Recent posts by ColtArmy on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / SOCIALISM: the pros & cons

Originally posted by kevinmitnick:

socialism is the perfect system but it is oppressed by the white rightist elitist racist sexist power

with socialism their reign of oppression will be over

You young man are in great need of a practical knowledge of life as it really is. I can tell by your sentence structure you are young and lack any real experience to compare this country with socialist countries. I would try to explain the differences, but I don’t believe you would understand.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

I just find, those who want these gun laws can’t seem to analyze the real reasons behind the push for them, or what the final outcome our leaders want. This isn’t about crime, nor is it about safety of our people, it’s about control.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/22/violence-not-real-target-war-guns/

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2495/ny_democrat_pleads_with_republican_not_to_share_document_proposing_confiscation_of_guns

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Originally posted by sanii:

A canuk, or as they call them in Arizona, snowbirds. You may be fine with your situation, but those that are out in the Northern parts of you country may not agree with you. I gather you are from the city and have no need for a firearm. I am humored by your super-shotgun-taser thngy. We don’t have then in the lower 48. They sound like quite a weapon.

I hope you aren’t suggesting only a firearm can commit mass murders? Why, with my limited knowledge, I could more than likely build a device that could take out a city block. Just saying.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Originally posted by donseptico:

Add the word UNIVERSAL before ‘gun control limits violence’ and it’s a more reasonable statement… not flawless, we know, but while it’s really easy for the criminals in chicago to get a gun from outside the city, city wide controls are easily flouted / ignored (including by the otherwise ‘law abiding’ citizen).

I see where you are going with this. You want, more or less, one set of gun control laws worldwide, such as those proposed by the United Nations. Pray tell why we need such a set of laws governing every country as one?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

The issue of gun control would never reach the people for a vote. A majority of the citizens believe in less gun control. Here is just one instance of a response to new legislation.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2013/1/calls-from-gun-owners-overwhelm-the-illinois-state-house-%96-legislators-back-down-from-vote-on-semiautomatic-firearms-and-magazine-ban-for-now.aspx

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Yes, that pesky Constitution really causes a lot of trouble for some.

I don’t see why he can’t have a secret clearance. If he has worked at any government installation it is required. You might ask him why he has it.

I am a who? I have been accused of several things since I joined. I was told I am some vangard person, too. I get the feeling people are a bit paranoid of these members.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Originally posted by softest_voice:

But but big gubmint persecution!!!

There, I’ve covered most of jhco’s response.
Let’s move on.

You are lacking any real input into this discussion, aren’t you?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:

What freedoms will Americans miss if they follow the Western example of gun control?

I would suggest, we are the Western example of gun control.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Let me begin with this excerpt from the website linked in the quote.

Supreme Court Upholds Individual Right to Bear Arms
By Michael Summers

On Monday, June 28, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that individuals have the right to bear arms under the second amendment. McDonald v. Chicago was a case filed against a restrictive hand-gun law in Chicago and one of it’s suburbs, Oak Park. This law essentially banned the possession of handguns in the home.
Two years ago, the Supreme Court overturned a similar law in Washington D.C. Proponents of the Chicago law said that in the 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court found individuals had a right to possess handguns, but that the law only applied federally and had nothing to do with the states. In the decision on Monday, justices found that the second amendment does in fact apply to the states and with a few exceptions, individuals are allowed to possess handguns in their homes.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion of the court and stated that, “Chicago Police Department statistics, we are told, reveal that the City’s handgun murder rate has actually increased since the ban was enacted and that Chicago residents now face one of the highest murder rates in the country and rates of other violent crimes that exceed the average in comparable cities.”
Justice Alito went on to cite the history of the amendment and how different courts have interpreted it throughout the ages. Alito coupled the second amendment with the fourteenth, and quoted Senator Samuel Pomeroy of the 39th Congress concerning freed slaves and their rights being equal to every other citizens rights.
“Every man . . . should have the right to bear arms for the defense of himself and family and his homestead. And if the cabin door of the freedman is broken open and the intruder enters for purposes as vile as were known to slavery, then should a well-loaded musket be in the hand of the occupant to send the polluted wretch to another world, where his wretchedness will forever remain complete.”
But Chicago gun enthusiasts shouldn’t celebrate quite yet. Following the decision, Chicago Mayor, Richard Daley and the Chicago City Council have promised to pursue new laws which would not ban guns, but make it extremely difficult to get one.
They will most likely follow Washington D.C.’s example, after the Supreme Court eliminated their ban. D.C. placed dozens of regulations and all prospective gun owners are required to take training courses involving numerous hours in the classroom, at least one hour on a firing range, and a they must pass a test on D.C.’s firearm laws.
While Chicagoans will still face a tough time owning a gun, the rest of the country’s gun owners and enthusiasts can rejoice in the Supreme Court decision and the precedent it has set.
Agreeing with Justice Alito that the ban was unconstitutional were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.
Opposing this decision were Justices Stephen G. Breyer, John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and the newly appointed Sonia Sotomayor.

