Community > Posts By > 1956deluxe

 
no photo
Thu 08/05/10 07:47 PM
They are not very good at attacking are they.

If they did 10,000 attacks and only killed 60,000 people?

That's like 6 people per attack?

Heck, we did a lot better than that way back in 1945 in one night! And without using nukes!

Tokoyo
10 March 1945: 334 B-29s dropping incendiaries destroy 267,000 buildings; 25% of city (Operation Meetinghouse) killing some 100,000


I aint a scared. laugh

no photo
Wed 08/04/10 10:07 PM
The acorn doesn't fall far from the tree.

no photo
Wed 08/04/10 07:57 AM
Hey, I like NPR. drinker

People should spend some time listening to NPR instead of the propaganda that they are being fed by FOX.

no photo
Wed 08/04/10 07:51 AM

Auto Insurance and health insurance are 2 completely different things.

1. One does not have to drive. If one does not drive, one does not have to buy Auto insurance.

2. Auto insurance is there to protect you from the other guy, or vice versa. Health insurance is there to protect you.

Part of the idea of freedom is that the government doesn't mandate how much one protects one's self.


Oh let's get real....if you live where I do, you HAVE to have a vehicle and drive.

The reason I am MANDATED to buy insurance is NOT to protect me...it's to make sure that the guy I hit gets paid for damages.

An insurance MANDATE is an insurance MANDATE. The State mandates that you purchase insurance....end of story.

no photo
Wed 08/04/10 06:53 AM
The Federal Government is NOT involved in this Mosque Issue.
The President is NOT involved in this Mosque Issue.

This has been TOTALLY up to the City, County and State of New York.

Last time I checked, Mike Bloomberg(R) is the Mayor of New York.
And he seems to be supporting the Mosque...and I believe he is Jewish.

Yet the Anti Defamation League (ADL) is opposed to the Mosque.

Go figure.


no photo
Wed 08/04/10 06:42 AM
It's funny how the State of Missouri MANDATES that you have to purchase Auto Insurance.


no photo
Wed 08/04/10 06:37 AM
How does the State of Arizona get away with MANDATING that I have to buy auto insurance?


no photo
Wed 08/04/10 06:27 AM

well....

Increasing taxes for the purpose of having more money to spend is not sound fiscal policy. We have a $13 trillion debt and another $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities..

I don't know how many taxpayers make up that 2% of the wealthiest, but if anyone thinks that they are going to be able to support the 47% that pay no income tax you are sadly mistaken.

If you are alive and breathing you should be responsible for paying atleast 5% of what you make in income tax. The days of sucking up resources and putting nothing in the pot are going to have to end.




If they were to extend/continue the "Bush Tax Cuts" to the wealthiest 2% of U.S. , it will ADD another $3 trillion to the national debt.

Are you saying that sounds like sound fiscal policy?

The tax cuts will be extended but NOT for the wealthiest.

You'll see.

no photo
Tue 08/03/10 10:42 PM
Bloomberg

no photo
Tue 08/03/10 06:27 PM
I agree with Ron Paul on this.

Seems like any more, we go to war based on some Fox Opinion poll.
The latest one said 92% feel we should attack Iran.

no photo
Tue 08/03/10 06:23 PM
They will let the "Bush Tax Cuts" expire for the wealthiest 2% of the U.S.

They will continue/extend the tax cut for all the rest of us.

That's my prediction....and I think it's the right thing to do. drinker

no photo
Mon 08/02/10 07:42 PM

Faux news.

I have to wait to have the story confirmed elsewhere before I can trust it is the truth.

Sorry.


It is being widely reported all over local News Stations in Arizona.
The story was also run by the Associated Press.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio has faced many death threats before and has never backed down from his duties in Law Enforcement.

Sheriff Arpaio is very popular in Arizona and if he were to get hit, things would get mighty ugly very quick around here and on the border.


no photo
Mon 08/02/10 07:30 PM
Yup, makes me sick to see this happening in AZ.

On July 29th, the protesters were out there waving the Mexican flag.

And they were busing them in from LA....


no photo
Mon 08/02/10 03:43 PM
Latest FOX News Polls:

July, 2010
Yes, the US must do everything we can to nuke Iran. 92%


June, 2010
Yes, the US must do everything we can to nuke North Korea. 89%


May, 2010
Yes, the US must do everything we can to nuke China. 94%


April, 2010
Yes, the US must do eveything we can to nuke Russia. 91%


no photo
Mon 08/02/10 03:36 PM
One out of every four people in the USA are insane....

Think of your 3 closest friends,
If they appear normal, yup, your the one. drinker


no photo
Mon 08/02/10 03:14 PM
These vital passport records were destroyed during the "Reagan" andministration? Hhmmmmmm.....

