100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
|
|
Blame it on the Russians! I'm sure there was some hacking going on and some kind of collusion somewhere. Maybe some USA Democrates can get to the bottom of this!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The Abortion Debate
|
|
A woman has full rights to control her body during the reproduction act until the child is conceived. Once the child is conceived it exists in the placenta and the woman's body acts as a cocoon. The child is tied to but not part of her body and she has no moral right to murder that new life. Since abortion became legal this nation has murdered over 60,000,000 babies. May God have mercy on our nation. Hmm, 60million, that would work out to about 1million every year and there is about 4million babies born each year in the United States. So you are saying 1 in 5 babies are aborted or 20%? So apparently there are not that many people having abortions so we should just do away with it, or I should say make it illegal again because we know that will stop everybody just like prohibition stoped everyone from drinking. So we probably shouldn't remove cancer from bodies anymore either because its just "Gods Way" and we certainly wouldn't want to interfere with that. A woman having a child affects her life very much for 19 years and even beyond. The embryo can not keep growing outside the woman's body so is it really "life" at that point? Clearly at 7 or 8 months things get much more complex because the fetus most likely could live outside the women's body and except for the most extreme conditions I don't believe an abortion at that point would be acceptable. People who receive any type of public assistance clearly can not take care of themselves, or they are scamming the system, so if they can't take care of themselves clearly they are not able to take care of a child. People should take precautions when having sex, or don't have sex if you are unable to do it safely. However people do make mistakes, or other unforseen factors occur and the woman and possible child to be should not be dramatically punished for the rest of their lives if the woman believes that is how things will work out. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The Abortion Debate
|
|
So us humans shouldn't be allowed to destroy an embryo? But yet we are so far above every other species that we can kill and eat animals and plants? And then there is the Military, the USA wouldn't be what it is today if they hadn't killed men, women, children, and yes even babies! And yet many think it is very acceptable to create embryos in a test tube and then plant them into the womb. Its a bunch of bible thumpers that have brought many to believe that we can not sacrifice any humans for any reason. I say nonsense, in order make the human population stronger we should be allowed to act as other species in nature and take out the weak to keep us from becoming extinct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
dust4fun
on
Tue 05/21/19 08:31 PM
|
|
Okay so do actually think people will buy Chinese products with a 30 increase. I doubt it. Causing Chinese finance disruption. --------------------------------------------------------- There is a HUGE difference on what it cost to produce something in China compared to the USA. Maybe somethings could be made in some 3rd world country for similar prices, but that's about it. So lets say the gas tax went up 50cents a gallon, almost everybody would pay that and all the increases that go along with it, however a few people may buy more fuel efficient, or electric cars. But for the most part people will just pay it and learn to adjust. The US has created a very high cost of living, and many don't realize how spoiled and lazy many people are in the US. The only leveling in the playing field is technology. Robots do not take breaks, make excuses not to show up to work, or expect a raise on a regular basis. However sooner or later they do need maintenance, but for the majority of things they are way cheaper than employing people and they get more advanced and cheaper all the time. What do people consider "middle class"? Compared to much of the world everybody in the US is At least "middle class", and the majority are "rich". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think China will win this trade 'war' because their leader, unlike Trump, does not have to stand again for election. All they have to do is wait for the next US government which will, of course, be democrat, who will no doubt have different policies on trade. PBS Frontline did a show "Trumps trade war" the other day if anyone has interest in nonbias reporting. Their thought is China is looking to be a world super power like the USA, and like USSR or Russia used to be and if the "trade war" continues it will turn into a "cold war" that could last for years. Yes tariffs hurt the US economy and bussiness's short term, but long term it could possible lower the US debt by keeping more money inside the US and if tariffs are used to pay down debt (highly unlikely) it would do good for both the US and China. Another thing people don't look at is the tariff is on wholesale price, not retail. So lets say there is a 25% tariff on a washing machine. That is 25% that the seller pays on the $120 they paid for the machine, not the $1200 retail that you pay as a consumer, so an extra $30 on a $1200 purchase probably isn't going to make or break anyone. If you think about the tariffs as a "Sin Tax" like you would pay on cigarettes or alcohol or gambling you can just pay it and get over it, or you can look else where for other options. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is far to complicated to just build a wall around the country and not trade with other countries. Sure we COULD get by with just the resources that we have in the United States, however I don't know how people are going to handle not having their cup of coffee in the morning. Not to mention the debt that we have taken on, and just a matter of time before people come to collect on that debt. The problem with China is their government has much control over their economy and how much it cost to make things. The biggest problem right now us Chinas stealing our intellectual property. That means if it cost someone millions of dollars to develop something in the United States and China copys it, or knocks it off, then the developer is not rewarded for their efforts and are less likely to develop something new while China is making billions of dollars off the product, and often creating new products off the original idea. Remember the days of the Television repair man? Well it does not make sense to repair a TV now days because they are so cheap and the technology is out dated befor you even get it out if the store. TV's used to cost a months salary and wages were relatively low so it made sense to get them fixed. So buying "better" or more expensive items isn't always your best bet. Now they only want your appliances to last 10 years because they know in another 10 years there will be something better, and more efficient.
