A fact, but still the statement is true, right?

What does that mean? I have no idea. Thanks

Thanks. I have no problem with attorneys making money, as long as they actually do the work and use every avenue possible-many do not. I believe that many people are convicted without the best possible defense being mounted-they cannot afford the high powered attorneys, and court appointed attorneys are over worked and underpaid and thus have not the means to do all the research necessary. Unless we have some pretty solid method of determining that some one should die, there is always doubt. I have been on several juries, from 6 man to 12 man and the jury generally really does try to ferret the t***h of what happened.

if he could care less, then that means he cares a lot. If he couldn't care less, he cares not at all. He may be self serving, (and aren't we all?), but that does not make him a coward, especially if he could care less, as you state.

The problem with the death penalty as practiced in the few places that still have it, is that it takes too long. Sentenced to death means an immediate and automatic appeal which can be appealed and then request for a stay and then more time and more delay-the cost to the taxpayer for people on death row is not the cost of the death, but the years it takes to actually carry out the sentence. And what is this "your last meal" stuff about? The last thing I would care about if I were waiting to die by electric chair or injection or wh**ever means, would be what I would EAT! Is that supposed to be some kind of kindness? In fact, it reminds you of what you will never enjoy again! And why the witnesses to this scene? I am in favor of the death penalty, but not as practiced at this time in history.

That would be something-I do not care if you are white, black, green, red or purple-I do like your way of thinking!

Some one was talking about how unfair the present tax system is, and I was merely stating that the fairest tax is a head tax-EVERONE uses resource-water, air, plants, animals-perhaps not directly, but indirectly-you need to eat to survive, so resources are consumed for that-you need to release waste materials-resources are taken for that. I was talking about the most basic of resources. In addition, everyone uses to one degree or another police protection, fire protection. We hope we never need to actually use it, but it is a resource we count on if we need it. It is not the most compassionate or humane way to tax, but it is fair, if by fair you mean all people pay the same not matter what. So if you are married and have children you pay more than in the present system, where you pay less because you have children. My point is that perhaps we need to be careful what we say we want-fairness is definitely not something we desire from government agencies-we want Justice, which is a different thing.

The tax code absolutely needs to be re written from scratch! As to fairness, I would be careful there. Fairness means that there are no write-offs of tax bills because your situation changed and you have not the funds and are unlikely to have the funds in the near future to pay the debt. An offer in compromise, where you offer a sum of cash to settle the debt, thought the sum you offer is substantially less than the balance due is also not "fair". Payment plans to the IRS are not "fair" though they are more equitable than offers in compromise or write offs. Taxing agencies write off a lot of money each year because the chances of collecting it in full are slim to none. That is not "fair", either. The fairest tax would be a head tax, I think. That is an amount collected from each person who is alive in this nation. We all take up resources, no matter how simply we live, and fairness should then include a tax bill for each individual-for a family of four, that would mean 4 times the tax that I as a single person might pay. No exemptions, no exceptions, a flat amount due simply because you are alive and living here. Not THAT is fair, but not humane, and with no compassion for differing circumstances, like disability, age, employability talent and ability. Not sure I want a system like that in place.

The rich should not be punished simply because they are rich, and the poor should not be given more than the basics simply because they are poor. There may be reasons to do either or both, but your financial situation should not be the deciding factor. Robin Hood was a thief, and it matters not that he gave to the poor-government has no money it has not taken from some one else.

The tax loopholes you talk about are to be used legally to reduce wh**ever tax liability you would have. And it is different from the rich (whom I do not complain about, just to be clear). The IRS and other taxing agencies want you to take advantage of every legal adjustment, deduction and credit available. As a former state tax dept employee, and working closely with the IRS for years, that is the official view of taxing authorities. Whether all people involved actually feel that way, I would have no way of knowing. The rich are not rich because they take advantage of tax law-the rich are rich AND take advantage of tax law. If you feel that you should not take any deductions, then try not taking the standard deduction (which is sometimes larger than the itemized) or the individual personal exemption, and I suspect that your return will be adjusted to reflect the deductions you did not take and your tax liability will be refigured. That has been my experience in dealing with people who think it is more "patriotic" or "humane" or fair to refuse the breaks offered. Please remember that all deductions, rates, and rules are there because the Congress or legislature deemed them appropriate or necessary.

He can forbid travel to those places on government business. He cannot forbid private citizens leaving for any state. Bet he wishes he could though, since so many are leaving permanently.

I suspect that they are g***ming Jill Biden to take over-Harris will be gone, Jill may be the replacement-Harris is rapidly becoming a liability-I think they knew that she was simply interim till Jill would be acceptable-certainly more acceptable than Harris. We shall see how this all plays out, but that is the scenario I am looking at. How Harris will be persuaded to leave or coerced to leave, or bribed to leave, or wh**ever, I have no idea. But since Joe has loaded Harris with impossible tasks, like "controlling the border" which he opened, I think they want her gone....with as little to do as possible. I could be wrong, of course-that would not be the first time-just seems that that is what the Dems are setting up.

Trump is not a Roman Catholic, so the bishops have no say.

There are alternatives to the public school systems-some are expensive, some are free, and some are not practical because they require some one at home to do the teaching. But there are choices. I would certainly let my opinions be known, and then promptly take my children out of the public school-which, by the way, I did when my kids were in grade school-they are both in their 50's these days. I wonder how that happened-I am MUCH too young to have children that old!

Leviticus was not the name of a person. I believe the book was so named because it is the levitical law. Levites were the priests and preachers of the day. Levi was one of the sons of Jacob, and thus was a tribe of Israel.

True, but I lived in Ocean Springs MS for a time. And I forgot that they won the war of aggression. My bad-especially for a teacher, former or no.