I know - it's pathetic.
Martha was banned because she has a criminal record. She was sentenced to five months in prison after being found guilty of lying to investigators during an investigation into whether she and her stockbroker had been involved in insider trading.
I'd say that there are more "deserving" bans than her. It may not be acceptable, but inside trading DOES go on. She's not exactly a threat to most people is she? Funny how known terrorists can be deported and then get back in again!
TRUMP!
Re: TRUMP!
I read that Sarah Palin has endorsed Donald Trump. Nothing wrong with THAT picture. 
Re: TRUMP!
And now ... Jerry Falwell Jr. has given HIS endorsement to Trump.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... ses-trump/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... ses-trump/
-
Icey
Re: TRUMP!
I'd never heard of Jerry Falwell Jr. until I read your link.
I can't comment about the man, other than to say that politics and religion don't mix.
I don't doubt that Donald's an astute businessman, and that may be the attraction for thousands of voters, rather than voting for someone who's steeped in old political views, but saying prayers isn't going to give people jobs and help with the threats which surround us. Of course, it's appealing to the Born Again Christians, who'll think favourably of the man, and he, being aware of this'll push it to try and gain more support.
It's an interesting scenario, and everyone'll have to wait and see.
I can't comment about the man, other than to say that politics and religion don't mix.
I don't doubt that Donald's an astute businessman, and that may be the attraction for thousands of voters, rather than voting for someone who's steeped in old political views, but saying prayers isn't going to give people jobs and help with the threats which surround us. Of course, it's appealing to the Born Again Christians, who'll think favourably of the man, and he, being aware of this'll push it to try and gain more support.
It's an interesting scenario, and everyone'll have to wait and see.
Re: TRUMP!
Falwell represents the extreme religious right sects; Evangelicals. These people are very fussy about who they support, but it is due to big money from their organizations that George Bush became president. I don't think Trump has the wholehearted support from these religious groups as did Bush, and in many places they are seen as nut cases. Then again ... there are a lot of them in Iowa (which is where the first primaries will be held in a few weeks).
-
Icey
Re: TRUMP!
Oh lol! Sorry, but they all sound as bad as over here. I shake my head sometimes, and wonder exactly who's running the asylum.
Re: TRUMP!
I have no faith at all in the American Sheeple. After all, they elected a Muslim TWICE, just to get the free goodies he promised.
Re: TRUMP!
I'm still completely clueless as to how some folks think that Obama is a Muslim. Don't get me wrong...I DESPISE this man! Still, he shaves, he eats bacon, and he drinks beer. If, in fact, he IS a Muslim, he must be the worst. Muslim. ever.!!! Just my humble opinion, for what little it's worth...
"The miracle is this: the more we share, the more we have." -- Leonard Nimoy (1931-2015)
-
Icey
Re: TRUMP!
Well he was sworn into office with his hand on a bible. He might've come from Muslim stock, but that doesn't make him one. I'd say that he'd be in a better position to see both sides, rather than someone who was brought up to believe in one way only.
What do I know though? I can only judge by what we read, and by what's printed about Cameron's talks with him.
I understand that some may distrust the man. It seems to be based on the colour of his skin and his background though. Whether he's honoured his policies or not, I don't know, but I know that our lot haven't!
What do I know though? I can only judge by what we read, and by what's printed about Cameron's talks with him.
I understand that some may distrust the man. It seems to be based on the colour of his skin and his background though. Whether he's honoured his policies or not, I don't know, but I know that our lot haven't!
Re: TRUMP!
Look at all those he has appointed to to level positions, and those he released from duty.
-
Icey
Re: TRUMP!
We don't read much about that Gary, so I can't comment, but look at it this way - if someone shows they're capable of doing a job, then the colour of their skin doesn't - or shouldn't - matter.
If you were to govern a largely black community, you'd probably replace some of the people with white members. It probably wouldn't have anything to do with their colour or creed, but because you'd want people who could uphold the laws and policies which you agreed with yourself, and which people like yourself'd be more liable to understand and be able to back you up.
I don't doubt that Obama doesn't suit all. Nether would Trump or anyone else. No one agrees totally with another person, although in principle, things might seem acceptable.
Obama's given no indication, as far as I know, that he wishes to turn everyone into a Muslim. His stance on gun control, although watered down to what he'd really like to see, irks many people who refuse to accept change.
As Yogi pointed out, the American way of looking at things is based on a fear of government rule. Rightly, people should object to certain things - but this fear's irrational. New ideas aren't usually half as bad upon implementation as folk think they're going to be. All new laws, all over the world, make people feel as though their freedom's being taken away, be it in bringing in higher taxes or some sort of prohibition, but there could be some sense in it.
The latest one over here's to ask people not to smoke in public places in towns and cities. Anyone who disobeys this request isn't fined or jailed (yet!), but they're asked to stub their smokes out if caught doing it. One of the Scottish cities's made this a rule everywhere, and up to present, most people're abiding by it and actually think it's not a bad thing. Personally, I feel it's past a joke, but they did it with drinking in the streets, and I have to say that places're all the better for it. Drunks wandering round with bottles and cans in their hands was off-putting to the general public going about their daily lives. The same with beggars. A lot of these've been moved on, or beg through "legitimate" means by selling newspapers for whatever amount people'll offer them.
If you were to govern a largely black community, you'd probably replace some of the people with white members. It probably wouldn't have anything to do with their colour or creed, but because you'd want people who could uphold the laws and policies which you agreed with yourself, and which people like yourself'd be more liable to understand and be able to back you up.
I don't doubt that Obama doesn't suit all. Nether would Trump or anyone else. No one agrees totally with another person, although in principle, things might seem acceptable.
