• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

The Left is Freaking Insane

Uglytruth

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
7,114
Likes
11,267
Work at a booth last night against the wind mills they want to use to destroy our area.

1. Go to the fair & people watch. Somehow they make the people of walmart seem almost normal.
2. The tats increase as the teeth decrease.
3. people that stopped to ask question ranged from they don't want them to what's wrong with them. Most seemed open minded and interested.
4. Under 30 crowd seem hell bent on saving the planet with no thought on how anything is produced. When presented with facts they stick to their dream but have zero answers for hard questions. Like have you factored in the mining and transportation costs necessary to get lithium to make batteries to power an electric car? Simply silence, then he came back with I just don't get you. You want to destroy the planet? I simply said you are ignoring the reality of producing these zero emission things and the TOTAL cost's and environmental impact involved.
5. Lady from Texas point blank right out of the gate this is obama's agenda 21 crap & it got good from there with boarders, gun grab, illegals etc...... No one in the booth could keep up with what she was saying. I did asked her about Q and she had heard something but knew nothing.
 

Aurumag

Ag mirror of truth Aurum purity of mind
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,653
Likes
11,897
Location
State of Jefferson
I am fairly well-versed in electric cars, but please enlighten me regarding the evils of wind power generation.

Work at a booth last night against the wind mills they want to use to destroy our area.

1. Go to the fair & people watch. Somehow they make the people of walmart seem almost normal.
2. The tats increase as the teeth decrease.
3. people that stopped to ask question ranged from they don't want them to what's wrong with them. Most seemed open minded and interested.
4. Under 30 crowd seem hell bent on saving the planet with no thought on how anything is produced. When presented with facts they stick to their dream but have zero answers for hard questions. Like have you factored in the mining and transportation costs necessary to get lithium to make batteries to power an electric car? Simply silence, then he came back with I just don't get you. You want to destroy the planet? I simply said you are ignoring the reality of producing these zero emission things and the TOTAL cost's and environmental impact involved.
5. Lady from Texas point blank right out of the gate this is obama's agenda 21 crap & it got good from there with boarders, gun grab, illegals etc...... No one in the booth could keep up with what she was saying. I did asked her about Q and she had heard something but knew nothing.
 

Uglytruth

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
7,114
Likes
11,267
Never said it was evil. Just didn't buy in the country to live next to an airport.

Infrasound have health effects, noise, shadow flicker, destruction of thousands adn thousands of acres of farm land, flashing lights at night, some have water well contamination, ice throws, setbacks from a person's property, lower property values, they want to put so many up it will limit growth, year 15 only producing half what they did the first year, maintenance, affect life flight path, 180 + MPH blade tip speed, killing birds and bats, not allowed to spray fields so lower crop yield and on and on.

It's a tax subsidy grab after that it's a game of hot potatos with companies selling and no one responsible. 650 ft tall eyesore that no one wants to live next to.

Setbacks in CA are 1 mile and 2 kl in Europe. They are trying to make these in the 750 to 1250 ft area.

People talk about co exist but what they really want is for you to submit.

Oh yea & lower property values.

And even after all of this there has to be a backup production manned at all times for when the wind slows or stops.
 

SongSungAU

Midas Member
Midas Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2010
Messages
7,033
Likes
11,420

JayDubya

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
5,181
Likes
6,520
New Calif. Law Requires Trump to Disclose Tax Returns to Be on Ballot

https://www.libertyheadlines.com/ne...rump-to-disclose-tax-returns-to-be-on-ballot/

‘To continue to consistently be hostile…to the president of the United States is just not something we should do…’

(John Myers, Los Angeles Times) President Donald Trump will be ineligible for California’s primary ballot next year unless he discloses his tax returns under a state law that immediately took effect Tuesday, an unprecedented mandate that is almost certain to spark a high-profile court fight and might encourage other states to adopt their own unconventional rules for presidential candidates.

The law, signed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom on his final day to take action and passed on a strict party-line vote in the Legislature, requires all presidential candidates to submit five years of income tax filings. They must do so by late November in order to secure a spot on California’s presidential primary ballot in March. State elections officials will post the financial documents online, although certain private information must first be redacted.

