User Profile: termyt

termyt

Member Since: February 15, 2011

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • June 24, 2016 at 10:03pm

    Income tax was enabled by the 16th Amendment in 1913, prior to either World War. The excuse was to pay off war debt (1812), but we have never paid a single penny off it. Prior to that, the States paid the Federal government primarily out of obligation and in exchange for services that only the Federal Government was empowered to provide. The tariffs put in place we just call taxes today. Punitive, protectionist tariffs were hotly debated with those of my ilk firmly against them.
    Learn history, indeed.
    Speaking of history, look at Trump’s. It is very different from his current rhetoric. He has made insane profits off of things he complains about now. He has done anything he needed to, said anything he needed to, donated money to anyone he needed to to advance the cause of Trump and Trump alone. That is the one consistency in his message. Why would I assume this campaign is any different?

  • [2] June 24, 2016 at 4:10pm

    As far as fearing the global economy, do you realize that, at one time, it was America’s presence in the global economy the rest of the world feared? They retreated behind tariffs and embargoes because they could not match American ingenuity and production. When was that? A time when we banned immigrants? A time when we whined about someone dumping cheap steel in our economy? A time when we regulated business to a point when only some corp as rich as Trump could even start a business, let alone rival a corp with lawyers to surf through the sea of red tape?

    We were the global economy when our markets and our people were free to invent, free to invest, and free to explore. When doing something stupid was the fault of the idiot instead of a company that failed to tell the idiot he shouldn’t do it. Trump isn’t proposing to dismantle the welfare state or our regulatory system, or our ridiculously litigious court culture.

    I still can’t conclude his “make America great again” slogan is any more than that – a slogan. He doesn’t have a clue how to achieve that. If he did, he’d realize he can’t. No single person can regardless of his place in government.

  • [3] June 24, 2016 at 4:02pm

    Mil, thanks for responding. I will assume that Mr. Trump can be trusted in his rhetoric in spite of his history of profiting from the “globalist” policies in the past and even lobbying for them. Let’s just assume he’s a true convert and forget his past activities.

    “All the noise and rhetoric concerning Liberal or Conservative are meaningless in the face of the dissolution of our Republic.”

    If the ideals of the liberals and conservatives are secondary to simply keeping the union together, than does it matter what the republic looks like after such a preservation? Liberty and Justice for All – except private land owners who have a piece of land that would be better sold to some private developer? Except for a journalist who writes an unflattering opinion of Mr. Trump? Except for an American born citizen who chooses Islam? Except for people not born here of parents who are already citizens because they are undesirable?

    That country is not a country any more appealing to me to live in than any European nation. If it is not a place of free expression, thought, religion, and markets then it deserves to be dissolved and replaced with one that will.

    The solution is a return to freedom. Free people take ownership of their land and protect it. If the people are free as outlined in our founding, mass shootings will end, radical Islam will cease to threaten us, and immigration will no longer be a problem. Trump is not proposing a return to Liberty, just more government.

  • [-1] June 24, 2016 at 3:36pm

    “Faith and evidence are mutually exclusive ideas. They literally cannot coexist.”

    Well, I guess I can take your word for it or I can take thousands of years of Western thought and philosophy. Not to disparage your philosophical credentials, I’ll go with the latter if for no other reason than you seem to assume that if you find evidence lacking or unpersuasive, then that evidence never existed in the first place.

  • [9] June 24, 2016 at 10:23am

    So we’ve gone from me being asinine to me not giving a damn at all about the Marines in the second photo. Keep digging, maybe you’ll hit truth, but you are digging in the wrong direction so far.

    They did think a bigger flag would improve morale on the island, but they also wanted a better picture than the first, spontaneous raising produced. If they just wanted a bigger flag, they would not have staged its raising to be as similar to the first as possible. Both explanations are correct.

  • [6] June 24, 2016 at 10:20am

    It could be the end of the EU, but it could also be the end of the UK.

    Both Ireland and Scotland voted to stay in the EU and both have discussed leaving the UK. Will either one get past discussing it and actually do it in favor of staying in the EU?

    Responses (1) +
  • [3] June 24, 2016 at 10:11am

    It is also kind of nit-picky and washes over the main point of my comment. Kind of like focusing on “the need for a militia” instead of “shall not be infringed.”

  • [5] June 24, 2016 at 9:42am

    Even more peculiar is that both of the presumptive nominees have far more people that hate them than like them. So that puts everything up in the air for me. The campaigns are going to be dominated by attempts to increase the level of hatred for the other instead of reducing it for yourself, I’m afraid.

    My best guess is this is going to be a very low-turn-out election unless those tactics somehow become very compelling or one of them finds a way to break that mold.

    I was just about ready to go Libertarian, but then they went and nominated Gary Johnson. Ack. The three biggest parties in the US all nominate big-government progressives. It’s like we are in Europe all of a sudden. (But it’s not sudden, is it?)

  • [3] June 24, 2016 at 9:32am

    The cliche is “faith is the evidence of things unseen.” Faith does not exist without evidence. Faith builds on existing evidence to accept things not in evidence.

