YOU SAID..created the housing crisis, created the recession.. I agree with the union quote and i'm glad they did.. now I know we are getting old, but if I respondeded to your post.. whose the fool, and who's ignorant?
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Where does Trump stand....
- Thread starter PLC1
- Start date
Werbung:
Old_Trapper70
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,383
When you respond with information that has nothing to do with the topic, well, guess that makes you the fool, and ignorant.
Now that we've cleared that up.. DID YOU NOT READ YOUR OWN POST? I agreed on the tax cuts, I agreed on the unions, the only thing disagreed on was what I posted on..I WON'T Call you a fool.. Hardheaded yes..
Trump forks over 25 mill........http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/tr...ampaign=Feed:+OTB+(Outside+The+Beltway+|+OTB)
Old_Trapper70
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,383
No Grumpy, you agreed with Dog, not me. Then you changed your story as usual:
I said: "It wasn't the Dems that lowered the taxes for the wealthy, created greater numbers of loopholes for the wealthy, started the offshoring of jobs, created the housing crisis, created the recession, started the war on unions, or the middle class."
You said: "Then who was it?" with two sources that had nothing to do with taxes, unions, etc.
When I pointed that out to you, you then responded with: "grumpy, post: 241940, member: 5040"]Whatever sounds like something a snowflake would say.. You know I'm right .. there is no denying what I posted.. As far as taxes go.. I'm for a flat tax.."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/17/mortgage.fraud/index.html?_s=PM:LAW
The you had this trend which Bush started:
http://clsbluesky.law.columbia.edu/2015/08/19/reconsidering-corporate-criminal-prosecution/
And you are still the fool.
We both know what you said.. I just cut and pasted it..
I like this guy.. one of Trumps picks for SC..
Writing yesterday for the majority, Judge Sykes invalidated all three of those regulations. As she points out, under the new zoning laws,
only 2.2% of the city's total acreage is even theoretically available, and the commercial viability of any of these parcels is questionable—so much so that no shooting range yet exists. This severely limits Chicagoans' Second Amendment right to maintain proficiency in firearm use via target practice at a range. To justify these barriers, the City raised only speculative claims of harm to public health and safety. That's not nearly enough to survive the heightened scrutiny that applies to burdens on Second Amendment rights.
Furthermore, "the age restriction also flunks heightened scrutiny." That's because the Second Amendment, Judge Sykes writes,
protects the right to learn and practice firearm use in the controlled setting of a shooting range. The City insists that no person under age 18 enjoys this right. That's an extraordinarily broad claim, and the City failed to back it up. Nor did the City adequately justify barring anyone under 18 from entering a range. To the contrary, its own witness on this subject agreed that the age restriction is overbroad because teenagers can safely be taught to shoot and youth firearm instruction is both prudent and can be conducted in a safe manner.
In short, Chicago tried to bypass the Second Amendment and the 7th Circuit benchslapped the city down.
The decision in Ezell v. City of Chicago is available here.
Writing yesterday for the majority, Judge Sykes invalidated all three of those regulations. As she points out, under the new zoning laws,
only 2.2% of the city's total acreage is even theoretically available, and the commercial viability of any of these parcels is questionable—so much so that no shooting range yet exists. This severely limits Chicagoans' Second Amendment right to maintain proficiency in firearm use via target practice at a range. To justify these barriers, the City raised only speculative claims of harm to public health and safety. That's not nearly enough to survive the heightened scrutiny that applies to burdens on Second Amendment rights.
Furthermore, "the age restriction also flunks heightened scrutiny." That's because the Second Amendment, Judge Sykes writes,
protects the right to learn and practice firearm use in the controlled setting of a shooting range. The City insists that no person under age 18 enjoys this right. That's an extraordinarily broad claim, and the City failed to back it up. Nor did the City adequately justify barring anyone under 18 from entering a range. To the contrary, its own witness on this subject agreed that the age restriction is overbroad because teenagers can safely be taught to shoot and youth firearm instruction is both prudent and can be conducted in a safe manner.
In short, Chicago tried to bypass the Second Amendment and the 7th Circuit benchslapped the city down.
The decision in Ezell v. City of Chicago is available here.
Guess hell have brown bag it fir a while.
Shall not be infringed...
She sounds like a keeper.
NOW THAT'S FUNNY.. I don't think he would have settled if not for the Presidency ...
When he gets the economy moving wages will improve. You cannot just c raise them.
Trumps position on trade worries me a bit because throughout his career, Trump has been consistent on two issues: trade and admiration for strong men. Rather than seeing US security guarantees and promotion of trade as providing the means through which the world (and the US) has seen unprecedented growth, peace, and prosperity, he thinks we’ve been chumps. Maybe we have.
Unlike his views on immigration, abortion, single-payer, ISIS, and countless other topics, Trump has been consistent on trade since the 1980s. In 1987, he bought a full-page ad in the New York Times denouncing trade with Japan. He seems genuinely to believe that trade impoverishes us, which is odd for a businessman, because in my opinion trade is really just another word for business.
Unlike his views on immigration, abortion, single-payer, ISIS, and countless other topics, Trump has been consistent on trade since the 1980s. In 1987, he bought a full-page ad in the New York Times denouncing trade with Japan. He seems genuinely to believe that trade impoverishes us, which is odd for a businessman, because in my opinion trade is really just another word for business.
Werbung:
I suspect it has to do with trade pacts that are poorly constructed and favor the other party.
In these instances, and there are few if any that are not, they are negative.
Now you can argue that some are intentiobally so to deliver other benefits (military bases in necessary locations) but he is not one to like a deal that is not minimally mutually beneficial. And I think he has a point.
Similar threads