“As one of the largest economies in the world and home to one in nine Americans eligible to vote, California has a special responsibility to require this information of presidential and gubernatorial candidates,” Newsom said in a statement that accompanied his signature on the bill approved by the Legislature earlier this month. “These are extraordinary times and states have a legal and moral duty to do everything in their power to ensure leaders seeking the highest offices meet minimal standards, and to restore public confidence. The disclosure required by this bill will shed light on conflicts of interest, self-dealing, or influence from domestic and foreign business interest.”

Trump, who is not singled out by the law but is clearly its inspiration, is likely to fight back.

“The Constitution is clear on the qualifications for someone to serve as president and states cannot add additional requirements on their own,” said Tim Murtaugh, communications director for the president’s reelection campaign. “The bill also violates the First Amendment right of association, since California can’t tell political parties which candidates their members can or cannot vote for in a primary election.”

The governor’s action is certain to draw swift criticism from California Republicans, too. During legislative debates on the bill, GOP legislators repeatedly accused Democrats of being motivated solely by their anger at Trump.

“To continue to consistently be hostile, from this legislative body, to the president of the United States is just not something we should do,” state Senate Minority Leader Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield, said during a floor debate earlier this month. “Quit poking the bear.”

“We’re not poking the bear,” said the author of Senate Bill 27, state Sen. Mike McGuire, D-Healdsburg. “We’re doing what’s right.”

The new law does not appear to keep a candidate who refuses to disclose the information from appearing on the statewide ballot in the November 2020 election. And it also requires candidates for California governor to release their tax returns in advance of the statewide primary, beginning in 2024.

Access by the public and news media to a candidate’s personal tax returns has been a touchstone of presidential politics for more than four decades. Following a high-profile fight in 1973 over a tax deduction taken by President Richard Nixon, the practice of releasing the information became largely routine. In the years that followed, just two nominees of the major political parties — President Gerald Ford in 1976 and Trump in 2016 — have refused to release their taxes.

Candidates for California governor have been less consistent. While Newsom released five years’ worth of returns in 2017 and his Republican rival John Cox provided summary documents, neither then-Gov. Jerry Brown nor his GOP challengers would divulge details on their finances during the 2010 and 2014 campaigns.

No candidate or officeholder has faced more widespread criticism for keeping a tight grip on their Internal Revenue Service forms than Trump. From his entry into the presidential race in 2015 until now, the president has fended off news of leaked documents and congressional demands for his tax information, insisting that because he was the subject of an audit, he was unable to meet those demands.

Newsom has frequently criticized Trump for his refusal to make the information public.

Earlier this month, when former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger tweeted about the president’s tax returns, Newsom replied: “Don’t hold your breath.”

Newsom’s signature on SB 27 sets the stage for a nationally watched legal debate over a state’s power to decide which names appear on its presidential ballot.

“I’m sure it’ll be challenged, but I have no confidence in predicting what the courts are going to do,” said Richard L. Hasen, a University of California, Irvine election law professor.

One likely courtroom argument was provided by California’s last governor. Brown vetoed a similar bill in 2017, arguing it was unlikely to pass constitutional muster and would set a bad precedent.

“Today we require tax returns, but what would be next?” Brown wrote in his veto message. “Five years of health records? A certified birth certificate? High school report cards? And will these requirements vary depending on which political party is in power?”

Hasen said a key question for determining whether the new California law is constitutional is whether courts look back to prior fights over ballot qualifications for congressional candidates or instead view the issue through the broad powers given to state legislatures when it comes to casting votes for president.

McGuire said he consulted a number of constitutional law attorneys in drafting the language of SB 27. He said it should be viewed the same way as other state requirements such as filing fees or voter signatures needed on nomination papers.

“States have the ability to impose ballot access requirements onto the primary ballot,” he said during a floor debate on July 11.

California lawmakers have not been alone in their effort to force presidential candidates to hand over their tax forms. Legislatures in 18 states have considered the issue in recent years, according to a recent tally by the National Conference of State Legislatures. Most — but not all — have been in states dominated by Democrats. Few observers, though, expect any of the efforts to lead the president to change his position. Last week, Trump sued to stop the House of Representatives from obtaining a copy of his New York state returns, made available under a bill signed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo earlier this month.

Should California’s law remain on the books, it would force Trump to choose: Reverse course on his steadfast refusal to provide tax information or risk that California’s 172 delegates to next year’s Republican National Convention could go to a long-shot GOP challenger. The new California law does not, however, apply the same rules to a write-in candidate — a possible backup plan for Trump should he be forced to choose.

Nor will the law let Democrats off the hook. While the party has a bumper crop of hopefuls seeking to challenge Trump in November 2020, only a few of the top-tier candidates have released their own tax returns. The California statute would force that disclosure early in the campaign cycle, given the state’s decision to move its primary to March. That could mean any unusual tax deductions might play a role in how voters in the first states to select candidates — Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina — weigh the merits of the Democratic hopefuls.

Hasen said the debate that will result from California enacting the law is likely to spread to other statehouses around the country.

“If you think of this purely as a political matter and not a legal matter, what could a Republican legislature in a swing state do to hurt a Democratic presidential candidate’s chance to get on the ballot?” he said. “That’s really the Pandora’s box.”
 

JayDubya

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
5,181
Likes
6,520
Calif. Gov. Newsom Blasphemes Repeatedly, Claims Moral High Ground in Gun Rant

Check out the very last sentence.

It's maddening, how many times they completely miss the point, get corrected, told that it has NOTHING to do with hunting, and then, just a few yards down the road, state the same stupid ass drivel completely missing the point again.

https://www.libertyheadlines.com/newsom-blasphemy-gun-rant/

‘It keeps happening, over and over and over again, on their damned watch…’

(Claire Russel, Liberty Headlines) In a rant in which he repeatedly took God’s name in vain, California Gov. Gavin Newsom blamed President Donald Trump for fostering a “culture of gun violence” and claimed the mantle of the moral high ground for himself.

“It’s just sickening… the leadership today that just turns a blind eye and won’t do a damn thing to address these issues,” he told reporters Monday, according to a transcript obtained by the Sacramento Bee. “What’s g**damned absent in this country right now is moral authority.”

A gunman killed three people at food festival in Gilroy, Calif. on Sunday, and Newsom said the shootings are in part due to the president’s unwillingness to take on the “machismo” culture that encourages violence.

“California’s doing its part, but Jesus, these guys, the folks in the White House have been supporting the kinds of policies that roll back the work that we’re doing,” he said. “It keeps happening, over and over and over again, on their damned watch.”

Trump, however, condemned the shooting, saying the U.S. would “answer violence with the courage of our national resolve.”

The shooter, a 19-year-old man, gunned down three people and was then killed by police. Gilroy Police are still searching for a motive, according to investigators.

Newsom has promoted gun control legislation in his state, cracking down on high-capacity magazines and increasing background checks for gun and ammunition purchases.

The state’s gun laws are among the most restrictive in the country, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

But as the Washington Post noted, there’s little evidence that stricter gun laws reduce gun violence.

“You have a right to bear arms but not weapons of g**damned mass destruction,” Newsom said. “You need these damn things for hunting? Give me a break.”
 

Son of Gloin

Certainty of death? What are we waiting for?
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
6,708
Likes
14,538
Location
USA
“You have a right to bear arms but not weapons of g**damned mass destruction,” Newsom said. “You need these damn things for hunting? Give me a break.”
That’s where Newsom has it wrong. We do need these damn things (with high capacity magazines) for hunting, if patriots are hunting anti-American commies. I’m sure their plan is the elimination of patriots, if they ever gain complete control. Patriots will need to return fire.
 

the_shootist

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
35,032
Likes
47,365
That’s where Newsom has it wrong. We do need these damn things (with high capacity magazines) for hunting, if patriots are hunting anti-American commies. I’m sure their plan is the elimination of patriots, if they ever gain complete control. Patriots will need to return fire.
He still doesn't get it! We keep them to use against tyrants!
 

Uglytruth

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
7,114
Likes
11,267
Well I guess they make their electoral college votes null and void then. :oriental:

How long has it been sense CA was red?

Last Time California Voted Republican in the Presidential Election?

February 27, 2015 V.O.C.Leave a comment

1988 for George H.W. Bush. He had been vice president under Ronald Reagan (1980 – 1989) who was in turn the former governor (1967 – 1975) of California.
 

newmisty

Splodey-Headed
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
26,057
Likes
37,383
Location
Qmerica
New Calif. Law Requires Trump to Disclose Tax Returns to Be on Ballot

https://www.libertyheadlines.com/ne...rump-to-disclose-tax-returns-to-be-on-ballot/

‘To continue to consistently be hostile…to the president of the United States is just not something we should do…’

(John Myers, Los Angeles Times) President Donald Trump will be ineligible for California’s primary ballot next year unless he discloses his tax returns under a state law that immediately took effect Tuesday, an unprecedented mandate that is almost certain to spark a high-profile court fight and might encourage other states to adopt their own unconventional rules for presidential candidates.