http://gosportexpressnews.com/supreme-court-upholds-individual-right-to-bear-arms-p3475.htm?twindow=Default&smenu=105&mad=No

It is clear that our Supreme Court agrees that the Second Amendment is an individual right. To emphasize this I will include this link to a list of Supreme Court decisions in the past. All of these emphasize an individual right.

http://www.saf.org/2ndAmendSupremeCourtTable.html

We can discuss gun control and everyone is allowed an opinion on the subject. At the end of the day, we still have the Constitution that is our countries Rule of Law. To go against the Rule of Law is to go against the basis for our country.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Originally posted by TheBSG:

Yeah, God let a bunch if babies die because of atheism. Let’s praise that dude.

Sir, his daughter died in the Columbine shooting. That was Darrell Scotts’ speech to the House Judiciary Committee. As you will notice, I put it in quotes. He didn’t try to blame firearms, the teachers, or laws. He put the blame on the perpetrator where it belonged. To often people blame everything and everyone who had nothing to do with the crime. Rather than blame a political view or the implement used, why not blame the person who did the crime?

Mr. donseptico, your logic is invalid. Invalid because you suggest the people of the country be punished for what his person has done. It doesn’t matter if it erodes freedom just a tiny bit more. Eventually, a little erosion here and there will add up and before you realize what you have done, it will be gone. I could repeat a famous quote here, but I don’t feel it would make any difference.

When a firearm in this country is purchased, background checks are done. Each state reports felonies and mental health decisions by the medical community to the federal government. Sometimes the information is overlooked by the people doing the background checks and sometimes the information hasn’t been updated.

Proper storage is fine, but not if we are told when or how to do it, as each situation is different. Has it occurred to you that teaching the child safety and allowing the child to learn about a device might eliminate the inquisitiveness you refer to? The laws you suggest are the UK’s laws, not ours. We don’t want to be just another UK. According to my sources, they have a lot of crime there as well.

Let’s address the psychology of your statement, “junior grabbing daddies gun because he is angry”. Is this a problem of laws or it is a problem with child rearing? I would suggest the latter. Parents of your generation, instead of raising their children, tried to be friends to them. They allowed them all of the wonders of life without making them work for them. This has given us a generation of spoiled children without the slightest work ethic. This generation has not been taught the value of life. If you doubt me on this statement, look at the ages of those doing all of the killing.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

I believe this is appropriate for this discussion.

COLUMBINE STUDENT’S FATHER 12 YEARS LATER

On Thursday, Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado, was invited to address the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee. What he said to our national leaders during this special session of Congress was painfully truthful.

They were not prepared for what he was to say, nor was it received well. It needs to be heard by every parent, every teacher, every politician, every sociologist, every psychologist, and every so-called expert! These courageous words spoken by Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating, and deeply personal. There is no doubt that God sent this man as a voice crying in the wilderness.. The following is a portion of the transcript:

Since the dawn of creation there has been both good & evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers.

The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain’s heart.

In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA – because I don’t believe that they are responsible for my daughter’s death.

Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel’s murder I would be their strongest opponent.

I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy — it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best.

Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
Your words are empty air.
You’ve stripped away our heritage,
You’ve outlawed simple prayer.
Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere,
And ask the question “Why?”
You regulate restrictive laws,
Through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand,
That God is what we need!

Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation’s history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact. What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine’s tragedy occurs — politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.

As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America , and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA — I give to you a sincere challenge.. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone!

My daughter’s death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!"

-Darrell Scott"

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Secession of States post Obama re-election

It seems the wealthy are the problems for everything wrong in our country now. People think they don’t pay their fair share and should give ever more to the politicians in Washington to spend. This is a fallacy started by the Democrats to misdirect the attention of the citizenry from the real problems in this country. It seems to be working as people like KarmaKoolKid seem determined to continue pushing the talking points of his party. Let’s look at some specifics.

46.4 percent of U.S. households didn’t pay any federal income taxes in 2011.

This tends to shoot holes in the talking points of the Democratic party considering the wealthy are actually paying 33% of the tax revenue supporting Washington.

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

If you take the time to read the link supplied, you will have to reevaluate you support for such an ill advised agenda. This is especially true when you consider jobs are created by the wealthy you intend to extort more money from.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why do the liberal Democrats want to take guns away from Americans?

Sir,

I could give you a few links to look, if that is what you want.

http://www.nyclu.org/pdfs/eroding_liberty.pdf

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/10/23/shocking-loss-of-freedom-in-u-s.aspx

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/freedom-in-america-is-the-glass-half-full-or-half-empty/#axzz2EmP9NqaE

Just because our population has increased doesn’t mean we should give up our liberty. Unless of course, this is how you view politics and are willing to succumb to an overbearing government.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Self defense and "you can't hit a girl"

The replies to this are interesting. I was raised to not hit a woman, but as I grew older I found women were very aggressive at times and I was handicapped. As such, my responses changed. I will only strike a woman if they strike me first. at that point they have put themselves on a mans level and the repercussions are the same as I would give to a punch from a man. Quick and final.

I believe the McDonald employee should have stopped once the threat was over. He continued when the woman was going to get up. As a qualifier for his actions, if she was getting up with the intent to retaliate, then his actions were proper.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Secession of States post Obama re-election

Beauval,

Half the country wanted Obama eliminated from the political scene and would have voted for the neighbors pet to be rid of him.

Our country was formed by these old farts you talk about. We old farts waged a war against a king who smothered our people with his despotism. The American people had had enough and the anger they felt gave them the reason for separating themselves from the source of this anger.

I would never dismiss the power of the people as just being angry about an election. I believe the anger goes much deeper and has been broiling for a long time.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Mother's Choice vs. the Benefit of a Child to Be Born

Why is it so important for a woman to have the ability to harm or eliminate a life she is carrying? I tire of hearing people give so little value to the life of the fetus. Let’s be brutally honest here. Self absorption by the youth of today is appalling. This is why our civilization is in so much trouble today. What gives one human being the right to kill another. As far as I know, it is not a right, but a privilege given by a court of men. If we accept the privilege granted to kill the unborn, how long before we are granted the privilege to kill our fellow human beings?

If a woman is so naive she can’t understand taking a substance harmful to the fetus, she needs to be made sterile. She doesn’t have enough mental capacity to become a mother. Causing harm to the fetus in this manner demands punishment.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Moral Argument

Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

I suppose the alternative of them going crazy for not being objectively right in their eyes is much worse.

Assuming we cannot come up with a compromise system to slowly deal with this mental imbalance, like we would deal with any other, yes. I suspect if we allowed this realisation to develop, and not be suppressed in these individuals, then treated the mental distress as it arose, we could work them back into society as stable individuals – but without this need to put everyone else down for their own insecurities’ sake.

For that matter, simply treat the insecurity, and the whole problem vanishes.

I say ‘simply’, but the logistics of such a task would be mindboggling. We cannot even cope with mental disorder treatment as is, without expanding the net still further.

