Daily Wire cited a WSJ article with some interesting statistics: dailywireDotKom/news/7264/5-statistics-you-need-know-about-cops-killing-aaron-bandler
Pity. BHD's comment was succinct and to the pointP::
What YOU wrote:
"What I give, didn't give or gave, is nobody's business here."
"then why did you feel the need to start this thread?"
His point is well taken. YOU started the discussion. If you're going to plump for your beneficence, you have zero grounds for complaint when you're challenged on it.
But then I forget...
You're part of the "crew" that seems to believe yourselves uniquely entitled to invoke Scriptural precept as a basis for challenging opposing position but do not seem to think, yourselves subject to same.
My response to that is the same as it was to Rogere (whom *I* have on ignore): hypocrite.
No question: I have a lumberyard full of logs.
The only matter for YOUR consideration is whether you are honest enough with yourself to admit that YOU do as well. Think on it.
BLM actually means, "Black LEADERS Matter".
Unfortunately, there are none.
If, as a society, there HAD been some sort of... responsible... leadership, perhaps black-on-black homicide would not have reached the levels that it has.
If, as a society, there HAD been some sort of... responsible... leadership, we would not be reading a "supportive" statement about the police from a woman who was injured protecting one of her 5 (?????) sons (where is hubby?) from an enraged black shooter.
Just imagine what might have been avoided had there been competent, rather than opportunistic, "community organizers" within the society.
It was not **my** statement, Mr. Dakine. Consequently your quibble is with "someone" else.
And, of course... see BHD's response.
Pay attention in your charity giving, that you do it not in front of people so that you may be seen by them, otherwise there is no reward for you with your Father in Heaven. Mat 6:1
Ah... Mr. Dakine. Are you perhaps confused on this matter?
No one cared about Clinton's **private** e-mails.
The "flap" over her private "server" was that it was used to store messages about PUBLIC business, some of which dealt with CLASSIFIED matters. Use of that server violated several government policies regarding storage and safeguarding of PUBLIC documents
Communications between Rove and Cheney regarding party business is no more a matter of PUBLIC governance than communications between Clinton and Wasserman-Shultz regarding Dem party business.
Clinton's e-mails regarding Sec of State business, however, were subject to public oversight and FOI requests.
If the history of the Israelites is anything to go by,,,
There could be 400 years in captivity (to progressives?) before God finally hears the cries of the "faithful" and "hardens" the heart of the oppressive political leaders and brings about judgement on the wicked and freedom to the faithful.
You'll be long gone by then DB.
You're being too kind. AARP is anything BUT progressive. It's an example of institutionalized discrimination and selfishness.
They couldn't less care who in the country gets screwed as long as old farts, regardless of economic position, aren't required to contribute to the effort of cleaning up the national mess - a mess that is largely of THEIR making.
Hate to break it to you sleepy, but... tweet had nothing to do with religion. Zero. Nada.
If there is a bias evident in this latest imbroglio, it's on Hillary's part. She's the one who is pandering to Israeli supporters and donors.
If you're truly concerned about "bias" on the part of candidates then you should be joining with Trump to question / challenge Clinton's actions in this regard.
Given that the middle class carries very little of the burden, it is absolutely necessary that their tax rates must rise.
Well... we need some cold, hard winters to kill off the tick population.
And a decent spell of colder temps should revitalize the NH ski industry.
Hi Mr. Dakine,
Not sure where your getting your information but public spending per capital is roughly 20% higher in Scotland than in England. That is one of the reasons WHY the country was considered a "basket case" during the independence referendum.
And Scotland would have to HOPE that oil prices will increase as North Sea oil production currently has a NEGATIVE affect on the public purse (you can look this up).
As for the land mass argument you made in another post...
The Ukraine is 2.5x the size of the whole of Great Britain. How well has all of that extra geographic space worked for them? Not very.
On the opposite side of the size discussion... Switzerland is 1/3 the size of England. Has its comparatively diminutive size had a negative affect on its GDP / standard of living? No?
So, Scotland could choose to extract itself from Great Britain and England could very well be better off financially.
You're going to get thumbed down again, keembo. It ain't as bad as you think.
"Scotland wanting independence from Britain"
And? For the UK tax payer, this could be a *good* thing.
"Scotland having most of UK oil"
This is irrelevant. UK pays market price for oil. They'll still pay market price for oil.
"banking being the strong export of UK but that being capable of being moved over to Glasgow or Ireland"
Certainly, London could suffer job losses if Euro trading moves elsewhere. But Glasgow or Ireland??!! No way. You think high-flying bankers would want to move to the outskirts of Glasgow or Dublin? Trading *might* move to Frankfurt. Eventually. But keep in mind that the UK never adopted the Euro yet London was a financial center of Euro trading regardless of that fact.
Take advantage of the GBP currency "collapse" and book a family trip to the UK.
Then, after the Euro craters when the rest of the member states "cotton on" to what the Brits already understand, you'll be able to travel to the continent at lower cost.
Of course not.
The *only* way the company is able to pay out that much NOW is by levering the balance sheet.
Bzzzt! Wrong conclusion.
The EU wonks responded to the reasoning behind BREXIT when they commented that continued participation by other members will not require the "ever closer union" that had been the objective of some folks. Member states will not be required to surrender ever greater aspects of national sovereignty to Brussels.
It wasn't about pay scales.
Not even remotely.
I've been watching the articles, Lake. Haven't seen where VW did as you claim.
Indeed, the most recent from a CNN article is:
"The settlement is only a preliminary step in the case; the automaker still faces possible criminal charges, as well as civil penalties for Clean Air Act violations. The Department of Justice is investigating possible criminal charges against both the company and individuals, said Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. "
See that bit about DOJ still investigating? You apparently have reached a conclusion that they have not. Yet.
Keep in mind that the **bet** is not about whether or not senior execs lied about the matter after they learned of it, but whether or not they **directed** company engineers and employees to engage in the cheat.
We both agree, I think, that there *should* be criminal charges. But DOJ hasn't yet concluded who should be charged.
So we're still on hold regarding the bet.
Hopefully I'll be able to collect from you this summer when a cold beer has its highest utility.
Didn't miss a thing, Nikk. He's behaved as a "disgraceful maggot". Seriously so.
His military service did **not** earn him the right to avoid an appellation that accurately describes his public and private conduct of the past decade and more.
Scotland provided a whopping 8% of UK taxes (of all forms...income, booze, etc. etc.). UK has likely been sending at *least* that much back up there in NHS and other service payments. So it's probably NOT a major financial issue.
Indeed, an independent Scotland was largely considered to be a basket case by the international community when it conducted its referendum. If it breaks out of the UK, it will be probably end up as a(nother) dependent of Brussels (in reality, Germany), rather than of London.
As for natural resources.... those are priced at international rates which, at the moment, are fairly soft for everything. The pound will eventually level off. Might be higher, might be lower. But if the pound is going to take a "hit" in the exchange market, now is as good a time as any in the past 50 or so years to do so.
The UK is a major trading partner for most of the EU countries. That was the case even before the UK joined the EU. The remaining EU countries could try to impose duties on imports from the UK, but the UK would likely respond in kind. It's not likely France is going to start a trade war with the UK if it means that English oenophiles would take their business to California, Australia, Argentina, Chile, etc.
And Airbus and other defense manufacturers will likely lobby Brussels to prevent duties that would drive England to purchase military kit from the US, rather than from European manufacturers.
It will take some time for all of this to sort itself out, but.... BREXIT is not necessarily the financial disaster for England that you seem to believe.