Interesting reading on the elections

[JbarL]

SD for president!!!   Were you born in this country or did the aliens drop you off? ;D

Dad always told me that I was left at the door by FedEx. :'(

JbarL - How about less tax and less spend?

less tax and no way.....the republicans have created the largest governemt " agency" since the cia and its endless monatary demands it needs....that is your new dept of homeland security....do you know  whats its payroll and expenses to us taxpayers are?....who does.....we are funding an army in irag an amry in afganistan, and we arre funding an army at "home".....and were are fighting a war in irag, and in afganistan.....and paying for all of it how?......3 arimes...wars on 2 middel eastern countries, and the new local army............the democrats could only DREAM of a big governemt project ..as unlimited and covert , ......as the deptment of home land security......we are paying for 2 armies and 2 wars abroad and paying for the unlimited monies and  covert  expenses of the dept of homeland security.....john mcains granddad had his war......his dad had his....john had his.....he knows war well....i just hope that in 5 1/2 years in a pow prison camp he was only thinking of his  plans for americas economic stratgy for for his beloved countrys future......i apologize to any vetrens who may not like the tone of that but if i hadnt heard of the  " experiences he underwent in pow camp....from his own stump speaches over and over again..and the reference tonight in his convention  as " the hole"......i took a chance and said it....i mean no disrespect to the military /vetrans past present and future.......i just believe that .....   fear and faith cannot live in the same house.....i feel fear in his house...because he tries to bring it into mine......jbarl

 

[Davis Shorthorns]

Before we all get too giddy over McCain-Palin lets remember what we will get with them

1.   More flag draped caskets arriving back in America to heart broken families
2.  Fewer jobs as our economy crumbles under the weight of a weak dollar, and recession,  even the flags on the caskets are now being made in China-see USA Today article this week
3.   More years of foreign hatred of us as we continue to occupy Iraq
4.   Higher Fertilizer, chemical and seed prices as our dollar weakens, and the government does nothing to slow down the monopoly Monsanto
5.  Higher feed prices and the resulting higher food prices which will eventually cause the consumer to blame farmers for the woes of this country to come.
6.  Worst of all the special interest groups will continue to run this land getting fat and happy while we pay for it.

Just remember the famous saying  "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results"

Many compare the US to the Roman empire and it is my opinion that Rome is burning and or own Nero (Bush) is just sitting idly by playing his fiddle

Which candidate offers a new approach to putting out the fire, and which one will just throw more gasoline on the flames??

Ok, for no. 1 What do you think we will get with obama?  Twice the no. of civilian caskets here at home when Iraq implodes after a troop pull out and becomes THE next terrorist state?

2.  What recession the one that the media and the Dems are telling us about or the one that has a economy that has gained every year since 9/11?  Weak dollar?  The one that is one the rebound?  Now think what is going to weaken our economy more?  Higher energy prices because we cant utilize our own power(domestic oil, natural gas, clean coal, nuclear power,etc...)  and higher taxes on gas?  Or increasing every other tax that you can think of so you put out countless numbers of small business owners, farmers, or causing larger businesses to have to cut back salaries or benefits to its workers.  Just something to think about.


And just for the record McCain-Palin 2008!!!

 

[fluffer]

Obama says he is going to tax the evil rich-
#1 Who falls under this classification- you may be surprised to find most of us are "rich" under his classification

#2 We are NOT in a recession right now, we are actually moving the other way as some have already pointed out, but lets think for a second- If Obama taxes the "rich" which would be most of the business owners and job creators in the country whats going to happen?  Businesses will close or move overseas for 1, since we have the 2nd highest tax rate right now anywho.  Secondly these businesses will have to charge more for their products just to pay their people, and third, jobs will be cut because of the lack of profit.

Obama says that he thinks we should "TALK" to Iran, Russia, and all the other rouge bullies.  Gee why didn't we think of that!  I am sure if we call Russia up and say "hey, you be nice to Georgia" they will say "oh, your right, were sorry"

And Obama thinks that each and every person in America should be "provided" health care.  Yeah, 2 words SOCIAL SECURITY- there is 1 good example of a government run program.  Shouldn't we be responsible for our own health care?  If we get the government out and allow the health insurance companies to flourish then they will create competition amongst them selves and healtcare will become affordable.

Just my thoughts    Have a good day everyone!

Fluffer

 

[BIGTEX]

Where in the Constitution does it say we have a right to free heath care?

JbarL, how about the government  come in and take half your cows, give them to people that are under privileged. The people don't have any land or experience with cattle. We know the wont be able to care for them properly, but the government takes them anyway, just because you have more than they do. Not that you didn't work harder than they did to get what you have. So do they deserve your cows? They don't deserve my cows or my money I have worked so hard for. If they worked really hard maybe they can have what we have. Or we could just give it to them. 