Obama's given no indication, as far as I know, that he wishes to turn everyone into a Muslim. His stance on gun control, although watered down to what he'd really like to see, irks many people who refuse to accept change.
As Yogi pointed out, the American way of looking at things is based on a fear of government rule. Rightly, people should object to certain things - but this fear's irrational. New ideas aren't usually half as bad upon implementation as folk think they're going to be. All new laws, all over the world, make people feel as though their freedom's being taken away, be it in bringing in higher taxes or some sort of prohibition, but there could be some sense in it.
The latest one over here's to ask people not to smoke in public places in towns and cities. Anyone who disobeys this request isn't fined or jailed (yet!), but they're asked to stub their smokes out if caught doing it. One of the Scottish cities's made this a rule everywhere, and up to present, most people're abiding by it and actually think it's not a bad thing. Personally, I feel it's past a joke, but they did it with drinking in the streets, and I have to say that places're all the better for it. Drunks wandering round with bottles and cans in their hands was off-putting to the general public going about their daily lives. The same with beggars. A lot of these've been moved on, or beg through "legitimate" means by selling newspapers for whatever amount people'll offer them.
Re: TRUMP!
Fear of the government is NOT "irrational," Icey. Here in the USA, police officers murder people in their homes or on the streets and are NOT held accountable for their actions. The Patriot Act, the "no-fly" lists, the border checkpoints and other rules put in place for the purpose of "national security" have done NOTHING to keep us "safe" (show me where the TSA has EVER apprehended a "real" terrorist!), but HAVE done much to restrict freedom of movement for many people. Those on the "no-fly" list aren't even informed as to WHY they're on it (such information is "classified"), and, once on this list, good luck getting off it, even if you're put on such a list mistakenly! Call me paranoid if you will, but honestly, I don't think that the government gives a hairy rat's ass about my "best interest" OR my safety, and I CERTAINLY would not trust them to look out for or to actually promote it! Also, in my humble opinion, there is *never* any "sense" in laws which have a negative effect on a person's liberty. As long as one is not stealing from or harming another individual, what ANY person does is his or her own business, and NOBODY else's!
"The miracle is this: the more we share, the more we have." -- Leonard Nimoy (1931-2015)
-
Icey
Re: TRUMP!
Good points Cindy, but as you've just said: " As long as one is not stealing from or harming another individual ..."
The problem is, that many of the things which people do "because they have a right to", often DO harm other people, as lax gun laws show.
Smoking might seem harmless to everyone but the smoker, but it's not.
Lead was cut from petrol because of the dangerous fumes, although un-leaded's now known to spew out toxins which're equally as bad.
The habits that we all have ARE capable of harming the atmosphere and other people, but sadly the powers that be refuse to accept that plenty of other things which they allow can also do the same thing.
I can't speak for your government, and there'll always be opposition to some of the decisions made. The situation with some of your police officers's already happened here, but again, if they weren't so trigger-happy, these awful things wouldn't happen half so much. Not all cops are bad cops, and not all members of government are bad people either. The latter just seems so when stupid policies're implemented and people daren't stand up and argue otherwise. There are always 2 sides to an argument though, and this's where it gets difficult.
There are also times when authorities HAVE to step in. You say that a person's business is their own, so long as they're not harming others, but some people can't see any wrong in what they might be doing, so left to their own devices, they'll carry on. Take paedophiles as an instance. They often say that they love children, but their urges're wrongly directed and they can't see it. Without someone intervenes or they're caught red-handed, they'd just think that it's OK to behave in the manner they do. The same goes for men who think it's alright to smack and bully their womenfolk around. They think it's alright. It's NOT alright, even if the women in question aren't hurt much. So yes, by trying to prevent these things happening, the law often comes down hard on the perpetrators, and rightly so.
Some of your states've made cannabis legal. Is that the right thing to do? Would you trust a smoker to drive your children and grandchildren to school? People demanded the right to smoke if they pleased, but it's no worse or no better than having a drunk behind the wheel, so is that OK? I think not, and when laws're made which come down on the people who argue that they have a right to be left alone and to get on with what they do, each case's questionable.
No law that goes against a person's personal feelings is going to be popular, but sometimes it might be best to implement them.
I'm not saying that people should have all their liberties stripped away. That gives rise to riots and refusing to abide by any laws which seem to infringe on their freedom, but if someone truly believes that they're doing the best thing, they should explain why, and let the people judge in a level-headed manner. One of the problems is that people get immediately angry if things don't go their way. This perpetuates a mob mentality and all sense goes out of the window.
I, for one, would hate to be in charge of a country. No one can appease everyone, but consideration has to made in respect of understanding what people DON'T like, and as we all know, this doesn't happen, so a lot of people're left feeling very resentful and against the establishments.
The problem is, that many of the things which people do "because they have a right to", often DO harm other people, as lax gun laws show.
Smoking might seem harmless to everyone but the smoker, but it's not.
Lead was cut from petrol because of the dangerous fumes, although un-leaded's now known to spew out toxins which're equally as bad.
The habits that we all have ARE capable of harming the atmosphere and other people, but sadly the powers that be refuse to accept that plenty of other things which they allow can also do the same thing.
I can't speak for your government, and there'll always be opposition to some of the decisions made. The situation with some of your police officers's already happened here, but again, if they weren't so trigger-happy, these awful things wouldn't happen half so much. Not all cops are bad cops, and not all members of government are bad people either. The latter just seems so when stupid policies're implemented and people daren't stand up and argue otherwise. There are always 2 sides to an argument though, and this's where it gets difficult.
