SkyDekker

Apples and oranges You are getting your free stuff now soon to change He has for decades. Who do you think has funded all those coal subsidies? Ya. He likes he free stuff Time to change And i am against ALL gov sibidies. Always have been Yeah, I meant he has been paying for decades. Taxpayers have funded those subsidies your company has been getting over the decades.

Apples and oranges You are getting your free stuff now soon to change He has for decades. Who do you think has funded all those coal subsidies?

He is unable to understand this Bull shit. But we hear so much about law abiding gun owners that it is quite refreshing to see one say he doesn't give a fuck about the law and will do as he pleases. Of course if he ever gets caught breaking the law he will be the first to whine about how he is such a fine upstanding citizen.

I am not saying the following is true. But, think of it this way. Let's say that this is the only lie Bill Clinton ever told. That would make him the most truthful politician out there, ever. Now let's compare Bill BJ Clinton to another politician who has maybe told 50 lies during his career. You may believe that those 50 lies weren't as bad, plus you can kind of understand why he lied about them, or why he misstated the truth a little. Now in your mind, the second politician is a lot more truthful.

Sure. His answer was a weasel out of the subject, that coal is far from clean. That's what my question had to do with his post. Unfortunately his answer is rather silly, basically saying that every group has people dying young. Basically once again not addressing the issue at all.

Sure. So do farmers and many others. Has nothing to do with my comment Skydivers die young too You don't think coal mining has a greater negative impact on a person than farming?

1 Of 2 spots remaining. He doesn't have to endorse anybody.

So coal miners don't die young?

I will answer your question, if you are polite enough to answer the one I asked you first.

this^ just like the Kerry and Romney thing. Trump is likely audited every single year of his life. So I doubt there is any legal problems at all. Both the left and the right want their opponents to release their returns so they can dig into it and show and spin "LEGAL" deductions and accounting to try and get the public spun up. Instead of using these as opportunities to discuss the problems of our out of control tax code (real issue), they just try to score points with voters (strawman). Yup, plus being opposed to certain tax credits etc from a policy perspective doesn't mean a person cannot avail themselves of those tax credits if available. I don't think my taxes should be $0, but if I had the ability to legally get them to $0 I would do it.

Paranoid much?

I agree that a person's car should be their own private property and people should be allowed to keep a gun locked in it.

I don't think he needs to release his tax returns. Don't even see how they are relative to anything. Really don't see how personal tax returns reflect on a person's ability to be president.

Clean coal? Not merely an oxymoron, but an insult to our intelligence. The miners die young from mining it, our children get sick from breathing the particulates, the ash is stored in retention ponds that leach or breach, the landscape is mutilated from producing it, and the CO output is high. It has poisoned the air and water of cities since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And it still is in many places. It gave us many of the good things we have today, but it is time to move past it. Only the deadenders are clinging to their filthy coal cribs. Ahhh the deadener diatribe surfaces again From a radical alarmist no less So coal miners don't die young? Stop trying to read minds or put words into other mouths You are NOT good at it Read what I posted I mean nothing more that what is there That is why there was a"?" at the end of those words. It indicates a question. In this case a question to clarify your position, since there was no substantive response in your post. I knew your spelling was bad, but thought you knew what a question was. Apologies.

It's only going to get worse. So did the founding father's screw up, or would it have been impossible to foresee what would happen in the future?

I guess under whatever regulations there are in place to do so. Which I am assuming is the same for all other candidates. Why would he have to follow any other rules?

Clean coal? Not merely an oxymoron, but an insult to our intelligence. The miners die young from mining it, our children get sick from breathing the particulates, the ash is stored in retention ponds that leach or breach, the landscape is mutilated from producing it, and the CO output is high. It has poisoned the air and water of cities since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And it still is in many places. It gave us many of the good things we have today, but it is time to move past it. Only the deadenders are clinging to their filthy coal cribs. Ahhh the deadener diatribe surfaces again From a radical alarmist no less So coal miners don't die young?

Why would that impede the 2nd Amendment right? That right doesn't apply on private property when decided by the owner of that private property. Yes That is the main point of that debate However It does effectively disarm people who are traveling to and from work That is the other side of the debate Pick you side I have But you said, "many states allow" this to happen. Are you saying that you believe states should force private property owners to allow guns on their private property?

What a great system where the selection for the highest court has more to do with politics than ability.

Why would that impede the 2nd Amendment right? That right doesn't apply on private property when decided by the owner of that private property.

Are you excited to carry it concealed?

No, the 5th covers not being forced to incriminate yourself. Being forced to provide entry into the phone wouldn't incriminate Apple, so doubt 5th applies.

Courts can't. Should be covered under the 5th amendment.

That would put them in contempt of court. I doubt that they want to go in that direction. Jerry Baumchen PS) I once had a sherrif's deputy take a court-ordered garnishment to a credit union to get the funds from someone who owed me money. The clerk at the credit union called the account owner who told her not to give the money to the deputy. The clerk called me and told me what she had been told. I told her that she had a choice: 1) Hand over the money, or 2) Be in contempt of court; I told her to ask the deputy what his thoughts were. I got my money. Could be charged with contempt of court. Whether they are actually in contempt of court is up to a judge, not the Sherriff or any of his deputies.

Do you not think it is a good ideal to subscribe to? Or do you favor the other side of the coin where the system supports you and yours? False dichotomy.