People are expecting these tariffs to magically work over night, that is not the way they are set up to work, over time they are ment to balance the trade of goods buy not allowing country like China to sell their unregulated cheap metal on the US's more expensive regulated market. The economy is very complex and people are looking to complain about anything they can. Tariffs are actually ways to control monopolies and give others a fair chance to compete. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well in order to make the US competitive we would have to lower wages to about $3.00 an hour and do away with all environmental protection and do away with many safety measures too. So far the tariffs have mostly hurt the US more then its helped. And people need to understand that tariff is just a fancy word for tax. In other words it just taxes the goods coming from China, and as everyone knows that just gets pushed on to the consumer. The US government collects the tax, this could be good if they used it wisely, but by now we all know you give ungreatful people money and the just end up wasting it instead of respecting it, just as the welfare system does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personally I'd like to see another Ross Perot run ( he's too old), but someone like him. He wanted to run the country like a business ( make $ instead of lose $). He was an outsider and really stirred up interest in a third party, but unfortunately we will never convince the majority of people to split from being Democrat or Republican. There is nothing saying Trump will even run in 2020, or have the Republican endorsement. The Republicans really need to pull a rabbit out of their hat and come up with a good candidate, or just make sure the Democratic candidate really sucks. Four of the 45 Presidents have been shot and killed in office, a few more have been shot or shot at while in office. Not very good odds if you think about it, would you be willing to take the chance? 5 of them had no political experience before being elected, to me this would not be an issue, sick of the sellouts we got in Washington, but money talks so I really don't see a way to change that. Adams served as VP Jefferson as governor, sec of state, and VP Madison as congressman and sec of state Monroe as senator and governor Adams as senator and secretary of state Jackson was senator and governor Van Buren was governor and VP Harrison, a senator Tyler, congressman, a senator and VP Polk, a congressman and governor Zach Taylor was a soldier ... ONE Fillmore, congressman and VP Pierce, congressman and senator Buchanan, congressman, senator, secretary of state Lincoln, a congressman Johnson, congressman, senator, governor, VP Grant was an Army general ... TWO Hayes was congressman and governor Garfield, congressman Arthur, VP Cleveland, Mayor Harrison, Senator McKinley, congressman and governor Roosevelt, governor and VP Taft, justice of supreme court, sec of war ... is this THREE? woodrow wilson, governor Harding was a senator Coolidge, governor and VP Hoover, sec of commerce ... is this FOUR? Roosevelt, governor Truman, senator and vP Eisenhower, army chief of staff ... is this FIVE? Kennedy, congressman and senator Johnson, congressman, senator, VP Nixon, congressman, senator, VP Ford, congressman and VP Carter, governor Reagan, governor GHW Bush, congressman, ambassador, VP Clinton, governor GW Bush, governor OBama, state senator and US senator As far as historically, all presidents have worked within the three branches of the government infrastructure, which I think is an important experience to gain before holding the TOP government office, OR they have served in the military, which as Commander in Chief, is the only experience in lieu of the government that I feel is worthy of POTUS. I think the US is meant to be run as a 'not for profit', not to profit, but to pursue constitutional objectives and maintain the country. I think, like in any top job of any industry, it is not desirable that someone START gaining experience in the top position, ahead of others who have already started. I think 4 out of 45 is 8 percent, which leaves 92 percent chance of not getting killed, is not bad odds. All presidents have been 65 or under when elected, EXCEPT Harrison, Reagan, and Trump, Harrison died of illness in office. Reagan was later announced to have Alzheimers, though not revealed until his 80s, I believe he was beginning to suffer from in office. And Trump seems to have plenty of the signs of senility, regression to childlike thinking and acting. I do hope we get a more 'vibrant' and healthy candidate in office(mentally, physically and emotionally). I don't care so much about the 'either/or' politics for candidates. Even though we have two main parties, we have a large SPECTRUM of individual political ideas and beliefs. The candidates, though registered under a political label, are individuals first. And I care about what experience and education and ideas the Individual has. I care whether there is past indicator of their 'concerns' for fellow Americans. I care about their experience with and knowledge of global affairs and with the obstacles and concerns of 'average' AND struggling citizens, not just the elite. Knowledge of/experience with the constitution and military are certainly also a plus. I really hope we get another OBama or Kennedy(minus the assassination). I wonder what can be accomplished during a time when we are NOT already in economic downfall. I also hope we get someone