There are also times when authorities HAVE to step in. You say that a person's business is their own, so long as they're not harming others, but some people can't see any wrong in what they might be doing, so left to their own devices, they'll carry on. Take paedophiles as an instance. They often say that they love children, but their urges're wrongly directed and they can't see it. Without someone intervenes or they're caught red-handed, they'd just think that it's OK to behave in the manner they do. The same goes for men who think it's alright to smack and bully their womenfolk around. They think it's alright. It's NOT alright, even if the women in question aren't hurt much. So yes, by trying to prevent these things happening, the law often comes down hard on the perpetrators, and rightly so.
Some of your states've made cannabis legal. Is that the right thing to do? Would you trust a smoker to drive your children and grandchildren to school? People demanded the right to smoke if they pleased, but it's no worse or no better than having a drunk behind the wheel, so is that OK? I think not, and when laws're made which come down on the people who argue that they have a right to be left alone and to get on with what they do, each case's questionable.
No law that goes against a person's personal feelings is going to be popular, but sometimes it might be best to implement them.
I'm not saying that people should have all their liberties stripped away. That gives rise to riots and refusing to abide by any laws which seem to infringe on their freedom, but if someone truly believes that they're doing the best thing, they should explain why, and let the people judge in a level-headed manner. One of the problems is that people get immediately angry if things don't go their way. This perpetuates a mob mentality and all sense goes out of the window.
I, for one, would hate to be in charge of a country. No one can appease everyone, but consideration has to made in respect of understanding what people DON'T like, and as we all know, this doesn't happen, so a lot of people're left feeling very resentful and against the establishments.
Re: TRUMP!
Would I trust a cannabis smoker to drive my grandchildren to school? As long as the person was NOT under the influence (i.e., "stoned") at the time, sure, why not?? There are already laws in my state (and in all other states in the US, I'm certain) against operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, and yet alcohol remains legal. If you want to get right down to it, alcohol is FAR more deadly than cannabis. One can die from acute alcohol poisoning, and I won't even mention the deaths caused by alcohol-related violence and traffic accidents. Again, I'm of the opinion that if one *wants* to put a chemical substance into one's body, it's nobody else's freaking business! And, if the person in question is idiot enough to drive while under the influence of said substance, he/she will have to take his/her chances with law enforcement, just as a person who drives while intoxicated by alcohol does.
Re: the pedophile thing, most states ALSO have an "age of consent" for minors before one can legally engage in sexual activity with said minor. In my home state of Michigan, when I was a teen, the age of consent was 16. If somebody was stupid enough to try to have sex with me before then and got caught, he'd have been nailed for statutory rape. As far as I know, such laws are still in effect, so it's ALREADY against the law to have sex with children, and I have no doubt that your average pedophile is already well aware of that fact.
As far as the smoking goes, it's become illegal to smoke in the majority of public places, and I really have no problem with that. As a former smoker, I *always* thought it would be rude for me to smoke in the presence of a non-smoker, and always took steps to make certain that I did NOT do so. But I DO have a problem with the "blanket" smoking ban. WHY?? Because it removes the element of "choice" from the owners of private businesses (some of whom, I am certain, smoke themselves). These people are the ones who are risking their money, their assets, etc. in conducting their business, and they pay taxes and fees for the "privilege" of doing so. What's wrong with allowing those same business owners to make their OWN choices as to whether they wish to allow smoking in their establishment(s)? They could post a sign conspicuously, saying something like "smoking allowed (or, is NOT allowed) in this facility." Then, the people arriving at their establishment can DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES whether or not they wish to patronize said establishment. Where's the harm there? Honestly, it appears that all of these people who want to "regulate" the ever-loving s**t out of our lives wish for nothing more than to use the long arm of the law to force the rest of us to live as they see fit!! It wasn't that long ago that NYC was taking heat in the news because it was illegal for them to sell large-sized sodas to their patrons. This whole "nanny state" idea leaves me cold...as a full-grown adult who PAYS her bills (as well as helping to pay the bills of some of the "parasites" among us), I believe that I should have the right to make my own choices, again, as long as I am not causing harm to anyone else.
Re: the pedophile thing, most states ALSO have an "age of consent" for minors before one can legally engage in sexual activity with said minor. In my home state of Michigan, when I was a teen, the age of consent was 16. If somebody was stupid enough to try to have sex with me before then and got caught, he'd have been nailed for statutory rape. As far as I know, such laws are still in effect, so it's ALREADY against the law to have sex with children, and I have no doubt that your average pedophile is already well aware of that fact.
As far as the smoking goes, it's become illegal to smoke in the majority of public places, and I really have no problem with that. As a former smoker, I *always* thought it would be rude for me to smoke in the presence of a non-smoker, and always took steps to make certain that I did NOT do so. But I DO have a problem with the "blanket" smoking ban. WHY?? Because it removes the element of "choice" from the owners of private businesses (some of whom, I am certain, smoke themselves). These people are the ones who are risking their money, their assets, etc. in conducting their business, and they pay taxes and fees for the "privilege" of doing so. What's wrong with allowing those same business owners to make their OWN choices as to whether they wish to allow smoking in their establishment(s)? They could post a sign conspicuously, saying something like "smoking allowed (or, is NOT allowed) in this facility." Then, the people arriving at their establishment can DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES whether or not they wish to patronize said establishment. Where's the harm there? Honestly, it appears that all of these people who want to "regulate" the ever-loving s**t out of our lives wish for nothing more than to use the long arm of the law to force the rest of us to live as they see fit!! It wasn't that long ago that NYC was taking heat in the news because it was illegal for them to sell large-sized sodas to their patrons. This whole "nanny state" idea leaves me cold...as a full-grown adult who PAYS her bills (as well as helping to pay the bills of some of the "parasites" among us), I believe that I should have the right to make my own choices, again, as long as I am not causing harm to anyone else.
