Fastbreak

Too funny... :lol: We'll put a bite on rascalism and cronyism! :thumb:

I enjoyed a good dose of NKY basketball this summer with 7 or 8 seniors-to-be that I have no doubt could make lots of noise statewide... problem is, they play high school ball for five different NKY schools. Even so, they should get lots of attention as individuals, I just don't know what kind of teams they will have around them.

You too... :eek: I'm starting to sense a groundswell... :scared:

Matthew 1:20 NIV - But after he had considered this, an angel of the LORD appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. Luke 2:21 NIV - [Jesus Presented in the Temple] On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he had been conceived. Some of us just go by what the actual words in our Bibles have to say Ace! :thumb:

Glad you got that off your chest... :lol:

I'm not that narrow Ace... :thumb: She doesn't adhere to HER version of Christianity... or at least the version of Christianity she openly espouses. She professes to be a faithful Roman Catholic. Following comments she made suggesting that the CHURCH was not 100% clear on when life begins, Washington Archbishop Donald Wuerl corrected her by pointing out that the Catechism of the Catholic Church has been clear for 2,000 years. "Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception … Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.” She put herself in the position of being judged by the values of the Word, via her public policies. A high ranking official of the church she embraces... a representative of the Word on earth made it very clear that at least one of her public policies is out of line with the unflinching position of the Word for two millennia. People change, God does not. If a fetus was considered a human by God in 1 B.C. all the public opinion in the world will not change that in 2010. :thumb:

Nancy Pelosi speaking to a Catholic Community Conference on Capitol Hill in May 2010: When G.W. Bush referenced his faith, he was described as a kook and dangerous. The same with Sarah Palin. Where are the separation of church & state wonks out to fillet the dear Speaker? Where's the ACLU? Where are all the mainstream media watchdogs mocking the distinctly vapid pandering of Pelosi? You know, I actually have no problem with Nancy expressing her faith in Jesus Christ and her awareness that as a servant of the American people, she is under God’s judgment for the manner in which she carries out His values via public policy. This may be one of the few positions the princess has expressed that I would actually agree. The problem is... her dreamy words and her actual record of strongly supporting abortion do not even remotely align. Her actions are very clearly out of line with the 2,000 year position of her Catholic Church… and by extension… the Word... the Word. The fact that she was speaking to a Catholic Community Conference on Capitol Hill, and essentially telling them what she thought they would like to hear, in clear disregard to her actual track record says everything about a politician willing to ransom her own soul for a grasp on power… ...and yes Ace… it is stupid.

Word... :thumb:

As awesome as all this sounds, the problem is it doe's not give our ruling class (the politicians) enough opportunity to manipulate rewards and penalties on various voting blocks. A truly FAIR and simple tax system would effectively eliminate most of the power plays we're dealing with right now. It would negate the irritation that folks like me feel about 50% of our population having no federal tax burden whatsoever, but still having an equal voice in electing the people responsible for making our spending decisions. No wonder we are split right down the middle in terms of who gets elected. If EVERYONE that votes truly has some "skin in the game" as B.O. touted... I genuinely believe results would be very different and we would actually begin to grow together again as a nation. The need to actually cap and maintain reasonable government spending levels means that many of our current legislators would NEVER vote to approve such an equitable taxation scheme. They will never vote to approve something that genuinely limits their power brokering. Time for another revolution. :thumb:

Yep...

If they did have to... we might actually see some meaningful tax reform. :thumb:

This present administration has made no bones about the fact they are about redistributing wealth through higher taxes on the wealthy, Obamacare, Cap and Trade, etc. "leveling the playing field" in their eyes. If we don't pay our taxes, we could go to prison. It's no exaggeration. If you think it's silly, try not paying your taxes for a few years... :lol:

Yep...

Precisely why it is not some government clown's job to attempt to level the playing field by threat of imprisonment. Charity is up to each one of us, as our own conscience and convictions dictate. Taxes and welfare aren't charity. They are used by flawed humans to excercise power and control. You and I may never agree on this... I'm okay with that.

A minority is a minority, and discrimination is discrimination... regardless of the sum of our individual bank accounts. True justice is blind. Greed, avarice, envy and jealousy are still sins in my Bible. The fueling of these disgusting traits by politicians is purely evil IMO. You are reading far more into my words than they actually communicate. I have never asserted that the wealthy are downtrodden. I am 100% certain they are maligned in many ways. I am not defending them per se... other than to say that we are far better off with them and encouraging others to become wealthy, than we are to constantly try to pull them down and ensure others cannot become wealthy too. The "misunderstanding" I speak of is OUR (collective non-super wealthy) lack of understanding about how all the income taxes in the world cannot touch EXISTING WEALTH protected by Trusts. By jacking income taxes on the so-called rich, we are only limiting the ability of those achieving success to build and maintain wealth themselves. The already rich merely sniff at such ideas. Why do you think so many uber-wealthy are liberals and democrats. THEY KNOW we will never diminish their holdings... but we can do a fine job of keeping the "new money" riff-raff out of their social circles. Come on Mom... Do you treat your customers with disrespect and accuse them of not paying their fair share... or do you provide them with great service and thank them profusely for their patronage? Which is going to encourage them to return and happily "invest" more in your company? This ain't rocket surgery, and I know you're too smart to fall for the "us vs. them" garbage. :thumb:

Well, as someone who grew up fishing from the bank, all I can say is I looked forward to the day I could get my hands on my own boat... even a tiny one. I've spent years plugging holes and rowing from yacht to yacht providing whatever services I could to upgrade to a hole-less dinghy with a motor. I'm still puttering between yachts and complaining about the cost of fuel... but one thing I know for sure is if there are no yachts... I will ultimately have to go back to a leaky dinghy with oars, and eventually back to fishing from the bank. I am very happy to share the bay with yachts, instead of a bay full of nothing but dinghys... (...and all of those painted the same color so no one will be too jealous...) :thumb:

I don't want to get too personal, but it would be worth considering whether our direct employment would be possible without the patronage of the financially secure. If this is the case for you, as it is for me, your statement seems somewhat counterproductive to your own financial security and independence. :thumb: On a side note, I wish I had the kind of bank account you apparently think I have... :lol: If you had any idea of my humble beginnings, not to mention my humble present, you would understand this is a matter of genuine principle and of legitimate practicality for me. I don't know about your church and faith, but I was taught that you don't improve your life by pulling another's down. The poor don't advance by envying and resenting the wealthy. The wealthy's blessings will be limited to this time and place if they ignore or trample on the needs of the poor. I'm 100% for compassion and helping one another. I just don't think that politicians fueling strife between our people for the greedy and self-serving purpose of scaring up enough votes to keep them in power is the leadership or pseudo-compassion we need. I don't believe that the deliberate generation, expansion and perpetuation of a "dependent class" that must have government handouts is humane, noble, virtuous or good in any way. This is not life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but a corruption and theft of personal dignity... the enabling of perpetual adolescence for far too many Americans who think they need trumped up benefactors in D.C. to do for them. Come on Mom... are these the values you taught your own children? Don't work hard. Don't try to achieve. Don't do everything you can to better your education, talents and skills. Don't get back up when you get knocked down. Don't try to do for yourself. Trust the government to take take care of you. I know better... and you do to. If these are not the values you taught your own children (for reasons we both understand) how is it truly compassionate to teach them to anyone else?

Excellent observation... sometimes when you stand so close to something you forget to see it. It's not as though there is a predetermined pool of revenue that must be divided fairly... and if a stingy rich guy gloms onto more than his fair share, there's less for someone else. Under this scenario, it would make sense to try to divide funds more equitably. There is no lid on our potential. There is no fixed limit on what we may generate. Under this REAL WORLD scenario, a rising tide lifts all the boats in the bay. The more we loosen the shackles on working capital, invention, creativity and incentive, the more revenue that will be produced... resulting in greater tax generation for our government... with less pain all the way around. I've never understood the motivation to pull down the achievers instead of trying to motivate and lift up the poor. It's the best of quality AND quantiity. :thumb:

Or at least an all star customer... :lol:

Kinda goes both ways... Kimmel delivered ANISE interview, revealing that BASIL is no SAGE. Since it appears BASIL has had no really wild CAPERS Kimmel could not get CARAWAY and PEPPER the chat with ALLSPICE and SAVORY recollections of WILD THYMEs. I wouldn't CAROB it to see some more.

Austin Flannery earned a full tuition scholarship to Asbury University. Definitely a great accomplishment for a terrific kid. Congratulations to Cameron Hall! Another outstanding young man from a great family... ( well at least his mom's side... ) ( Just kiddng, Cameron's dad Jeff is pretty terrific too... I just wouldn't be expressing proper love to complement him straight up... :lol: I can say he and I both married up though. :thumb: )

Hardy-Har-Har Mr. Smart A :lol: Good catch :thumb: It's obvious you've parented teenagers. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Probably had nothing to do with the Democrats taking a commanding control of Congress in 2006... coupled with the uncertainty of the looming 2008 election when it was certain that Bush could not be reelected... and every Democrat running for president assuring increased taxes on the upper income groups... followed by the election of the one guy who pledged to stick it to those with the finances to fuel the economic engine of this country... followed by the forced passage of bills entirely out of favor with the majority of American people. Nah... that couldn't have anything to do with it. The rich are just selfish, greedy, stingy, big fat poopy heads. :thumb:

Why is it, when we're trying to discourage an activity like smoking we add more taxes to it. Ala the $1.61 per pack in Kentucky. AND when we hope to encourage an activity, we reduce taxes on it... like when a state is trying to woo an auto manufacturer to build their new plant in that state? This is common sense, not rocket science. When we tax achievement and growth, we impair progress. There is a practical limit to what people are willing to give away to a freeloading government run by prostitue politicians willing to skewer the smallest demographics (the wealthy) in an attempt to curry favor with the broadest voting base (the rest of us). Bottom line, government spending is out of control. We need some leaders with the cojones to trim the fat, secure the borders and look out for all Americans... not just those most likely to vote for them.

I don't know if you are married or not, but I would be willing to wager a hefty sum that you didn't woo your current spouse with threats and intimidation. Chances are you gently persuaded them that you were a safe, fun and sensible choice. Why, when we have an administration that has made it clear they are going after the "wealthy" as a populist appeal to all the rest of us who aren't, would the wealthy desire to do anything but pull back and see what's in store for them and their filthy lucre? This administration is staffed by imbeciles so caught up in fueling class-warfare for votes, they have all but shut down the economic engine of the greatest economy in the world. It short... in exchange for votes and a temporary grasp of power, they have bitten the hands that help feed us all. You can woo a spouse through warmth and persuasion, or you can extort them... but don't think that an extorted spouse will demonstrate the affection and loyalty a loved and cherished spouse will. :thumb: