One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Posts for: zombinis3
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9 next>>
Jul 21, 2019 10:51:56   #
Seth wrote:
Gotcha, had my details wrong. Thanks.

Jean Lafitte comes to mind as a latter day privateer, during the War of 1812.

Jul 19, 2019 00:37:37   #
Blade_Runner wrote:
Regarding the attacks on president Trump, you failed to mention one monumental departure from simply calling the president names. It went way beyond merely expressing dislike.

The same condition for both Obama and Trump both presidant were treated to
possible physical harm Trump's cut off head and Obama's burned and hung figure. So both sides have gone well beyond the hatred of just name calling. It hard not to say the worst of someone when whatever actions can be brought up and spun because of the appearance of a no edit button. Trump does plain speak about things that people want to hear it then makes those same people think that he is one of them.
Jul 18, 2019 22:47:37   #
Seth wrote:
No, they were not created for use against the Muslims, but they were sure able to dish out the only thing the Muslims seem to truly understand -- Islam spread not through the faith of those converted, but by the conquering of countries whose inhabitants were then given the choices of a) converting to Islam, b) paying jizya or c) being murdered.

Jefferson spoke with leaders of Tripoli before sending our naval fleet over there and was told, essentially, that nothing would be done by that government because the pirates (corsairs, old word!) were of the faithful and their victims were not.
No, they were not created for use against the Musl... (show quote)

In actual use there are four distinct words used interchangeably Pirates , Privateers , Corsairs and Buccaneers. The four have their own meaning being old or not. Pirates are just bandits on the water, Privateers are pirates with papers instructing them to attack any and all vessels that their country is fighting with, Corsairs are only in the Mediterranean and have a religious connection they are the ones who fought Christian countries for control of the sea and were backed by the state. Buccaneers were associated with the Caribbean and they basically fought with Spain.

About the statement made about Jefferson talking to the pasha he never did according to everything I have found, but he did talk to the ambassador of tripoli who did say that it was the Koran that was being followed.
Jul 18, 2019 08:36:29   #
Seth wrote:
WHERE Muslims were concerned, the early Marines (called I think naval troops then) saw action on🎵...the shores of Tripoli...🎵when Jefferson sent the Navy to "counsel" the Barbary pirates (Muslims) on the danger they incurred by continuing to prey on American merchant ships in the Mediterranean.

The Marines were not created for use against the Muslims the reason was that Jefferson didn't want to continue to pay the tribute requested. By the pirates which were actually considered corsairs. The meaning at the time was that pirates were individual groups. Historians describe these actions as a well-developed protection racket. Countries paid hefty monetary "tributes" to the north African powers in order to get free passage for their ships. Countries that refused would risk being boarded, with crew members held hostage and cargo confiscated. (Technically, this was not "piracy," which is committed by non-state actors; the proper term for such government-backed privateering is "corsairing.")

As early as 1797, the United States made clear in a treaty with Tripoli that "as the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen (Muslims) and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan (Mohammedan or Muslim) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

That is what history recorded.
Jul 17, 2019 23:50:28   #
Blade_Runner wrote:
For two and a half years, democrat progressives have been verbally and graphically attacking Trump, his wife, his family, his friends, his associates, and every member of his administration, you've called them every obscene name in the book. You have compared Trump to Hitler, Stalin and Satan, You have demanded Trump be impeached, imprisoned, exiled, banished from the face of the earth, even assassinated. You have called him a racist, a xenophobe, homophobe, pedophile, rapist, a moron, a pumpkinfuhrer, orange orangutan, and a c**k suker. You have called our First Lady a whore, a b*tch, a porn star, eye candy, mail order bride, and every other obscenity you could think of.

Need I even mention the very real and massive covert campaign to destroy Donald Trump, his wife, his family, and his administration?

One of those females was born here, the other immigrated, and it is patently obvious they are loyal to an ideology diametrically opposed to our American way of life, our constitution, and our system of government and justice.

