zoocrew

A lien doesn't mean anything is "crooked" but that there is a lein. Now if the person was dodging something with some shady goings on, then, yeah. That's crooked. But a lien doesn't mean something is crooked. Many liens are filed because of an honest dispute. My husband has had several liens filed against him over disputes with vendors. Some good friends of mine have liens against their property over lawsuits with the subdivision's developer. Let's be reasonable here. I didn't see anything in the article that would indicate something shady going on.

Rumors? Let's see the information so we can all judge it for ourselves.

And exactly how do you know those were "Mexicans" and not naturalized American citizens, or of they were descended from a European nation like Spain or Portugal? The fountain was built with grant money that had to be spent on the streetscape project and nothing else. Exactly how are sure those "trips" weren't not for county business? No, the airport was not voted on. That is not true. There was a vote for whether or not to float a bond for the funding but there was never a vote on whether or not to have the airport. So you don't think the people who have the most education and

Where do I start? First, the quote you gave by Alexis de Tocqueville is spurious. He never said it. Neither did Tytler. That email urban legend has been floating around for years and only the naive believe those sort of things. Second, I am not even going to bother trying to discuss the way the economy works. While I redily admit I am not an expert in those matters, this discussion was part of 320, 330, 410 and 420 Public Econ classes. It was also part of Policy and Econ 301. I would suggest you get get those books down and read them. Third, the economy is much more complex than

Yawn. This has already been covered. I would suggest you read the ruling first. My link

+10

That's not what I said. It is much more complicated than what you're presenting. The legal definitions for purposes of the case are not the same as what lay people would use.

The majority on here are against Obama. Will you vote for him?

The original Christian church? Ooooh K. I think I will just stop and let everyone kinda read what you're writing and let it sink in. It's getting out there.

We will certainly have to disagree on this one. But the court ruling discusses why the state has the right to restrict guns in certain public places, churches being one of those.

4th sentence in your first post reads like this. I am proud of Mr. Cathy for standing up to the mainstream supporters of nonchristain beliefs. Or you post that said You need not talk of "christains" who are only that in name. My link You are, again, saying that only your version is real and every other idea is twisted.

Once again. Are you willing to say Gingrey is a hypocrite for giving the check? Are you willing to say the local politicians are hypocrites for taking the money? It's easy to say all need to be more responsible. But are you willing to specifically call specific actions hypocritical?

Exempt in employment practices to some degree, yes. Not exempt with building codes, etc., like you said ... for everyone. Public places have a reasonable expectation of safety afforded by the proprietor of the venue, church or otherwise.

But are you willing to publicly call Gingrey a hypocrite for decrying the spending but then have his picture made passing out checks to local politicians who also decried government spending? Like the airport built here with FAA money. Were the politicians who took the money to build the airport hypocrites for taking the money?

But you based your entire premise on what is "true religion" in your very first post. So you're saying that only people that agree with your version are Christians and everyone else who has a different view are not real Christians? China also persecutes the Tibetan monks and Muslims too. So how does that fit in with being "anti-Christian?"

So you are willing to call Phil Gingrey a hypocrite for passing out the checks for the local places to spend that Federal money he voted against, and you're willing to say the local politicians are hypocrites for accepting that money when they claim they are about cutting spending. Is that what you're saying?

Not when the private property invites the general public as a normal course of its operations. Then that private property becomes a quasi-public property when establishing the criteria for guilt of actions or negligence. Because the general public is invited, the state has an obligation to demand a reasonable standard of care for the public that goes there, just like the local municipality requires fire code observance, and the Federal government requires ADA compliance.

You do understand that money going back in to the general budget doesn't "pay back the debt," right? You cannot earmark money to "pay back the debt." That's not how the budget process works.

But we're not talking about the most proficient use of firearms. We're talking about the legal principle of a reasonable expectation of safety and the state's mandate to safeguard that reasonable level of safety in public places. If people are fearing an armed intruder, the church has a legal obligation to hire trained personnel for that protection. The law that forbids guns in public places is to establish a level of guilt when something does go wrong. It is a higher level of legal principles at play here. That is what the court ruled and why arguing over whether or not carrying is prote

No. You're saying he is bigoted against some people and using his version of religion as an excuse for his bigotry. You're saying China is anti-Christian. Please cite the Bible verses so we can see what makes them anti-Christian. I think you meant "immoral" so we'll go with that. Other Christian groups would disagree completely that homosexuality is immoral. So basically you're presenting YOUR VERSION of Christianity as THE VERSION and all that disagree are not Christian. Got it.

First, I see you resorted to personal attacks and name calling. Classy. Second, there is no arguing with someone who is unwilling to take the time to understand the other point of view of the issues, or the complexity of the legal and societal values. You can have the thread.

So you're saying the politicians who gave the money after decrying the spending (Phil Gingrey) and then passed it on for local projects while local politicians decry government spending (local politicians) are hypocrites. Is that the jest of what you're saying?

So you're saying that America is Christian and other nations are not? It's been a while but I don't recall the Bible saying anything about Communism as something evil. Even non-communist governments persecute people for their beliefs or actions, America included. And you're wrong about Chic-Fil-A standing for Christian values. It is standing for ONE VERSION of Christianity. Many other Christian groups have a completely different take on the issue.

You missed the entire point again. If the tough punishment stopped criminal activity, there would have been no crime. That was the point made. I'm interested in where you got your history degree. I ask because you really don't know what you're talking about here. The fact is that there some VERY restrictive guns laws in the Wild West and anyone with a history degree would know that. So if you're going to talk about low crime rates in the Western towns, you have to consider that the low crime rate is correlated to the highly restrictive gun laws they had.

They want a voucher program to "get away" from the "undesirables" so there can be a "better education" for the middle class to upper class kids. The result is that there will be an economic segregation. I'm suggesting the voucher idea is a knee-jerk answer to a complex problem, an answer that has not been thought through to its logical conclusion. I'm not saying the end result is what she is wanting, but the vouchers is the goal and the terrible result has not been thought through.