who can lead with unifying language and behavior. Grant was commander of the entire US Army and war effort during the Civil War. I would count that as experience. He didn't even want to be President, but he was drafted and then he saw the nation coming apart in the aftermath of the Civil War, and it was. He knew enough about politics and leading that he jumped in and became one of the greatest Presidents in history. The South was rearming, and Grant saw another war coming. That's why Federal Troops were deployed in a law enforcement capacity in Southern States to put down any chance of rebellion. Johnson also Signed the Posse Comitatus Act, at the end of his Presidency all because the Southern Democrats were having a $hit fit that armed soldiers were in their cities. You think what were going through now is difficult, doing what right isn't always popular and Lincoln and Grant sure felt the weight of their decisions, and both Presidents are why we are still a nation. I agree 100%. I would add not ONLY is doing what is right not always popular. but nowadays, with minimalistic standards and values, doing what is popular is not always right either. Issue is, usually, the person elected is doing things that are popular with their constituency(and with the state of education, unfortunately, sometimes because they follow blindly and dont care to know anything but what their candidate proposes and claims). And on the flip side, the person elected is doing things that are unpopular with those not in their consituency(sometimes because they blindly oppose anything that candidate proposes or claims) Party politics, which focuses on the party and not the individuals themselves, is the biggest problem we face leading to our division and contributing to our falling apart. But you don't agree that President Grant was one of the best Presidents and saved our country? what makes you say that? Im not a historian, I dont do best presidents because so many have done well in different areas and not so well in others. it would depend on which areas were considered 'most important' to really say, and I dont do that either. I would say keeping the country together after the Civil War was a huge accomplishment, especially since everyone predicted that the Southern States were going to pick right back up. General Grant saw that coming and is why he accepted the nomination at the Convention. He really didn't want to be President. Who's to say that we wouldn't be better off being two or more countries? Or part of Canada, or Mexico. The thing is we will NEVER truly know what could have happened. Any decision made whether personally or politically could change the coarse of history. Some how we have been able to keep things together as a country pretty good so far, but that could easily change someday, so even thou we complain about congress and the President not accomplishing much, just maybe we are much better off that way. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
dust4fun
on
Mon 03/11/19 04:34 PM
|
|
Four of the 45 Presidents have been shot and killed in office, a few more have been shot or shot at while in office. Not very good odds if you think about it, would you be willing to take the chance? So your advocating for a President to get shot because you don't like them? Not only is your comment utter BS, it's a Federal Felony. -------------------------------------------------- If you read that I said who would want the job with the risk that goes along with it. Clearly times have changed and there is much better security now. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Screw the third world, and the Amazon, and the ice caps Build that wall We aren't here for a long time, we are here for a good time. The world was already pretty screwed up when I was born, and it will be even more screwed up when I die. It may be selfish to say, but I'm going to enjoy my life while I'm here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personally I'd like to see another
Ross Perot run ( he's too old), but someone like him. He wanted to run the country like a business ( make $ instead of lose $). He was an outsider and really stirred up interest in a third party, but unfortunately we will never convince the majority of people to split from being Democrat or Republican. There is nothing saying Trump will even run in 2020, or have the Republican endorsement. The Republicans really need to pull a rabbit out of their hat and come up with a good candidate, or just make sure the Democratic candidate really sucks. Four of the 45 Presidents have been shot and killed in office, a few more have been shot or shot at while in office. Not very good odds if you think about it, would you be willing to take the chance? 5 of them had no political experience before being elected, to me this would not be an issue, sick of the sellouts we got in Washington, but money talks so I really don't see a way to change that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
dust4fun
on
Tue 03/05/19 07:33 PM
|
|
