The Goat Pen

bluetick wrote:Return of Third Shift by Automakers Brings Renewed Optimism, Ripple Effect Eyed - MSNBC

Tennessee beats Vanderbilt


Obammer kills Keystone, thousands of jobs - Common Sense

Dr. Strangelove wrote:

Big Orange Junky wrote:Doesn't matter, it's their interpretation of the USDA, without that you don't have the controversey.

And it's still gubment, it's easier to control stat gubment than feds, but this was an attempt to comply with the feds on the state level.

So you had two levels of incompetence, one the feds and one the state.

Without the fed regs you don't have the state interfering because it was a USDA guideline they were following.

Are you kidding me? The USDA issues guidelines. North Carolina decides to turn those guidelines into a law. And who do you blame? Obama. North Carolina gets a pass because, y'know, without the USDA's food pyramid (first issued under the Bush I Presidency) such tyranny would never exist.

I never said a word about Oprama. I just said it was JMFA which it is. I didn't see a thing wrong with the girls lunch.

Dr. Strangelove wrote:Public backs Obama on Birth Control

2/3 believe all health insurance should cover birth control. 60% believe religion-affiliated employers should cover it.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/publ ... 13637.html

100 % of Nazis believe Jews should be exterminated.

Founding fathers believe slavery is just peachy.

Birth-Control Mandate: Unconstitutional and Illegal

It violates the First Amendment and the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 14664.html

Religious organizations are already leeches sucking off the public teet, I see no reason to grant them additional privileges that other private organizations do not share.

If a religion believes black people are inferior and should not work alongside whites, does that mean the church should be exempt from anti-discrimination laws because we'd be violating the 1st Amendment otherwise? Or how about a faith that allows polygamy?

Why is state intervention okay in some cases but not in others? Is it simply because enough of the public supports one side? Well, in that case, see my article about the poll once again

If a religion believes black people are inferior and should not work alongside whites

I wonder how many whites are allowed to work alongside blacks at the churches of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Jeremiah Wright. My guess is zero. But I've never noticed the mighty wrath of anti-discrimination laws rain down on them.

I wonder how many whites are allowed to work alongside blacks at the churches of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Jeremiah Wright.

I wonder how many want to work alongside them at those churches...

Professor Tiger wrote:

If a religion believes black people are inferior and should not work alongside whites

I wonder how many whites are allowed to work alongside blacks at the churches of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Jeremiah Wright. My guess is zero. But I've never noticed the mighty wrath of anti-discrimination laws rain down on them.

If whites are applying for those jobs and not getting them, I would be ALL FOR the Feds coming down on them and hard.

I'm sure Holder will lead the charge...

Dr. Strangelove wrote:

Big Orange Junky wrote:Doesn't matter, it's their interpretation of the USDA, without that you don't have the controversey.

And it's still gubment, it's easier to control stat gubment than feds, but this was an attempt to comply with the feds on the state level.

So you had two levels of incompetence, one the feds and one the state.

Without the fed regs you don't have the state interfering because it was a USDA guideline they were following.

Are you kidding me? The USDA issues guidelines. North Carolina decides to turn those guidelines into a law. And who do you blame? Obama. North Carolina gets a pass because, y'know, without the USDA's food pyramid (first issued under the Bush I Presidency) such tyranny would never exist.

Yes they were trying to follow a FEDERAL guideline. Some idiotic beuracrat probably thought they had to. That's the problem with federal anything, it makes people so scared they do stupid things just like this. Same with Joint Commission, Medicare etc. People do idiotic things because they are so freakin scared of the fed that they would rather screw themselves than take a chance on getting them interested in them because no matter what they are the fed and you will lose.

But gubment is gubment. Not much good can come of it and it was a state beuracrat following "guidelines" from the fed. Without the guidelines they wouldn't have done it.

It is much, much easier to fix something on a local level than a state, and much, much easier to fix something on a state level than the fed. States are scared of the fed so if you have something like that it makes it more difficult to pass.

Tennessee is a good study in that. The goober that was in office named Sundquist (a RINO) wanted a state income tax. He CREATED problems and tried to punnish taxpayers by taking services away like state parks in order to force the issue. The democrats supported him. The citizens voiced their opinion and it didn't pass because of it. On the federal level that would have been a new tax, end of story and nothing anybody could do about it.

puterbac wrote:

Dr. Strangelove wrote:Public backs Obama on Birth Control

2/3 believe all health insurance should cover birth control. 60% believe religion-affiliated employers should cover it.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/publ ... 13637.html

100 % of Nazis believe Jews should be exterminated.

Founding fathers believe slavery is just peachy.

No hyperbole there, by golly.

Lessee. Puter is all for birth control, 98% of sexually active catholic women are for birth control, and 100% of everybody else who have some functioning brain cells support birth control.

Oh, I'm sorry - where were we? Nazis exterminated Jews, slaves found peaches...

Big Orange Junky wrote: Tennessee is a good study in that. The goober that was in office named Sundquist (a RINO) wanted a state income tax. He CREATED problems and tried to punnish taxpayers by taking services away like state parks in order to force the issue. The democrats supported him. The citizens voiced their opinion and it didn't pass because of it. On the federal level that would have been a new tax, end of story and nothing anybody could do about it.

Jesus BOJ. Now you're just making shit up.

