tvc184

  That is not exactly true and they did not teach that in my school and I doubt any others. The founding fathers put taxes in the US Constitution in Article I and in fact in Section 2 they allowed income taxes where it says that there are "direct taxes" allowed.   The SCOTUS threw out income taxes in 1895 because Section 2 said that all direct taxes collected had to be "apportioned" throughout the states. Apportioned meant that the taxes collected had to be spent back at the same rate they were taken in by the states so if Texas sent in 25% of all income taxes, then 25% had to be spent back in Texas and not sent to where Congress wanted. It had to be "apportioned".    Article I Section 8 clearly says that Congress has the right to levy taxes but does not mention apportionment like Article I Section 2 which only deals with "direct taxes".   So taxes were allowed and direct (income) taxes were allowed but with limitations. They were never listed as illegal and in fact the US government cannot run without taxes and everyone including the founding fathers knew that. The problem with taxes is not that they exist but that their spending is abused.   Since Article I is the very first section of the US Constitution and in two sections it clearly talks about taxes I am not sure how you came to the conclusion that the founding fathers thought that they were evil and somehow should not exist when the colonies all signed off on it.    The apportionment problem was taken away with the 16th Amendment where it takes the requirement of apportionment away. 

    Whatever the percentage, it pales in comparison to the people that oppose him for his horrible performance.    Apparently the majority of his votes that were from whites in his first election and his poll numbers were very high weren't racist but they changed sometime during the next six years. I suppose they weren't racist when they voted for him the first go round but now it must be his skin color and not the terrible decisions, nominations, cover ups, criminal actions, etc., that are causing those feelings.

  Check you PM's for a tip on stepping it up. 

  Yes, it is written from their slant.    I have seen plenty of nationally known Democrats say that there is no way that the Democrats get back the House (meaning that Obama is so popular that for the last 6 of 8 years as the president, he had control of those houses for two years) and are in definite danger of losing the Senate. It might not be a Tsunami but you can bet that the national Dems are sweating. 

Why do I have the feeling that this may be short lived?

  Ask for the GG meal card the next time you go there. You can also go online and register it and they will send you specials. If you do register, you can also look at a record of every time you ate there (date, time, receipt) and how many meals until your next free one. If you go with a friend and he/she doesn't have a card, you can put both meals (or however many) on it. I took my mother and wife and got three meals logged in one setting. 

Rockin' right along like a well oiled machine................ 

  I have 1,000.... do I have 5,000?    5,000... 5,000....  need another bidder..............

Twenty-three pages on a thread about an old white guy born in the early 1930's that made a private comment to his black girlfriend that he didn't like her hanging around publicly with black guys because he is seen with her in public also? 

  I have the GG card where you can get a free meal after 10 meals bought. So far I have gotten 4 free meals and working on my 5th.   

  Menu? We don't need no stinking menu!  :D   Yeah, there are a couple of items on the menu but the most common by far and best is to make your own. It is like going through the line at Subway or Freebirds but instead of a build your own sandwich or burrito, you build a grilled (kind of like stir fry but dry grilled on a large plate/grill.    You pick the meat(s) you want (cubed marinated beef, shredded beef, sausage, ham, pork, chicken, and others), season it with a dozen powdered/granulated flavors (sea salt, pepper, lemon pepper, ginger, garlic, dragon salt, etc.), put in your vegetables from 15 or so to choose from and then pick your flavored sauce(s) to season it with. Give it to the guys/cooks doing the grilling lastly pick the base/bed (they call starch) like spiral pasta, udon noodles, white rice, brown rice, cabbage, fried rice or tortillas (tortillas?).    You pick from small, regular or large bowls. I get the regular because I know how to really stack up the vegetables. You can fill your bowl with meat but you won't have much room left for the veges. Unless you are just a big time meat eater and ignore vegetables, it is better to go lightly with the meat on your first trip. I see newbies go through the line and get crazy and stack the bowls with meat (like a kid in a candy store), then figure out that they have room for about half a cup of vegetables that when cooked turn into about two tablespoons. Now if you are a meat eater and don't care about vegetables, load that sucker up.    My favorites are the shredded beef for protein and spiral pasta for the bed. I like all of the sauces but usually pick Honey Soy, Chili Garlic or Ginger Citrus. 

