Any law. It doesn't have to be only the major ones. Think outside the box.
I would allow Moonshining. Even if it will only allow those guys a certain amount to be made, my goal is to get them out of the woods. They should be able to do it in their backyards typically since these guys live in rural areas.
I would allow pirate radio (it's nothing but low powered FM anyway). Of course, they have to follow decency guidelines. A small, low profit radio station should be able to be on the air.
My only personal demand is no political talk. We don't need more Liberal ass clowns on the air.
I would make it a grand theft auto charge for a predatory towing company to take any vehicle without the a direct police or vehicle owner's consent.
I would make it a federal charge anything illegal, immoral, or criminal happens to a armed forces member or their property. If we are considered "government property, then we should be protected as such.
So, if that army guy is away in the desert, if the wife empties the bank account and leaves him, send her ass to jail for a long time.
If a regular person commits a crime on a service member, they should get that extra, "hate crime" type charge on them.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on March 03, 2019, 09:30:46 AM
I would allow Moonshining. Even if it will only allow those guys a certain amount to be made, my goal is to get them out of the woods. They should be able to do it in their backyards typically since these guys live in rural areas.
I agree.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on March 03, 2019, 09:37:44 AM
I would make it a grand theft auto charge for a predatory towing company to take any vehicle without the a direct police or vehicle owner's consent.
I would make it a life sentence, or you get a hand chopped off. Your choice.
I would eliminate the Sixteenth Amendment.
You can't vote unless you own property. I'll go soft and allow renters, but you have to have rented for at least a year in that district.
Hmm... Funny I would think Abortion law's would be the first thing.
Quote from: walkstall on March 03, 2019, 11:14:59 AM
Hmm... Funny I would think Abortion law's would be the first thing.
I assume that would be gone with anyone here... At least I'd hope so...
You could get your Rx medical prescription outside the U.S. if it save you money.
I would make it illegal for a doctor to not give you a refilll on a prescription just because you need a follow up. Fine, I will schedule one. But, I still need that medicine anyway. You are the one who said I needed it in the first place, so you just stop giving it to me.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on March 03, 2019, 01:09:02 PM
I would make it illegal for a doctor to not give you a refilll on a prescription just because you need a follow up. Fine, I will schedule one. But, I still need that medicine anyway. You are the one who said I needed it in the first place, so you just stop giving it to me.
I think it's more the insurance company then doctors. If the doctors fill your Rx and then you go into the doctors and they change your Rx then the insurance company end up paying for 2 Rx's and not just one.
I know I get my Rx's for 90 days for a year. (3 refills) in a year. The last bottle has no refills on it. That give me 90 days to see the doctor. If I forget the doctor fills it for 30 days so I have time to get in and get new refill if it needs changed. If it needs changing I then get a new Rx for a year. Also in my state you must see a doctor once a year for Rx's.
Next year I would pass laws in congress returning most of the power delegated to the executive to the congress returning the separations of power as the framers intended and restricting the next president for coming in and undoing everything accomplished with a new set of EO's.
The timing should give Trump enough time to finish undoing all the crap Obama did with his pen and solidify Trumps EO's as prior to the new laws! :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
Price gauging in the automotive industry. I am looking at two special Ford Mustangs in a dealer showroom and they have $10K and $15K added on to them. If they cost $62K and $52K new, they should be sold as such.
As Lord High Executioner and President for Life I do decree:
Comprehesive Congressional reform act: Those elected to Congressional/ Senatorial seats may only serve two terms.
It is illegal for any elected Official and thier family members, Govt, State, Local to have offshore bank accounts.
Representatives and Seators must spedt one month of each quarter of the year they serve in their respective jurisdictions, House/Senate votes shall be done via live computer conference.
Comprehensive Immigration act
for a period of ten years, Legal immigration is limited to those with qualified incomes or lump sum funds of 400K or more or certain skills, certifications Ie Doctor, nurse, Engineer etc.
All refugees will be housed in Hawaii for a period of ten years and not permitted on the mainland
no child born of Illegal alien parents may become a citizen of the USA, no child born of LEGAL resident alien(s) may be considered a US Citizen unless one parent is a US Citizen
Any adult to include a parent who shall bring a child into the US illegally shall be charged with child trafficking and if an alien, shall be immediately deported, any such person will never be afforded legal entry into the USA.
Illegal aliens may not own real estate, land or business property in the USa, no Citizen or legal resident will rent property to or sale any real estaate to those i the USA illegally uder severe penalty of law.
Any person residing illegally in the USA shall be, after being afforded a hearing, be immediately deported to their home country. All property, to include vehicles, bank accounts etc will be confiscated by the federal Govt and disposed of at Govt auction.
Any Citizen who bears a CCW permit from their State of residence may carry said weapon in any other State to include Hawaii ad Alaska
Any citizen may effect an arrest of any illegal alien, wanted criminal or any person committing a felony
Ive got a whole bunch more but My Carpal tunnel is acting up
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on March 03, 2019, 04:14:01 PM
As Lord High Executioner and President for Life I do decree:
Comprehesive Congressional reform act: Those elected to Congressional/ Senatorial seats may only serve two terms.
It is illegal for any elected Official and thier family members, Govt, State, Local to have offshore bank accounts.
Representatives and Seators must spedt one month of each quarter of the year they serve in their respective jurisdictions, House/Senate votes shall be done via live computer conference.
Comprehensive Immigration act
for a period of ten years, Legal immigration is limited to those with qualified incomes or lump sum funds of 400K or more or certain skills, certifications Ie Doctor, nurse, Engineer etc.