The law, signed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom on his final day to take action and passed on a strict party-line vote in the Legislature, requires all presidential candidates to submit five years of income tax filings. They must do so by late November in order to secure a spot on California’s presidential primary ballot in March. State elections officials will post the financial documents online, although certain private information must first be redacted.

“As one of the largest economies in the world and home to one in nine Americans eligible to vote, California has a special responsibility to require this information of presidential and gubernatorial candidates,” Newsom said in a statement that accompanied his signature on the bill approved by the Legislature earlier this month. “These are extraordinary times and states have a legal and moral duty to do everything in their power to ensure leaders seeking the highest offices meet minimal standards, and to restore public confidence. The disclosure required by this bill will shed light on conflicts of interest, self-dealing, or influence from domestic and foreign business interest.”

Trump, who is not singled out by the law but is clearly its inspiration, is likely to fight back.

“The Constitution is clear on the qualifications for someone to serve as president and states cannot add additional requirements on their own,” said Tim Murtaugh, communications director for the president’s reelection campaign. “The bill also violates the First Amendment right of association, since California can’t tell political parties which candidates their members can or cannot vote for in a primary election.”

The governor’s action is certain to draw swift criticism from California Republicans, too. During legislative debates on the bill, GOP legislators repeatedly accused Democrats of being motivated solely by their anger at Trump.

“To continue to consistently be hostile, from this legislative body, to the president of the United States is just not something we should do,” state Senate Minority Leader Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield, said during a floor debate earlier this month. “Quit poking the bear.”

“We’re not poking the bear,” said the author of Senate Bill 27, state Sen. Mike McGuire, D-Healdsburg. “We’re doing what’s right.”

The new law does not appear to keep a candidate who refuses to disclose the information from appearing on the statewide ballot in the November 2020 election. And it also requires candidates for California governor to release their tax returns in advance of the statewide primary, beginning in 2024.

Access by the public and news media to a candidate’s personal tax returns has been a touchstone of presidential politics for more than four decades. Following a high-profile fight in 1973 over a tax deduction taken by President Richard Nixon, the practice of releasing the information became largely routine. In the years that followed, just two nominees of the major political parties — President Gerald Ford in 1976 and Trump in 2016 — have refused to release their taxes.

Candidates for California governor have been less consistent. While Newsom released five years’ worth of returns in 2017 and his Republican rival John Cox provided summary documents, neither then-Gov. Jerry Brown nor his GOP challengers would divulge details on their finances during the 2010 and 2014 campaigns.

No candidate or officeholder has faced more widespread criticism for keeping a tight grip on their Internal Revenue Service forms than Trump. From his entry into the presidential race in 2015 until now, the president has fended off news of leaked documents and congressional demands for his tax information, insisting that because he was the subject of an audit, he was unable to meet those demands.

Newsom has frequently criticized Trump for his refusal to make the information public.

Earlier this month, when former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger tweeted about the president’s tax returns, Newsom replied: “Don’t hold your breath.”

Newsom’s signature on SB 27 sets the stage for a nationally watched legal debate over a state’s power to decide which names appear on its presidential ballot.

“I’m sure it’ll be challenged, but I have no confidence in predicting what the courts are going to do,” said Richard L. Hasen, a University of California, Irvine election law professor.

One likely courtroom argument was provided by California’s last governor. Brown vetoed a similar bill in 2017, arguing it was unlikely to pass constitutional muster and would set a bad precedent.

“Today we require tax returns, but what would be next?” Brown wrote in his veto message. “Five years of health records? A certified birth certificate? High school report cards? And will these requirements vary depending on which political party is in power?”

Hasen said a key question for determining whether the new California law is constitutional is whether courts look back to prior fights over ballot qualifications for congressional candidates or instead view the issue through the broad powers given to state legislatures when it comes to casting votes for president.

McGuire said he consulted a number of constitutional law attorneys in drafting the language of SB 27. He said it should be viewed the same way as other state requirements such as filing fees or voter signatures needed on nomination papers.

“States have the ability to impose ballot access requirements onto the primary ballot,” he said during a floor debate on July 11.