And, you are going to sit there a call president Trump a racist because he told two bigoted, anti-Semitic, pro-Sharia Muslims to go back to where they came from? They came from Islam and they brought it with them.
For two and a half years, democrat progressives ha... (show quote)

Three out of the four were born here one became a citizen. What good for the goose is good for the gander how many names were the Obama's called. Do you belive in do as I say not as I do? The main reason most degrading names are used is because of the dislike of a person and their beliefs. In a way it is used to make the speaker feel better about their hate by dehumanizing the target of their hate.
Jul 17, 2019 08:47:56   #
Liberty Tree wrote:
Once again the Democrats are showing their TDS and hate. They are trying to make a big deal and condemn Trump about his comments telling a few women in Congress if they do not like America they can go back to their native countries and fix them. While Trump would do well to cut out a lot of his tweets, if one reads the comments now in question objectively there is no racist comment in them.

One problem they are trying to change their native country three out of the four are natural born citizens , the last took the oath and became a citizen ,
change for the better only time will tell.
Jul 11, 2019 21:43:27   #
debeda wrote:
How does removing the option to deduct state income tax affect "those teachers who bought supplies for their students"????? Those would be work expenses.
And there have been difficulties with births since the dawn of time. No doctor, nurse practitioner or midwife would get in trouble unless they were shown to be negligent. Under any laws.
Is this the kind of trope the dems are chattering about now?

Bill Text: TX HB896 | 2019-2020 | 86th Legislature | Introduced | LegiScan
This is not a for or against arguement. It is being used as an example the law itself is meant to control abortion. By the way it is written it does set a precedent that can be used in a cases where the child dies. The law does consider that the unborn has rights which is the precedent I'm referring to.

About deducting the amount spent on the kids supplies as a business expense since it doesn't benefit or is used by the teacher it can't be deducted as per the IRS topic number 458 educator expense deduction.

The new tax law considers the money spent as miscellaneous expense. Before 2018 the teacher could deduct more of the out of pocket expense after the tax bill the amount was limited to $250 as per Tax slayer /intuit tax preparation company. On the average the amount spent on supplies was at about $945 per year.

The rights of one group should not run roughshod over others rights, the same with beliefs.
Jul 10, 2019 22:48:00   #
Mikeyavelli wrote:
Don't really understand your point, but if any lefty thinks that by telling me he's "hurt" by something I say or believe in xhe's just going to have to stay hurt. I won't base my beliefs or actions on some snowflake's ploy to shut me up or turn me into a soy boy.

Some of the actions/ laws being committed/passed have a disrespect for the rights of others. Example abortion the belief that the baby has rights has been pushed to a point where a troubled birth can have everyone associated if it doesn't come out right can go to jail for murder. If those laws are enforced. There are to many things that can happened with the birth. One example is breech birth when the infant will present butt or feet first. The cord could wrap itself around the babies neck it can be seen in an ultrasound but just as easy missed. The qoute do what you will but hurt no one , remember when parents could discipline their kids without some one making a big to do about it. Basically just being left alone to live your life. The second part follow what I believe for example the tax bill removed some of the deduction that the people who are on lower wages used.
Example when the option to deduct state tax was removed it effects those teachers who bought supplies for their students. Hopefully this clears it up a bit.
Jul 10, 2019 01:22:36   #
debeda wrote:
I think that's what is known as moral decay and authoritarianism.......Ya know, the things the "progressives" accuse everyone else of?

Yes you are right but both sides have done the same amount of accusing.
"It use to be do what you will but hurt no one. Now it is follow what I believe effect anyone but me. " Example people have been using bible verse to prove their reasoning which would be great if our government was a Christian government. The government was set up with noble beliefs but when the words entered into the Constitution are "freedom of religion " sort of changed that and turned ito into a Democractic Republic. Which gives the feeling that you have a say in the way the govenment is ran. Which is done when you are allowed to vote for someone who has the same concerns as you. But fails where the chosen person is not held accountable. The same non participation of parents is the same as the non participation of voters.
Jul 9, 2019 08:21:30   #
Mikeyavelli wrote:
Every kommiecrat should be humiliated into living up to their principles and take into their own homes at least 32 illegals. They actually sleep 32 to a bed and they pick their own food, so they're easy to keep.
Get to it, lefties, it's your dream too.

