You think?

I hear religious questions are mysteries to agnostics....

You're confused. Wealth and income are totally separate entities. It is possible to be significantly wealthy, maybe the richest man in the universe, with trillions of trillions of dollars, and have no income. Not very likely, I grant you, but still possible. No work, no income, see how that 'works'? (Ha! Geddit? I made a funny! 'Works'! Haha! Oh, well...). Placing a value on someone's income means absolutely nothing to their wealth. Similarly, wealth does not automatically accrue income. It is impossible to predict how much income a person enjoys simply by knowing how much wealth they possess.

There is no correlation. Period. Full stop. No commas, parentheses or semi-colons. Just a simple dot at the end of the sentence. Done. None.

And some came into literally nothing. What's your point?



You know, you're right. People should pay for the goods and services they receive as a proportion of their net worth and income. Next time you go to Macdonald's, tell the counter server to charge you based on your income and to do the same for everybody else in the restaurant. That's only 'fair', right? The poor guy gets his big mac for a dime while the millionaire gets his for $10,000. That way we can all enjoy the same quality of life as everyone else, and nobody gets more than his 'fair share'.

Or, on the other hand, we could simply add up the bill for government spending for the year, divide that by the number of people and send each one a bill for the same amount. You know, like buying something at the store, where we all pay the same for the same things. Isn't that 'fair' too?

Of course, there is a third way, simply return government to its original purpose and function and make it pay for its operations out of tariffs like in the good old days when everyone had 'real' money in their pockets. But you wouldn't want that, would you?

That would be an accusation for the IRS to issue, not you. Unless you know something the rest of us do not.... Are you an .. .. .. IRS agent? A spy, perhaps, for The Man? Sick Puppy!

You are sooo right. Repealing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 would bring about an avalanche of collapsing government waste like never before. Imagine, government acting within its means again. Never going to happen. Sorry, it's all a beautiful pipe dream.

Looks like he got him pretty good. Like the man says, shocking.

Why is that? Why would he rub his hands with glee at the prospect of such an obvious calamity? How do you know what he can or can't wait for? Do you have a crystal ball? Tarot cards? Does he tell you all his deep, dark secrets on the hotline before bed?



I saw nothing in the article referring to material defects. For all you know, it might have been a change in the wind. I notice sabotage was not ruled out either. In fact, there was no indication whatsoever as to what caused the leak.



Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Seems to me the one rubbing his hands with glee here is you. Why is that? Why are you so pleased that this mess was made? What are you getting out of it? Are you one of those 'resistance' operatives? Are you the one who caused the hole in the pipeline just to stymie the production of oil and gas in the United States? You did, didn't you? You sabotaged that pipeline just to further your own sick and twisted agenda.



"Opponents of TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline seized on the spill, saying it highlighted the risks posed by the XL project - which has become a symbol for environmentalists of fossil-fuel pollution and global warming."

"Environmentalists". "Fossil-fuel pollution". "Global warming".

"Global warming". I wondered what the odds were of me finding a reference to the Church of Global Warming in there. They didn't even hide the intent by saying 'climate change'. Now I'm wondering what the odds are that this spill will be seen as a result of deliberate sabotage, instigated by the Church of Global Warming of course.

Interesting that you should see it that way:

"A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service official told ABC News that the agency received new information from the countries that the move would benefit conservation in the area."

"Legal, well-regulated sport hunting as part of a sound management program can benefit the conservation of certain species by providing incentives to local communities to conserve the species and by putting much-needed revenue back into conservation," the FWS statement said.

Here, read this:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/16/trump-to-lift-ban-on-importing-elephant-trophies-from-africa.html

That's right, it's from Fox News. Is that a problem for you? your browser has a heart attack when accessing Fox News? No problem. Try this one then:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-administration-lifts-ban-importing-heads-hunted-elephants-n821331

Don't want to open that one either? No problem, here's the relevant passage:

"Zimbabwe and Zambia issue annual permits allowing foreign hunters to kill animals, like elephants, buffalo and lions, saying the practice allows the nations to raise money for conservation." So these countries issue permits to foreigners to hunt indigenous species and use the money to further conservation efforts, yet it was illegal to import these legal trophies. Thank you, President trump, for reversing yet another Obama faux pas (look it up).

Oh dear, her wheels are showing. Better stone her!

Bzzzzt! Wrong! Failure to reveal implies a desire for privacy. Nothing more. There is no 'requirement' that anyone release their tax information for public scrutiny, ever. There is nothing illegal about keeping personal information personal. As for his 'fear factor'? From what I've witnessed, I don't think he suffers from excessive fear of anything. Why should he?

Could be. Or it might be they're building the final version of their doomsday bomb and don't want to give the game away. Or maybe it's simply nap time and the entire country is snoozing because 'Dear Leader'' said so. My take on it is that the President had a quiet little chat with Xi Jinping and they both came to the agreement that it's time to shut the little fat boy down. He's 'bad for business'. Remember, if not for China, North Korea wouldn't even exist so they do have considerable influence, even over the crazy dictator currently terrorizing the neighborhood. One little word from Xi, and little Kimmy comes to heel. Guaranteed. Even 'Dear Leader' knows which side his bread's buttered on.

Try this. I think it explains everything tax related:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100…

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7..

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do..

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20”. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).

The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

"Separation of church and state" (sometimes "wall of separation between church and state") is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the establishment clause and free exercise clause of the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The first amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (establishment clause), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (free exercise clause)".

The establishment clause prohibits the Federal government from mandating a State religion. The free exercise clause asserts individual freedom of choice in religious matters. In essence, it tells Government 'hands off' when it comes to religion. Stay away. Don't go there. Leave us alone. It does not say that government employees may not be religious, nor does it say that prayer in government buildings is banned, or that Congress is not allowed to say a prayer at the beginning of each session, or in the middle of a session, or at the end, or at any other time. Nor does it say that government must be amoral, far from it. It simply states that there will be no legislation in religious matters.

The phrase 'wall of separation between church and State' is a somewhat unfortunate choice of words, since the less moral among us have seized upon it as proof that the founders mandated the suppression of religion in the personal beliefs and behavior of government officials and employees.

That's a bald-faced lie.

Did you?? Did you ask President Trump if he's really smart?? What did he say? What did he say?????