All refugees will be housed in Hawaii for a period of ten years and not permitted on the mainland
no child born of Illegal alien parents may become a citizen of the USA, no child born of LEGAL resident alien(s) may be considered a US Citizen unless one parent is a US Citizen
Any adult to include a parent who shall bring a child into the US illegally shall be charged with child trafficking and if an alien, shall be immediately deported, any such person will never be afforded legal entry into the USA.
Illegal aliens may not own real estate, land or business property in the USa, no Citizen or legal resident will rent property to or sale any real estaate to those i the USA illegally uder severe penalty of law.
Any person residing illegally in the USA shall be, after being afforded a hearing, be immediately deported to their home country. All property, to include vehicles, bank accounts etc will be confiscated by the federal Govt and disposed of at Govt auction.
Any Citizen who bears a CCW permit from their State of residence may carry said weapon in any other State to include Hawaii ad Alaska
Any citizen may effect an arrest of any illegal alien, wanted criminal or any person committing a felony
Ive got a whole bunch more but My Carpal tunnel is acting up
How long do they really need to be in DC? How many times are they voting anyway?
All politicians shall carry Constitutions on their persons (jacket/coat, car, office, luggage, briefcase/bag, etc.).
All military businesses (Commissary, PX/BX, Shoppette, etc.) shall have the cheapest prices, and all vendors that supply them shall give the cheapest prices. One of the benefits of being military is the use of on-base facilities. PX/BX should not cost more than Wal-Mart or any other civilian store.
Military members will get a raise and/or receive extra benefits (tax breaks and mandatory discounts).
Hate crime legislation shall be removed. Crime is crime. We don't need one-side measures to add to that. Extra protection will continue for those such as military members.
Social media companies shall not be considered private companies and will comply with the First Amendment of it's users.
If any news/political/media organization purposely lies on their broadcast (showing young picture of Trayvon Martin in order to influence public opinion), you will be shut down.
English will be our national language. It will be properly learned or no citizenship. All multilingual signs and labels will be removed.
The American flag, state flags, and other historic American flags (rebel flag) will be protected, so disrespecting or destroying any one of those will be a Federal crime and subject to treason and/or deportation.
Currency will never have it's overall design changed. They are called "Dead Presidents" because they feature a different dead president on each of it's bills and coins. No other historic person shall ever be one a Federal Reserve Note.
During time of war, we should never have our hands tide with unnecessary red tape. The USA should be able to destroy an enemy by any means necessary.
Consumers will be able to pick and choose what TV channels they receive from their Cable or Satellite provider. We shouldn't have to be forced to receive Spanish versions of American channels and have to purchase other English speaking channels.
Squatting will be illegal. If you don't own it, you cant live in it.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on March 03, 2019, 03:41:15 PM
Price gauging in the automotive industry. I am looking at two special Ford Mustangs in a dealer showroom and they have $10K and $15K added on to them. If they cost $62K and $52K new, they should be sold as such.
Price gauging period. A 20oz bottle of soda (or even a 12oz can) should not cost above a set price regardless of where it is purchased.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on March 09, 2019, 03:55:09 AM
Price gauging period. A 20oz bottle of soda (or even a 12oz can) should not cost above a set price regardless of where it is purchased.
And we are going to let the government set all of these prices? How about wages, should the government set those too?
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on March 09, 2019, 03:55:09 AM
Price gauging period. A 20oz bottle of soda (or even a 12oz can) should not cost above a set price regardless of where it is purchased.
You should check out this weird, little known concept I read about on the dark web. It's called "supply and demand". Also, since you don't believe in the free market, maybe you should change the "libertarian" part of your bio to something else.
Quote from: s3779m on March 09, 2019, 04:12:33 AM
And we are going to let the government set all of these prices? How about wages, should the government set those too?
He outed himself on that one.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on March 09, 2019, 03:50:29 AM
Social media companies shall not be considered private companies and will comply with the First Amendment of it's users.
No. A business should be allowed to service whoever they wish. If the customer doesn't like it, they can go elsewhere. However, if that business was started with government (taxpayer) dollars, different story.
Quote
If any news/political/media organization purposely lies on their broadcast (showing young picture of Trayvon Martin in order to influence public opinion), you will be shut down.
No. The free market can decide what is real and what is fake. Any journalistic protections, however, should be removed.
From what I can tell over your last few posts, you have a problem with the free market.
Quote from: s3779m on March 09, 2019, 04:12:33 AM
And we are going to let the government set all of these prices? How about wages, should the government set those too?
They do that anyway. What if I lived in one of those Liberal areas and was forced to pay my employees $15 an hour?
Quote from: taxed on March 09, 2019, 07:34:27 AM
No. A business should be allowed to service whoever they wish. If the customer doesn't like it, they can go elsewhere. However, if that business was started with government (taxpayer) dollars, different story.
No. The free market can decide what is real and what is fake. Any journalistic protections, however, should be removed.
Social media was started with taxpayer money. Just because the next generation didn't have to, the whole social media empire started is a result of taxpayer money. And even so, I view them as a different ballgame. They are not a direct product (Ford - pay for car) or service (Uber - pay for car ride). They are social media. It allows anybody to
freely speak their mind visually via words (how social media makes their money on the back end is not a direct result of consumer interaction (we didn't pay for anything). Their whole purpose is be an avenue for your thoughts and opinions.
Liberals and conservatives can take the
same information an have a biased opinion either way. If information is changed, it is not true information. Trayvon was not twelve years old. They went with that as a influential purpose to make the audience believe he was young and innocent. His actual character was far from the truth.
QuoteFrom what I can tell over your last few posts, you have a problem with the free market.
This is not a free market when the social media decides that I can't use them because of my political leanings. That would be the equivalent of the only cable TV supplier in my town saying I can't purchase their service because I voted for Trump. That's not a market: it's a monopoly. And you replying that I can go to dish is like saying since I can't use Twitter or Facebook properly, I can use this newer, smaller one as a consolation prize.
Quote from: taxed on March 09, 2019, 07:02:29 AM
You should check out this weird, little known concept I read about on the dark web. It's called "supply and demand". Also, since you don't believe in the free market, maybe you should change the "libertarian" part of your bio to something else.
I know if I buy a multipack of said soda at a grocery store, it will be (per item) cheaper that buying it individually at a convenience store. But the gauging that occurs at places like an airport just because you are a captive audience is overkill; especially, since they have the monopoly and you as a consumer can't bring anything in through TSA considered normal. This is a step below overcharging for that generator during a hurricane. It's all taking advantage of a situation. A free market would allow different convenient shops at the airport to have different prices. Where is that 2 for $3.00/2 for $3.33/2 for $3.50 like a Sheetz, Wawa, or 7-11?
I see you left out the "militant" part. Besides, some of the things that aught to be implemented, is going to be tough (even extreme). It is what is needed.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on March 09, 2019, 10:50:08 AM
I know if I buy a multipack of said soda at a grocery store, it will be (per item) cheaper that buying it individually at a convenience store. But the gauging that occurs at places like an airport just because you are a captive audience is overkill; especially, since they have the monopoly and you as a consumer can't bring anything in through TSA considered normal. This is a step below overcharging for that generator during a hurricane. It's all taking advantage of a situation. A free market would allow different convenient shops at the airport to have different prices. Where is that 2 for $3.00/2 for $3.33/2 for $3.50 like a Sheetz, Wawa, or 7-11?
I expect to pay more at an airport.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on March 09, 2019, 10:19:54 AM
Social media was started with taxpayer money.
No. Specific social media companies were started with taxpayer money.
Quote
Just because the next generation didn't have to, the whole social media empire started is a result of taxpayer money.
The current big social media companies, yes. If I start a new social media service, and it takes off, I did that with my own money and ingenuity. I shouldn't be regulated, no matter how big I get.
Quote
And even so, I view them as a different ballgame. They are not a direct product (Ford - pay for car) or service (Uber - pay for car ride). They are social media. It allows anybody to freely speak their mind visually via words (how social media makes their money on the back end is not a direct result of consumer interaction (we didn't pay for anything). Their whole purpose is be an avenue for your thoughts and opinions.
Then what rules are Solar and I subject to in regards to banning someone on this forum?
Quote
Liberals and conservatives can take the same information an have a biased opinion either way. If information is changed, it is not true information. Trayvon was not twelve years old. They went with that as a influential purpose to make the audience believe he was young and innocent. His actual character was far from the truth.
This is not a free market when the social media decides that I can't use them because of my political leanings. That would be the equivalent of the only cable TV supplier in my town saying I can't purchase their service because I voted for Trump. That's not a market: it's a monopoly. And you replying that I can go to dish is like saying since I can't use Twitter or Facebook properly, I can use this newer, smaller one as a consolation prize.
The social media companies that were started with taxpayer money, like Facebook, should not be allowed to ban anyone for political leanings, nor should they be allowed to sell data.
Quote from: taxed on March 09, 2019, 10:58:26 AM
No. Specific social media companies were started with taxpayer money.
The current big social media companies, yes. If I start a new social media service, and it takes off, I did that with my own money and ingenuity. I shouldn't be regulated, no matter how big I get.
Then what rules are Solar and I subject to in regards to banning someone on this forum?
The social media companies that were started with taxpayer money, like Facebook, should not be allowed to ban anyone for political leanings, nor should they be allowed to sell data.
You do not realize that without our money, social media would not exist? As I said, the concept took off because of the earlier ones, and the money they received. Going from writing on a specific page to sending a general message is irrelevant.
Forums are a dime a dozen. If I was not at C.P.F. then I could go to another Conservative minded forum or I would could go to an opposite-minded political minded forum or I can go to a non-political forum to discuss politics. That's more a free market idea than a Twitter or Facebook monololizing what is left and wrong.
Obviously, you guys have to control spam. This is a political forum that leans Conservative so we would think that freedom of speech and thought is practiced here. We both know that Liberals come here not to be a practicing member but to be a nuisance and troll.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on March 03, 2019, 04:27:49 PM
How long do they really need to be in DC? How many times are they voting anyway?
I'd take the Presidential vote away from DC, along with removing any local elected official. DC should be a federal district. Don't like it, move to a real state.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on March 09, 2019, 11:29:08 AM
You do not realize that without our money, social media would not exist?
Incorrect. Facebook probably wouldn't (or would in it's original capacity, Lifelog). Google probably wouldn't, as the old search engines likely would have won out. Chrome probably wouldn't have happened, along with other social media/internet companies launched from our tax dollars.
Quote
As I said, the concept took off because of the earlier ones, and the money they received.
Google wasn't the first search engine. Facebook wasn't the first social media company. Chrome/IE weren't the first browsers.
Quote
Going from writing on a specific page to sending a general message is irrelevant.
That's what, say, Twitter is.
Quote
Forums are a dime a dozen.
So are social media companies.
Quote
If I was not at C.P.F. then I could go to another Conservative minded forum or I would could go to an opposite-minded political minded forum or I can go to a non-political forum to discuss politics. That's more a free market idea than a Twitter or Facebook monololizing what is left and wrong.
We're circling back to those specific companies you mention. I agree, those launched with taxpayer money should not be able to ban users for political beliefs. Those launched with private dollars can do whatever they want (Gab, etc).
Quote
Obviously, you guys have to control spam. This is a political forum that leans Conservative so we would think that freedom of speech and thought is practiced here. We both know that Liberals come here not to be a practicing member but to be a nuisance and troll.
True, but members could be banned here just because Solar or I get out of the wrong side of the bed. However, if we did that, the forum would go to shit, since the free market would kick in and members would go elsewhere.
Quote from: taxed on March 09, 2019, 11:41:57 AM
Incorrect. Facebook probably wouldn't (or would in it's original capacity, Lifelog). Google probably wouldn't, as the old search engines likely would have won out. Chrome probably wouldn't have happened, along with other social media/internet companies launched from our tax dollars.
Google wasn't the first search engine. Facebook wasn't the first social media company. Chrome/IE weren't the first browsers.
That's what, say, Twitter is.
So are social media companies.
We're circling back to those specific companies you mention. I agree, those launched with taxpayer money should not be able to ban users for political beliefs. Those launched with private dollars can do whatever they want (Gab, etc).
True, but members could be banned here just because Solar or I get out of the wrong side of the bed. However, if we did that, the forum would go to shit, since the free market would kick in and members would go elsewhere.
We can bicker on semantics but a mega social media company is way different than a run of the mill forum.
Ultimately, if Liberals are going to attack our personal business practices (not serving than gay Wedding cake), I have no problem forcing Twitter to serve Conservative though. You don't have to be a fan of Milo to see he was generally wronged while vile behavior from the left gets a pass.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on March 09, 2019, 12:06:28 PM
We can bicker on semantics but a mega social media company is way different than a run of the mill forum.
I'm saying Gab, for example, is a social media company like Twitter. Gab, however, should be able to ban whomever they want for any reason. Twitter is a different story.
Quote
Ultimately, if Liberals are going to attack our personal business practices (not serving than gay Wedding cake), I have no problem forcing Twitter to serve Conservative though.
That's different. I agree with you on this, but only if Twitter took government dollars. If it were Gab, then no, they can bounce whomever they want.
Quote
You don't have to be a fan of Milo to see he was generally wronged while vile behavior from the left gets a pass.
I agree, but if Twitter took government money, then it was wrong. If they were private, like Gab, then they are free to do whatever they want.
While serving my term as the First Consul of the United States:
(1)Repeal the 16th Amendment. Congress needs to learn what and what isn't necessary to the running of the country. Stop buying stuff, our descendants will have to pay for.
(2)Repeal the 17th Amendment. Senators should be beholden to the State legislatures that elect them, NOT the national party. No out of state money in these elections either.
(3)Repeal the 20th Amendment. Unless that female has served in the armed forces of the United States
.
(4)Repeal the 26th Amendment. Raise the voting age to 25, unless you have served in the armed forces of the US. Then your age to vote started the day you enter the military.
(5)Term Limits. 3 two year terms for Reps. 1 six year term for Sen. 1 ten year term for the USSC, 1 six year term for the POTUS.
(6)NO Civil Service. Every Bureaucrat in the US government serves at the pleasure of the POTUS. Bring back the Spoils System.
(7)A Federal Election Bureau, staffed by the same number of members from each state. Their job will be to check voting roles in any state chosen by random, and not their own state. To make sure that only citizens are voting. To make sure that elections are overseen to counter fraud.
(8)Marriage and Abortion returned to each individual state. No California rules being forced on the people of Utah.
(9)All US citizens who are not have not committed a felony or who having committed a felon, have served their full sentence and have a spotless record in the following ten years, shall be allowed to carry a weapon on their person or keep one in their homes.
(10)The business of the Federal government shall be restricted to the national defense, foreign diplomacy, treasury, internal jurisprudence and interior government properties (national parks, forests, Corps of Engineers, Coast Guard, etc.).
(11)The US military shall hold live fire exercises along unwalled sections of the border.
(12)Outlaw Protected Classes
(13)Allow no immigrants into the United States whose religions or customs don't allow them to fully embrace, and assimilate into, the laws and customs of the United States.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on March 09, 2019, 09:47:42 AM
They do that anyway. What if I lived in one of those Liberal areas and was forced to pay my employees $15 an hour?
If you are going to allow the government to set the highest price a company can charge, can the government also set the lowest price a company can charge too? And don't complain about the pay forced upon employers, if we want them to "prevent" price gorging, then also accept wages which "do not take advantage of the workers"
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on March 09, 2019, 10:50:08 AM
I know if I buy a multipack of said soda at a grocery store, it will be (per item) cheaper that buying it individually at a convenience store. But the gauging that occurs at places like an airport just because you are a captive audience is overkill; especially, since they have the monopoly and you as a consumer can't bring anything in through TSA considered normal. This is a step below overcharging for that generator during a hurricane. It's all taking advantage of a situation. A free market would allow different convenient shops at the airport to have different prices. Where is that 2 for $3.00/2 for $3.33/2 for $3.50 like a Sheetz, Wawa, or 7-11?
I see you left out the "militant" part. Besides, some of the things that aught to be implemented, is going to be tough (even extreme). It is what is needed.
Pushing for Marxist policies doesn't make you a militant libertarian. It makes you a Marxist.
...and, regarding the airport vendors, also take into consideration security, compliance, etc. I'd imagine there's extra cost for those vendors as well. Nevertheless, if I am stuck in the desert and someone is selling water, I imagine I'll be paying a premium for that water.
Quote from: s3779m on March 09, 2019, 01:30:46 PM
If you are going to allow the government to set the highest price a company can charge, can the government also set the lowest price a company can charge too? And don't complain about the pay forced upon employers, if we want them to "prevent" price gorging, then also accept wages which "do not take advantage of the workers"
Exactly. He also doesn't take into account how supply and demand also gives others a chance to purchase something. If there's a run on a product, and the price is jacked down, then they have to then regulate how many a person can buy. Then, is it all one family? Did one guy send his friend in there to buy something he doesn't need on behalf of the guy who just maxed his quota? On the other hand, naturally adjusting the price to the demand prevents a run on the product -- or at least greatly curbs it.
Quote from: s3779m on March 09, 2019, 01:30:46 PM
If you are going to allow the government to set the highest price a company can charge, can the government also set the lowest price a company can charge too? And don't complain about the pay forced upon employers, if we want them to "prevent" price gorging, then also accept wages which "do not take advantage of the workers"
A low skilled worker (fast food) is not worth $15 an hour versus a semi-skilled worker (low-level technical) that earns $15 an hour. Pay for technical knowledge, not standing around holding up the counter while tables and floors are dirty.
And we, as an society, seem to forget it's not just about the wage, it is the cost of living. If most of us ran things as this thread is about, hopefully there will be less cost of living because of the low federal, state, and local taxes because there would be no unnecessary spending on social programs, small government, and balanced budget.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on March 09, 2019, 02:29:28 PM
A low skilled worker (fast food) is not worth $15 an hour versus a semi-skilled worker (low-level technical) that earns $15 an hour. Pay for technical knowledge, not standing around holding up the counter while tables and floors are dirty.
True, but the free market determines that. If there was a high demand of low skilled fast-food workers, their value would go up.
Quote
And we, as an society, seem to forget it's not just about the wage, it is the cost of living.
The free market should determine that as well. If wages are jacked up, that increased the cost of goods, services, and housing, and everything else.
Quote
If most of us ran things as this thread is about, hopefully there will be less cost of living because of the low federal, state, and local taxes because there would be no unnecessary spending on social programs, small government, and balanced budget.
...and no minimum wage. That's the first thing I'd eliminate... along with the Sixteenth Amendment.
Quote from: taxed on March 09, 2019, 02:06:23 PM
Pushing for Marxist policies doesn't make you a militant libertarian. It makes you a Marxist.
...and, regarding the airport vendors, also take into consideration security, compliance, etc. I'd imagine there's extra cost for those vendors as well. Nevertheless, if I am stuck in the desert and someone is selling water, I imagine I'll be paying a premium for that water.
That's not the intent of my stance. However, I do believe there is a fine line that should be addressed(socially, morally, legally. or financially).
We also need to realize that this thread is just a discussion and is never going to happen in real life. We need an army of Trumps to fight the good fight to the extreme as we are discussing regardless if it's doable or not.
Quote(low-level technical)that earns $15 an hour. Pay for technical knowledge, not standing around holding up the counter while tables and floors are dirty.
I know the food establishments I managed throughout my younger years. IF you have time to lean you can clean, or you were out the door. Technical knowledge don't mean shit if your not making the business money.
Quote from: walkstall on March 09, 2019, 02:45:44 PM
I know the food establishments I managed throughout my younger years. IF you have time to lean you can clean, or you were out the door. Technical knowledge don't mean shit if your not making the business money.
From my experience, the low level technical guys were running from job to job as was I was. As much as I think a specific low level guy was overall useless and should be gone, he is not the sole reason the company sucks.
I have lost track going to fast food drive thru's and having a order wrong in some way or missing something important like a straw or a fork/spoon. Even in a foreign country, person could not even count when I order a numbered meal from a well known American fast food establishment.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on March 09, 2019, 02:44:50 PM
That's not the intent of my stance. However, I do believe there is a fine line that should be addressed(socially, morally, legally. or financially).
What is that line, and how do you determine it?
Quote
We also need to realize that this thread is just a discussion and is never going to happen in real life. We need an army of Trumps to fight the good fight to the extreme as we are discussing regardless if it's doable or not.
I agree, but it's a good exercise to see where members stand.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on March 03, 2019, 09:44:35 AM
I would make it a federal charge anything illegal, immoral, or criminal happens to a armed forces member or their property. If we are considered "government property, then we should be protected as such.
So, if that army guy is away in the desert, if the wife empties the bank account and leaves him, send her ass to jail for a long time.
If a regular person commits a crime on a service member, they should get that extra, "hate crime" type charge on them.
I would eliminate all hate crimes.
Quote from: taxed on March 09, 2019, 03:03:27 PM
What is that line, and how do you determine it?
I agree, but it's a good exercise to see where members stand.
I bring it up as something that isn't right with society. This thread's iron fist of rule is not just about major things. Sometimes it is about the little things. It doesn't make me Hitler for it.
I believe most of us would be focusing on the major things first. But, as you know, First Amendment is very important with me (freedom of speech (or not), freedom of expression (or not), and ultimately freedom of conscience and though). That's why the social media stance is a must. Things like overcharging for soda is a pet peeve that can be addressed in some way, even if it is on the back burner.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on March 09, 2019, 02:29:28 PM
A low skilled worker (fast food) is not worth $15 an hour versus a semi-skilled worker (low-level technical) that earns $15 an hour. Pay for technical knowledge, not standing around holding up the counter while tables and floors are dirty.
And we, as an society, seem to forget it's not just about the wage, it is the cost of living. If most of us ran things as this thread is about, hopefully there will be less cost of living because of the low federal, state, and local taxes because there would be no unnecessary spending on social programs, small government, and balanced budget.
That is what you get when you allow the government into business, whether it is to prevent price gorging, set limits on how much you can buy, ect. personally, I do not want the government in business.
Quote from: ldub23 on March 09, 2019, 03:19:23 PM
I would eliminate all hate crimes.
I did state that in a later post, but do believe that military members should have that extra because we considered government property (a.k.a.
Government
Issue).
(at least in certain cases)
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on March 09, 2019, 03:37:35 PM
I bring it up as something that isn't right with society. This thread's iron fist of rule is not just about major things. Sometimes it is about the little things. It doesn't make me Hitler for it.
I believe most of us would be focusing on the major things first. But, as you know, First Amendment is very important with me (freedom of speech (or not), freedom of expression (or not), and ultimately freedom of conscience and though). That's why the social media stance is a must. Things like overcharging for soda is a pet peeve that can be addressed in some way, even if it is on the back burner.
I agree with the freedom of speech, but liberty itself is important. The iron boot of government on the throat of the free market is something that makes AOC giddy. Even a seemingly small bit of interference ripples through the economy and warps it. Let the free markets function naturally. Nature does a great job of keeping things in balance.
Quote from: taxed on March 09, 2019, 11:41:57 AM
Incorrect. Facebook probably wouldn't (or would in it's original capacity, Lifelog). Google probably wouldn't, as the old search engines likely would have won out. Chrome probably wouldn't have happened, along with other social media/internet companies launched from our tax dollars.
Google wasn't the first search engine. Facebook wasn't the first social media company. Chrome/IE weren't the first browsers.
That's what, say, Twitter is.
So are social media companies.
We're circling back to those specific companies you mention. I agree, those launched with taxpayer money should not be able to ban users for political beliefs. Those launched with private dollars can do whatever they want (Gab, etc).
True, but members could be banned here just because Solar or I get out of the wrong side of the bed. However, if we did that, the forum would go to shit, since the free market would kick in and members would go elsewhere.
Taxed, I just read a piece the other day that the CIA and DARPA had their budgets cut where Google etc is concerned. I have a pretty good idea Trump through down the gauntlet on these social media Co's.
Quote from: Solar on March 09, 2019, 04:08:51 PM
Taxed, I just read a piece the other day that the CIA and DARPA had their budgets cut where Google etc is concerned. I have a pretty good idea Trump through down the gauntlet on these social media Co's.
That would certainly explain why they've been like acting like squirrels caught in a garage.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on March 09, 2019, 03:37:35 PM
I bring it up as something that isn't right with society. This thread's iron fist of rule is not just about major things. Sometimes it is about the little things. It doesn't make me Hitler for it.
I believe most of us would be focusing on the major things first. But, as you know, First Amendment is very important with me (freedom of speech (or not), freedom of expression (or not), and ultimately freedom of conscience and though). That's why the social media stance is a must. Things like overcharging for soda is a pet peeve that can be addressed in some way, even if it is on the back burner.
Yep don't buy it.
Quote from: taxed on March 09, 2019, 04:05:37 PM
I agree with the freedom of speech, but liberty itself is important. The iron boot of government on the throat of the free market is something that makes AOC giddy. Even a seemingly small bit of interference ripples through the economy and warps it. Let the free markets function naturally. Nature does a great job of keeping things in balance.
Mega Social Media companies absolutely should be regulated. They have to much power over liberty.
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/twitter-exec-is-questioned-about-'learn-to-code'-bannings/msg374125/#msg374125
That Tim guy just made my overall argument more straight forward.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on March 10, 2019, 07:41:14 PM
Mega Social Media companies absolutely should be regulated. They have to much power over liberty.
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/twitter-exec-is-questioned-about-'learn-to-code'-bannings/msg374125/#msg374125
That Tim guy just made my overall argument more straight forward.
How so?
Quote from: taxed on March 10, 2019, 08:20:46 PM
How so?
Watch the videos. The Tim guy breaks it down better than I can including the First Amendment as well as other issues.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on March 10, 2019, 08:41:58 PM
Watch the videos. The Tim guy breaks it down better than I can including the First Amendment as well as other issues.
I watched it originally. In face, I posted about it that night.
https://conservativehardliner.com/jack-dorsey-tim-pool-and-vijaya-gadde-jre
We can move this convo over to the other thread...................
Quote from: walkstall on March 09, 2019, 06:29:21 PM
Yep don't buy it.
That's not always the answer to lie down and take it.
No residence will have any of their power outlets wired into a single GFI power outlet. GFI's will only be for that position. Makes sense to put one in a bathroom. Doesn't make sense to have half a bedroom on it as well.
Toilet paper will be installed as it was designed and patented to be: coming out the top.
Any politician trying to eliminate or bypass Constitutional Rights will be charged with treason. This includes direct and indirect measures. And since they are carrying a pocket Constitution with them at all times, they better know their role.
Invading a person's personal space will be illegal. Protesting is one thing; getting in someone's face yelling or being aggressive will be illegal. People have the Constitutional First Amendment Right not to be aggressed during their right to address grievances.
Protesting will not, I repeat, not interfere with non-protestors daily lives. When I leave a DC building and can't leave the area because these fake outraged anti-war protestors (they were not protesting that during Obama years) are marching a path that prevents me from going north or south, that violates my Constitutional First Amendment Right to not be involved in your protest (Right to be Free From Speech Or Expression).
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on March 10, 2019, 07:41:14 PM
Mega Social Media companies absolutely should be regulated. They have to much power over liberty.
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/twitter-exec-is-questioned-about-'learn-to-code'-bannings/msg374125/#msg374125
That Tim guy just made my overall argument more straight forward.
Just a question, why, when it comes to breaking up "big" business, is it the liberals who wish to break it up? Aoc and pelosi are also calling for the same break ups of "mega media. Is it because smaller companies are easier to bribe with tax $? Personally, I would move for tax $'s to be withheld from private companies including "big" businesses.
Quote from: s3779m on March 12, 2019, 05:26:55 AM
Just a question, why, when it comes to breaking up "big" business, is it the liberals who wish to break it up? Aoc and pelosi are also calling for the same break ups of "mega media. Is it because smaller companies are easier to bribe with tax $? Personally, I would move for tax $'s to be withheld from private companies including "big" businesses.
Agreeing with that Tim guys argument, if a Social Media company yields that much power, they need to be put in check. They are supposed to be an avenue for speaking your mind and should not be allowed to decide who's mind should be able to be spoken. They are not a private company in the normal sense. And, I do believe that Twitter is receiving American tax dollars in some way (and probably from other countries.
I don't know what the Liberal's game plan is (unless it is a distraction). Mine is focused on Social Media companies clearly being unfair, unjust, and quite frankly unlawful. I am not directly looking to break Twitter up.
And honestly, I don't like it when Comcast is my only cable company in town. There is no other choices for consumers (Dish is not a cable company). I want direct competition. That's why I support pirate radio (or at least non-corporate run radio).
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on March 12, 2019, 06:31:53 AM
Agreeing with that Tim guys argument, if a Social Media company yields that much power, they need to be put in check.
You put them in check by taking government out of the way and letting the free market humble them.
Quote
They are supposed to be an avenue for speaking your mind and should not be allowed to decide who's mind should be able to be spoken.
Incorrect. They are supposed to be for making money for the shareholders.
Quote
They are not a private company in the normal sense. And, I do believe that Twitter is receiving American tax dollars in some way (and probably from other countries.
If they are receiving tax dollars, then yes, they can't toss people for political views.
Quote
I don't know what the Liberal's game plan is (unless it is a distraction). Mine is focused on Social Media companies clearly being unfair, unjust, and quite frankly unlawful. I am not directly looking to break Twitter up.
I haven't heard you get into Operation Chokepoint yet. This social media stuff is topical. The rubber meets the road in the payment processing side of things. If Twitter bans you, BFD. Go to Gab. Or Minds. Or any others that are sprouting up. They are being held down from payment processors and preventing apps in the app stores.
Metaphorically speaking, you're more upset that conservatives aren't allowed to drive SUVs, but we're being banned from gas stations all together.
Quote from: taxed on March 12, 2019, 03:15:02 PM
You put them in check by taking government out of the way and letting the free market humble them.
Incorrect. They are supposed to be for making money for the shareholders.
If they are receiving tax dollars, then yes, they can't toss people for political views.
I haven't heard you get into Operation Chokepoint yet. This social media stuff is topical. The rubber meets the road in the payment processing side of things. If Twitter bans you, BFD. Go to Gab. Or Minds. Or any others that are sprouting up. They are being held down from payment processors and preventing apps in the app stores.
Metaphorically speaking, you're more upset that conservatives aren't allowed to drive SUVs, but we're being banned from gas stations all together.
Aren't they stomping on our Constitution Right to live by cutting of our finances due to political reasons?
And, I due focus of First Amendment because it is our Right to exist, regardless of what we say in public. I will never be a Political pundant and be online and on TV shows. All I can due is do the perverbial "#NPC" Tweet at them as a form of protest. And, if we can't even say anything about it, we are truly broke.
They are trying to treat us as second class citizens which is Unconstitutional.
But, like I said, I agree with Tim on that they have too much power. They are not private companies due to the fact of what they do for a living; they are a form of utility.
And, since we Conservatives are constantly being stomped on by all things Liberal, I have no problem returning the favor.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on March 12, 2019, 03:39:05 PM
Aren't they stomping on our Constitution Right to live by cutting of our finances due to political reasons?
And, I due focus of First Amendment because it is our Right to exist, regardless of what we say in public. I will never be a Political pundant and be online and on TV shows. All I can due is do the perverbial "#NPC" Tweet at them as a form of protest. And, if we can't even say anything about it, we are truly broke.
They are trying to treat us as second class citizens which is Unconstitutional.
But, like I said, I agree with Tim on that they have too much power. They are not private companies due to the fact of what they do for a living; they are a form of utility.
And, since we Conservatives are constantly being stomped on by all things Liberal, I have no problem returning the favor.
I think you and I have different priorities of urgency. Cutting off our access to bank accounts and the ability to collect money from ventures is WAY closer to the China social score system and killing the First Amendment than Twitter banning me. I'm fucked with no banking. If Twitter bans me, I just go to Gab or wherever.
Also, if you're concern is Twitter, allowing the apps into the app stores and allowing them to conduct commerce would kill Twitter -- or at least force them to fix their issues. If you think Twitter is just too big, then ask MySpace how things are going. Who killed MySpace? Facebook, with the help of government.
Pretend Solar and I owned all the web browsers. If CPF banned you, but prevented other forums you'd go to from loading in browsers, that seems like a bigger issue than being banned. Parallel this metaphorically to social media.
Twitter will be forced to self-correct if its competitors were allowed in app stores, and allowed to freely engage in commerce.
Quote from: taxed on March 12, 2019, 05:07:48 PM
I think you and I have different priorities of urgency. Cutting off our access to bank accounts and the ability to collect money from ventures is WAY closer to the China social score system and killing the First Amendment than Twitter banning me. I'm fucked with no banking. If Twitter bans me, I just go to Gab or wherever.
Also, if you're concern is Twitter, allowing the apps into the app stores and allowing them to conduct commerce would kill Twitter -- or at least force them to fix their issues. If you think Twitter is just too big, then ask MySpace how things are going. Who killed MySpace? Facebook, with the help of government.
Pretend Solar and I owned all the web browsers. If CPF banned you, but prevented other forums you'd go to from loading in browsers, that seems like a bigger issue than being banned. Parallel this metaphorically to social media.
Twitter will be forced to self-correct if its competitors were allowed in app stores, and allowed to freely engage in commerce.
I fully understand that they are going after people's actual lives.
I don't care about any Social Media. Like I said, if it were the other way round, you know Liberals would do the same thing. I have no problem putting any Social Media's feet to the fire. I don't use Social Media. I spend too much time in the internet as is. We can vote no with our wallets or choices only for so long. At some point, we will have no real choices left. We have to fight back.
I asked you what your opinion on it being a Constitutional matter on going after finances.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on March 12, 2019, 10:13:08 PM
I fully understand that they are going after people's actual lives.
I don't care about any Social Media. Like I said, if it were the other way round, you know Liberals would do the same thing. I have no problem putting any Social Media's feet to the fire. I don't use Social Media. I spend too much time in the internet as is. We can vote no with our wallets or choices only for so long. At some point, we will have no real choices left. We have to fight back.
I asked you what your opinion on it being a Constitutional matter on going after finances.
We need money, that the government prints and forces us to use, to eat, pay bills, etc. We also need banks to keep that money. It's part of survival.
Quote from: taxed on March 12, 2019, 11:58:07 PM
We need money, that the government prints and forces us to use, to eat, pay bills, etc. We also need banks to keep that money. It's part of survival.
Is it unConstitutional to go after a person's finances for political motives?
Quote from: mdgiles on March 09, 2019, 12:18:39 PM
While serving my term as the First Consul of the United States:
(1)Repeal the 16th Amendment. Congress needs to learn what and what isn't necessary to the running of the country. Stop buying stuff, our descendants will have to pay for.
(2)Repeal the 17th Amendment. Senators should be beholden to the State legislatures that elect them, NOT the national party. No out of state money in these elections either.
(3)Repeal the 20th Amendment. Unless that female has served in the armed forces of the United States
.
(4)Repeal the 26th Amendment. Raise the voting age to 25, unless you have served in the armed forces of the US. Then your age to vote started the day you enter the military.
(5)Term Limits. 3 two year terms for Reps. 1 six year term for Sen. 1 ten year term for the USSC, 1 six year term for the POTUS.
(6)NO Civil Service. Every Bureaucrat in the US government serves at the pleasure of the POTUS. Bring back the Spoils System.
(7)A Federal Election Bureau, staffed by the same number of members from each state. Their job will be to check voting roles in any state chosen by random, and not their own state. To make sure that only citizens are voting. To make sure that elections are overseen to counter fraud.
(8)Marriage and Abortion returned to each individual state. No California rules being forced on the people of Utah.
(9)All US citizens who are not have not committed a felony or who having committed a felon, have served their full sentence and have a spotless record in the following ten years, shall be allowed to carry a weapon on their person or keep one in their homes.
(10)The business of the Federal government shall be restricted to the national defense, foreign diplomacy, treasury, internal jurisprudence and interior government properties (national parks, forests, Corps of Engineers, Coast Guard, etc.).
(11)The US military shall hold live fire exercises along unwalled sections of the border.
(12)Outlaw Protected Classes
(13)Allow no immigrants into the United States whose religions or customs don't allow them to fully embrace, and assimilate into, the laws and customs of the United States.
Please eleaborate on the repeal of the 20th amendment. I dont understand why you want to repeal that one.
Also, people need to understand this thread is more of a personal rant. If somebody feels that a law or policy should be added or removed, then so be it. Some people are taking this thread a little to seriously. We (individually) will never be in charge so bickering of details is stupid. There is a difference between asking about our opinions and arguing over something that will never happen.
This thread was inspired from a radio program's on-air personality ranting about this type of thing (for comedic/entertainment purposes). Some of it made general sense/some of it was bad. He even joked about making his own money after him. That is what this thread is. For us nobodies to rant on what we would do (good or bad). We have our reasons for our stance: deal with it.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on March 13, 2019, 10:14:53 AM
Also, people need to understand this thread is more of a personal rant. If somebody feels that a law or policy should be added or removed, then so be it. Some people are taking this thread a little to seriously. We (individually) will never be in charge so bickering of details is stupid. There is a difference between asking about our opinions and arguing over something that will never happen.
This thread was inspired from a radio program's on-air personality ranting about this type of thing (for comedic/entertainment purposes). Some of it made general sense/some of it was bad. He even joked about making his own money after him. That is what this thread is. For us nobodies to rant on what we would do (good or bad). We have our reasons for our stance: deal with it.
It's a great topic and spawns some good discussion.
Quote from: taxed on March 15, 2019, 09:13:43 PM
It's a great topic and spawns some good discussion.
It got crazy over the over grilling of opinions. If the person has a strong opinion about something, it's important enough for them.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on March 15, 2019, 10:42:56 PM
It got crazy over the over grilling of opinions. If the person has a strong opinion about something, it's important enough for them.
Unfortunately, when those laws are passed over the grilling of opinions,
all of us now have to obey them, not just the ones who had a beef in the first place. Could be why some of the items were taken seriously.
Quote from: s3779m on March 16, 2019, 03:52:31 AM
Unfortunately, when those laws are passed over the grilling of opinions, all of us now have to obey them, not just the ones who had a beef in the first place. Could be why some of the items were taken seriously.
That's the thing, most of us want fewer laws, smaller govt, to the point of near nonexistence. The Founders knew this might happen...