Last edited by brandtrn on 30 Jan 2016, 19:15, edited 4 times in total.
"The miracle is this: the more we share, the more we have." -- Leonard Nimoy (1931-2015)
Re: TRUMP!
It's all much deeper than you realize Icey.
Let me say a bit about smoking and smokers first.
Although smoking is not good for you, and does have some problems associated with it, they are minimal compared to the false propaganda which fueled the smoking bans in our country.
Nearly every person who has lived past the age of 90 smoked their entire lives, and there are several centenarians who have done so as well. This is well beyond the average lifespan of 74 years.
FWIW: No agency or government has ever conducted a Test on Tobacco!
If you follow along with me, you'll see why this is true.
The FDA (Federal Drug Administration) has approved as SAFE over 599 chemicals for use in the manufacture of store bought cigarettes. 43 of these are KNOWN Carcinogens, and 63 are suspected Carcinogens.
What the agencies and government has tested are store bought cigarettes, which are Contaminated with the above named chemicals.
If you put those same chemicals in distilled water and ran the same type of tests they did on cigarettes, water would be just as deadly, since it contains all the same chemicals the FDA has already approved as Safe.
Tobacco itself does contain tar and nicotine and several other toxic elements. No argument there.
But so does Coffee, Tea, and most artificial sweeteners, and almost all food additives.
The smoking bans had nothing at all to do with public health. It was entirely a control issue for the government to see how easy it would be to impose further restrictions, such as the ban on guns.
There were little to no complaints about smokers, and in fact there were often compliments given to pipe smokers, no problems with smokers over the past couple of hundred years. It all started when the government decided to start issuing propaganda to see how much they could control the populace. Since most smokers are fairly docile, they managed to get by with the fines, high taxes, and bans currently in place.
Just like the Ozone Scare left fines, taxes, and bans in its wake. They are still in place, although the truth finally came out.
Gun owners are not as docile as cigarette smokers, and the government does not have the power to enact a gun ban, and for several reasons.
The first being it is against our Constitution. So is their attempt at changing our Constitution.
The second being, the Federal Government works for us, they are not our dictators.
Third, they cannot usurp the rights of States to enact their own laws.
And as you know by news reports, the Federal Government is OVERSTEPPING their bounds in many areas, all of which are illegal for them to do.
Poly-TICK-ians have become so corrupt, they think they are already dictators!
Most of these got their start at city, county, and state levels, working their way up to total corruption.
Just like Driving Laws are fairly universal throughout our nation, they are still under the direct control of the individual states. Each state has agreed to nationalize some of the driving laws, and allowed the Federal Government to make these laws official across the USA. The Federal Government did not do this, the States did.
The same applies to gun laws. Each State has their own rules concerning gun ownership.
Each State has their own Constitution, which cannot override THE Constitution which is the unanimous law of the land.
It is not the Federal Governments place to dictate how the individual States establish the controls for their own State. When the 2/3 majority of States have a mutual law enacted by them, they may or may not ask for a national vote of the people to make this law the law of the land, which then places it on the Federal ballot.
Just like a Drivers License from one State is recognized as Valid in all 50 States, due to the request of the 2/3 majority of States to make it so Nationally. Does not give the Federal Government to add to those laws on their own.
The same applies to gun laws. When 2/3 of the States agree on the same restriction, such as a fully-automatic weapon cannot be owned by a civilian, they can ask it to become a National Law. But the Federal Government DOES NOT HAVE THIS AUTHORITY.
King Obama thinks he can do anything he wants, and have it apply to everyone. He illegally uses Executive Orders to usurp his authority and the Constitution.
THIS my dear Icey is what we are AGAINST. It just so happens the GUN GRAB ISSUE is the one he is presently and illegally pursuing.
WE THE PEOPLE HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF HIM AND THE CORRUPT POLY-TICK-IANS!
What happened when Britain tried to take away our guns?
You are going to see the same thing happen again when King Obama makes the same attempt.
Despite all the Nuclear Weapons at his disposal, our Military SWORE to uphold our Constitution!
He will have to establish his own military, which he is already doing, to even make the attempt.
A Gun Grab by King Obama is a Lose Lose Situation for both sides.
He will have to kill the majority of citizens, which is his reason for buying millions of coffin's, and those he doesn't kill will be placed in Concentration Camps, pending death, also known as FEMA Camps.
Is he stupid enough to use nuclear weapons against the citizens of the USofA?
Most think he is, which is why he must be stopped, before he destroys half the planet.
Technically, according to our Constitution, citizens should be able to own the same level of armament the government owns to use against us. However, the states have agreed we don't need that kind of fire power. And we all went along with it.
The Federal Government does not even want us to own a single shot weapon. Even a cap and ball pistol with six rounds is on their gun grab list. Any firearm which can be fired each time you pull the trigger they are calling an Assault Weapon, which is a lie they are propagating heavily right now.
A Machine Gun, pull the trigger once and it keeps firing is an Assault Weapon. Not the little six shooter cap and ball black powder pistol they also claim is an Assault Weapon.
It doesn't matter what the Federal Government attempts to do. They Do NOT have the legal right to do so!
More than 2/3 of us citizens who do own guns, will fight to our death to PRESERVE our Constitution.
Back in the late 1800s, when you rode into a Town, there was Often a Law that you had to turn your gun in at the Sheriffs Office while you were in town. This law still applies in many cities, unless you have a Permit to Carry. Only for convenience, you may leave your gun at home, or in some cities, in your car.