    There is evidence of God, but it is circumstantial, not conclusive. If you find that evidence compelling, you will likely accept other attributes of God that there is even less evidence for, or no evidence at all. This is faith.

    If your parents provide for you, teach you, guide you, and care for you, you may conclude they love you. Accepting that they love you is a matter of faith. It is impossible to prove it with measurable, repeatable scientific experimentation, so it is not a matter of fact.

  • [9] June 24, 2016 at 9:25am

    Ya know, the tradition in democracy is for the candidate to make his case to sway the voters, not for voters to make their case against a candidate.

    Yes, I have standards, and no, I’m not ashamed of them and will not reduce them to fit the candidate du jour.

  • [39] June 24, 2016 at 9:17am

    It seems to me that the most significant flag raisers are the first ones, not the ones who did it for the photo-op, but the difference is nothing but trivia.

    What is most important, is every Marine that fought on Iwo Jima, whether they participated in either flag raising or not, is memorialized by that picture.

    Responses (3) +
  • [4] June 24, 2016 at 9:06am

    The house on fire – my brother came up with the perfect caption:

    “I don’t have flood insurance, but I do have fire.”

    Perhaps a bit flippant, considering the scope of the tragedy, but I thought worth sharing. ^__^;

  • [3] June 24, 2016 at 8:59am

    Morality, like Truth, is not subjective. People can twist perception until black seems like white, but it is still black regardless of delusions leading one to believe otherwise.

  • [4] June 24, 2016 at 8:52am

    The test is, both as an individual and collectively as a nation, to put our trust in God and God alone. If we trust only ourselves, we end up with a choice between Trump and Hillary and get what we asked for.

    Responses (2) +
  • [3] June 24, 2016 at 8:48am

    Just beating the other guy(s) is what it is all about? What does that mean if/when he beats the last guy and gets the office? He’s accomplished what he set out to do so he’s done? What about the next 4 years?

    Responses (3) +
  • [16] June 24, 2016 at 8:44am

    I don’t really agree with all of what the “Moral Majority” came up with. For example, I believe good, ethical leadership can come from non-Christians. You don’t need to be a Christian to get my vote. As a matter of fact, I’d rather have someone who lives by a strict moral code than someone who simply claims Christianity with no idea what it really means. My primary concern is whether Washington will allow us the freedom to live our own consciences or not. A government dominated by “Christians” has failed miserably at maintaining that for us.

    But that is also why I still cannot support Trump. Any reason that starts with “But Hillary…” is completely invalid to me. I fell for that reasoning in the past and won’t fall for it again – I learn from my mistakes.

    Trumpies – can any of you eloquently state the case for President Trump without mentioning Hillary, invoking party loyalty, or insulting me? I’ve yet to see anyone do so – least of all the Trump campaign.

    Responses (19) +
  • [2] June 24, 2016 at 8:26am

    I’m surprised that he resigned in the first place. It shows much stringer character on his part and elevates my opinion of him. The next PM will most likely reflect the voice of the people in this vote and be one who wants to usher in that exit. At least, that seems what Cameron implied, only time will tell.

    We can’t get socialists to do that over here. Maybe it’s easier when just about everyone is a socialist?

  • June 24, 2016 at 8:18am

    As always, in human politics, it’s a mixed bag. The UK was smart enough to never adopt the Euro, so they already had a leg up on the rest of the major nations of the EU in terms of sovereignty.

    I’m all for maintaining sovereignty – like the States should have here in the US, but inevitably lost it over the years. That would make me want out of the EU. But a leading factor in getting out was also isolationism and protectionism – they sound like fine things in the short term, but limit opportunities in the long term. An influx of immigrants could be just what the doctor ordered to heal the broken sectors of the economy that you are seeking to protect. Isolationism just maintains them in their present, broken state, though – it will never fix them.

    The correct fix, IMO, is not keeping immigrants out, but a reform of the immigration system (so you know whom you are letting in) and the entitlement system (so neither citizens or immigrants abuse the system). Those are much harder to things to do, so just stopping immigration is the easier road, but it is not the most profitable road long-term.

    Of course, I am talking more about the US now than the UK, but, while Liberty and Justice for All is an American catch-phrase, it is the cause of all humanity.

  • [9] June 23, 2016 at 1:37pm

    So you maintain dignity by denying due process to free persons. Not that anyone here will be surprised you feel that way.

  • [1] June 23, 2016 at 12:12pm

    I’m torn on that one. I am leaning toward the dissent purely because of the effect the decision could have on illegal stops hoping to find any cause for it after it is made.

    On the other hand, there was an open warrant out for Mr. Strieff. That means if the officer had known who he was, he would have had justification to stop and arrest him.

    Without the warrant, I am unequivocally against the evidence being admissible, but I suspect that the Supreme Court would have ruled differently, perhaps unanimously, against it as well. Since there was a warrant for his arrest, any officer who recognizes Mr. Strieff would have all the cause needed to stop him and arrest him.

    I’m not sure if that’s reason enough or not. Like I said, I’m torn on this one.

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love