“Anasasis Xenophontis.”

Since: Dec 08

over there.

#34134 Jan 31, 2013
Silvercoastcorks wrote:
<quoted text>
Being a world of Warcraft beta tester is not a job kiddo
Dont you put that evil on me. lol. no i got some good connects in the construction field from all the leadership opportunities i was in with all the service learning projects that i helped in. i actually still have to do a 400 hr internship with a heavy industrial project manager but from what my dept. head is tellin me with my profile outlook is that im headin into some big money. problem is i love it in the mountains, especially in cullowhee and i really dont want to move. i will, without regret, take a paycut to stay around the area and i really want to get into the residential and/or landscape architectural field. thing is with a degree in construction management i wont have the resume for a landscaping architect, i might have to further my education and weigh down my pocket again. college finances have been lookin good so far with loans already getting repaid, plus i turned down 1 or 2. in summary, im looking at making more money than most licensed accountants, and i believe my job will be far more fulfilling than sitting at a desk all day. all in all, im going to be making more money than you so you better leave the country lol.
TSF

Kenly, NC

#34135 Jan 31, 2013
You are so wrong !!! You are also in denial of reality.
WE DEFINITELY HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM, A REVENUE PROBLEM and A DEBT PROBLEM. If republikans are not serious about addressing those problems, they should stop whining about them .
Yes, democrats are advocating a continuation of expensive spending on social programs. If we ever get out of debt, they will have to give that up. Republikans will also have to give up the historically low taxes on income and capital gains.
There will be whining, wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth on both sides if this problem is REALLY addressed. If you support more spending or resist raising taxes, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.
Pro-American wrote:
<quoted text>You obviously don't understand how the economy works. If you taxed capital gains at 94% who do you think would invest their money...nobody! The average annual return is only about 9.6% and if the govt takes 9.02%(94%) of that 9.6%, leaving a profit of .58%, who in their right mind would take the risk? With nobody investing their would be no retirement/pension plans. Since most businesses only make a small profit margin, without investors the cost of goods and services would skyrocket, making most everything either unaffordable or would cause companies to go bankrupt. 94% may have worked in 1954 because it was a different time and era, we didn't have all of the leftist social programs that are draining the govt of every penny! Studies show if you taxed EVERYONE 100% on EVERYTHING, the revenue wouldn't even run our govt for 6 months! WE DON'T HAVE A REVENUE PROBLEM, WE HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM!!!!!
TSF

Kenly, NC

#34136 Jan 31, 2013
With a debt of 16 trillion now and annual receipts held constnt at 2.3 trillion, suppose we STOP ALL spnding on anything other than tax collections. Imagine (unrealistically) that tax colletions could be accomplished on .3 trillion per year , leaving 2 trillion to be applied annually to the principal 16 trillion. It would take over 11 years to pay off the debt if ALL spending stopped today. Without tax increases , that would mean no military, no government,no police, no firemen, no regulation on anything, no nothing. What do you think would happen?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#34137 Jan 31, 2013
TSF wrote:
With a debt of 16 trillion now and annual receipts held constnt at 2.3 trillion, suppose we STOP ALL spnding on anything other than tax collections. Imagine (unrealistically) that tax colletions could be accomplished on .3 trillion per year , leaving 2 trillion to be applied annually to the principal 16 trillion. It would take over 11 years to pay off the debt if ALL spending stopped today. Without tax increases , that would mean no military, no government,no police, no firemen, no regulation on anything, no nothing. What do you think would happen?
Here's my thoughts:

No military: most people are against the military, so if the country is attacked, you better hope not all the guns have been taken and you stand and fight together or you fall.
No police: if you live where I do, it's pretty much every man for himself and God for us all, again you better hope you were able to keep a gun or two.
No regulation: back in the day, people pretty much regulated themselves. They grew their own food, slaughtered it, sold it and knew how to feed themselves safely, otherwise there wouldn't be any of us today. Didn't need banks back then either. Keep your money to yourself and you can regulate it anyway to want to. If you need a home, build it. Might not be one that will grace the pages of Architectural Digest, but it's roof over your head and place to keep you warm. Better know how to keep a car running or else have saved up the money to buy one, you'll be ok. Since funding for schools will be cut, hey, there's always home schooling!! If you need a doctor, better hope you know one or at least know how to use the land and utilize the healing properties provided from plant life and a working knowledge in chemistry wouldn't be the worst knowledge to have. If there's an outbreak of something like the flu, even today people are dying from it, so again, it's every man for himself and God for us all. There will be no welfare for the young or the old, so the young having one kid after another will have to learn to work to feed them and the seniors will have to learn to live on a really "fixed income" that means their kids take care of them or hope they've saved enough to see them through 11 years.
No government: don't have much of one now on either side of the aisle, so stop paying people for doing nothing and keep the money for yourself. We basically have an absentee president, congress and senate and when they do meet all they do is argue. You can argue at home for free.

Eleven years isn't that long of a time, but I bet if all I mentioned were to happen, we'd all be thankful for what we have and stop the abuse of the citizens of this country by government. Just maybe WE all would learn from the mistakes made and not repeat them.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#34138 Jan 31, 2013
Makin bacon wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's my thoughts:
No military: most people are against the military, so if the country is attacked, you better hope not all the guns have been taken and you stand and fight together or you fall.
No police: if you live where I do, it's pretty much every man for himself and God for us all, again you better hope you were able to keep a gun or two.
No regulation: back in the day, people pretty much regulated themselves. They grew their own food, slaughtered it, sold it and knew how to feed themselves safely, otherwise there wouldn't be any of us today. Didn't need banks back then either. Keep your money to yourself and you can regulate it anyway to want to. If you need a home, build it. Might not be one that will grace the pages of Architectural Digest, but it's roof over your head and place to keep you warm. Better know how to keep a car running or else have saved up the money to buy one, you'll be ok. Since funding for schools will be cut, hey, there's always home schooling!! If you need a doctor, better hope you know one or at least know how to use the land and utilize the healing properties provided from plant life and a working knowledge in chemistry wouldn't be the worst knowledge to have. If there's an outbreak of something like the flu, even today people are dying from it, so again, it's every man for himself and God for us all. There will be no welfare for the young or the old, so the young having one kid after another will have to learn to work to feed them and the seniors will have to learn to live on a really "fixed income" that means their kids take care of them or hope they've saved enough to see them through 11 years.
No government: don't have much of one now on either side of the aisle, so stop paying people for doing nothing and keep the money for yourself. We basically have an absentee president, congress and senate and when they do meet all they do is argue. You can argue at home for free.
Eleven years isn't that long of a time, but I bet if all I mentioned were to happen, we'd all be thankful for what we have and stop the abuse of the citizens of this country by government. Just maybe WE all would learn from the mistakes made and not repeat them.
Hasn't this happened before already...The Revelutionary War, which started because of taxation without representation? I'd say history is already repeating itself.
TSF

Kenly, NC

#34139 Jan 31, 2013
Nostalgic but unrealistic because with no military , we would quickly be invaded by other countries who need farm land and other natural resources that we posses in abundance. Shotguns and deer rifles just will not play well against guided missiles, airplanes, drones, napalm, chemicals , biologicals and neutron bombs.
Makin bacon wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's my thoughts:
No military: most people are against the military, so if the country is attacked, you better hope not all the guns have been taken and you stand and fight together or you fall.
No police: if you live where I do, it's pretty much every man for himself and God for us all, again you better hope you were able to keep a gun or two.
No regulation: back in the day, people pretty much regulated themselves. They grew their own food, slaughtered it, sold it and knew how to feed themselves safely, otherwise there wouldn't be any of us today. Didn't need banks back then either. Keep your money to yourself and you can regulate it anyway to want to. If you need a home, build it. Might not be one that will grace the pages of Architectural Digest, but it's roof over your head and place to keep you warm. Better know how to keep a car running or else have saved up the money to buy one, you'll be ok. Since funding for schools will be cut, hey, there's always home schooling!! If you need a doctor, better hope you know one or at least know how to use the land and utilize the healing properties provided from plant life and a working knowledge in chemistry wouldn't be the worst knowledge to have. If there's an outbreak of something like the flu, even today people are dying from it, so again, it's every man for himself and God for us all. There will be no welfare for the young or the old, so the young having one kid after another will have to learn to work to feed them and the seniors will have to learn to live on a really "fixed income" that means their kids take care of them or hope they've saved enough to see them through 11 years.
No government: don't have much of one now on either side of the aisle, so stop paying people for doing nothing and keep the money for yourself. We basically have an absentee president, congress and senate and when they do meet all they do is argue. You can argue at home for free.
Eleven years isn't that long of a time, but I bet if all I mentioned were to happen, we'd all be thankful for what we have and stop the abuse of the citizens of this country by government. Just maybe WE all would learn from the mistakes made and not repeat them.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#34140 Jan 31, 2013
TSF wrote:
Nostalgic but unrealistic because with no military , we would quickly be invaded by other countries who need farm land and other natural resources that we posses in abundance. Shotguns and deer rifles just will not play well against guided missiles, airplanes, drones, napalm, chemicals , biologicals and neutron bombs.
<quoted text>
Not unrealistic. The military didn't stop the attacks on the WTC or the Twin Towers. I'd say we'd still have a stockpile of weapons to put a decent fight. Take the video you sent me the other night about the IAF. A few men in the air with those on the ground came out victorious. They were ex-military men and not even in their own country, but were willing to fight. We still have more than a few good men in this country, ex-military and the common man that would give whomever a pretty good run for their money. You think Taxpayer, Waco or even Seven would stand by without a fight? It's people like this that feel there's something worth fighting for, so one should never underestimate the common man, that's what's wrong with our country now.

If we're only armed with deer rifles, who's to blame?

Again, never underestimate the enemy even today with a health military, our ports are our weakest point of entry.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#34141 Jan 31, 2013
Makin bacon wrote:
<quoted text>
Couldn't the same argument be used for voter registration? I don't understand how showing an ID, not even having a background check is considered discrimination; however, if you want to buy a gun, you have to give information, even your medical information and just maybe you can own a gun. I'm not talking about an assault weapon or whatever everybody is up in arms about. I'm talking about a gun, one for protection because criminals can get their guns illegally and some people do like to feel like they have at least some way to level the playing ground.
You give that identifying information when you register to vote. Criminals CAN buy weapons legally. Just go to a local Gun show where no background information is required, and buy the gun, or all the guns that you want. Could it be any easier than this for criminals? You can also purchase a gun from a private individual without a background check. Why do you not want this to change, and criminals have easy access to any gun they want? The criminal having to buy a gun "illegally" doesn't hold water the way the current laws are set up now. How does every person purchasing a gun by any source with a required backgroung check infringe on your 2nd Amendment rights?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#34142 Jan 31, 2013
last sentence "background"

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#34143 Jan 31, 2013
Arnold-Ziffel wrote:
<quoted text>
You give that identifying information when you register to vote. Criminals CAN buy weapons legally. Just go to a local Gun show where no background information is required, and buy the gun, or all the guns that you want. Could it be any easier than this for criminals? You can also purchase a gun from a private individual without a background check. Why do you not want this to change, and criminals have easy access to any gun they want? The criminal having to buy a gun "illegally" doesn't hold water the way the current laws are set up now. How does every person purchasing a gun by any source with a required backgroung check infringe on your 2nd Amendment rights?
AZ, if you purchase from a dealer IN the show, you must do the same paperwork as anywhere else. The problem is first, it's NOT illegal to sell your own firearm to a private person. I wish that were one "loophole" that would change. People selling out of the "trunk of their cars" I do not agree with.
TSF

Kenly, NC

#34144 Jan 31, 2013
The IAF had a GOVERNMENT that had purchased (with tax money) the antiquated ME 109 s that the Americans flew for the IAF. The ME 109 fired 50 mm cannons and rockets which far outclassed the tanks , cannons and automatic small arms of the advancing Egyptian army. Modern helicopter gunships, drones, guided missiles, aircraft, etc make the ME 109 look like a childs toy.
Besides that, only a few American civilians own ME 109s, Mustangs and a few old military jets. I have no doubt there would be a fight and maybe even a good standing. The chances of a favorable outcome of civilians against a modern military is not impossible but is very doubtful.
The use of neutron bombs would be the weapon probably most favored by invaders. It kills everything, even the chiggers and flies without damaging the infrastructure. Around two weeks later , when the radiation has dissipated (very short half lives for activated substances) you just move in , dispose of the carcasses and live happy ever after using the existing equipment
and cleared fields. The reason things cannot be like they used to be is because technology isn't what it used to be.
Makin bacon wrote:
<quoted text>
Not unrealistic. The military didn't stop the attacks on the WTC or the Twin Towers. I'd say we'd still have a stockpile of weapons to put a decent fight. Take the video you sent me the other night about the IAF. A few men in the air with those on the ground came out victorious. They were ex-military men and not even in their own country, but were willing to fight. We still have more than a few good men in this country, ex-military and the common man that would give whomever a pretty good run for their money. You think Taxpayer, Waco or even Seven would stand by without a fight? It's people like this that feel there's something worth fighting for, so one should never underestimate the common man, that's what's wrong with our country now.
If we're only armed with deer rifles, who's to blame?
Again, never underestimate the enemy even today with a health military, our ports are our weakest point of entry.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#34145 Jan 31, 2013
emlu wrote:
<quoted text>AZ, if you purchase from a dealer IN the show, you must do the same paperwork as anywhere else. The problem is first, it's NOT illegal to sell your own firearm to a private person. I wish that were one "loophole" that would change. People selling out of the "trunk of their cars" I do not agree with.
Yes, I understand that, and I agree. I wish the shows were monitored by police to prevent from that happening. That is probably the place where many criminals purchase their guns. With that loophole closed, we will probably being seeing that type of enforcement.
Allen

Penrose, NC

#34147 Jan 31, 2013
Makin bacon wrote:
<quoted text>
Couldn't the same argument be used for voter registration? I don't understand how showing an ID, not even having a background check is considered discrimination; however, if you want to buy a gun, you have to give information, even your medical information and just maybe you can own a gun. I'm not talking about an assault weapon or whatever everybody is up in arms about. I'm talking about a gun, one for protection because criminals can get their guns illegally and some people do like to feel like they have at least some way to level the playing ground.
You can use the argument that voting doesn't kill people, but my argument is, make everyone have an ID and background check for everything or don't require one at all.
Did you know that the average wage in Mexico is $4.15 per hour?

Illegal immigration is not a criminal matter but instead a social and economic one.

This was largely created by US policies like NAFTA and the so-called Drug War which have in the first place encouraged huge corporate agribusiness conglomerates to move in and set up vast industrial monoculture farms and destroy local farming economies.
And in the second place funded the emergence of huge, heavily armed and violent criminal drug gangs.

We have allowed the undocumented to be employed, attend our colleges and serve in our armed forces. So if we can work them, educate them and prepare them for war, then they damn sure ought to be allowed to vote. Being that it is we (US) who have created the very need for immigration reform.

“Seek Light”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#34148 Jan 31, 2013
TSF wrote:
The IAF had a GOVERNMENT that had purchased (with tax money) the antiquated ME 109 s that the Americans flew for the IAF. The ME 109 fired 50 mm cannons and rockets which far outclassed the tanks , cannons and automatic small arms of the advancing Egyptian army. Modern helicopter gunships, drones, guided missiles, aircraft, etc make the ME 109 look like a childs toy.
Besides that, only a few American civilians own ME 109s, Mustangs and a few old military jets. I have no doubt there would be a fight and maybe even a gokod standing. The chances of a favorable outcome of civilians against a modern military is not impossible but is very doubtful.
The use of neutron bombs would be the weapon probably most favored by invaders. It kills everything, even the chiggers and flies without damaging the infrastructure. Around two weeks later , when the radiation has dissipated (very short half lives for activated substances) you just move in , dispose of the carcasses and live happy ever after using the existing equipment
and cleared fields. The reason things cannot be like they used to be is because technology isn't what it used to be.
<quoted text>
Let me help you with the correct terminology.That is,.50cal.MACHINE GUN, and,(for instance) 20mm CANNON......20MM being far superior to.50 cal. As a matter of fact, one of the reasons our heavy bombers got shot down so often (even though they had multiple.50 cal.machine guns), was that many of the German planes had 20mm cannons, which outdistanced the.50 cal.machine guns....

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#34149 Jan 31, 2013
TSF wrote:
The IAF had a GOVERNMENT that had purchased (with tax money) the antiquated ME 109 s that the Americans flew for the IAF. The ME 109 fired 50 mm cannons and rockets which far outclassed the tanks , cannons and automatic small arms of the advancing Egyptian army. Modern helicopter gunships, drones, guided missiles, aircraft, etc make the ME 109 look like a childs toy.
Besides that, only a few American civilians own ME 109s, Mustangs and a few old military jets. I have no doubt there would be a fight and maybe even a good standing. The chances of a favorable outcome of civilians against a modern military is not impossible but is very doubtful.
The use of neutron bombs would be the weapon probably most favored by invaders. It kills everything, even the chiggers and flies without damaging the infrastructure. Around two weeks later , when the radiation has dissipated (very short half lives for activated substances) you just move in , dispose of the carcasses and live happy ever after using the existing equipment
and cleared fields. The reason things cannot be like they used to be is because technology isn't what it used to be.
<quoted text>
TSF, I think you missed my point totally. I wasn't talking about all the planes used etc. BTW, my husband enjoyed the plane part of the video as he's a WWII plane buff. I was speaking to the fact, given limited resources, even though the old planes were bought with TAX money,(the IAF used them), the U.S. still has planes that if today the military was done away with that would be better than nothing and that TAX money would have purchased at some time before the military was done away with. I didn't say destroy the military ammo cache, tanks, bombs etc we have on hand, we'd have to use it.

The half life of the neutron bomb radiation actually is less than two weeks.

Here's a link I found about the neutron bomb and you're off just a smidge:

http://www.chemeurope.com/en/encyclopedia/Neu...

Anyway, you sell short what people can do with the will and limited resources.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#34150 Jan 31, 2013
Allen wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you know that the average wage in Mexico is $4.15 per hour?
Illegal immigration is not a criminal matter but instead a social and economic one.
This was largely created by US policies like NAFTA and the so-called Drug War which have in the first place encouraged huge corporate agribusiness conglomerates to move in and set up vast industrial monoculture farms and destroy local farming economies.
And in the second place funded the emergence of huge, heavily armed and violent criminal drug gangs.
We have allowed the undocumented to be employed, attend our colleges and serve in our armed forces. So if we can work them, educate them and prepare them for war, then they damn sure ought to be allowed to vote. Being that it is we (US) who have created the very need for immigration reform.
Allen, I get your point, but you need to get mine. I didn't let them do any of this, my tax dollars spent by the government did and might I add without my permission. We don't need immigration reform, we need government reform by EVERYONE in Washington. There's a saying “what an English King has no right to demand, an English subject has a right to refuse”. Of course we're not in a British Colony but I believe the "king" to be the government and "subject" to be us.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#34151 Jan 31, 2013
Allen wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you know that the average wage in Mexico is $4.15 per hour?
Illegal immigration is not a criminal matter but instead a social and economic one.
This was largely created by US policies like NAFTA and the so-called Drug War which have in the first place encouraged huge corporate agribusiness conglomerates to move in and set up vast industrial monoculture farms and destroy local farming economies.
And in the second place funded the emergence of huge, heavily armed and violent criminal drug gangs.
We have allowed the undocumented to be employed, attend our colleges and serve in our armed forces. So if we can work them, educate them and prepare them for war, then they damn sure ought to be allowed to vote. Being that it is we (US) who have created the very need for immigration reform.
Allen, I just found this:

Obama also said that under his principles, a pathway to citizenship would include going through a background check, paying fines and back taxes, learning English, and going to the back of the line, meaning that they could not obtain citizenship until backlogs of legal immigrants are cleared.

This was just today. Sounds a little more than a socioeconomic problem to me, if you're to believe the president. I believe Obama is being referred to as the "Deporter-in-chief. We'll see.
Allen

Penrose, NC

#34152 Jan 31, 2013
Makin bacon wrote:
<quoted text>
Allen, I get your point, but you need to get mine. I didn't let them do any of this, my tax dollars spent by the government did and might I add without my permission. We don't need immigration reform, we need government reform by EVERYONE in Washington. There's a saying “what an English King has no right to demand, an English subject has a right to refuse”. Of course we're not in a British Colony but I believe the "king" to be the government and "subject" to be us.
Without your permission? Do you not vote?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#34153 Jan 31, 2013
Allen wrote:
<quoted text>
Without your permission? Do you not vote?
Yes Allen, I vote. I don't believe I was asked to vote on Obama Care, were you? I'm not asked to vote on raises that our elected officials give themselves, are you? I'm not asked to vote on how much welfare, medicaid, medicare or disability recepients get, are you? I'm not asked how much to spend on the military, are you? I don't remember being asked to vote on if it's okey dokey for undocumented workers to be in our country illegally and get the same benefits our citizens do, were you? Yes, many of these issues were done without my permission. I know the people I vote for are responsible for making these decisions, but don't you think the big item tickets may ought to get a "drive by ask about" by our elected officials and this would include the POTUS?
Allen

Penrose, NC

#34154 Jan 31, 2013
Makin bacon wrote:
<quoted text>
Allen, I just found this:
Obama also said that under his principles, a pathway to citizenship would include going through a background check, paying fines and back taxes, learning English, and going to the back of the line, meaning that they could not obtain citizenship until backlogs of legal immigrants are cleared.
This was just today. Sounds a little more than a socioeconomic problem to me, if you're to believe the president. I believe Obama is being referred to as the "Deporter-in-chief. We'll see.
So what more could you ask for? Isn't deportation what you wanted? If you think that eleven million people are going to self deport because of fines, taxes, learning English or going to the back of the line then you will be sadly mistaken. As far as the background check we may see some deportation and even self deportation but, these people have come too far and worked too hard in this country to turn back now. Just as criminals can obtain guns, illegals can also just as easy obtain false documentaion. They have also sent money for years to their families in Mexico whom I have learned live like Kings. So fines and taxes should be no problem. They are family oriented, great managers of money and learn to speak English with no education far better and faster than the average American learns to speak Spanish. And they do this all the while being at the back of the line.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Charlotte Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
powpow 14 hr Nucky 2
carlos agurs 22 hr what what what 2
bggb (Aug '14) Fri no one 141
Biogel Injections (Feb '10) Thu traci 150
dresser for sale Thu Lee pulley 1
need a cake decorator Thu ramona269 1
Belk Seeking Sale Apr 15 MooresvilleNative 2
More from around the web

Charlotte People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]