Thanx, I'm kinda rusty on the Tesla history. As for fuel sources for energy. Seems to me, a promising avenue for technology and innovation would be in tapping into the energy of atomic foundational forces. I participate in a few science fiction communities. Many with well-established writers in the genre. There is much discussion about potential energy sources of the future. While currently beyond our technology and knowledge level, Imagine an energy source that taps into and uses the fundamental forces of matter. This would mean that every molecule, perhaps every atom itself could power the device they make up. Granted, we are a long way from that understanding. But what if, the atoms that compose the device, were to actually power that device? Try to imagine a world without wires. No batteries. No external power sources at all. The atoms, the fundamental forces that bind atoms, were the source of the power needed to activate the device. Could it happen? There is a distinction between probability and possibility. It is possible but at our present understanding improbable. But then, wasn't heart transplants improbable 200 years ago? In a more reasonable scebnario we do have kinetic and static electricity that could hold promise in the nearer future. I have read about sidewalks that produce electricity from people walking. I have read about clothing that charges cell phone batteries by normal movement. Perhaps we don't need a new fuel source? Perhaps we only need to learn how to tap into the energy sources that already exist? Unfortunately I am very familiar with Tesla. They have ruined thousands of lives a lot in my city. It's sad what it has done to our community and how they screw over their workers and manipulate the housing market where people who don't work for them lose their housing because their rent triples. Totally different Tesla, you want to talk to Elon Musk about that Tesla, if you were paying attention the Tesla we are talking about die pennyless 100 years ago, and was willing to give up his discoveries for free for the betterment of man kind. On the other hand Elon Musk has taken government money, but he has also forced other automakers to take the electric car market seriously. He also has Space X, which is launching satellites into space along with other useful things, and they are developing space travel too. You see when NASA pulled the plug on the space shuttle they still needed a way to get things in space. The only option was foreign governments or private companies. Their are a few private players now, the founder of Amazon also runs one along with a few other players. What you are talking about higher rents and screwing workers over has a lot to do with greedy property owners and people making poor decisions. Clearly the residents aren't smart enough to take advantage of the situation and its not uncommon for neighborhoods to change, some get more pricey, but often times its the other dirrection and they head toward poverty and decay. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Is this a Good Plan
|
|
Wonderful new democratic governor of Michigan just proposed a new gas tax for road repair. Currently Michigan has a tax of 26 cents per gallon. If approved an additional 46 cents per gallon will be added.This is a 175% tax increase. Opponents are suggesting evaluating where the gas taxes are being spent now before any increase is approved. At present some of the gas tax goes to schools and then government . I went to college in Grand Rapids Michigan and everyone complains because property and gas taxes were high then but Detroit receives a disproportionate amount of the money. Gasoline taxes should go 100% to road repair and property taxes should be 100% for school support. If Detroit schools need more money Detroit property taxes should pay for. Not force people from Flint, Grand Rapids, etc, to pay for it. This is a way of hiding school cost in other state budgets and forcing people who don't live there or some who don't even live in the state of Michigan to pay for it. Spread the tax sources around so that no one can really figure out where it's all coming from. In the end it's socialism. Give the government your money and freedoms and the government will imply you will have more security. Would it be worth buying an electric car just to screw the government? The cars being built today are still nowhere close to where they should be in efficiency, part of this has to do with the limiting of emissions, part of it is not using all technologies available, and part of it is the want for high horsepower and large size vehicles. Even the most efficient pickups and suvs your lucky to get 20 mpg from. And there are a hand full of cars and trucks you can buy with 700+ horsepower just so you can say you've got it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Didn't Tesla invent a power source that harvested energy from the static electricty generated by the Earth? Didn't someone who shall not be named supress his invention because free energy was not meant to be and money needed to be had? The Powers That Be will keep fossil fuels going until another resource that can be exploited for more profit can be found. Tesla's static electricity tower never did work out, but Tesla was one of the few that were into it for the good of the people and not for the money, possibly holding him back for some of his inventions. Direct Current(DC) was what Edison and everyone else came up with, but it could only travel very, very short distances. Tesla came up with Alterating Current (AC) that we still use today. Although he had several patents on it he never made any money from it. He died pennyless. However many people don't understand we lose as much as half our electricity produced in the transmission lines that transport it. Plant based fuel still uses nutrients in the soil so using things such as corn will eventually lead to less fertal soil causing us to make even more fertilizers, while taking away from our food production. Things like algae that gets most of its nutrients from the sun would be a good fuel source, but they still have a ways to go on making it efficiently, often times bio fuels take more fuel to produce them than we actually get out of them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Agist? maybe ... but