I wonder why then President Reagan wanted the documents destroyed?

no photo
Fri 07/30/10 09:06 AM

Constitution on Slavery "Clearly Sanctioned"

Black African slavery had existed in the North American English colonies for 168 years before the U.S. Constitution was drafted in 1787. It had existed all across colonial America, but by 1804 most Northern states, finding that slavery was not profitable for them, had effectively abolished the institution. In the South, however, especially after the 1793 invention of the cotton gin, the institution grew, becoming an inextricable part of the economy and way of life.

Whether slavery was to be permitted and continued under the new Constitution was a matter of conflict between the North and South, with several Southern states refusing to join the Union if slavery were disallowed. Thus, in spite of a warning from Virginian George Mason that slaves "bring the judgment of Heaven on a country," the continuance of slavery was clearly sanctioned in the U.S. Constitution, although the words slave and slavery are not found anywhere in the document. Section 2 of Article I states that apart from free persons "all other persons," meaning slaves, are each to be counted as three-fifths of a white person for the purpose of apportioning congressional representatives on the basis of population. Section 9 of Article I states that the importation of "such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit," meaning slaves, would be permitted until 1808. And Section 2 of Article IV directs that persons "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another," meaning fugitive slaves, were to be returned to their owners.

The Bill of Rights, adopted in 1791, says nothing about slavery. But the Fifth Amendment guaranteed that no person could "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Slaves were property, and slaveholders had an absolute right to take their property with them, even into free states or territories.

Fascinating Fact: The rhetoric in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence about liberty, freedom, being created equal, and so on, was seldom considered applicable to blacks, slave or free. Seen a subservient race, they were excluded from consideration as members of society and had few rights.



If you want to talk about slavery....I'll tell you a little about what's happening here in Arizona.

There are a lot of people in the business community that support Illegal Immigration....they want to keep their cheap labor. Cheap labor is the next best thing to slavery.

Take the construction industry out here for example. Prior to the massive influx of illegal aliens, carpenters were making just over $20 an hour. Then came the illegals...a contractor could hire them for less than half that. Most of the carpenters and tradesmen I know could not compete so just gave up and the illegals pretty much took over the trades due to their low wages.

Now, you would think this tremendous cost savings on labor would equate to cheaper home prices? Think again. The extra profits went right into the pockets of the developers.

This same things has happened to almost every skilled trade out here in Arizona. Americans cannot compete with cheap illegal labor.

Back to my original point, there are many wealthy and powerful businessmen in Arizona that are enjoying the profits of this cheap/slave labor and want it to continue.

The economy of Arizona has suffered and those trying to earn a decent wage are being undercut by the illegals. Another reason the illegals can work so cheap is that there will be 6 guys or sometimes more, renting one cheap apartment. Talk about ghetto conditions.

And to hurt the economy here more, they don't go out and spend like a typical American does. They are very frugal and you see them shopping at yard sales all the time. They don't go to department stores...or even burger king...they have small Taco Stands and eat cheap.

Then to top it all off, they send $millions and $millions of their earnings back to Mexico! That's why Mexico is not complaining and actually lashing out at Arizona....they like having that cash influx back into their country.

I could go on and on about all the problems we are facing here in Arizona...but, I feel it is falling on deaf ears.

No offense.




no photo
Thu 07/29/10 07:24 PM


And okay, so tell me how you "suspect" a person of being an illegal alien on sight as the law allows without being prejudice and discriminatory.

Discrimination and prejudice is illegal


I have no idea where you keep getting this "on sight" notion from. Here is the text from the actual law:

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).



no photo
Thu 07/29/10 03:23 PM

Wishful thinking.

Noone on the federal level is going to let a racial profiling law rest on the books. It will be struck down.



You need to read the bill, SB 1070....it specifically prohibits racial profiling.


no photo
Thu 07/29/10 03:16 PM


All I have to say is that unless you live in AZ and have fisrt hand knowledge of what is happening and what the problem is, all you have to go on is the propaganda that you are being fed.




No offense here but it makes sense that Arizona is going to suffer repercussions for this misstep. And it is a misstep.

They can be given credit for trying to solve a problem but a smack in the head for making a bad choice.

As for mo, none of your post makes sense.

Noone is saying Arizona has any affect on the rest of the country. Obama wasn't in office three years ago.


The article states that preliminary assessment seems to be showing that 1070 is impacting Arizona's economy negatively.




No offense taken...

I don't agree that this was a "misstep". The law that was signed, SB 1070, was very popular with Arizonans. As far as the bill having a negative impact on the economy, there is conflicting data that shows otherwise.

And these boycotts? c'mon! So what, they impact the resorts? Who do you think the resorts employ? Mostly illegal aliens from the information that I have seen.