you're wrong, S. FLA the illegals paid on the books
Posted By: on the books have taxes taken out....sm on 2008-02-23
In Reply to: Bullhockey, illegals are paid in cash, there is NO tax being taken out. nm - eaz
at least the ones I know.....the ones who did arrive with at least a visa.....and who get paid off a company payroll and not off the books or in cash is what I mean....
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Bullhockey, illegals are paid in cash, there is NO tax being taken out. nm
x
well, you make it sound like Obama is doing something wrong by being paid -
x
You're right - look elsewhere! I paid cash for my car
the current recession. (Also a nice used car.) I test-drove the car, talked them into letting me 'vet' it at my own mechanic, and when it passed, I showed up at the dealership with a cashier's check for $1.5K less than their 'bottom line'. I told them it was all I had. (It was the truth). The salesman went and talked to the manager, came back, and said 'You've got a deal.' (Also asked me 'where did you learn to buy cars?) I also talked them into a free extended warranty, radiator flushing and new coolant.
:D
You're wrong...
Everybody is innocent until proven guilt for me. That's the American way. I'm not picking and choosing who suits me to be guilty or innocent. As for somebody's life being in jeopardy, that's isn't even mentioned in the indictment. In fact, it may be that the woman wasn't outed at all, being that she pushed paper at a desk and everybody and his cousin knew where she worked. I think this is either payback for the Ken Starr investigation or an attempt to park a dark cloud of suspicion over the White House, being that even with everything that is going wrong the polls show that 44% of the country would vote for a Democrat and 44% of the country would vote for a Republican if an election were held today. The Democrats have no solutions, so they try to discredit the Republicans so that they'll at least get a vote against the Reblicans to put them back in the White House.
Actually, you're wrong about that.
See link. Some people believe anything they are told, I guess.
http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/index.cfm?lesson=EM219
You're wrong
nm
Oh, you're quite wrong.
I would have replied exactly as I did whatever your gender. I might have substituted "Bub" for "my dear", but that makes no difference.
Trying to portray yourself as the poor widdle victim of misogynistic meanies is no different from someone misplaying the race card in order to deflect unpleasant truths.
Grow up.
Yup. You're wrong.
If they put up a statue to that pathetic joke, AL Gore, "inventor of the Internet" and "Chicken-Little of Global Warming (NOT!)", then I want to be a pigeon. And incidentally, I'd like the honor of being the first one.
Take your judgments and take a hike.
I agree with you and yet I'm still wrong. You're only here..sm
for a fight and you know it. Even when I agree you still are in attack mode.
Please show some accountability and show me where I said you mentioned this administration. I said we may never see eye to eye on the administration and from your vicious attacks here on the liberal board gives me the impression that you see nothing wrong in Iraq, but that we are not sending care packages. That's been your main argument here.
You are the one imagining things. You cant even grasp the fact that a liberal (myself) was actually agreeing with you about the care packages, so you had to turn it all around and start the argument that I shouldn't send anything. You have a lot of anger in you and it's not my fault. I'm sorry my dear, I can not separate the fact that our soldiers need care packages from the administration that sent them to war, but they need them nonetheless. Like I said I will do whatever my heart leads me to do, and you and YOUR bitterness will have no say in the matter.
pssst...you're both wrong, too bad.
That's what happens when you swallow your bait whole on Faux News! By now everyone should know that Sheehan was never even asked to zip up her jacket and stated that if she had been, she would have done so without any problem.
Also, it was revealed several days later that there is NO law against wearing shirts with statements or political messages at the SOTU. The Capitol police have apologized for their mistake. Right.
So, turns out that Sheehan (who Bush just happens not to like)did nothing more than accept an invitation, wear a preferred shirt and show up in her assigned seat. All the silly nonsense about unfurling a banner or refusing to cooperate with police or being a nuisance was no more than lies spread by the very people who are constitutionally incapable of telling the truth, cowards afraid to be in the presence of anyone who disagrees with them, even if that person is totally silent - and they will break, bend, twist and contort the law in any way they can to avoid having the truth look them in the eye.
Unfortunately, they have too many Americans duped into believing and repeating their nasty little memes every time they are vomited out.
Nope you're wrong
I haven't posted here in quite a while. And as I said, there are apparently quite a few others that post here. When some of us see your posts deteriorate into bullying and name-calling we speak up about it. It's as simple as that.
I think you're numbers are wrong. The top 5% of
the U.S. makes millions and billions. $200,000 is NOT the 'top 5%' of the country. It's definitely more than a single, head-of-household MT makes, but depending on where you live, it won't put you in that mansion on the hill, either.
When he talks about raising taxes on the top 5%, he's not talking about YOU. He's talking about people like Bill Gates. He's talking about huge corporations (like the oil industry, tobacco industry, HMO & insurance industries, etc.) that rake it in, and then have a jillion and a half loopholes and secret cubbyholes to stash it in.
You're in the wrong place s/m
If you want an objective, nonbiased opinion don't expect to find it on this forum. Read the ridiculous stuff aimed at ditzing Obama. Ridiculous. My suggestion is to watch the candidates as much as possible and listen carefully to what they say. You can also usually find video clips of their stump speeches, etc. on Yahoo. Don't depend on anyone to make up your mind for you, do your research and vote your conscience. That's the best I have to offer. No use being reduced to tears.
you're talking to the wrong sm --
You're Wrong, Kendra
We didn't invade Iraq because "Saddam Hussein was well on his way to becoming another Hitler." You have no idea what you're talking about, Kendra. We invaded Iraq because of a pack of filthy lies by a pack of filthy liars who lied about WMDs and yellowcake uranium, and the list goes on and on and on....
"Fighting a little on other soil." Nice turn of phrase, Kendra. How about 4243 American military personnel killed since Bush's war began? How about somewhere over 90,000 Iraqi civilian casualties since Bush's war began? How many Iraqis participated in the 9/11 attacks, Kendra? ZERO. How is invading Iraq defending our way of life, Kendra? AL Qaeda in Iraq DIDN'T EXIST until Bush's war. How about a price tag of $3 TRILLION and counting, Kendra?
Anybody who claims to be against the cost of the stimulus bill while turning a blind eye to the human and monetary cost of Bush's war in Iraq is a hypocrite of the worst kind.
Well, how YOU think she looks, you're right, I'm wrong, now u r happy........nm
nm
Well, how YOU think she looks, you're right, I'm wrong, now u r happy........nm
nm
Yep still in Ohio and you're still wrong sm
Guess we play by different rules down here. Ya'll come down and see us some time.
I don't know where you found your info, but here is info I found at this website under food stamps fact sheet: http://jfs.ohio.gov/families/food/index.stm
Doesn't say anything about being taxable or not and definitely does not specifically forbid soda.
What can be bought with food stamp benefits?
Food stamp benefits can be used to buy most food or food products intended for human consumption. Items which
may not be purchased with food stamps include alcoholic beverages, tobacco, hot food and hot food products
that are prepared to be eaten immediately. Individuals who receive food stamp benefits may not sell or trade food
stamp benefits, buy nonfood items or use food stamp benefits to buy food for someone who is not a member of
the household.
Ah, but you see, you're wrong again. (Are you masochistic or something?)
LOADS of folks on the forum get my humor (for instance, please read the testimonials posted by my mother and sister - both of whom are of the female persuasion) - among others. I'm putting them into a scrapbook.
...and I think you meant "THERE you sit", since I checked and didn't find you hiding under my desk. Wait, though. I forgot about the trash basket.
Excuse me, but I think you're wrong. (sm)
Those who hate JTBB and continously nip at her heels like pesky, rabid chihuahuas are allowed to communicate with her in any manner they choose, the more hate filled, the better.
It's those posters who try to be polite, those posters who understand and (God forbid) AGREE with JTBB who aren't welcome here.
What I usually come away with after reading one of JTBB's posts is an opinion with a very well thought-out opinion borne from a lot of research.
She's one of the fairest minded and intelligent people to post on this board, in my opinion, and for having that opinion, I'm sure the fire will be aimed in my direction for having the unmitigated gall to say something NICE about her, when only the most hateful insults towards JTBB are tolerated here.
P.S. to the person who demands how everyone communicates on this board: JTBB is being singled out by a person who is interested in discussion of issues and isn't interested in bashing, insulting and bullying. There are very few, if any, on this board who fit that profile.
You're on the wrong board, aren't you?
Twist away, the truth is out there. Sam's right. You're wrong. nm
"we" did the right thing....no, you're wrong there.....a lot of
people, mostly young, were bamboozled.
"We" did not do the righ thing...
Unless you like total government control, and social medicine, and social economics.....