And everyone shouldn't be trying to force their beliefs on everyone else.
Put it simply "It was at one time do what you will but hurt no one , now it is do what I belive and hurt everyone as long as I am not effected." The second part of the qoute is what is happening now every person who has a belief that they are right , they back their beliefs so as to make themselves feel good.
Jul 6, 2019 10:56:55   #
debeda wrote:
Hmmmmm.....I live in illinois.....they must forget the "temporary" part at the DMV most of the time

That is what the article I read claimed , the only problem is that there were no dates so maybe it was a bad source. The source was cyberdriveillinois the license format is horizonal with a purple strip across the top marked with TVDL. Have to correct myself there were dates.
Jul 6, 2019 01:50:40   #
debeda wrote:
Actually in Texas there has. I know in Illinois there has for sure. Pretty much any state that gives out drivers licenses to illegals has an illegal voting problem.

In 2011 the Ids were given out but were a different format were vertical instead of horizonal. Then in 2012 the id became horizontal but had a expirational date with temporary visitor printed across the top. 2005 the real id law was passed you have to meet requirements , but 32 states are not following the law. Just checked Illinois also issued a license but it was also marked as temporary.
Jul 6, 2019 01:25:17   #
byronglimish wrote:
Do you know what the percentage is...of actual migrants who qualify for asylum??

Have you paid attention to how many children are being used and re-used by gangsters to gain sympathy for illegal entry.

Or could it be that you don't care who comes across the border as long as you personally don't have to deal with them?

I was asked what will make a citizen that was answered. On your first question which process are you referring to? One is affirmative which has the person in country and asks for asylum the second is defensive when the person gives themselves up to border patrol. I'll give you both the first is about 16 % that is affirmative the second one is 25 % that one is for defensive.

Second question is a bit hard to answer, everything I've read doesn't include a policy listing of what is acceptable proof that the child is yours.

Your last is relatively easy one. Once the person has been through the process they have the same freedom that you and I do. They can go anywhere in the states and become part of the workforce, Arizona has quite a few in the workforce their work ethic is very productive. So in a way I have to deal with them on a daily basis.
Jul 5, 2019 08:49:57   #
Turk182 wrote:
What makes a person a citizen?
Apparently they can't stand Mexico and it is worse than where they came from.
Seems there country is better than they thought. Or at least better than Mexico. So if they can't get all the freebees from the US and wind up in Mexico, they will go back to the hell hole they came from.

Born on American soil , example military bases , one of the fifty states , born in one if the Commonwealth or crossing the border in one of two methods requesting asylum or going through the process and becoming a citizen. As president Reagan commented when he signed the reform act in 86.

"When the Labor Department is forced to relent and let these visitors do this work it is of course all legal. But it makes one wonder about the illegal alien fuss. Are great numbers of our unemployed really victims of the illegal alien invasion or are those illegal tourists actually doing work our own people won’t do? One thing is certain in this hungry world; no regulation or law should be allowed if it results in crops rotting in the field for lack of harvesters.”

"I supported this bill. I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and who have lived here even though sometime back they may have entered illegally.”

"We want to be very careful that while we have safeguards to prevent employers from hiring the undocumented workers, that at the same time there is no discrimination against those who will be legalized under this bill, those who may still be undocumented but who’ve lived for a long period of time, put down roots in our society. We want to give them the right to legally live here and those who, as you say, are citizens.”

"We have consistently supported a legalization program which is both generous to the alien and fair to the countless thousands of people throughout the world who seek legally to come to America. The legalization provisions in this act will go far to improve the lives of a class of individuals who now must hide in the shadows, without access to many of the benefits of a free and open society. Very soon many of these men and women will be able to step into the sunlight and, ultimately, if they choose, they may become Americans.”

This covers pretty much covers the feelings on the subject of the one president who some people consider one of the best.
Our government or its agencies have made decisions that have caused this increase in illegal attempts , because the conditions they are running from were caused by those same decisions.
Jul 5, 2019 02:22:38   #
debeda wrote:
With the way that law is written it would ban a good portion of the democratic party. It would certainly ban antifa.

Don't think so the Democrats are still citizens and not aliens or illegals.I know the common belief is that the dems are loaded with illegals but must of the opinions presented are that opinions. There hasn't been any solid proof that illegals have voted.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9 next>> - Forum
Copyright 2012-2019 IDF International Technologies, Inc.