SkyDekker

We send Kerry over there to make vague empty threats. Then deploy a whopping 600 troops on a "training exercise". That's funny right there. exactly. Not much we can do without being "team america world police again" yet we make threats and deploy troops to the area. It's their civil war (or about to be). Let's not be world police for a while. So you suggest the US says and does nothing? Many would take silence as equivalent to agreement with Russia.

prouder than you should be for espousing ignorance. We're well well past the point of debating what the impact of liberalized CCW law will be. It's been trialed across the country without negative impact. lol - yes when looked at from inside the US and comparing within the US...agreed. Like I posted, from outside the US, murder rates and violence is pretty high in areas with CCW as well. So keep using those selective quotes...makes you proud...you betcha

people all over make lots of uninformed (iow, ignorant) statements about other cultures and nations, and well beyond the ugly american tourists. It's not something to be proud of, Dekker. Oh look, quotes out of context and a dig. You must be proud of that, you betcha

Agreed, it hardly ever is just one thing.

Unless you are a fearmonger gun-o-phobe outside of the US. Then you can claim that having lots of guns and easy access to them appears to have aided in creating a pretty violent society.

Depending on where you are looking from, there seems to be lots of blood flowing.

Soros and Bloomberg have unsuccessfully wielded their power/money to curtail gun rights. They can't match up to millions of voting, dues paying (to multiple orgs) citizens. That's peanuts and a single issue. You are looking at this too shortsighted. Plus we are not at a plutocracy just yet. I just see this as another step towards it.

No option for BLM?

Not sure what your problem is with capitalism? The party with the most money (power) won. This is how capitalism is supposed to work. If the couple hand't been so lazy, they would have worked harder, made more money and had a better chance fighting the government. Do you think Bill Gates would have lost that land?

That's quite a jaded viewpoint. There are some people who vote based on what they think might be best for the society they live in, not just what benefits them personally the most.

More faulty logic. You are starting from the assumption that it needs safegaurding. To get to that position, you have to assume that it has been a problem in at least the last couple of elections. My standpoint is that there is no identified problem of any significance, hence there is no need for safeguarding. Prove to me there is an actual problem, and I agree with you. Or the other party could simply think it is not the right thing to do. (It being political parties, yes changes are it is all political. That still doesn't make your logic correct though.)

You wanted to know which ratio was best/sustainable. Your math doesn't produce a ratio.

Or we could accept that the whole article is written to incite condemnation from those with a particular political leaning and the whole ratio and concept is useless.

As I said at the outset of my post and will say again: I'm addressing only what I see actually happening. I'm not offering any opinions on what should or should not happening. If I see a particular trend happening, I can extrapolate that trend into the future, while still keeping private my opinions as to whether that should or should not be happening. "White pride" has quite the connotation attached to it. Could it be that's why there isn't widespread announcements of being proud to be white?

what about death penalty if you vote illegally? yes.

So, there's no evidence of voter fraud? I'll file appeals for all those people convicted of it. Thanks. But then you say the percentage of it is below the margin of error? I guess if there is none, and zero is less than the margin of error, you are consistent here. Then, you say the problem doesn't exist. OK. I don't care what political party or theory it might or might not benefit. I want to protect individual liberties by preventing illegal voters from cancelling out legal voters. Plain and simple. BTW...if one party wants ID for political purposes, doesn't the other one oppose it for political purposes? I forgot to include the word significant in the first sentence. Rest of the post kind of made that clear. No, that logic makes absolutely no sense. If somebody is in favour of the death penalty because they think it is a deterrent, it doesn't mean I am against the death penalty because I don't think it is a deterrent.

I can sum up your position - alpha vs beta error "We should make it ridiculously easy for illegal votes to disenfranchise legal voters. This is much better that making it mildly annoying for legal voters to take their right seriously enough to go get a free ID." Who do you want disenfranchised? A crapload of legal voters that get their votes cancelled? or a handful of people that just don't give a crap enough to get a free ID practically handed to them? Funny from someone that seems to side with those that tend to advocate that voters 'should' have to pass an IQ test or 'current events' (I read that as a political litmus) test to be allowed to vote at all? (though, honestly, Billvon, I don't think you've even sided with your buddies on that specific one. but that's the team you play with) Except that there really is no evidence of any illegals voting, or voter fraud taking place. It appears very likely that the pecentage of voter fraud is significantly below the margin of error of the actual voting process. Why then is so much effort (and money) being spent to fix a problem that doesn't exist? I don't think you have to be overly skeptical to come to the conclusion that there are other reasons to do this.

you keep thinking the term 'taker' is negative - I dispute that broad assumption (strawman). I'm wondering if the ratio is healthy. Not that a category exists. I think the ratio is useless without furtehr information. Lets look at it at a small scale. Let's assume a ratio of 1 maker for every 10 takers. Now let's assume that the one maker is providing $100 and the 10 takers are taking $10 combined. That 10% ratio is pretty damn good you would think. Now lets assume the 1 maker is providing $10 and the 10 takers take $100 combined. That 10% ratio is aweful. I am so confused is the 10% ratio good, bad....or a useless sounbite meant to get people upset at all those takers?

I can't speak for people. But, what scares me is the ability for a small group of extremely wealthy people to wield enough power/money to effectively control government.

Of course not. Once you have completed the act of divorce, you go to confession. You then promise to never do it again. You promise that you have now found God and will lead a better life. Rinse and repeat. But gay, gay is just dirty and they keep doing that gay stuff. Way too much to confess for, plus those pesky gays don't promise they won't do it again. It is all very different.

Happens in the inner-cities all the time. I don't see any militias standing up to protect them. Library books too late, swat team entry. Couple of plants in your house, swat team knocks in the front door. Etc. But those inner city folk don't really look American, so they are probably illegal anyways.

They have two rulings against the rancher. They have been working trying to renegotiate payment. How many rulings should they have before they enforce something?

Only problem is that the Kings won't make it to the second round

You never know. Both my kids have blond hair and blue eyes. My ex-wife and I don't have blond hair or blue eyes. Our parents don't have blong hair or blue eyes. Our grand parents (maternal or paternal) don't have blond hair or blue eyes. What does the mail man look like? What about the next door neighbor? Taken her to any boogies where they have packers? Too Far? Nah. Lol They actually look like me....and no I don't have a brother. Trust me, I've thought about it, would save me a shit load of money every month

This has already been debunked several times in this thread, yet you continue to repeat it as if it were true. I'd thought better of you. Don Maybe it isn't oil/gas but I feel there's something behind this other than just evicting a tenant. There seems to be more than enough tortoises to not be endangered. Like Billy asked...Why did it take the BLM 20 yrs. to suddenly act on this? I know, the wheels of government turn slowly but 20-yrs.? Chuck Not sure I udnerstand this argument. Many have been saying that the government should use diplomacy in stead of force. Now you are questioning why they didn't use force earlier?