militia.
Create country wide legalization of Marijuana under heavy taxes.
Increase taxes based on higher yearly income, keeping most tax rates as they are.
Focus on rehabilitation of criminals and inmates instead of punishment.
Helping immigrants (Both legally and illegally) attain American Citizenship. Immigrants won’t stop coming, they’ll find ways to get around ways we take. Of course punishments should be assigned to illegal immigration but the only reason Immigrants are “Stealing our jobs” is because companies are able to pay them less for the same work because of the availability of companies to send them away.
Help veterans returning from war to easily attain benefits and proper housing and healthcare. It’s unfair to blame soldiers (Those of which didn’t commit crimes) for actions of war, we should blame the government for tragedies of the result of war and not the soldiers, unless of course, the soldier was truly doing it of their own volition.
Attempt to increase natural renewable energy usage in America, distancing ourselves from fossil fuel energy the best we can. This in itself will keep us from getting involved in foreign conflict, because face it, they’re mostly for profit.
Increase the minimum wage by a small sum, not enough to cause dangerous changes in our economy.
Speaking of economy, restructure the industrial sector of America in order to improve our economy while also slowly increasing tariffs slowly.
Put further methods available to stop discrimination against homosexuals in workplaces.
Put stronger efforts forward to stop corruption in the government.
I disagree. Drug addiction has much more to do with one's social environment than the availability of drugs. I think the key would be to legalize everything under careful supervision rather than just saying "fuck it, buy whatever you want."
Imagine what it would be like if doctors could prescribe heroin like they could in the old days. Heroin addicts wouldn't have to fiend for the next hit. They could get their drug in regular, safe doses, greatly decreasing the chance of overdosing. Instead of stealing scrap metal and selling their bodies for the next fix they could hold down a job (well, some jobs...) and live a relatively normal life.
The current system is designed to keep addict in the miserable conditions that contribute to their drug use instead of helping addicts slowly get over it. At the same time, the "drug addiction as a disease" narrative has faults because chemical dependency is just one of the many factors that contributes to addiction.
I disagree. Drug addiction has much more to do with one's social environment than the availability of drugs. I think the key would be to l… moreegalize everything under careful supervision rather than just saying "fuck it, buy whatever you want."
Imagine what it would be like if doctors could prescribe heroin like they could in the old days. Heroin addicts wouldn't have to fiend for the next hit. They could get their drug in regular, safe doses, greatly decreasing the chance of overdosing. Instead of stealing scrap metal and selling their bodies for the next fix they could hold down a job (well, some jobs...) and live a relatively normal life.
The current system is designed to keep addict in the miserable conditions that contribute to their drug use instead of helping addicts slowly get over it. At the same time, the "drug addiction as a disease" narrative has faults because chemical dependency is just one of the many factors that contributes to addiction.
Arrest All Anti Government Political Organizations.
Arrest All Health Insurance CEOs.
Arrest All Privately Owned Hospital CEOs.
Arrest All For Profit College CEO/Presidents.
Arrest All Pharmaceutical CEOs.
Cease the Assets of all listed Above.
Throw Away the Constitution and Start a New One, keeping out everything that doesn't fit with modern times.
Cut Military Spending by 75%
Arrest CEOs to Companies like Boeing and Other Arms Manufacturers which do nothing but Milk Money with insanely illogical experimental weapons that never see mass production.
etc etc etc etc etc
Oh.. I can imagine me being assassinated within a week.
Comments
enter link description here
Though Obama recently banned the phone part.
11 and 12. I really don't have a huge opinion on immigration on way or the other (at least not ideologically, practicality is another issue), even on ending birthright citizenship. Where I live one parent has to be a citizen in order for a child to be a citizen, even if the parents are residing legally. Though your proposal effectively creates a second-class citizenship, and I think it would be particularly difficult to enact and enforce. You'd effectively have US citizens who are banned from the US. which really don't make any sense.
I should also note the US has negative net immmigration from Mexico. The real question is what to do with the millions people who are here already.
Out of curiosity, what is your opinion on the things I mention after number 9?
Oh, I put that in a new reply,
"Mao united the Chinese people against the corrupted Nationalists AND fought off the Japanese."
Me: Actually, Mao did jack shit against the Japanese. The Nationalists won the fight with them while simultaneously having their arses kicked by the Communists.
Are you saying the tweets are silly?
I've asked psychologists about it and lots of different things can cause PTSD, including harassment.
I wonder if he'd support religions banning black people from doing things on their property?