Most states already have some very logical gun control laws in place. Even those with a permit to carry cannot do so while in a tavern boozing it up. They cannot drive a car after boozing it up. These are logical laws I think everyone will agree on.
Murder is against the law Nationally.
Assault with a deadly weapon is against the law Nationally.
Carrying a weapon without a Permit is against the law in most states.
Flourishing a deadly weapon is against the law in most states.
Some states now recommend you carry a loaded weapon in your car.
While other archaic states still say if you have a gun in your car, the bullets must be in the trunk, or vice versa.
These states are akin to Barney Fife, who carries his single bullet in his shirt pocket.
Why does Homeland Security NEED 600 bullets for each citizen in the USofA?
Who are they going to use them on?
I think you already see on the News WHO they are using them on. US Citizens!
With the Government AGAINST US, or last form of defense is our meager weapons, and we ARE NOT giving them up. If we do, it will be the end of us for sure!
Let me say a bit about smoking and smokers first.
Although smoking is not good for you, and does have some problems associated with it, they are minimal compared to the false propaganda which fueled the smoking bans in our country.
Nearly every person who has lived past the age of 90 smoked their entire lives, and there are several centenarians who have done so as well. This is well beyond the average lifespan of 74 years.
FWIW: No agency or government has ever conducted a Test on Tobacco!
If you follow along with me, you'll see why this is true.
The FDA (Federal Drug Administration) has approved as SAFE over 599 chemicals for use in the manufacture of store bought cigarettes. 43 of these are KNOWN Carcinogens, and 63 are suspected Carcinogens.
What the agencies and government has tested are store bought cigarettes, which are Contaminated with the above named chemicals.
If you put those same chemicals in distilled water and ran the same type of tests they did on cigarettes, water would be just as deadly, since it contains all the same chemicals the FDA has already approved as Safe.
Tobacco itself does contain tar and nicotine and several other toxic elements. No argument there.
But so does Coffee, Tea, and most artificial sweeteners, and almost all food additives.
The smoking bans had nothing at all to do with public health. It was entirely a control issue for the government to see how easy it would be to impose further restrictions, such as the ban on guns.
There were little to no complaints about smokers, and in fact there were often compliments given to pipe smokers, no problems with smokers over the past couple of hundred years. It all started when the government decided to start issuing propaganda to see how much they could control the populace. Since most smokers are fairly docile, they managed to get by with the fines, high taxes, and bans currently in place.
Just like the Ozone Scare left fines, taxes, and bans in its wake. They are still in place, although the truth finally came out.
Gun owners are not as docile as cigarette smokers, and the government does not have the power to enact a gun ban, and for several reasons.
The first being it is against our Constitution. So is their attempt at changing our Constitution.
The second being, the Federal Government works for us, they are not our dictators.
Third, they cannot usurp the rights of States to enact their own laws.
And as you know by news reports, the Federal Government is OVERSTEPPING their bounds in many areas, all of which are illegal for them to do.
Poly-TICK-ians have become so corrupt, they think they are already dictators!
Most of these got their start at city, county, and state levels, working their way up to total corruption.
Just like Driving Laws are fairly universal throughout our nation, they are still under the direct control of the individual states. Each state has agreed to nationalize some of the driving laws, and allowed the Federal Government to make these laws official across the USA. The Federal Government did not do this, the States did.
The same applies to gun laws. Each State has their own rules concerning gun ownership.
Each State has their own Constitution, which cannot override THE Constitution which is the unanimous law of the land.
It is not the Federal Governments place to dictate how the individual States establish the controls for their own State. When the 2/3 majority of States have a mutual law enacted by them, they may or may not ask for a national vote of the people to make this law the law of the land, which then places it on the Federal ballot.
Just like a Drivers License from one State is recognized as Valid in all 50 States, due to the request of the 2/3 majority of States to make it so Nationally. Does not give the Federal Government to add to those laws on their own.
The same applies to gun laws. When 2/3 of the States agree on the same restriction, such as a fully-automatic weapon cannot be owned by a civilian, they can ask it to become a National Law. But the Federal Government DOES NOT HAVE THIS AUTHORITY.
King Obama thinks he can do anything he wants, and have it apply to everyone. He illegally uses Executive Orders to usurp his authority and the Constitution.
THIS my dear Icey is what we are AGAINST. It just so happens the GUN GRAB ISSUE is the one he is presently and illegally pursuing.
WE THE PEOPLE HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF HIM AND THE CORRUPT POLY-TICK-IANS!
What happened when Britain tried to take away our guns?
You are going to see the same thing happen again when King Obama makes the same attempt.
Despite all the Nuclear Weapons at his disposal, our Military SWORE to uphold our Constitution!
He will have to establish his own military, which he is already doing, to even make the attempt.
A Gun Grab by King Obama is a Lose Lose Situation for both sides.
He will have to kill the majority of citizens, which is his reason for buying millions of coffin's, and those he doesn't kill will be placed in Concentration Camps, pending death, also known as FEMA Camps.
Is he stupid enough to use nuclear weapons against the citizens of the USofA?
Most think he is, which is why he must be stopped, before he destroys half the planet.
Technically, according to our Constitution, citizens should be able to own the same level of armament the government owns to use against us. However, the states have agreed we don't need that kind of fire power. And we all went along with it.
The Federal Government does not even want us to own a single shot weapon. Even a cap and ball pistol with six rounds is on their gun grab list. Any firearm which can be fired each time you pull the trigger they are calling an Assault Weapon, which is a lie they are propagating heavily right now.
A Machine Gun, pull the trigger once and it keeps firing is an Assault Weapon. Not the little six shooter cap and ball black powder pistol they also claim is an Assault Weapon.
It doesn't matter what the Federal Government attempts to do. They Do NOT have the legal right to do so!
More than 2/3 of us citizens who do own guns, will fight to our death to PRESERVE our Constitution.
Back in the late 1800s, when you rode into a Town, there was Often a Law that you had to turn your gun in at the Sheriffs Office while you were in town. This law still applies in many cities, unless you have a Permit to Carry. Only for convenience, you may leave your gun at home, or in some cities, in your car.
Most states already have some very logical gun control laws in place. Even those with a permit to carry cannot do so while in a tavern boozing it up. They cannot drive a car after boozing it up. These are logical laws I think everyone will agree on.
Murder is against the law Nationally.
Assault with a deadly weapon is against the law Nationally.
Carrying a weapon without a Permit is against the law in most states.
Flourishing a deadly weapon is against the law in most states.
Some states now recommend you carry a loaded weapon in your car.
While other archaic states still say if you have a gun in your car, the bullets must be in the trunk, or vice versa.
These states are akin to Barney Fife, who carries his single bullet in his shirt pocket.
Why does Homeland Security NEED 600 bullets for each citizen in the USofA?
Who are they going to use them on?
I think you already see on the News WHO they are using them on. US Citizens!
With the Government AGAINST US, or last form of defense is our meager weapons, and we ARE NOT giving them up. If we do, it will be the end of us for sure!
-
Icey
Re: TRUMP!
OK guys, I DO take all your points, even though I sometimes offer a different opinion. Our two countries're pretty much alike, and yet not. Only those who're deeply into politics can really compare one against the other, because although we're becoming more and more like the USA, we still have lots of differences in the way our countries're run, and some of our old ways'll stick, just as yours with your Constitution. I don't know how much you hear about us over here, but our own TV channels and news departments're pretty open and honest. They'll publish the facts, and have open debates, although many think that the BBC have a bias!
To smoking dope and drinking, well of course it's up the individual - or should be - but because so many people abuse substances and cause trouble, laws keep coming out to try and prevent all this. Of course, they don't really work, but the underlying ideas might have a degree of common sense attached to them if people'd just stop to consider them carefully.
To Cindy's cannabis smoking and driving, I can't agree with it, even if the person's not exactly stoned. Breath, blood and urine tests're done over here when a motoring accident occurs, but in order not to have some reading showing after even just one spliff, the drivers would've had to've had some cannabis minus the THC in it, and how many do that unless they're using medicinal products?
Cannabis in itself isn't the shock-horror of drugs. If a person wants to smoke it at home - fair enough - but even then, I wouldn't advocate it around kids. I used to know a couple who smoked regularly - if not a lot at once - and you could see clouds of it wafting around the room that their baby slept in. The child soon went to sleep when the joints came out, and seemed to be affected by them on waking. This disturbed me, and I stopped visiting these people, giving them the reasons why. Neither of the couple smoke weed these days, but their child still seems "dopey".
Drinking's much worse. It can do untold damage, and I truly think that because of the way in which young people knock it back (including myself, once upon a time), that they ought to raise the drinking age to 21. This wouldn't do any good though. You can buy it cheaper at supermarkets than in a pub, and it's even sold at some of our petrol stations - which I find appallingly encouraging to those who fancy a tipple.
Please don't get me wrong. I'm in agreement with both of you that there's a lot wrong in the way that our countries're run, and not a huge deal we can do about it.
Gary, you say that people're ready to stand up and fight for what they believe in, but don't you think that the government knows this, and that's why they've stockpiled guns and ammunition? If they feel under threat, they're going to respond. They can't have x amount of citizens causing civil war, and yet they've only themselves to blame, so it sounds like tit for tat - just in case!
I don't think Obama or anyone else's going to be stupid enough to nuke your own country. No one wants to be the one to start amageddon, and that's what'd happen, but as an outsider, you're right, I probably don't understand the situation.
It's no good complaining about the laws of other countries, because I'm not qualified to comment really, but your answers teach me a lot about our differences. Let's just hope that we all live happily until our natural demise. : )
To smoking dope and drinking, well of course it's up the individual - or should be - but because so many people abuse substances and cause trouble, laws keep coming out to try and prevent all this. Of course, they don't really work, but the underlying ideas might have a degree of common sense attached to them if people'd just stop to consider them carefully.
To Cindy's cannabis smoking and driving, I can't agree with it, even if the person's not exactly stoned. Breath, blood and urine tests're done over here when a motoring accident occurs, but in order not to have some reading showing after even just one spliff, the drivers would've had to've had some cannabis minus the THC in it, and how many do that unless they're using medicinal products?
Cannabis in itself isn't the shock-horror of drugs. If a person wants to smoke it at home - fair enough - but even then, I wouldn't advocate it around kids. I used to know a couple who smoked regularly - if not a lot at once - and you could see clouds of it wafting around the room that their baby slept in. The child soon went to sleep when the joints came out, and seemed to be affected by them on waking. This disturbed me, and I stopped visiting these people, giving them the reasons why. Neither of the couple smoke weed these days, but their child still seems "dopey".
Drinking's much worse. It can do untold damage, and I truly think that because of the way in which young people knock it back (including myself, once upon a time), that they ought to raise the drinking age to 21. This wouldn't do any good though. You can buy it cheaper at supermarkets than in a pub, and it's even sold at some of our petrol stations - which I find appallingly encouraging to those who fancy a tipple.
Please don't get me wrong. I'm in agreement with both of you that there's a lot wrong in the way that our countries're run, and not a huge deal we can do about it.
Gary, you say that people're ready to stand up and fight for what they believe in, but don't you think that the government knows this, and that's why they've stockpiled guns and ammunition? If they feel under threat, they're going to respond. They can't have x amount of citizens causing civil war, and yet they've only themselves to blame, so it sounds like tit for tat - just in case!
I don't think Obama or anyone else's going to be stupid enough to nuke your own country. No one wants to be the one to start amageddon, and that's what'd happen, but as an outsider, you're right, I probably don't understand the situation.
It's no good complaining about the laws of other countries, because I'm not qualified to comment really, but your answers teach me a lot about our differences. Let's just hope that we all live happily until our natural demise. : )
Re: TRUMP!
I know you guys have a tax on TV sets which you seem to go along with.
A sniffer truck drives around hunting for the sound of a flyback and width coil in operation, then checks their list to see if you are paying for all the TVs in your house. This was back before LCDs of course.
Americans thought this was appalling! But you guys see it as normal. It fuels the BBC's programming.
Here, TV Advertising is what supports the TV Stations who buy what shows they want to air from the producers.
Thousands of TV Stations united under larger networks, such as ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. which alleviates much of the work an individual station has to handle. They buy the Feed from a larger network, which carries National Advertising, leaving very few spots available for Local Advertising.
Cable TV is a whole different ballgame, but still follows the standard timing charts used by the networks.
Ironically, we probably pay a higher TV Tax than you guys do, but it is hidden in the other costs associated with owning a TV, hi hi... Rather than taxing the individual TV owners, which would be an astronomical clerical expense, they Tax the TV Stations and Show Producers. Which in the end means John Doe Consumer is who pays 100% of the taxes collected in this country. I've already mentioned how no matter how much a Corporation is Taxed, they only Profit from the Taxes they collect for the Government, and once again, John Doe Consumer pays OVER 100% of the Taxes due to compounding and Corporate Profits on Taxes collected from the people for the government.
I do not drink liquor, beer, or coffee, nor do I use drugs, other than those prescribed by a doctor, which I can't afford.
Before I turned 21, when it became legal to drink, I drank much more than my share of alcoholic beverages.
I never did like the taste of the stuff, so when I turned 21 and it was legal, it lost its allure.
I doubt there are many like me who quit after they turned 21, but nevertheless, many started drinking because it was illegal. I can honestly say, if it was not illegal to drink, I probably never would have imbibed as a teen, and I know several others who felt the same way.
On another page. I was one of the few who was allowed to drive since I was 14, but only under special circumstances.
The laws have changed since then though, so others could not get by with it. But in the era I grew up, although you had to be 16 to take the drivers test, there were special allowances which permitted me to drive even our big trucks to market.
I was driving tractors since I was 12, running large harvesters since I was 13, and taking grain all the way downtown to the mills when I was 14, and produce to the farmers markets.
Actually, the problems with law enforcement started when I turned 16 and did have my drivers license. You had to be 18 to get a Chauffeurs license. Yet, just as I had been doing for the past three years before turning 16, I was still making our run downtown to the mill, and across town to the farmers market. The few times I got stopped, because I looked too young to be driving those big trucks. I was detained sometimes for over an hour, as they checked to see if I was allowed to drive under the old rule of farm to market and back. I was 18 and had my chauffeurs license when the old farm to market rule was rescinded, so no problems after that time.
Well, until I moved south, hi hi... Tennessee Government is NASTY!
A sniffer truck drives around hunting for the sound of a flyback and width coil in operation, then checks their list to see if you are paying for all the TVs in your house. This was back before LCDs of course.
Americans thought this was appalling! But you guys see it as normal. It fuels the BBC's programming.
Here, TV Advertising is what supports the TV Stations who buy what shows they want to air from the producers.
Thousands of TV Stations united under larger networks, such as ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. which alleviates much of the work an individual station has to handle. They buy the Feed from a larger network, which carries National Advertising, leaving very few spots available for Local Advertising.
Cable TV is a whole different ballgame, but still follows the standard timing charts used by the networks.
Ironically, we probably pay a higher TV Tax than you guys do, but it is hidden in the other costs associated with owning a TV, hi hi... Rather than taxing the individual TV owners, which would be an astronomical clerical expense, they Tax the TV Stations and Show Producers. Which in the end means John Doe Consumer is who pays 100% of the taxes collected in this country. I've already mentioned how no matter how much a Corporation is Taxed, they only Profit from the Taxes they collect for the Government, and once again, John Doe Consumer pays OVER 100% of the Taxes due to compounding and Corporate Profits on Taxes collected from the people for the government.
I do not drink liquor, beer, or coffee, nor do I use drugs, other than those prescribed by a doctor, which I can't afford.
Before I turned 21, when it became legal to drink, I drank much more than my share of alcoholic beverages.
I never did like the taste of the stuff, so when I turned 21 and it was legal, it lost its allure.
I doubt there are many like me who quit after they turned 21, but nevertheless, many started drinking because it was illegal. I can honestly say, if it was not illegal to drink, I probably never would have imbibed as a teen, and I know several others who felt the same way.
On another page. I was one of the few who was allowed to drive since I was 14, but only under special circumstances.
The laws have changed since then though, so others could not get by with it. But in the era I grew up, although you had to be 16 to take the drivers test, there were special allowances which permitted me to drive even our big trucks to market.
I was driving tractors since I was 12, running large harvesters since I was 13, and taking grain all the way downtown to the mills when I was 14, and produce to the farmers markets.
Actually, the problems with law enforcement started when I turned 16 and did have my drivers license. You had to be 18 to get a Chauffeurs license. Yet, just as I had been doing for the past three years before turning 16, I was still making our run downtown to the mill, and across town to the farmers market. The few times I got stopped, because I looked too young to be driving those big trucks. I was detained sometimes for over an hour, as they checked to see if I was allowed to drive under the old rule of farm to market and back. I was 18 and had my chauffeurs license when the old farm to market rule was rescinded, so no problems after that time.
