Austin severely restricts barbeque restaurant smoke

Who gives a sh!t what people donate. He paid his taxes. 

what did you make, and how much did you donate?

Just wait til the adult beverages get a good grip on this thread and the Big Daddy here, Devastated .  Could be an epic time-not sure there is enough pop-corn on the planet for the entertainment.  "Sit back, relax and enjoy the show."

st¡ke said:

i always ask conservatives, did you put 10% into the basket so the Vatican can paint another ceiling? And why do you pray to a god who tells you to love your fellow man while you make decisions about people based on their skin color?

We don't pray to a god. We pray to God. There are a lot more Christians than the Catholic Church. Our church helps those in need on a regular basis and sponsor a food pantry available to anyone. We also help those in the community at large - not just our church members with financial hardships. Don't see that from too many liberals unless it is taking $$$ from others to redistribute "wealth". One thing liberals forget is that small business owners pay twice the taxes for SS and income tax. This is the number one reason businesses fail because they just can't support that. 

Hmmm.. and the liberals are so much better at race relations... PUUUULEEEEEZZZZE. The R's want to have policies that help give them jobs. The liberals want to keep them tied to their food stamps and other free handouts.  (Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach him to fish and he eats forever - not in the Bible, but true none-the-less. ) 

Seems to me that the R's are a LOT more inclusive and tolerant than the D's that want to keep them drugged, divided and poor.  You seriously think that any level of "wealth redistribution" will ever overcome keeping them dependent on the system??? 

Liberals want to take everyone elses money to give it to those unwilling to take responsibility for their own welfare. 

I liked this analogy of liberals. 

Conservatives:
Joe and Sam are walking along a path.  Joe says to Sam, I am hungry. Sam says, I have a sandwich, here you can have my sandwich. Both are happy.  Joe, because he is no longer hungry and Sam for helping his fellow man.

Liberals. 
Joe and Sam are walking along a path.  Joe says to Sam, I am hungry. Obama (the current face of Liberals)  rides up on his horse, and says to Sam while sticking a gun in his face, "Hey, you have a sandwich. Give it to Joe".  Both are now quite distressed.  Sam, for being forced to do something he may or may not have chosen to do himself, and Joe for feeling guilty that his friend Sam was robbed so he could eat. 

Unfortunately, in America, the church has all but abdicated it's mandate to feed the poor because the Gov't steals the individual's hard earned $$$ and they themselves can no longer not only contribute to the church for such things, but struggle day to day because of the taxation.  It is WHOLLY UNAMERICAN to be taxed as much as we are.  Fair share??? Let's see... 49-51% pay ZERO taxes. And in most cases, they get back more than they paid in by thousands of $$$. That means the rest of us pay far more than our share. This type of socialistic philosophy has never worked nor will it ever.  Pretty soon the haves will stop having and demand they too be given  their livelihood and then where will you be... It is a system that can only fail, but the liberals think they know what you should eat, wear, drive.  I for one say to all liberals:  HORSEHOCKEY!!!!  Gruber actually spoke the truth when he said that they (D/liberals) think that everyone is stupid- only thing is... You may be, but, WE are not.

@onedbguru That is so compelling I'm going to stop reading and watch whatever you're watching.  I'm changed forever.  Thank you so much for that truth!!!

@Legume.  I agree fully. 

I'm for nuclear energy, for example.  And I say build the damn pipeline, because it's a symbol that's working against what it's a symbol for.  Just build it, there are (pipelines) running all over the country already, but do it right (no leaks, safe as possible). 

There's a pretty obvious solution to every problem.  That is to use the best information on hand to come to a solution, not take an ideological decision, then ignore or support data to form a solution based on the outcome of the forgone conclusion.

Steven, if you're (not you specifically) promoting being a Luddite because you think the world will suffer with technology, you'll never get your message out in today's world -- unless you use technology.  The Gore reference, and I appreciate you recognize the fallacy of that argument, it doesn't dispute his argument, it's a footnote.  That anyone would believe that becoming the Luddite would be more effective saving the planet than convincing policy change through PR that could influence 7 billion people is unrealistic.  Unless he uses more than the other 8 billion people taking jets and driving cars.  Yet that argument is visceral to some, doesn't make sense unless you are convincing people that are easily convinced.

If you run the country like a business, and to be real, one where we want that business to be as small as possible and breaks even with no debt.  We have debt.  We're big.  So we want to reduce costs and increase revenue until the debt is gone.  I completely agree with that.  But there's a cost that magic won't solve, and it won't go away on its own.  That business needs to collect revenue and pay down the debt. 

So if you were in an economic class and had a hypothetical, the solution would be to raise revenue - sure, make it hurt, and cut costs. Or at least cut costs, be more efficient.  But also cutting revenue?  That drags it out and the people who are making money aren't going hungry.

Turns out we have cut costs.  But in a recession environment, if there's ever a time to spend money, that is it.  Economist agree.  Cutting taxes should be an issue when we're all balanced out.  Then you're debt free, try to keep it that way.

That trickle down method doesn't work, according to the data.  The architect of that policy acknowledged it.  If you want to dump money, do it where it'll be spent locally - on food, housing, cars, fuel.  We're subsidizing low wages for companies.  People have to live unless we want cruel working class poverty.  Once again, economists - main stream, not liberals, see this as benefiting everyone.  We'll have some inflation as a result, be it's been so low, and it helps us with debt like post WWII. 


 

^^^this.  It's not spend more or less, it's not collect more or less, it's value.  Spend wisely, design good solutions, focus on ROI.  And most of all, have some freakin patience and commitment to change.  

I would venture to guess that we as a country have abandoned far too many 'failed policies' midstream because of politics - one side investing energy into negative pursuits to 'prove' the other side's solution is wrong...for the sake of politicical gain.  Change takes patience and commitment and the maturity to say I'm going to support this because this is the decision of the organization I belong to and not sulk around constantly trying to undermine.