Ban all shoe laces
I'm the same I mean for homeless Americans, poor families and veterans who made America great not refugees after paris attacks never know you could be funding isis with refugees
Exactly what an illegal would say it's 2016 being a white cis male America citizen makes you an illegal oppressor smh
Just make sure there mentally stable as we all know life can take many turns and tragic events could change people and make them dangerous so important to always monitor to make sure they are ok.
Nuke Konami
Create small cash bonus for students in schools and colleges who achieve an A to motivate higher grades
I take away all quotas for gender and race you want to be employed you're going to need the best talents and qualifications are employed by making quotas gives advantages to certain genders and races which is both sexist and racist.
Your turn lets hear few? doet
I'm sorry, but if I got PTSD from being made fun of on the internet, I'd be too ashamed of myself to go campaigning about it on Twitter.
lol
Just to name a few:
Enforce more charitable, peaceful, and rational policies.
Create a task force to solve USA's homeless problem while improving homeless shelters.
Make colleges free. Make healthcare free.
Ban nuclear power and nuclear weapons.
Make solar and wind power the new standard in energy.
Ban GMOs and stop the dumping of fluoride in public water.
Devalue oil and drugs in every aspect.
Ban the Federal Reserve and instill a new currency that the USA can actually call their own.
The brain drain refers to some of the laws passed by Newt Gringrich in 1994. I'm not exactly sure how exactly to explain it, but he basically created bills that got rid of a lot of government-hired specialists. Among those fired were people who wrote laws, researchers, and the folks who briefed legislators on various issues.
To fill the void left over, Newt came up with the brilliant idea of bringing in more think tanks and private firms. Problem is, the government specialists had an obligation to be impartial not feed congresspeople bullshit. Private firms have no such obligations.
The instrumental version is ok. I hate it when one person sings the anthem acapella. It's rarely good and it loses its people.
That may only apply to Mormons, since he stated that he doesn't want people to be forced to do things they are morally against on their own property. Mormonism is the only religion I know of that specifically singles out dark skinned people as bad.
Edit: Even so, why would it matter? Black only churches would still be able to exist. I don't see why on private property, and for nonessential things like religion, why it matters if people can invite only the people that they choose to.
The Nationalists won the fight with them while simultaneously having their arses kicked by the Communists.
Actually IIRC, there was a united front between the communists and Kuomintang during World War II. To Mao's credit, the communist did liberate and stabilize sizable pockets of countryside. He just let the KMT do most of the meat-grinder fighting in the cities. Not courageous, but pretty damn smart if you ask me.
"Fluoride in the water" isn't a big deal. Trust me, much worse gets dumped.
I'd argue that the banking system is the problem, not the Fed,
I'm cool with banning nukes, but not energy. Nuclear Energy is very clean and efficient as long as the sites are well maintained and people know what they're doing.
Agree with everything else.
I know, and that has to be dealt with too. But fluoride is being purposely dumped when it shouldn't be.
My idea was that after the Fed Reserve gets banned along with its currency, the US bankers become powerless and dismantled.
Yeah, but after the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear disasters, I would not want to even risk experiencing any accidents. Nuclear is too dangerous for the environment and everyone else.
They only acted as support troops, never engaging the Japanese directly. Where they did fight directly on occasion, these victories were small and largely insignificant. Mao even had an agreement with Chiang Kai-shek that the Chinese Red Army would never have to directly engage them. This deal did not last, as one can imagine.
Credible source?
Well, completely abandoning the U.S. dollar would hurt the bankers but it would also probably cause an unprecedented crash of the world economy. Plus you never stated WHY US currency should be abandoned, or the Fed.
i'll take the accidents over completely destroying the planet by continuing our current course. The risks are completely manageable, sensationalization by the media and big oil rhetoric makes it seem more dangerous than it probably is.
"Fluoride is a mineral that occurs naturally and is released from rocks into the soil, water, and air. Almost all water contains some fluoride, but usually not enough to prevent tooth decay.
Fluoride can also be added to drinking water supplies as a public health measure for reducing cavities. Decisions about adding fluoride to drinking water are made at the state or local level."
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/faqs/#fluoride1
And that's harmful how? Like I said, much worse stuff is dumped regularly.
So am I an illegal or am I the oppressor now? Either way, you can't be President :P
I'll do some later, for a start: look on the first page
You asked for a credible source in response to him saying it was added to the water on purpose. I provided you one.
Edit: Also, just because worse things are dumped doesn't mean less bad things shouldn't be removed.
From what you said it isn't a bad thing, more like a neutral thing.