|
|
The Republicans don't have to endorse Trump as their candidate for a second term. Trump could still run as an independent or under another party, but this would insure a split of votes and guaranty a loss for the Republican party. With the ever increasing Democrat trend the Republicans need to pull a rabbit out of their hat to come up with a candidate that is far superior to the Democrates candidate. It still amazes me that people are so brainwashed that they can't see that things are only going to continue to get worse as long as its up to only Democrats and Republicans, but as always it comes down to money. If people where more concerned about what people can get done instead of what party they belong too we'd all be much better off. Open your minds and vote independent, green party, or whom ever is willing to offer up smarter ways of doing things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Is this a Good Plan
|
|
If you have a hole in a bucket do you plug the hole? Or just keep adding water? Come on people use some common sense. budgeting is a bit more complex. There are necessities, regardless of the 'hole' that will require continued spending. There are luxuries that can be cut back on, but only helps the 'hole' if they are then used to pay debts instead. If they are just transferred to other necessities or luxuries, it doesnt help that hole either. There is also debt and deficit, which I have gone into before. Debt is what is still OWED on your home, for instance, even though you are given time to pay it back. Deficit is how much MORE you are expected to be paying than you actually are bringing in. The DEBT grows more with more deficits, and gets smaller with surplus. We have growing debt, the way a growing family might have a larger mortgage when they require a larger house. But the concern should be if we are running on deficit (not paying bills on time) or surplus (paying bills on time) each month. Illinois is creating new "Sins" to create new "Sin taxes" (as are many other states). Legalizing marijuana, regulating ecigs, and allowing gambling create long term issues to deal with. Everything from regulation, addiction, and crime. Instead of being responsible and figuring out how to manage the money they do have they are adding money to be miss used by the government. Are they just going to come up with new "Sins" every time they run short on money? Often times these "Sin taxes" do hurt the poor much more than anyone else. Maybe a better way for states to deal with their money shortages is to close the sales tax loophole of buying off the internet. With the explosion of people buying things online, often people are not paying sales tax as they would if they bought locally, also many other costs that would become part of the local economy are lost. The only makeup the state receives is thru the shipping companies operating in that state. Maybe a delivery tax would be a way to makeup for some of this loss. Clearly taking out loans to pay for somethings makes sense, but often times the government borrows money to pay for money they have borrowed. Its like using one credit card to pay a payment on another. If the government can't manage the money its got, it should not be given an increased amount of money to manage. That is just asking for more misuse that will eventually lead to even more issues. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Is this a Good Plan
|
|
If you have a hole in a bucket do you plug the hole? Or just keep adding water? Come on people use some common sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
dust4fun
on
Wed 02/27/19 08:15 PM
|
|
The left, will always twist, spin, and use blatant deception, to achieve their goals. Everybody will always twist, spin, and use blatant deception, to achieve their goals. Thats why this story was posted about a woman that died over 50 yrs ago, and some things she said were close to 100 yrs ago (a much different time) The Pro-life people dug this stuff up (much of which is taken out of context) to shame the founder of planned parenthood, even thou Margaret Sanger never promoted abortion. The Catholic church is against birth control because they will do anything to get more Catholics so the Pope can rule the world. But we all know how that's working out, if them priest could have just left them alterboys alone they probably would have had a different out come of their future. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 The civil war you could buy a replacement if you didn't want to go!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
dust4fun
on
Tue 02/26/19 08:21 PM
|
|
Can someone please explain to this old Englishman why the US has an 'emergency' that requires them to build a wall at the border with another country? Over here, I think very few people like the Trump, perhaps because he has been proved to be dishonest so many times, but also perhaps of his treatment of women. I guess we're more sensitive here about that sort of thing! 
To build a moat would take far too much time and money, so we have decided to build a wall instead. We don't live on an island like you, so people can just walk right across the boarder. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