Ma’am, from your own posts you live a lifestyle that isn’t accepted by the society you presently live in. I’m sure it isn’t accepted in the United States either. Yet, you maintain the thought you are moral. I was raised to be moral, to know the difference between right and wrong. These morals you consider a mental deficiency are the accepted morals of a moral society. For you to promote the idea of having strong morals as a mental imbalance tells me you are unfamiliar with the term moral in your upbringing.

Mr. Darkruler, are you suggesting a deviance from what your society considers acceptable is a good thing and your leniency to those with objective morals is from the goodness of your heart?

What is morality? It is the quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct, a system of ideas of right and wrong conduct. This system makes a difference in how we perceive life. What do you consider right or wrong? At what point do you deem something to be wrong. Does your moral compass follow societal norms or does it deviate to a point it is unacceptable?

So what are values? They represent the ability to put a comparison, a value, to your morals with those of society. Are they accepted by the society you live in? If not, perhaps your values are weak. Possibly the value you assign to your moral compass is nonexistent or weak according to societal norms.

You are judging others by your morals and values, yet you may be judging from a weak position. Is the person you are judging using morals acceptable as normal from his societal view? I’m sure that doesn’t mean your target isn’t a mental misfit, but rather the norm.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

He has had four years to make some kind of inroad into correcting this recession which has turned into a devastating depression.

I am still hoping the reason you don’t vote for Obama (and thus, out of desperation, for Romney) isn’t because of ignorance like this. You seriously believe it is possible to turn around a recession just like that?

I’m not sure you understand where JHCO is coming from with his analysis of the election or the economy he is referring to. I would propose the former administration did leave a problem for the next administration. This problem was not as bad as everyone is making out, but the economy was shrinking. If caught early and the proper measures implemented it would not have become what we are experiencing now. Improper steps were taken and they didn’t correct the problem, only accelerated it. He mentioned we should have seen signs of improvement early on and he is right. Instead, our situation continued to deteriorate until we are now close to the bottom. We still have some wiggle room to turn this around, but not much. If the president did receive a second term we would continue to see our economy fail. The basic building blocks for improvement are not there, but instead have been removed.

When our countrymen become aware of a problem, such as an economy not showing signs of improvement, they make a correction. This is what you are witnessing, a correction. This country has always taken care of itself. We have had ups and downs and always corrected our course to bring us back to the correct path.

It has often been said, a recession is when your neighbor doesn’t have any money and a depression is when you don’t have any money.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election

@lock_of_fear

I understand your desire to see the president win. It is hard to know your man in the election could possibly lose, but this is what he is going to do. He has left this country without any hope for the future, except of course more of the same thing we have had for the last four years. The current president has mishandled the economy of this country. The republican candidate offers the hope and change the democratic candidate promised when he first ran for office and didn’t deliver.

The president didn’t take responsibility for the Libya terrorist attack, he let his Secretary of State take the blame. Hillary Clinton took the heat to protect the president. The president did blame a video for 14 days after the terrorist attack. He didn’t come out and call it a terror attack until the state department came out with the correct information. The president and secretary of state made a video (at the cost to the taxpayer of $70,000) apologizing to the Taliban for the video. This was an embarrassment to our country.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election

Programs the new Republican House has proposed cutting. I'm wondering, what is all of this doing in the budget in the first place? Notice Social Security and the military aren't on this list.

Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy -- $445 million annual savings.

Save America's Treasures Program -- $25 million annual savings.

International Fund for Ireland -- $17 million annual savings.

Legal Services Corporation -- $420 million annual savings.

National Endowment for the Arts -- $167.5 million annual savings.

National Endowment for the Humanities -- $167.5 million annual savings.

Hope VI Program -- $250 million annual savings.

Amtrak Subsidies -- $1.565 billion annual savings.

Eliminate duplicating education programs -- H.R. 2274 (in the last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.

U.S. Trade Development Agency -- $55 million annual savings.

Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy -- $20 million annual savings.

Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding -- $47 million annual savings.

John C. Stennis Center Subsidy -- $430,000 annual savings.

Community Development Fund -- $4.5 billion annual savings.

Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid -- $24 million annual savings.

Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half -- $7.5 billion annual savings

Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20% -- $600 million annual savings.

Essential Air Service -- $150 million annual savings.

