TexasCHLforum.com

Forget Ukraine. This is classic Russiaphobia. If the Nazis in Ukraine want to continue trying to slaughter the ethnic Russians in Donbass like sheep, Putin will definitely step in, although it'll be portrayed in the American MSM as an "invasion." Iran has a lot of people watching them besides the U.S. That leaves Taiwan, probably the most likely location for a boots on the ground U.S. operation. It's a crazy world.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/22/busi ... taxes.html

Raising capital gains tax on wealthy.

Seems a new strategy of raising taxes to pay for specific spending things, here child care.

One of things about capital gains is that when it goes up people stop selling assets to avoid paying the tax, so the revenue generated actually goes down instead of up.

Stock market declined today on the news.

philip964 wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 9:54 pm https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/22/busi ... taxes.html

Raising capital gains tax on wealthy.

Seems a new strategy of raising taxes to pay for specific spending things, here child care.

One of things about capital gains is that when it goes up people stop selling assets to avoid paying the tax, so the revenue generated actually goes down instead of up.

Stock market declined today on the news.

I realize it won't happen but it would serve the wealthy tech titans right if they passed a tax bill taking away 50% of all their wealth over 10 million dollars. I bet being leftist would loose internet popularity real quick.

philip964 wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 9:54 pm https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/22/busi ... taxes.html

Raising capital gains tax on wealthy.

Seems a new strategy of raising taxes to pay for specific spending things, here child care.

One of things about capital gains is that when it goes up people stop selling assets to avoid paying the tax, so the revenue generated actually goes down instead of up.

Stock market declined today on the news.

Who the tax affects depends on their definition of wealthy. They control the definition.

Capital gains tax should be indexed for inflation. Otherwise your paying taxes on their gradual reduction in the value of money. Not money you actually really made.

https://news.yahoo.com/mr-president-bid ... 18523.html

Glitch causes Putin and Xiden to have a pause.

I’m sure Putin really cares about about global warming.

https://news.yahoo.com/biden-host-rally ... 49209.html

Biden to celebrate getting All Star Game moved out of Georgia in Atlanta on his first 100 days in office.

He figures everyone has forgotten, or he has forgotten.

The highlight, for me, of the president's speech tonight?

Senator Tim Scott's Republican response.

Rafe wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 9:43 pm The highlight, for me, of the president's speech tonight?

Senator Tim Scott's Republican response.

you know it

i found it funny biden plagiarized a crap load of trumps ideas that congress crapped all over...nut now they are cool
buy america, screw china , make us the dominate country.. congress hated that last year, but WHOOOOOAAAAA it popular again

Quoting from President Biden's speech last night; followed by a comment and a question:

President Biden on April 28, 2021 wrote: And no amendment to the Constitution is absolute. You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. From the very beginning there are certain guns, weapons that could not be owned by Americans.

First the comment. The text of the 1st Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Constitutional freedom of speech does not and has never extended to every single thing someone might utter. I believe almost every state has had longstanding laws on their books regarding this. In Texas, we only need to look to the very beginning of Title 9, Chapter 42 of the Penal Code: "A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace." The 1st Amendment has never had a bearing on that, or on yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. The 1st Amendment is expressly about restricting Congress's legislative ability. In no way does it imply that all speech is permissible and shall not be infringed.

I've heard this same hyperbolic comparison to the 2nd Amendment numerous times. Not only is it specious, it's plain ignorant. It would be one thing if this was a trademark BidenGaff, but everything was scripted and you know reviewed and rehearsed scores of times. I mean, heck, he waited longer than any president to finally address Congress...even though there were barely 50 people in the audience this time.

Now my question. I'm no historian, but I'm struggling here with, "From the very beginning there are certain guns, weapons that could not be owned by Americans." Can someone tell me, from the Framer's first meetings to the ratification of the 2nd Amendment even to the passage of the 14th Amendment, exactly what guns could not be owned by Americans "from the very beginning"? A wage-earning wheelwright in southern Virginia was highly unlikely to be able to afford his own battery of cannon, for example, but that doesn't mean he was constitutionally denied the right to own them.

In United States v. Miller in 1939 SCOTUS sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. It wasn't a weapon prohibition, but an enforcement of the NFA requirement to register. Regardless of how you feel about the NFA, even that 1939 the case didn't support Biden's statement.

In 1943's Cases v. United States SCOTUS upheld a similar provision of the NFA, saying, "Apparently, then, under the Second Amendment, the Federal Government can limit the keeping and bearing of arms by a single individual as well as by a group of individuals, but it cannot prohibit the possession or use of any weapon which has any reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia." This not only doesn't support the President's claim, but kind of shoots down (pun intended) the notion of banning standard capacity magazines or modern sporting rifles, doesn't it?

But Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare are protected" by the 2nd Amendment, as the "traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms 'in common use at the time' for lawful purposes like self-defense." And in Caetano v. Massachusetts, 2016, SCOTUS vacated a ruling by the state court that a ban on stun guns did not violate the 2nd Amendment because such weapons were not "readily adaptable to use in the military."