We may never recover from President Obama, at least not in my lifetime.
I did not vote for him. I wish him well, but his choices as he is leading up to his inauguration do not bode well for our country on a whole, especially our children and grandchildren.
Libs refuse to call it socialism.
But that's what we're putting into office.
Bush opened the door a crack.
Obama intends to play on our fears and take full advantage of them.
Maybe when all your rights are gone, when govt has total control over your healthcare, your mortgage, your loans, your 401K....maybe then, you will understand what is happening right under your nose, and finally see what you have lost.
"we" did the right thing....no, you're wrong there.....a lot of
people, mostly young, were bamboozled.
"We" did not do the righ thing...
Unless you like total government control, and social medicine, and social economics.....etc......
We may never recover from President Obama and his "change", at least not in my lifetime.
I did not vote for him. I wish him well, but his choices as he is leading up to his inauguration do not bode well for our country on a whole, especially our children and grandchildren, who will be left to foot the bill, and have less rights than we do now.
Libs refuse to call it socialism.
But that's what we're putting into office.
Bush opened the door a crack.
Obama intends to play on our fears and take full advantage of them.
The barn door is wide open, and the winner take all (Obama). "Never let a good crisis go to waste" as his team has recently stated.
He has, and will, take full advantage of our fears, as even he, Obama, was the fear monger today.
Maybe when all your rights are gone, when govt has total control over your healthcare, your mortgage, your loans, your 401K, (and other things I can't even imagine as of yet unveiled b....maybe then, you will understand what is happening right under your nose, and finally see what you have lost.
I think you responded to the wrong person here. You're
My whole point was that the UK is not the country to talk about banning "extreme" ideas. They're loaded with extremists yammering on every street corner and advocating violent jihad.
Kinky. I think you're on the wrong message board.
Sicko!
Then you're apparently listening in the wrong places. nm
nm
Yep, you're right....it was probably that pesky "sm" poster typed in wrong....my bad.
.
benefits for illegals...
Alright which party is for doing something about the illegals that are crossing our border and not just to work but to take advantage of goverment benefits. More specific which person who is running? Has this been mentioned by any of them? Let me enlighten everyone on some things. Let everyone see just how messed up this country is becoming. I live near an illegal immigrant who has found out she is pregnant. Well she went to the office where you apply for Medicaid to pay for the baby and they told her unless she could prove she was a US citizen no help. Well that is the way it should be. She goes to Georgia. They say same thing. She has now gone to Louisiana, which is not the state where she even lives either. They are going to give her benefits. They don't even check. What is the deal? She is illegal, has a job that she said wanted proof she could work in the US legally. She got around that somehow. I don't know how. She pays no taxes here. But yet she can get Medicaid? What the heck is going on here? She doesn't even live in Louisiana. She gave them someone elses address. How can the country let this continue?
SCHIP and Illegals
I do not have an article where Bush himself said it; I heard him on TV on one of those blurbs talking about it. The opposition of the Republicans is that the present bill is an expansion of SCHIP (to the tune fo 6 billion dollars) and opens the door to make it easy for illegals to get on the program legally...although some states who administer SCHIP already do it on the "honor system" and don't ask for proof of citizenship, so you tell me how many are already on it.
This is from an article that sums up what I have read:
Democratic SCHIP Bill Benefits Illegal Immigrants, GOP Charges
(CNSNews.com) - House Republicans said Thursday they hope to block provisions of a Democratic bill to expand health care coverage for poor children that could open up the coverage to illegal immigrants.
The Children's Health and Medicare Protection (CHAMP) Act would expand the existing State Children's Health Insurance Program - more than doubling it in size - and "improve beneficiary protections under the Medicare, Medicaid and the [SCHIP] program."
As Cybercast News Service previously reported, the bill has come under fire from Republicans who view its expansions in coverage as a step toward nationalized health care. Republicans are now also attacking the bill because of three sections dealing with immigration issues.
"Illegal immigrants are about to get an unexpected boost thanks to the Democratic Congress," House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a statement Thursday.
"The Democrats have a proposal that not only raises taxes on middle class families and slashes funding for a popular Medicare program ... it eliminates the requirement that persons applying for Medicaid or SCHIP service show proof of citizenship or nationality."
Calling the bill "poorly crafted," Boehner said the proposal would "dole out billions of dollars to states who then have the option of whether or not to verify that a person is an American citizen before providing taxpayer-funded health benefits like Medicaid and SCHIP. The bill also eliminates the current five-year waiting period required for legal immigrants to receive government health benefits."
