So why can’t the US have BOTH, a low tax rates and programs like universal health care? If Ireland can do it. ANd places like Singapore can do it. So can we. 
Art Laffer is nodding his head in agreement! 
I don’t know about Ireland. It sounds wonderful, but I haven’t researched any of that. I do know that if the current administration tried to push a 4% corporate tax rate, the current “#resistance” would likely start shooting up baseball practice fields in earnest. Personally, I think a 4% tax rate is a great idea, and I’d submit, why not for everybody? Let’s share the joy of keeping the fruits of one’s own labor. That way, we can also have more left over to willingly give to those in need. Look at what many “evil big businessmen” have done on the mere promise of lower taxes and relaxing of draconian regulations. Do we really think the bulk of US citizens would do less?
1 Like
Look at what many “evil big businessmen” have done on the mere promise of lower taxes
Reminds me of when Bernie ran and kept referring to “Wall Street” amid rousing applause , but he never defined what he exactly meant by Wall Street. That never bothered his followers however.
So, can I assume from all the most recent posts that the deal (Trudeau for Trump) is off? You turn down a guy who was a wow on his taxpayer-paid “working” vacation in India with his wife and family tagging along to be included in all the selfies that were snapped? A man with a huge ego who thinks it smart to dress up in a different Indian costume every day? A man who wants all of us to learn and use nineteen new pronouns when referring to someone who isn’t sure what sex he/she/it is? I doubt that your guy can be more of an embarrassment than him.
Seriously, I am impressed with what he has accomplished in little over a year despite receiving zero help from Democrats and not much from his own party either. I suppose those of you who dislike him would claim that Hillary would have done a better job. I think he deserves, and should receive, full support from all Christians. I have not seen any signs that he is disrespectful of, or insensitive to, the needs of the least fortunate of American society. For the love of Mike, he has offered to provide amnesty to more than double the number of “dreamers” proposed by Pelosi and Schumer.
I repeat what Harold McMillan said in 1957: “You have never had it so good”.
1 Like
Thanks. 
We don’t need no stinkin’ 19 pronouns! 
1 Like
What would your hero, Mr. Trump, say about that?
Do you know what he would say? Uhhhh… Do you know what ey would say? or should I ask, “Do you know what ve would say?” Or maybe “xe” or “ze”? Of course, you cannot know a person’s sex without asking him or em or ver or zem, because a person’s sex is not biologically determined but self-declared as a person itself learns what sex it is. 
As for “personkind” aren’t we being a bit sexist in using this word? Why “perSON” kind? Why not “perDAUGHTERkind”? 
Good point! You’re a good ma…uh…pers…uh…human being!
Of course now I’ve alienated all the ET’s. 
edit: I hope that last pun was not too obscure!!
huMAN being? Why not “huWOMAN being”? Or better yet “huPEOPLE being”!
Let’s get it straight. We’ve got to stop being so sexist. We’re not just part of mankind (there are women too). As Mr.Trudeau affirms, we’ve got to start saying “peoplekind.”
Uh oh. I realized just wrote “women.” I should have written “wopeople.”
Perhaps wo/man would work? I talked to a person the other day who pronounced ‘women’ as ‘wimmins’. He was a large fellow who informed me he had ‘drove truck for 26 year’. Which has nothing to do with this thread. Forget I even said it, good perdaughters.
“Wimmin”… that sounds like good Aussie pronunciation. Kiwi’s pronounce “women” like we would say “woman” — we’re all a bit weird.
When in doubt, ask an expert, in this case a self-identified genderqueer advocate (their word - ‘their’ in the singular, as explained below).
"My fifth grade teacher always told me that using “they” as a singular pronoun was grammatically incorrect. Is my fifth grade teacher wrong about that?
While I’m sure your fifth grade teacher meant well when they were teaching you the rules about pronouns, the rules you learned in fifth grade are most likely outdated by now. In fact, the 200 linguists at the American Dialect Society declared the singular “they” the 2015 word of the year. Merriam-Webster and the Oxford dictionary both also include the singular “they.”
Whether your fifth grade teacher likes it or not, “they” is now a recognized and grammatically correct singular pronoun.
Also, I don’t know the gender identity of your fifth grade teacher, which is why I used “they,” rather than “he or she.” Not only is “they” a more streamlined option, “they” also allows room for the possibility that your fifth grade teacher didn’t identify as a man or a woman at all! Maybe they were genderqueer. Maybe they were nonbinary. I don’t know their gender, so I’m not going to artificially limit your fifth grade teacher’s gender identity to one of two options. It’s a more inclusive, fabulous way to go about it."
There ya go, if you want to be fabulous, this is your roadmap. The map goes all the way to Canada apparently.
On the political news front…Some Brazilian mathematicians have figured out…There is only one country, that will survive a Zombie Apocalypse ;
Only One Country Would Survive A Zombie Apocalypse, And It’s Not The US
Of course, I won’t reveal the answer. If you don’t read the article, you will be kept guessing. 
John Bolton, Trump’s new national security advisor, wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal last February making a case for the United States to attack North Korea “first.” In addition, Bolton has previously made statements encouraging pre-emptive strikes on Syrian and Iraqi reactor sites (in 1981 and 2007). I wonder whether this appointment result in impending nuclear world war.
[size=150]NO MORE CHIT CHAT WITH NORTH KOREA[/size]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eYj_wBZ_GM[/youtube]
Just the opposite, I think. Trump is ratcheting up the pressure on Kim the only way Kim understands. I think this will work out peacefully. We cannot wait, realistically, for another nut in charge of earth-shattering weapons.
Exactly, Dave.
Bolton spoke as a private citizen with little power. He will ADVISE, not COMMAND the President. If Kim thinks we’re not serious, then we have no leverage . . . We do NOT want a war. We can NOT back down or there will absolutely BE a war. Either way it depends on Kim, but we at least have a chance to save him and his poor enslaved citizens IF and ONLY if he believes we are serious.
Which we are.
1 Like
Well, it seems to me that Mr. Bolton wants to go much further than a mere threat. He declares that the only way to stop North Korea from developing its nuclear weapons so as to be capable of nuking United States, is to carry out a pre-emptive nuclear attack against them.
We shall see.
Not going to happen. I actually think it’s possible Bolton is right–not in the sense of turning NoKo into a smoking hole, but more in the vein of what Israel did to neutralize Iran’s nukes once upon a time some years ago. If that were a viable option (which seems questionable), I’d say we should go for it. Better that than waiting for them to launch and then possibly failing to shoot the evil thing out of the sky.
1 Like
I think that is exactly the thinking of Mr. Bolton, except that he wouldn’t consider it questionable.