 

[cowz]

Ok, lets spice this discussion up.  Topic:  INHERETANCE TAX ......  Farms and Ranches.    AG operations are not exempt in any way

How many of us on here would have to sell or divide the family operation if the inheretance tax is reinstated.????

 

[knabe]

less tax and no way.....the republicans have created the largest governemt " agency" since the cia and its endless monatary demands it needs...

good thoughts jbarl.

however, obama has stated he wants to create a civil service corp larger than the US military that is compulsary (read mandatory).  that not only sounds like the draft, but it also sounds a little expensive.  add on the cure for global poverty, death tax, increased rates on combined incomes around $250k, which in the bay area and other cities isn't much, ie 1500 sqft house is still 500k, and these are people who create jobs.

in the latest jobs reports, manufacturing companies were laying off people, and guess who is hiring?  why it's the government.  how long can that cycle keep going on?  let me see, i work for the government, pay property tax to the government, get social security, medicare from the government, at what point will this house of cards come crashing down?  all we do is convert more of our economy to social services every day, over and over and over. 

 

[BIGTEX]

"Make's his living on other peoples taxes" as the Steve Miller Band  song goes.

 

[simtal]

Ok, lets spice this discussion up.  Topic:  INHERETANCE TAX ......  Farms and Ranches.    AG operations are not exempt in any way

How many of us on here would have to sell or divide the family operation if the inheretance tax is reinstated.????

How important was it in the first place?

I heard that NCBA mission to end the inheritance tax was a waste compared to the other problems facing the beef industry.

 

[knabe]

our leased ranch is right on the cusp of the value threshold.  however, supposedly you can protect it somehow, which we haven't looked into yet, as it just got divided due to my grandmother's death.  it does come up again since my dad's side has assets in the bay area.  SRU?

 

[JbarL]

Where in the Constitution does it say we have a right to free heath care?

JbarL, how about the government  come in and take half your cows, give them to people that are under privileged. The people don't have any land or experience with cattle. We know the wont be able to care for them properly, but the government takes them anyway, just because you have more than they do. Not that you didn't work harder than they did to get what you have. So do they deserve your cows? They don't deserve my cows or my money I have worked so hard for. If they worked really hard maybe they can have what we have. Or we could just give it to them. 

first paragraph....we thej people of the united states, in order to form a more perfect union, etablish justice, ensure domestic tranquility,  provide for the common defense, "promote the general warefare", and secure the blesings of the liberty to ouselves "and our prosperity" do ordain and establish this constituion for the uniteds states of america...
i quess you could put it in the"promote the general welfare", or "securing the blessings of libery to ourselves and our posterity".....catagory.....who put the "fear into you" that you were going to have to give your cows to someone?  ....i think if we all read the consttuion, first thing in the morning insead of the papers, we may be able to see what "should " be going on insead of what "might" be going on........jbarl

 

[Show Dad]

The preamble to the Constitution only sets the context.

 

[knabe]

good comments jbarl.

madison might disagree

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

 

[kdhansen]

Where in the Constitution does it say we have a right to free heath care?

JbarL, how about the government  come in and take half your cows, give them to people that are under privileged. The people don't have any land or experience with cattle. We know the wont be able to care for them properly, but the government takes them anyway, just because you have more than they do. Not that you didn't work harder than they did to get what you have. So do they deserve your cows? They don't deserve my cows or my money I have worked so hard for. If they worked really hard maybe they can have what we have. Or we could just give it to them. 

This reminded me of an email I had received (one of the few I have ever kept), had to share with those who haven't heard it before....    "I'm reminded of the time that Catherine  - one of Shannon's friends when she was little -  told me that she wanted to be President one day.

Both of her parents, liberal democrats, were standing there with us - and I asked Catherine - 'If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?'

Catherine replied - 'I would give houses to all the homeless people.'

'Wow - what a worthy goal you have there Catherine.'  I told her, 'You don't have to wait until you're President to do that, you can come over to my house and clean up all the dog poop in the back yard and I will pay you $5 dollars. Then we can go over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $5 dollars to use for a new house.'

Catherine (who was about 4) thought that over for a second, while her mom looked at me seething, and Catherine replied, 'Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and clean up the dog poop and you can pay him the $5 dollars?!'

Welcome to the Republican Party, Catherine."

 

[JbarL]

The preamble to the Constitution only sets the context.

it sure does....and its pretty clear that the " general welfare" of its citizens is pretty high on the list to be prioritized.......pretty old language....but timeless in meaning and interpretation.....the interpretation could represent a pretty bland  living i guess in some of todays populations.......kinda like the military's "leave no man behind, at any cost "  context that they live and die for....only on a citizens level....the context of the preamble was to set the tone of the amendments that followed as to address the challenges of them that were sure to follow.......i would say that the interpretation of the preamble would be the basis for any " decision " on amending any constitutional challenge....so if the government wants to use it citizens monies for the health car of its nation......what consitutional amendment  or part of the preamble would you say 'protects you from having to  participate"?........jbarl

 

[Doc]

This reminded me of an email I had received (one of the few I have ever kept), had to share with those who haven't heard it before....    "I'm reminded of the time that Catherine  - one of Shannon's friends when she was little -  told me that she wanted to be President one day.