Actually salt reactors are extremely safe and practically impossible to go catastrophic (because, in laymen terms, they require action to produce energy, whereas older versions (the ones that went nuclear) required action to stop the process). The only downside to new generation nuclear power plants are the radioactive remnants, which can be dealth with rather easily (there's plenty of space in space!).
People play far too much Fallout and hear too much about the devastation of nuclear bombs.
Where is it? Your new reply, I just went looking for it, but didn't find it?
I don't think what religions it would apply to matters, it's a theoretical question.
It would matter because often people think that it's okay to do x to gay people such as refusing to serve them, but for black people it's more obvious to them why someone refusing to serve them is kind of grim.
So basically more ways Newt Gingrich fucked the country...
Yup pretty much. He also took measures to increase the power of house speakers.
It's funny that Fallout players only think about nuclear war, rather than the fact that America in the Fallout timeline uses nuclear energy to advance technology (let's be honest, we all want a Mr Handy robot).
But why should a theoretically private organization have to serve anyone they don't want to serve? Beyond just religions, what of other private groups? Should communities/organizations built only of Mexican-American individuals start having to let in Chinese? Should religious clubs be forced to allow atheists to become leaders of their group? Basically, can any private group only have the people it wants, or does everything have to be open to everyone all the time?
I'd be better than Trump that's for damn sure.
So many comments, so little time, but finally I have some time to actually review them. Since you mentioned the "all black churches", I must say that that in itself is racism. No matter what your skin color, by refusing another person because the color of their skin differs from yours is racism.
Yet for some reason, particularly in the eyes of the Liberal media, it's okay for the black race to have "All Black Churches". And yet if the white race was to have "All White Churches", they would immediately be crucified - no pun intended.
And since I mentioned Liberals, who are members of the Democratic party, they like to maintain that they stand against racism, and stand for racial equality, yet history shows time and again that Democrats were in favor of Slavery, as they were with segregating the American Indians. It was the Whig party, which later became the Republican party in 1861, that objected to these things.
Davy Crockett was a member of the Republican party, and as most historical oriented people know, he fought to defend the Indians from being removed from their native homelands and forced onto reservations, unlike then president Andrew Jackson, who was a Democrat, and who instigated the Indian Removal act, which stipulated that the Indians be moved to reservations. It is noteworthy that given Davy Crockett's history with the Indians, people who murdered his Grandparents, and who forced him to leave his family to fight in the Creek War of 1812, it is remarkable that he stepped up do be their defender, even though Jackson's legislation greatly benefited his Tennessee constituency.
President Abraham Lincoln, who was also of the Republican party, fought to end slavery. Unlike Confederate President Jefferson Davis, who was fighting to keep slavery going, and who was along a Democrat.
Not to mention the Democrats are hung up on Political Correctness. And the problem with that is is that Political Correctness basically stipulates that non-white races are so sensitive, that you can't laugh and joke with them like you would any other person. And thus it not only sucks the fun out of life, but also serves to divide people, instead of uniting them.
And on a sidenote, I would rather live in a world where I can laugh and joke with a person, regardless of their skin color and risk offending them, than have to walk eggshells every time I'm around someone of a different skin color, or who's ethnic background is different from my own.
Now I'm NOT saying that modern democrats are in favor of slavery and racial segregation. But that is historically what their political party has stood for.
But I digress!
And let be very clear, my stance has nothing whatsoever to do with racism, as certain users seem to be implying. I'm simply stand for equal treatment, and protecting the rights of individuals. If Gays want to marry, that's their business. But they should not be allowed to bully others when they don't get their way.
Legalizing all drugs?
I mean, seems a bit dangerous to me.
Drugs are so easy to get that I don't know if it'd really make that much of a difference. I'm sure it would, it's just astonishing how easy it is to get drugs right now though.
I still think that an increase in drug use and addictions would occur.
All I can think of at the moment.
I disagree. Drug addiction has much more to do with one's social environment than the availability of drugs. I think the key would be to legalize everything under careful supervision rather than just saying "fuck it, buy whatever you want."
Imagine what it would be like if doctors could prescribe heroin like they could in the old days. Heroin addicts wouldn't have to fiend for the next hit. They could get their drug in regular, safe doses, greatly decreasing the chance of overdosing. Instead of stealing scrap metal and selling their bodies for the next fix they could hold down a job (well, some jobs...) and live a relatively normal life.
The current system is designed to keep addict in the miserable conditions that contribute to their drug use instead of helping addicts slowly get over it. At the same time, the "drug addiction as a disease" narrative has faults because chemical dependency is just one of the many factors that contributes to addiction.
Hmm, you do bring up good points, though I'm still uncertain of it.
Oh.. I can imagine me being assassinated within a week.