Welcome to PILOT SPIN!
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I'm not saying I agreed with it, I'm just saying how they ruled. They ruled based on the issue at hand.
That's spelled T r u m p.
For the most part, I am safest in my home. I have locked doors, and windows, a security system, and other things to protect me. I also have the advantage of knowledge of my environment. When I leave my home, I am more at risk, even in my vehicle, which if used properly can keep you safer, and even act as a deterrent. However, when leaving home, we are more at risk. Do I live in fear, and have paranoia about travelling, or leaving my home? Not at all. I often travel without a firearm due to work realities, travelling to other states that don't have reciprocity, airlines, etc.
The Constitution does not limit the right to bear arms to your own home. Only liberal/progressive courts have done so.
How about we find new, and innovative ways to effectively accommodate people on this Earth instead of killing them? Do you not believe in Human intellect, nor Human inspiration, and innovation? The problem with the Left is that they believe humans are the entire problem with Earth.
They said nothing about concealed carry. This case is about whether or not citizens should be allowed to carry concealed weapons in public places.
Yes, that would be hard to believe. You can't be serious.
Yes, the poor get a "prebate", which sound like an entitlement, but as you correctly pointed out, EVERYONE gets a prebate. So how could it be unfair?
And consider that the prebate essentially removes the need for any sort of welfare? Just think about that for a moment! Our current entitlement system is so bloated, innefficient and out of control it numbs the mind. Nobody will be going down the the 7-11 to sell their food stamps or WIC vouchers for half price to buy booze and cigarettes. They will just buy it with their prebate money and the scammers get none of it (except for the usual wayts that fools find to part with their money).
Right now, many employers pay illegals under the table to avoid payroll taxes. With the fair tax, there are no more payroll taxes. Workers get to keep what they are told they are earning. Most of the incentive to hire illegals evaporates right there by helping to equalize pay. Illegals don't get the prebate.
As I said earlier, otherwise intelligent people can always come up with some objection to any sort of tax plan. But I really can't figure out how you can think that this plan would be anywhere near as unfair or cumbersome as the current tax code. Yeah, the Canadian and European "VAT" are incomprehensible to the point that no one has any idea how much tax they are paying. Our current tax code is what gives the Federal Government most of it's control over our daily lives and what gives politicians such great power, and which gives the rich, who can afford an army of tax accountants, such leverage. But that is why it will never happen. The all powerful politicians and lobbyists for huge companies are afraid of it because it actually does help level the playing field for anyone.
It's all about how you react to the charges. Herman ended up bowing to the pressure and the rest is history. O'Reilly supposedly paid out big dollars which equated to "guilty". Look at the women that came out of the woodwork on Trump after the Billy Bush audio tape. He brushed it all off and got elected President.
Hence why we need a real "fair tax".
Right now we have a large portion of the population paying nothing in, but who can vote for those who will continue to keep them from paying while increasing the taxes on those who actually pay.
Everyone needs some skin in the game, even if it's small.
And everyone would be taxed. Right now a huge portion (around 50%) pay no income tax.
Excellent points. Andrew Wilkow has a phase that he uses to describe this type of environment, which extends well beyond just sexual harassment. He calls it "weaponized outrage" and I think that's a very accurate statement. We've taken any little thing that we don't like and turned it into mass anger and then use that to destroy people.
O'Reilly isn't the only to suffer this but he is one of the bigger profile people to succumb to this most recently. Anyone remember what happened to Herman Cain in the 2012 primaries? Or what Harry Reid said about Mitt Romney?
Paul, I gave you a "Like" on that one because it's such a well argued and articulated position, not because I specifically agree with everything in there. I wish this site had different types of like/agree/dislike buttons. I'll respond more later, but traveling for the next couple of days.
