«12. . .140141142143144145146. . .270271»
A first year history teacher at a high school in Fayetteville, NC decided to demonstrate the First Amendment by desecrating the American Flag in front of his class.[1] Lee Francis attempted to cut the flag with scissors, torch it with a lighter and then walk on it.
Several students got up and walked out. 16 year old junior, Alex Dunn took it one step further. After gathering photographic evidence, he relieved the teacher of the flag on the way out of the classroom. Dunn went on to post that picture on Facebook where it went viral.[2]
The school district suspended the teacher pending an investigation. Of course the teacher lawyered up and wants the student punished for taking a picture of him.[3]
What do you think went wrong here? Poll's up.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.wral.com/teacher-flag-lesson-on-1st-amendment-not-intended-as-offensive-/16031702/
[2] http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/09/22/meet-north-carolina-teen-who-saved-american-flag.html
[3] http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/09/21/flag-stomping-teacher-has-no-regrets-wants-student-punished.html#
I apologize on the behalf of my fellow region member for his spamming actions.
I hope this does not soil our newly founded embassy, I am working to improve and promote libertarianism among the Trump movement. Our regional and ideological partnership is a key part of the strategy.
Are you a nimble navigator?
The police officer in Charlotte is black - so is the police chief. The whole "racism" thing is cracked.
As for flag burning teachers - in a private school fine (if that is the parents choose to pay for), in a taxpayer funded school - NOT fine.
But then the whole tax funded system (and the "licenses" and regulations on private teachers and schools) is not fine.
Phrontisteries and Xyanth
I have mixed emotions on the teacher. He has the absolute right to desecrate the American flag. The Supreme Court has so ruled. But does that right carry over into a captive audience audience situation like the one we have here.
I do not think the student did anything wrong in taking the picture of the teacher. Nor do I think it was wrong to post it on Facebook. As near as I can tell a picture does not make the grade for North Carolina's wire tapping laws that specify one of the parties being recorded must be aware there is a recording being made. A picture does not an electronic recording make.
I think the teacher is going to have to live with his lesson going viral.
That said, if the teacher is so proud of his lesson, why is he so bent out of shape over the picture being distributed far and wide? Or is it just that part about being suspended while the district reevaluates whether or not this is what they want out of their teachers?
>alt right
>libertarianism
choose.
I think Clinton won. I think Lestor Holt didn't do a good job and was arguably the worst outlf the three up there, though Trump didn't seem to do himself any favors at all. Conclusion is that this will not really matter. Supporters for either side will go out of their way to find ways to make it seem their side won or did better than expected, ex: breitbart.com saying all Clinton had to do was be able to stand for 90 minutes to win. I guess by that standard Trump had to keep from foaming at the mouth to tie, which he was unable to do.
It is a sad state of political affairs to have a guy like Trump whining at the end of the debate about negative advertising attacks against him. Really? This is a classic bully response when the bully is feeling the heat. I have encountered my fair share so I do know one when I see one and confront one.
The whole tax return thing has become a joke. If the IRS is currently auditing you, and supposedly has been for fifteen years, doesn't it stand to reason that they already have, and are inspecting, your current and past tax returns? What can his lawyers be afraid of, some democratic hack finding something in it that a team of IRS auditors missed? It's not very smart to admit on national television that you have been actively seeking loopholes in the system for decades and that the government would have squandered your tax dollars if you paid them. Especially when one of your major talking points is the federal budget deficit.
I am also at a loss to understand how can a corporation consider it smart business strategy to use bankruptcy laws. It is certainly not smart strategy to position your business into bankruptcy and if his business tactics prior to those declarations are any indication he did whatever he could not to have to resort to bankruptcy in the first, second, third and fourth place.
Didn't he argue in front of congress that it is bad to lower taxes on the rich because it provides less incentive for them to invest. Keeping tax rates high offer wealthy people to invest into businesses in order to lower their taxable income to a level that would allow them to pay a lower overall sum than they would if paying a ver low rate to begin with. That is how I understood his half hour speech to congressional committee in 1991. Maybe my analysis is wrong there, but I am pretty sure he was not a republican then so maybe that is why he talked that way then and sings a different tune now.
Clinton may be a first class boob but Trump redefines the epitome of a clown virtually every time he opens his mouth.
And on the Iraq War. There is hard evidence of Trump saying the US should go into Iraq in 2002. He isnt a cheerleader but he does say the US should have gone in hears ago. The 2004 CNN interview he himself cites of proof that he was against the invasion isn't anything of the sort. It only shows he wouldn't have done it the way the Bush administration did it. Besides it is well after the fact, so it doesn't refute anything. Private conversations with your lapdog are not admissible evidence, but this isn't a court where facts matter, just the ability to ramble off as many easy to the ear four letter words as possible to make the average viewer understand you and believe you did well.
From our mouth to God's ears.
All those currently running vast financial empires are intimately familiar with the IRS. The IRS pays almost continuous attention to people meeting that profile. Outside of meeting that criteria, there's nothing special about Trump.
Why not? If the tools are available why shouldn't Trump use them? It puts him in good company. General Motors, Chrysler, American Airlines, Apple and Kodak are all in the club.
That is counter intuitive, especially coming from someone investing and looking for investors. Got link?
And yet Trump is still light years ahead of Hillary.
I think the teacher absolutely has the right to desecrate the flag. The right to do so is part of having a free Republic. However, when you are an employee of the government and molding the minds of young children it is your duty to teach them. It is not your duty to brainwash them to your point of view. There is a time and place for everything. Fayettville is the home to fort Bragg and therefore a lot of military children go to that high school. So again, not the time or place to push your political leanings. There are many better ways to teach the first amendment than by stomping on the flag.