Well, until I moved south, hi hi... Tennessee Government is NASTY!
-
Icey
Re: TRUMP!
Wow. Over here, provisional driving licences can be issued to disabled applicants at 16, because they might need to have more lessons before taking their tests. For the majority, applications start at 17, but as with yourself, I was driving round on private land when I was 15. Maybe I could've done it before, but the thought never occurred to me.
A 14 year old can go into a pub if accompanied by an adult (18+), but they aren't legally able to buy alcoholic drinks until they hit that age. I used to get into nightclubs way before that, but the law's tightened up now, and proof of age's often required before someone's allowed in, and also in pubs as well.
Yes, we're all supposed to buy a TV licence. As soon as you buy a new one from a shop, your details go through to the licensing agency, and if you don't buy one, they're soon sending out reminder letters. If you don't respond, you'll have officers at your door, or vans'll come round, checking to see whether you have one on or not. All unused TV's have to be disconnected from the power points. If they're not, and're capable of receiving programmes, then if you're without a licence, you can be fined up to £1000.
Since the BBC don't show general adverts, we're paying for licences which cover the other channels, but the BBC benefit from the money, which people don't find fair. They hold the monopoly. The price of electrical goods like TVs seems to be lower in the US than over here; tvs, computers - everything like that, so it's hard on retired folk who might be living on a basic state pension, because they have to buy a licence for anything capable of receiving, on top of higher-priced goods.
The idea of free licences for those aged over 75 was very welcome, and there're concessions for the blind as well, but now the government want to take away the "freebie" and charge everyone. I don't think it's a good idea at all, but they're finding ways of extracting money by any means possible.
What sort of TV taxes do you have over there Gary? Do you mean in the over-all price of the cost of buying one?
It's now been suggested by some female minister that people over a certain age're made to take their driving tests again. The revenue'd be whopping, but although I can see WHY, they already have to provide proof from their doctor that, on reaching 70, for example, they're still fit to drive, and this's done every 3 years after that. That doctor's decision can influence whether your licence's extended or not.
Just going back to the drinking issue, it's difficult. I don't agree with youngsters drinking much alcohol, but they're going to get hold of it anyway. If they then get behind the wheel of a car, this makes them dangerous - as with any age, only perhaps worse because they have a carefree attitude and can't see what might happen.
I drank because I liked the taste of whatever I had in my glass, but it wasn't helped by the fact that many of my friends were some years older than me. I think I tried to keep up with them, which was stupid, but it seemed like good, fun nights out at the time. Luckily, the excess was cut short by me getting married. There was no way I was going to drink alcohol while I was pregnant - but oddly enough, I didn't fancy it anyway. I'd never drink and drive, so when I was left to do the school runs, it didn't enter my head to have any, either before or after. I was always running my own and other people's children to different places, and when you have a precious cargo like that on board, only an idiot'd take risks, however confident they felt that any drinking wouldn't affect their driving ability.
A 14 year old can go into a pub if accompanied by an adult (18+), but they aren't legally able to buy alcoholic drinks until they hit that age. I used to get into nightclubs way before that, but the law's tightened up now, and proof of age's often required before someone's allowed in, and also in pubs as well.
Yes, we're all supposed to buy a TV licence. As soon as you buy a new one from a shop, your details go through to the licensing agency, and if you don't buy one, they're soon sending out reminder letters. If you don't respond, you'll have officers at your door, or vans'll come round, checking to see whether you have one on or not. All unused TV's have to be disconnected from the power points. If they're not, and're capable of receiving programmes, then if you're without a licence, you can be fined up to £1000.
Since the BBC don't show general adverts, we're paying for licences which cover the other channels, but the BBC benefit from the money, which people don't find fair. They hold the monopoly. The price of electrical goods like TVs seems to be lower in the US than over here; tvs, computers - everything like that, so it's hard on retired folk who might be living on a basic state pension, because they have to buy a licence for anything capable of receiving, on top of higher-priced goods.
The idea of free licences for those aged over 75 was very welcome, and there're concessions for the blind as well, but now the government want to take away the "freebie" and charge everyone. I don't think it's a good idea at all, but they're finding ways of extracting money by any means possible.
What sort of TV taxes do you have over there Gary? Do you mean in the over-all price of the cost of buying one?
It's now been suggested by some female minister that people over a certain age're made to take their driving tests again. The revenue'd be whopping, but although I can see WHY, they already have to provide proof from their doctor that, on reaching 70, for example, they're still fit to drive, and this's done every 3 years after that. That doctor's decision can influence whether your licence's extended or not.
Just going back to the drinking issue, it's difficult. I don't agree with youngsters drinking much alcohol, but they're going to get hold of it anyway. If they then get behind the wheel of a car, this makes them dangerous - as with any age, only perhaps worse because they have a carefree attitude and can't see what might happen.
I drank because I liked the taste of whatever I had in my glass, but it wasn't helped by the fact that many of my friends were some years older than me. I think I tried to keep up with them, which was stupid, but it seemed like good, fun nights out at the time. Luckily, the excess was cut short by me getting married. There was no way I was going to drink alcohol while I was pregnant - but oddly enough, I didn't fancy it anyway. I'd never drink and drive, so when I was left to do the school runs, it didn't enter my head to have any, either before or after. I was always running my own and other people's children to different places, and when you have a precious cargo like that on board, only an idiot'd take risks, however confident they felt that any drinking wouldn't affect their driving ability.