  The one in PA?

  In a country of 300+ million people, do you really think that it is hard to single out people for stupid behavior? Can I find stupidity from people on any subject that proves nothing?   Yes, Obama has had racists remarks made toward him. Duhhhhh.......   And if the next president is a Republican that is black, you will hear some of the same calls. If the next president is a woman, you will hear simply stupidity from the opposing side that did not win.   If you predict the day that racial remarks will not be made by anyone from all races, please point out that day. I am going predict it will be the day the world ends. 

  And why shouldn't they be?    Wow, the Republicans would be against anyone that is against Obama. Stunning right?   But you make the point very well. It is politics that drives the masses, not race. What Dr. Carson would do if he supported Obama would give the Democrats another chance to scream that race is driving the disagreements..... but as we have seen, that is not the case. You use the term "any blacks" like the Republicans only support anti-Obama people if they are a dark skin color. It is a simple truth that the Republicans have a strong dislike for Obama but they even impeached Clinton. Does that strong dislike count or only when it is a different race?    You might not have noticed it but the Republicans aren't very fond of white people that support Obama either. It doesn't matter how much melanin is in their skin but where they stand politically. 

Dr. Carson is guilty of the sin of being a highly intelligent, successful and respected black to have the audacity to state the obvious. That is that a welfare system that allows people to take without any need to put in any stake in the process is doomed to the failure of allowing most people to languish is poverty. When there is no incentive to succeed, most people will not and only demand that other people pay for their lack of desire and then complain when they do not get enough handouts.   He is not a hypocrite. He is a person that is degraded and ostracized by his own race for being successful. How dare you come from a poor household in a black community and not demand more welfare, while trying to get people to strive for success and being self sufficient.    In rebuttal, many people only can point out that he had some help in the past and that somehow makes his statements wrong or hypocritical for his mother being on welfare more than 50 years ago. Maybe it allows him to speak the truth because he has seen it from the inside. His detractors spit out labels like hypocrite like it somehow hurts him or baffles his supporters.    What Dr. Carson has done is yet again show that race does not matter, political stance does. Many and maybe even a majority of the same people that hate Obama would vote for Carson tomorrow. 

  Not likely since almost no one is ever killed for a tv. 

  The DOJ has nothing to do with burglaries or robberies (except maybe carjackings and bank robberies). 

  So you think a 17 year old with no record should get the same sentence as a guy that have been in prison three times previous? 

  Not if it is his first rodeo but for a repeat offender, sure. 

  No kidding. I saw that in 2012 when Obama lost 4 million votes and still squeaked by. I can understand fooling people once. 

  That "losing party" has had complete control of the House (the only politicians elected locally) for 4 of Obama's 6 years in office and is threatening to take over the Senate. 

    And had I seen this response first, I wouldn't have answered.    :)

  I have sat on about four juries and I have never seen any alternates. An alternate is merely to replace a juror that gets sick and most trials only take a day or two so there isn't much chance of a sick juror. When you have CA cases like the OJ trial that take almost a year, they need someone to sit in just in case. Those alternates sit in the jury box and hear the entire trial but once the trial ends, they do not get involved in the deliberation unless they actually replaced a sick or removed juror. 

  Kind of standard, especially in a high profile case.   Appeals are generally based on an error by the court (judge). They don't get to just routinely retry the case but have to show a valid reason why it was not a fair trial. There is always an argument to be made by a lawyer as long as he is getting paid.    It can be a racial appeal like the one I mentioned before. Even though there were three black men on the jury, another person may have been struck by race like maybe a black female was struck and the defense wants to contest it. Other examples of appeals might be like maybe an objection made by the defense on piece of testimony or physical evidence during the trial did not go the way the defense liked or they can simply contest the law itself as being unconstitutional.    Most cases are not overturned but you never know........... 

  There are supposed to be 7 neutral people in this case. They are the 6 jurors and the judge. Of those 7, 4 of them are black.   I saw (I think) the representative from the Beaumont NAACP and he called this a lynching of another black in Beaumont. Really? A majority of the participants were of the same race as the defendant. Did they take race into account of did they simply look at the video showing the very convincing evidence that Haynes was blocking the door?