I didn't define Donny Jingles as being some epitome of evil. I was referring to both him and HRC as evil within the confines of the expression "the lesser of two evils."
I assume that just about everyone here is a libertarian of one stripe or another, and we can agree that both the GOP and the Dems are fielding big-government candidates. If you believe in small government, neither of them is the sort of person you would choose as a leader. They have very different ideas, but they both clearly believe in a strong and active executive. They both clearly believe in solving problems with government intervention.
I've never quoted Joe Biden before in any way that wasn't mocking, but there's a first for everything:
While watching the debate, all I could think was: "This is a bunch of stuff!"
So let me get this straight:
rather than just eat the fact that Trump didn't do well in the debate, you decide to pick these two points to defend his actions:
A: not only do you think it is an intelligent interjection for someone to say he is being smart when his opponent claims he hasn't paid federal income tax over the last few years he is being audited on (because that is certainly a statement that will get any middle class person to think Trump understands their plight), in order for there to be any truth in his statement he was being "smart" we would have to believe that a man with a purported net worth in excess of $10,000,000,000.00 not only does his own taxes rather than has an accountant do it for him but is able to find enough legal loopholes in the tax code to deduct enough from his annual income to pay no federal income tax even with the alternative minimum tax. Do you know how impossible that is to do? You have obviously never done your own taxes.
B: that he is so brilliant a businessman that his strategy to intentionally position his company to have to declare bankruptcy is akin to the genius of such other Luminary companies like American Airlines, Kodak, GM and Chrysler. And we all know how proud these companies are that they use the fact they had to declare bankruptcy as a selling point to potential shareholders.
Apologia has seen no finer moments in all of its existence.
If you haven't done enough research to know of the 1991 congressional hearing where Trump speaks at length on the subject of Reagan's 1986 tax cuts I mentioned earlier then neither you or I have any further reason to discuss this election with each other. My providing a link would do nothing.
I made my points. You could either look them up or not. I don't feel the need to hold your hand in the process since if you haven't by now, you sure aren't going to be objective from anything I have got to say.
I am done on this subject. No need to beat a dead horse.
The Alt Right is a large tent, please do not pigeonhole me just because the MSM tells you to do so.
I myself feel the Alternative Right is an evolved version of Ron Paul styled Libertarianism. I believe strongly in high Civil and Economic Rights, paired with low political freedoms. Because when given a choice, democracy always chooses Tyranny over freedom. See the Dark Enlightenment by Nick Land for further explanation of this theory.
Thank you
You don't have to be libertarian to certain implement ideas that are traditionally libertarian.
"We're going to force you to be free," is a lot more appealing than many of the alternatives.
Phrontisteries and Xyanth
alright alright alright alright !
Can the esteemed nations of this region, please give me their views about the ideas propagated by the following book? And if you haven't read or heard of this book, I will also post a brief summary:
https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-History-Billionaires-Radical/dp/0385535597/ref=mt_hardcover?_encoding=UTF8&me=
Summary: "Why is America living in an age of profound economic inequality? Why, despite the desperate need to address climate change, have even modest environmental efforts been defeated again and again? Why have protections for employees been decimated? Why do hedge-fund billionaires pay a far lower tax rate than middle-class workers?
The conventional answer is that a popular uprising against “big government” led to the ascendancy of a broad-based conservative movement. But as Jane Mayer shows in this powerful, meticulously reported history, a network of exceedingly wealthy people with extreme libertarian views bankrolled a systematic, step-by-step plan to fundamentally alter the American political system.
The network has brought together some of the richest people on the planet. Their core beliefs—that taxes are a form of tyranny; that government oversight of business is an assault on freedom—are sincerely held. But these beliefs also advance their personal and corporate interests: Many of their companies have run afoul of federal pollution, worker safety, securities, and tax laws.
The chief figures in the network are Charles and David Koch, whose father made his fortune in part by building oil refineries in Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany. The patriarch later was a founding member of the John Birch Society, whose politics were so radical it believed Dwight Eisenhower was a communist. The brothers were schooled in a political philosophy that asserted the only role of government is to provide security and to enforce property rights.
When libertarian ideas proved decidedly unpopular with voters, the Koch brothers and their allies chose another path. If they pooled their vast resources, they could fund an interlocking array of organizations that could work in tandem to influence and ultimately control academic institutions, think tanks, the courts, statehouses, Congress, and, they hoped, the presidency. Richard Mellon Scaife, the mercurial heir to banking and oil fortunes, had the brilliant insight that most of their political activities could be written off as tax-deductible “philanthropy.”
These organizations were given innocuous names such as Americans for Prosperity. Funding sources were hidden whenever possible. This process reached its apotheosis with the allegedly populist Tea Party movement, abetted mightily by the Citizens United decision—a case conceived of by legal advocates funded by the network.
The political operatives the network employs are disciplined, smart, and at times ruthless. Mayer documents instances in which people affiliated with these groups hired private detectives to impugn whistle-blowers, journalists, and even government investigators. And their efforts have been remarkably successful. Libertarian views on taxes and regulation, once far outside the mainstream and still rejected by most Americans, are ascendant in the majority of state governments, the Supreme Court, and Congress. Meaningful environmental, labor, finance, and tax reforms have been stymied.
Jane Mayer spent five years conducting hundreds of interviews-including with several sources within the network-and scoured public records, private papers, and court proceedings in reporting this book. In a taut and utterly convincing narrative, she traces the byzantine trail of the billions of dollars spent by the network and provides vivid portraits of the colorful figures behind the new American oligarchy.
Dark Money is a book that must be read by anyone who cares about the future of American democracy."
Please share your views about the above.
«12. . .140141142143144145146. . .270271»
Advertisement