Both of her parents, liberal democrats, were standing there with us - and I asked Catherine - 'If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?'

Catherine replied - 'I would give houses to all the homeless people.'

'Wow - what a worthy goal you have there Catherine.'  I told her, 'You don't have to wait until you're President to do that, you can come over to my house and clean up all the dog poop in the back yard and I will pay you $5 dollars. Then we can go over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $5 dollars to use for a new house.'

Catherine (who was about 4) thought that over for a second, while her mom looked at me seething, and Catherine replied, 'Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and clean up the dog poop and you can pay him the $5 dollars?!'

Welcome to the Republican Party, Catherine."


[/quote]

That would make too much sense!! (clapping)

 

[knabe]

Catherine (who was about 4) thought that over for a second, while her mom looked at me seething, and Catherine replied, 'Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and clean up the dog poop and you can pay him the $5 dollars?!'

Welcome to the Republican Party, Catherine."

that approach would be for the general welfare of the country.  you get commerce, and you can even tax it, whereas if you just gave him the money, all you could do is reduce taxes by taking it off your gross.

he would then spend it, and then you could generate tax, but you would miss a transaction.  skipping transactions is not in the general welfare of the country.

 

[knabe]

The preamble to the Constitution only sets the context.

it sure does....and its pretty clear that the " general welfare" of its citizens is pretty high on the list to be prioritized.......pretty old language....but timeless in meaning and interpretation.....the interpretation could represent a pretty bland  living i guess in some of todays populations.......kinda like the military's "leave no man behind, at any cost "  context that they live and die for....only on a citizens level....the context of the preamble was to set the tone of the amendments that followed as to address the challenges of them that were sure to follow.......i would say that the interpretation of the preamble would be the basis for any " decision " on amending any constitutional challenge....so if the government wants to use it citizens monies for the health car of its nation......what consitutional amendment  or part of the preamble would you say 'protects you from having to  participate"?........jbarl

the one where i run for office and say it isn't or have a constituency in enough number that says it isn't.  what the language allows for is just this flexibility.  the framers understood that protection from the welfare wanters was to only allow property owners to vote.  it of course allowed one to get property, and the constitution allowed for a more fair turnover of property compared to england.  it's pretty clear that the progressive perspective is to have enough people who want welfare to keep voting for it.

with population projections in 2050 and the economic status of that increase, if you think there is pressure on your money today, just wait.

 

[Show Dad]

Effectively enslaving them to a government check and the taxpaying class enslaved to paying for it. That sounds like promoting the general welfare to me.

I guess if we give up enough freedom we will all be better off.

 

[JbarL]

Effectively enslaving them to a government check and the taxpaying class enslaved to paying for it. That sounds like promoting the general welfare to me.

I guess if we give up enough freedom we will all be better off.

national heath care comes with no check......it just pays the doctors and facalities related costs......we already pay those "enslaved americans"'on welfare and such.....and the taxpayers are alredy "enslaved" with that burden......and the "burden " fpr medical and facalities costs of the military....and the politicans......and all the the illegal immagrants medical care...i no poeple who cant stand what they do ....but been doin' cause it has insurance for his family.......no way in his now fleetin life has he been able to get over that hump to persue his ambitionos....anyone else no anyone like that ?.....now thats what i call "enslaved".....or the guy who doesnt have insurance, but is doing what he loves, but cant pass up an oppertunity for employment  that offers insurance.....cause he's 26 and now got a " family to support"......what do you wnat you kids concentrating on in there soon to come future......following there dreams/asperations/ and " oh my gosh"......have we finally come to..."happiness and freedom"........or ...any  livelyhood that  offers insurance?....how "enslaved" is that for a fuutre to look forward to for our kids.......jbarl

 

[JbarL]

The preamble to the Constitution only sets the context.

and then sometime later...in our not so far past.....the same constituional right challange emerged later again ..... as to the ability for negros to vote and own property and even to be considered as a "citizen"...BIG step back then.......fightin' words......as most  of us remember........but like it or not...........not a popular choice with a many (to say the least).... at the time ...but  the preambles of the constituion  still prevailed to that decision.......like it or not....now when "citizens"  demanded  the right to apply there civil rights.........we get back to the book burnin'  days.....here agian the context apllied....and like it or not with the populas.at the time .....the constitution was applied......so histroy is telling us that when  justifiedable challanges to the constituion ahve been addressed and acted on in our system....the results are usually unsastifactoy to many and satasifactory to a few.......were pretty far behind the curve , socaially i think  when you look "back" to the short time ago that these events were finally accepten just  in our generation span........we've always moved slowely and "figntin' the reins  all the way"  in our distibution of / and defination of equality and who qualifies......jbarl