Don Sundquist was not a rino; he was low-brow republican governor who feathered his own nest and took care of his cronies. He made noises about a state income tax because he had deficit problems brought on by the tech/Dow bust of 2000. The democrat majority in the house and senate DID NOT support him on that issue or anything else, and to imply otherwise is a gotdamn lie.

Yes they had the support for the tax. The only thing that stopped it was the protests.

You are right, they didn't support him for much else but they did support the tax. It was more money from the taxpayers.

As for him being a RINO, IMO yes he was. He wanted an income tax and then acted like a democrat with his threats and "well see how much they protest when we shut the state parks down" etc. Not only that but it was democratic past gubner Ned Ray's plan that he was trying to push. He and Ned supposedly worked extensively on it together.

It is my opinion he was a RINO. That is debatable I guess but he will always be a RINO to me and many other conservative Tennesseans because of the way he acted, the way he was in cahoots with Ned Ray (who was IMO a better Gov. than Sundquist). I'll let you in on a secret Tick, I think both Ned Ray and Phil Bredison were better than Sundquist. He ruined anything good he did with the way he turned RINO and acted like an idiot trying to "punnish the protesters until they give in to the income tax".

But by all accounts that I remember (radio and local TV 2,4,5) they initially had the votes to pass the income tax but lost them after the citizens protested and the democrats still had control of the state congress at that time by a pretty good margin I think.

That wouldn't happen at the federal level, they would just pass it anyway.

bluetick wrote:

Big Orange Junky wrote: Tennessee is a good study in that. The goober that was in office named Sundquist (a RINO) wanted a state income tax. He CREATED problems and tried to punnish taxpayers by taking services away like state parks in order to force the issue. The democrats supported him. The citizens voiced their opinion and it didn't pass because of it. On the federal level that would have been a new tax, end of story and nothing anybody could do about it.

Jesus BOJ. Now you're just making shit up.

Don Sundquist was not a rino; he was low-brow republican governor who feathered his own nest and took care of his cronies. He made noises about a state income tax because he had deficit problems brought on by the tech/Dow bust of 2000. The democrat majority in the house and senate DID NOT support him on that issue or anything else, and to imply otherwise is a gotdamn lie.

Evidently the LA Times is lying about it too. Here's a link.

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jul/23/news/mn-25661

They claim that the "talk radio hosts" stopped the tax and that democrats controlled the legislature. They were meeting behind closed doors.

They claim that now there are three parties in Tennessee, Democrats, Republicans and Talk Radio.

They supposedly had enough to pass it not only that time but later on as well and the protests worked.

That doesn't happen on the Federal level.

I was very proud to be a Tennessean when the protests worked and the legislature changed it's vote to stop the income tax.

bluetick wrote:

Big Orange Junky wrote: Tennessee is a good study in that. The goober that was in office named Sundquist (a RINO) wanted a state income tax. He CREATED problems and tried to punnish taxpayers by taking services away like state parks in order to force the issue. The democrats supported him. The citizens voiced their opinion and it didn't pass because of it. On the federal level that would have been a new tax, end of story and nothing anybody could do about it.

Jesus BOJ. Now you're just making shit up.

Don Sundquist was not a rino; he was low-brow republican governor who feathered his own nest and took care of his cronies. He made noises about a state income tax because he had deficit problems brought on by the tech/Dow bust of 2000. The democrat majority in the house and senate DID NOT support him on that issue or anything else, and to imply otherwise is a gotdamn lie.

Here's another one.

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-art ... ront-lines

Direct quote "While it appeared Monday that income tax supporters had enough votes to push the measure through both houses, support crumbled as the tax protests grew."

They had to have the democrats to have enough votes as the democrats were in control.

This was an article about the second push for an income tax.

So no, I'm not a liar. I have been wrong plenty of times, but I don't lie and it appears I wasn't wrong on this one either. I mean heck the state bussed in unions to counter the protesters including teachers unions and police unions. That was organized in Memphis by democratic lawmakers there if I remember correctly and they were bussed in on the taxpayers dime and some were being paid to protest causing even more angst LOL.

No I don't think you were "just making shit up" when you said democrats didn't support the plan. I think you were just mistaken.

It's only Tennessee.

Sounds like the Maine GOP may have fixed the vote just a bit to ensure Mittens was the winner.

http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul ... ver-2012-2

The Supreme Court disagrees with you on the former. The 1st amendment is there. You may have your little hissy fits over it, but it's still there.

Again, what BOJ can't support in fact he makes up with sheer volume. I'm not clicking on that LA Times link, because I don't get my news about the Volunteer State from the fucking LA Times.

These are irrefutabile facts:

Tennessee has NEVER had a state income tax.

Tennessee has had a democratic legislative majority going back to Reconstruction (roughly 145 years), until 2010.

Until Haslam took over last year, for nearly all of the 2000's TN had a dem governor to go with the dem legislature. If the dems wanted a state income tax, we would have had one. During the two terms of Ned McWherter the dems also controlled the entire show.

There have always been "tax fairness" people from both parties going back to Vietnam who've pushed for an income tax - mostly to reduce the hefty sales tax that does burden the low incomers. But you specifically said "the dems" backed Sundquist and that is bs. If the dems had backed him we would have one right now.

I want a fucking retraction and I want it now.

Who am I kidding.