California lawmakers have not been alone in their effort to force presidential candidates to hand over their tax forms. Legislatures in 18 states have considered the issue in recent years, according to a recent tally by the National Conference of State Legislatures. Most — but not all — have been in states dominated by Democrats. Few observers, though, expect any of the efforts to lead the president to change his position. Last week, Trump sued to stop the House of Representatives from obtaining a copy of his New York state returns, made available under a bill signed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo earlier this month.

Should California’s law remain on the books, it would force Trump to choose: Reverse course on his steadfast refusal to provide tax information or risk that California’s 172 delegates to next year’s Republican National Convention could go to a long-shot GOP challenger. The new California law does not, however, apply the same rules to a write-in candidate — a possible backup plan for Trump should he be forced to choose.

Nor will the law let Democrats off the hook. While the party has a bumper crop of hopefuls seeking to challenge Trump in November 2020, only a few of the top-tier candidates have released their own tax returns. The California statute would force that disclosure early in the campaign cycle, given the state’s decision to move its primary to March. That could mean any unusual tax deductions might play a role in how voters in the first states to select candidates — Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina — weigh the merits of the Democratic hopefuls.

Hasen said the debate that will result from California enacting the law is likely to spread to other statehouses around the country.

“If you think of this purely as a political matter and not a legal matter, what could a Republican legislature in a swing state do to hurt a Democratic presidential candidate’s chance to get on the ballot?” he said. “That’s really the Pandora’s box.”
Brilliant. Now they will have THEIR tax records LEGALLY looked into. Chess is a lovely game. These people are stupid.
 

newmisty

Splodey-Headed
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
26,057
Likes
37,383
Location
Qmerica

Son of Gloin

Certainty of death? What are we waiting for?
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
6,708
Likes
14,538
Location
USA
She’s got it dead wrong on several levels. First, manhood should be measured in the strength to endure trials and hardships that come along in everybody’s life and to strive to overcome them. Manliness is not measured in power over others, it is measured in a man’s mastery over himself and his more base desires. Manliness is discipline and self-control. As far as vulnerability is concerned, everyone is vulnerable in some ways and to some extent. The art of manliness is the ability to overcome vulnerabilities and succeed in spite of them. That woman has a toxic view of manhood and I hope no fool ends up under her sick spell.
 

newmisty

Splodey-Headed
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
26,057
Likes
37,383
Location
Qmerica
Mark Dice's quick summation of the recent Dumbacratic Debates

 

DodgebyDave

Metal Messiah
Midas Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
11,470
Likes
12,810
I haven't seen any of the debates, lol, I do see many cries for Me-Shell Davis to ride in, unite the communists under a single Dictator and steal the White House from that evil Trump.
 

SongSungAU

Midas Member
Midas Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2010
Messages
7,033
Likes
11,420

SongSungAU

Midas Member
Midas Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2010
Messages
7,033
Likes
11,420
Gillette: The Best an Incel Can Get (7 min 49 sec):


Published on Jan 15, 2019 by Paul Joseph Watson​
Paul Joseph Watson wrote an update regarding the wisdom of Gillette's ad.....

Procter & Gamble Loses $5 Billion Dollars Following ‘Woke’ Gillette Ad Campaign Get woke, go broke.
Published 31 July, 2019 Paul Joseph Watson​
I was glad to see that it cost Gillette to push their agenda.
 

DodgebyDave

Metal Messiah
Midas Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
11,470
Likes
12,810
we need a study on if perverts prefer white sex dolls or "other"
 

the_shootist

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
35,032
Likes
47,365
Last edited:

Aurumag

Ag mirror of truth Aurum purity of mind
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,653
Likes
11,897
Location
State of Jefferson

BigJim#1-8

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
2,649
Likes
9,129

SongSungAU

Midas Member
Midas Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2010
Messages
7,033
Likes
11,420

newmisty

Splodey-Headed
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
26,057
Likes
37,383
Location
Qmerica

hammerhead

Morphing
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
7,775
Likes
9,170
Location
On a speck of dust
Joined
Jun 23, 2019
Messages
153
Likes
265
And they will fail. But it still won't stop me from going to my polling place and casting my vote. I suspect part of there plan is to put wackos on the ballad with wacko agendas just to make Trump supporters feel comfortable that Trump is a shoe in and don't cast there vote.