Technology Innovation Program -- $70 million annual savings.

Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program -- $125 million annual savings.

Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization -- $530 million annual savings.

Beach Replenishment -- $95 million annual savings.

New Starts Transit -- $2 billion annual savings.

Exchange Programs for Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and their historical trading partners in Massachusetts -- $9 million annual savings

Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants -- $2.5 billion annual savings.

Title X Family Planning -- $318 million annual savings.

Appalachian Regional Commission -- $76 million annual savings.

Economic Development Administration -- $293 million annual savings.

Programs under the National and Community Services Act -- $1.15 billion annual savings.

Applied Research at Department of Energy -- $1.27 billion annual savings.

Freedom CAR and Fuel Partnership -- $200 million annual savings.

Energy Star Program -- $52 million annual savings.

Economic Assistance to Egypt -- $250 million annually.

U.S. Agency for International Development -- $1.39 billion annual savings.

General Assistance to District of Columbia -- $210 million annual savings.

Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority -- $150 million annual savings.

Presidential Campaign Fund -- $775 million savings over ten years.

No funding for federal office space acquisition -- $864 million annual savings.

End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.

Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act -- More than $1 billion annually.

IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget -- $1.8 billion savings over ten years.

Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees -- $1 billion total savings.

Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees -- $1.2 billion savings over ten years.

Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of -- $15 billion total savings.

Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress.

Eliminate Mohair Subsidies -- $1 million annual savings.

Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- $12.5 million annual savings

Eliminate Market Access Program -- $200 million annual savings.

USDA Sugar Program -- $14 million annual savings.

Subsidy to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) -- $93 million annual savings.

Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program -- $56.2 million annual savings.

Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs -- $900 million savings.

Ready to Learn TV Program -- $27 million savings.

HUD Ph.D. Program.

Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act.

Total Saving -- $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election

I also watched the debates and found them telling. The president started with a look of confidence and Mitt Romney seemed nervous. As the debate progressed, the president became nervous and somewhat disconnected. Mitt Romney seemed to gain his composure and went on to win the debate.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/03/cnn-poll-romney-wins-debate-by-big-margin/

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Terrorism and the TSA

You can accept the fact we have many projects the public cannot accept or you can bury your head. Reality is what you make of it. I can only hint to you of what is possible without saying too much. Do with it what you want.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Terrorism and the TSA

No, I am not. What I am trying to convey is that our military has many projects the public isn’t privy to. In the example given above, concerning our two special bombers, the B1 and B2. These were top secret projects. Only those with the need to know were allowed to work on these projects. They, of course, were not privy to more information than what their particular part of the project needed. This is part of the protection of the project. Your access to information of the DARPA initiative was a summary. It was enough information to give you a basic idea of what DARPA was about, without giving you any details of the inner-workings of this initiative. You were satisfied with the information you received and yet the project is still enveloped in secrecy. You were told what they wanted you to know, yet you really haven’t been given the complete scope of the capabilities of DARPA. What do they really do?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Terrorism and the TSA

I myself hold a secret clearance. I have worked in the military (DOD) arena through private contractors, who do much of the hands on work including research and development. Many of my acquaintances also work in these areas. We are not free to divulge information about the work we do. Much of the work our military does is not released to the public for study. It is secret and much of it is top secret. You may have seen some information on DARPA, but I can promise you, you have only been able to access a small amount of information compared to what is involved in the project. I agree that large amounts of money is thrown at some of these projects, but not just for initial development. Much of the money goes for ongoing experimentation and upgrading of the initial project.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election

She was using a ploy to misdirect a meaning. I don’t know what he thinks and I am not going to try and guess at it. Homemakers are not included in the statistics for employment or unemployment, they are not part of the workforce. I, and I am sure Jhco50, don’t harbor ill feelings for homemakers. Just the opposite, homemakers work every bit as hard as those who have careers. They work outside of the workforce, though.

I read these discussions. It is obvious how much vitriol is expressed against anyone who does not line up with a few of the more prolific democrats on these forums. I myself have experienced some of it. Although your postings are quite short, you have expressed some of this yourself.