The Gun Control Act of 1968 (and as amended by the Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986) which is now U.S.C. Title 18, Chapter 44, does state an individual prohibition--other than for shotguns or antique firearms--of a gun "which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter." I believe that's a randomly arbitrary rule, but that's just me. If some company made a carbine in .68 Lapua Magnum with a 1,400-grain bullet and 3,900 ft/s muzzle velocity I certainly would not be buying it. Continued use of my arm and shoulder is important to me. But you might want one. Of course, Ch. 44 includes "destructive devices," but the President wasn't talking pipe-bomb IEDs, he was talking firearms.

So that's the best guess I've got, That when the President said, "From the very beginning there are certain guns, weapons that could not be owned by Americans," the only thing he might be referencing was the GCA and FOPA of 1986. When the FOPA amendment was issued, BTW, Joe was already 44 years old.

Daily trivia: Then-Senator Joe Biden delivered the Democratic response to Republican President Ronald Reagan's State of the Union addresses in 1983 and 1984. Biden has been in federal politics since being sworn in as the junior senator from Delaware in January 1973. That's a long time. I was actually quite surprised he got through an 80-minute scripted speech as well as he did. I was thinking that by the hour mark his reading of the teleprompters would start to fail.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Rafe wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 11:36 am Quoting from President Biden's speech last night; followed by a comment and a question:

President Biden on April 28, 2021 wrote: And no amendment to the Constitution is absolute. You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. From the very beginning there are certain guns, weapons that could not be owned by Americans.

As you should all know by now, Biden is a politician and you can tell he is lying because his lips are moving. Every time I here this argument that an amendment is not absolute with the example that you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater I have a simple question for them. No one has yet been able to answer it either. If you hear this example, ask them to point to a law, any law anywhere in the US (I only care about our laws) that specifically says you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. I have never found a law that says that. Not a federal law, not a state law, not even a federal or state regulation. Not even a city, county, or school district ordinance says this.

And the obvious answer to a law that says this is what happens if there is a fire in that crowded theater? Do I let everyone else burn to death because I can't yell out and warn them?

There are many laws that can be applied to that situation after the fact, such as false alarm laws or inciting a riot laws, but there is no law that specifically forbids yelling fire in a crowded theater.

And the best answer I heard on the "no amendment is absolute" was someone (sorry, I can't remember who) who asked if that applied to the 13th Amendment. Can I keep slaves because no amendment is absolute?

srothstein wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 9:11 pm

Rafe wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 11:36 am Quoting from President Biden's speech last night; followed by a comment and a question:

President Biden on April 28, 2021 wrote: And no amendment to the Constitution is absolute. You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. From the very beginning there are certain guns, weapons that could not be owned by Americans.

As you should all know by now, Biden is a politician and you can tell he is lying because his lips are moving. Every time I here this argument that an amendment is not absolute with the example that you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater I have a simple question for them. No one has yet been able to answer it either. If you hear this example, ask them to point to a law, any law anywhere in the US (I only care about our laws) that specifically says you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. I have never found a law that says that. Not a federal law, not a state law, not even a federal or state regulation. Not even a city, county, or school district ordinance says this.

And the obvious answer to a law that says this is what happens if there is a fire in that crowded theater? Do I let everyone else burn to death because I can't yell out and warn them?

There are many laws that can be applied to that situation after the fact, such as false alarm laws or inciting a riot laws, but there is no law that specifically forbids yelling fire in a crowded theater.

And the best answer I heard on the "no amendment is absolute" was someone (sorry, I can't remember who) who asked if that applied to the 13th Amendment. Can I keep slaves because no amendment is absolute?

Or Amendment 19. Can a state decide that women no longer have the right to vote because no amendment is absolute? Well, we know Biden wouldn't care if the 22nd is trashed; the odds of him being physically able to serve even a second term are slim to none.

But...

"Warning! Combustible materials have ignited with conflagratory possibilities! Exit the premises posthaste!"

Forum rules, ya know. Can't advise any course of action that might be illegal.

The thing that's so frightening is that I believe we all know it isn't Biden calling the shots. His handlers are setting the agendas; some have speculated who The Handlers might be, but I won't. But so far Joe has avoided positively crumbling in front of the cameras. We'll see if (or how long) that can continue. I'm becoming convinced that Harris is also being sublimated. If she had any sway with The Handlers she wouldn't have been so sidelined these first 100 days and now given as her only task the offering of billions of dollars to Central American countries as someone else's tactic to help make illegal immigration less visible at the border.

philip964 wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 1:30 pm https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/ ... ementia%2F

Man. I saw that last night on Fox. Absolutely amazing. Now, I'm not saying or implying it's the case, but it sorta makes one wonder if he needs loads of Adderall and Modafinil--and a B12 shot--to stay focused for a 90-minute speech like the one to the joint session of congress. And then maybe he crashes over the next couple of days without the assistance.

Again, I'm not saying or implying it's the case...