One provision, Section 132, would remove a requirement that legal immigrants wait five years before being eligible for government-funded health care coverage, according to Republican opponents.
The other two sections have potential applicability to illegal residents. Section 143 would give states the option of requiring proof of citizenship for enrollment in the programs. Opponents say the provision allows states to "return to a system of blind trust."
As to pandering to get the Hispanic ILLEGAL vote, why do you think this bill is crafted this way from the Dems to make sure they can get their kids on SCHIP? Dems have been chasing the illegal immigrant vote even more so than Republicans...in fact, they COUNT on it. I have heard Bush talk about amnesty and that is one of the places that he and I disagree. Although, I don't think he is courting the Hispanic vote or he would not be vetoing a program that puts them right on the SCHIP rolls no questions asked...now would he??
I think it is more important to let the bill stay as-is for 6 months than to open it up as a freeforall for illegals to get their kids on it. YES, I think it is more important. I am not a Republican, but I am a fiscal conservative, and I certainly agree in this case.
And yes, before you ask, I have children. I may not have everything I want, but I can insure my kids. And I don't make $80,000 a year either...about expanding SCHIP to cover "middle income" families. They are talking about a family of 4 with total income of $80,000 a year (2 adults 2 kids) being eligible for a program that was designed to cover low income kids. THat is what...400% of the poverty level and how much higher than the median income in the US? I'm sorry, but an annual income of $80,000...there should be a way for those folks to cover their children. They are not talking about cancelling any other programs or any way to pay for this 6 billion dollar expansion other than a cigarette tax, which everyone knows will not cover it all. Yes, I think kids should have health care... but if they are going to pay for it for an annual income of $80,000 they might as well pay for it for ALL kids, period. And that is the first step toward socialized medicine, and I don't need a Democrat or a Republican to tell me that. I can see the handwriting on the wall. Do some research on socialized medicine in Canada...the pros and the cons...and see if you really want that happening here.
And if they are going to do that, they might as well pay it for everyone = socialized medicine. Be careful what you ask for. Government run medical care...I don't think you want to go there.
And, frankly, if they want to expand it to cover a family of 4 making $80,000 a year, I don't think it should be a freebie. Maybe offered at a lower rate than families who make more than that...but come on. A family making $80,000 a year should be able to insure their children. Insuring their children should be their FIRST priority. You tell me what would keep a family of 4 with annual income of $80,000 from being able to insure their children? If anything, it is because 35-40% of their income comes off the top in TAXES right now to pay for all the social programs in this country. Why not LOWER taxes to help them pay their premiums instead of taxing us all MORE to give them health care? Why not do that? But you say tax cut to a Democrat and they get apoplectic.
Perhaps it is because people don't want to prioritize and don't want to do without anything in order to insure their children, would rather spend it on something else. There ARE families who choose to do that. You are naive if you think there are not.
Honestly, if we do not control spending, and we give more and more entitlements and extend those entitlements higher and higher up the income level...can you not see the vicious circle? Are we going to extend it in another 5 years for families of 4 who make $120,000 a year because we have taxed everyone so much that now THEY can't afford to insure their children? Come on! Why not prioritize? Take all the money earmarked for social programs, put insuring children at the top, insure all the children if that is what the american people think is most important, and whatever is left, dole out to the remaining programs. Try prioritizing instead of more programs, more taxes, more programs, more taxes. I personally think that 35-40% in taxes off the top of our incomes is ENOUGH.
Stimulating Illegals
Investor's Business Daily 03/12/09
Economy: At least 300,000 of those stimulus jobs will go to illegal aliens who are likely to send that money home to their native countries. Just whose economy are we stimulating?
The stimulus package is supposed to stimulate the American economy and create American jobs, but missing from it are measures to guarantee that. As a result, say both the Heritage Foundation and the Center for Immigration Studies, hundreds of thousands of these jobs will go to illegal aliens, and much of the money they earn will not be spent here.
The original House version included a provision requiring employers to check registration status with the E-Verify system before hiring. This provision was missing from the Senate bill and was not in the final version sent to President Obama.
The Obama administration has also delayed at least until May 21 a Bush administration executive order requiring federal contractors to use E-Verify. It was supposed to take effect in January.
Last Tuesday, 75 representatives of both parties sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leader John Boehner urging them "to protect taxpayers and legal workers by including these critical jobs protection provisions in any future economic recovery legislation."
In a February report by the Heritage Foundation, senior research fellow Robert Rector looked at the 2 million construction jobs the stimulus is supposed to create. "Without specific mechanisms to ensure that workers are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants authorized to work," he concluded, "it is likely that 15% of these workers, or 300,000, would be illegal immigrants."
Steven Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies, comes up with the same figure for construction jobs based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey and other independent findings that 15% of all construction workers in the U.S. are illegal aliens.
Camarota says the total number of stimulus jobs going to illegals may be higher. At least a million more jobs are said to be created by the stimulus, and with 5% of the overall U.S. work force consisting of illegals, they could get another 50,000 non-construction jobs.
Rector sees another downside. "The fact that illegal aliens send a substantial portion of their earnings abroad reduces the stimulus effect that their employment has in the United States," he says.
Remittances, Mexico's second-largest source of foreign income after oil, dipped 3.6% to $25 billion in 2008, compared with $26 billion the previous year, according to Mexico's central bank. Will our stimulus improve Mexico's economy?
"It's outrageous that in a bill designed to provide employment for Americans, Congress has deliberately chosen to allow jobs to be given to illegal immigrants," Rector adds.
We think so too.
He wants amnesty for illegals. How is that
How is amnesty for illegals GOOD for Americans? It's NOT! Cut off the ability for them to work here. Every time they are picked up by police, ship them home. Secure the border. Compared to all the spending Obama wants to do, these are CHEAP solutions that will free up jobs for hard-working Americans. Not great jobs, no, but jobs that can help make ends meet in hard times! Jobs for the ones first laid off! Spending money on "good" causes is not what is needed during a crisis like this. Saving money and very careful spending that promotes private enterprise and hiring are what will rescue us.
I completely disagree with the Republicans who stopped the 95% taxing of the bonuses to AIG employees. That was one obviously smart thing the Dems were trying to do, and I'm furious the Reps stopped it.
I've been sending faxes to my reps on these important issues. You can too, through the Numbers USA website. Let our elected leaders know we aren't falling for their propaganda, and we know there are smarter, cheaper solutions to our country's problems. www.numbersusa.com/
Amnesty for illegals
I am amazed nearly everyday with the idiotic things that come from our government. This one about made me spit out my beverage when I heard it. Amnesty for illegals is a horribly bad idea. What message does that send to the ones who are trying to become citizens the right way. This also sends a message for more and more illegals to come our way. This is an outrage. Absolutely ridiculous! We spend billions of dollars on illegals the way that it is.
This wouldn't have anything to do with Obama's aunt or anything.....now would it? Or maybe this is just his ploy to get more votes by turning them into legal citizens. Either way.....it is an ignorant thing to do. This is one area I truly 100% disagreed with McCain on. He wanted amnesty too.
BAD IDEA!!!
My biggest concern is how many illegals are
+
1 MILLION ILLEGALS have mortgages!!
nm
This thread is about bailing out illegals,
but I don't agree with bailing out the banks and CEOs either.
Illegals voting???? One word ACORN. nm
nm
I want secure borders to keep out terrorists and illegals...
Having lived in a border state and, now, even further north, it is evident that illegal immigrants are taking over our country. We are in a financial crisis and yet, much of a social service money goes to those who do not even pay taxes on the money they earn. They sure as heck spend our taxes, though. I am not against immigrants, just those who do not do it legally. There are certain hoops that need to be jumped through and, I bleieve, are well worth it to live in this great country.
By law he can detain illegals......unfoturtunately our laws
nm
And yet MILLIONS of illegals are taking jobs in this
nm
we'd be better off without illegals..he deserves a commendation, not a civil suit...
++
So far as I know there is not a law on the books...
against killing cattle...or hogs...but there IS one about killing humans.
heck I wouldn't mind giving illegals benefits if I could
and i'm nervous about my 3 month waiting period at my new job for health insurance!
I thought there was already a law on the books about...
the drivers licenses...I thought that was already passed as a law, to be implemented by 2008? What I read about it, it is not actually a national driver's license per se, but makes the states comply with the same set of rules (and that IS needed) about dispensing driver's licenses. I didn't read anything about Homeland Security. I guess they could be changing it, as the states were lamenting they thought they could not get ready for it that fast. However, when I moved to the state I now reside in, they were already doing the birth certificate thing and that was four years ago. To change my DL from the state I was moving from to where I moved I had to provide my birth certificate and it had to be the original or a copy with state seal, to prove I was a US citizen. And again, that was four years ago. But, as we all know, not all states are that vigilant.
As to the email and the phone conversations....I think that is blown out of proportion. I don't think the government has the time or the inclination to listen in to everyone's phone calls or read everyone's emails. I would bore them to death in 15 minutes. I was under the impression that they still had to have a judge's order (albeit they can get them much faster) to do that.
Okay...no big government, I get that. Can we extend that to social programs as well, and keep big government out of my pockets, while we are at it?
I think, if you look around, the billionaires in business are regulated. Tat is one of the reasons so much of it went to China (thank you Bill Clinton),and other countries. That's why the billionaires in Hollyweird now go to Canada to make films instead of keeping the money at home (while all the time telling us how much they care about the *common people*). And flying all over creation, which each east to west coast flight dumps more carbon into the atmosphere than a year's worth of most cars. I'm sorry, I don't think liberals are doing a great job on conservation either, Lurker. CLinton and Gore had 8 years to do something...I don't see where they did much either, frankly.
new phone books with
much larger print.
its more than losing books
that concerns me. It is the mindset that her beliefs are the only true ones and that information and opinions that differ from hers should not be available to United States citizens. That is down-right mindblowing.
I have not read either of his books, but
I would be interested in seeing the whole paragraph at the very least that these were taken from, and better still the whole chapter. I'm not saying he isn't racist, but you can't just put out a sentence of 2 of what you want people to see.
I have a friend who is like Obama, her mother was white and her father black. All of the things I am reading from your post are somewhat similar to what she has said to me before. She never really felt like she belonged anywhere. She is lighter skinned so some of the black people she knew would question her about that, and she said she too would stop telling people because no matter what she would be treated different by some people. And, I have seen first hand with her, that some white people would treat her terribly because she had a black father. So she would start to have an animosity towards whites. Like he says in that sentence, sometimes she did feel that she would have to prove that she was "black enough" (her words) to some people. To prove that she was loyal to her father's race. Does that make her racist? I don't think so. She said, and I could see too as we grew up together, that it was really confusing to her growing up. She felt like she didn't really belong anywhere. Now, in her 30s, she said she has learned to just be herself for the first time. She is black and she is white, she tries not to associate to either but to both. She said sometimes it is still hard because with some people they want you to be one or the other.
The last part you have from Dreams of My Father - what is wrong with that? I am taking from it he is trying to be his own man, not trying to be like white men or brown men, and that he all the things he looks up to about being a black man are from the men listed.
The last sentence, like I said I would like to see the whole paragraph or section. But I have just 1 question for you - what is wrong with being a Muslim? I know some Muslims and they are peaceful and would never think of hurting anyone. I have never read it all but what I have seen of the Koran it advocates peace. It is unfortunate that the extremists of their religion are tainting everyone else. These extremists are using the Muslim religion to hide behind for their own hate and personal agenda. I am not Muslim, but lets not forget that there are plenty of Christian extremists too and I would never identify myself with one of them.
lots of books on this - even old ones
http://www.amazon.com/Fourth-Turning-Str-William/dp/0767900464/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223520209&sr=8-1
How many of his books have you read?
nm
NY has had laws on the books for
over 5 years. No smoking just about anywhere except Indian-owned casinos and private clubs that do not have employees. No Smoking in bars, restaurants, etc.
I for one, love it!
Books have been written
on the insidious & frightening merging of the right wing (currently occupied by the republican party) and the Christian religion. Certainly there are individual exceptions, but the political party defines itself in large part by its religious beliefs, which as I understand from the media and from the posts on this very board, involves preservation of life at all costs, period. Here's a scary watch: The documentary "Jesus Camp."
As far as my world view being narrow, I would say that the difference is that I'm willing to let people believe whatever they want to believe, & if I don't like it I can change channels. As opposed to Christians (granted, maybe the most vocal ones, who are the only ones I've had occasion to hear), who do not appear to be satisfied until everyone thinks the way they do. I think everyone has a right to personal beliefs, but that right STOPS at the point where it infringes on my own. As opposed to Christians (ditto above reference) who seem quite happy to legislate the world to their own belief system. To me, that's what the narrowness involves.
|
