I have made this conclusion several years ago after debating the local entitled Fractivist for years. It is not clean water, alternative energy nor Utopia they seek. It is not fracking, earthquakes nor chemicals they really detest. On the contrary, they really prove in debates that they are basically uneducated and ignorant on the subject. And if one were to review their existence, one will see lives of consumption and waste plus unproductive members of society.
No fellow landowners, it is beginning to manifest itself, as with yesterday's State Rep. Hagans bloviating at the Youngstown's Unitarian Church. What they really want is what YOU have worked most of your life for, they want a piece of YOU. Redistribution of wealth and the increase of entitlements is behind the scene...... all of the time.
Keep your eyes on how this great energy play will continue to evolve. Yes my fellow landowners it is the continuation of the "haves" versus the "have nots." Notice the Occupyers in Oakland and Pittsburgh. And as our president stated to Joe-the-Plumber, "what is wrong with redistribution of wealth?"
well, you actually supported my argument 'when workers leave for better pay, that value goes up' If value goes up, so does the pay for the person replacing them. It's all relevant...
Actually, the main point we both may have missed is that IF they did not continue to print money, the current wages would be sufficient, because when they print more money, it devalues the dollar workers take home.
In 1913, the Federal Reserve was created as a way to control our money. The Federal Reserve taxes us all by controlling AND printing the money, it just isn't obvious as if it were coming out of our pockets, but indeed it is! If they tried to tax us at the rate they print money, there would have been a r3VOLution LONG ago!
You are right Linda - every job has a value and every employee has the option to move on when they feel they are not being paid fairly for the job but instead most stay and complain or encourage a union. Minimum wage and the union mentality are big problems in this country.
History repeats itself. Anytime there is a concentration of wealth among a very small group of people the rest of the population seeks a change. Ask the Romans, Russians, French and all the great nations of the past. How the weathy got there is not important it is the fact that they are there now. Our country has the ability to balance the field unlike a lot of nation's in the past. Whatever your politics the country will correct itself or no longer exist. The middle class is the key to our nation, without it we don't exist. Weather it takes Union's, Taxes, Oil Wells, a new polictical party or another war the middle class will become a factor.
preston, and we had better sart paying attention to the judges that are appointed to the supreme court. google ruth bader ginsbergs' latest bloviation about the united states constitution. we are in bigger trouble than fractivists.
Gary this county was founded on the princpal of freedom, free to say what you want and do basicly what you want. I respect everyone's right to say what the want weather I agree or not. What we have had in this country for a long time is people going with the flow and not thinking for themself. Money does control the media, but if you listen to enough points of view you can make your own informed choices. I have more respect for people that stand on their own princpals by themself, right or wrong. This is debate and how our country got hear. I have not seen Ginsbergs latest yet, to pass judgement, she has lived a long life and has had several major health issues, so whatever she has to say is based on her opinion and her life. I can agree or disagree but that is what makes this country move ahead- Debate
when we consider candidates for president, what we want to keep our eye on is the appointment of Supreme Court Justices - that is the ultimate and final answer to disputes. Thus, we want conservative judges so we muse elect conservative president.
'their own principles ,right or wrong....' sorry preston , you and me part ways there. making up your own principles is folly.
I hope anyone that reads this follows through and reads what she said, not just a headline. She stated in our constitution we didn't enclude people from all backgrounds and many were excluded from constitutional protection. She also pushed for human rights stating "we the people"
Of course I hope no country goes back and follows the constitutation the way it was inacted when started. Woman, blacks, american indians, and many more did not have much if any protection. Could we want that for another democracy just starting up?
Here is a quote from her during this interview "You should certainly be aided by all the constitution writing that has gone on since the end of World War II,"
During this time fairness in our country began. We evolved in a good way, should we go back to the way it used to be? Of course not, since now you don't just need to be a white male to be protected by the constitution.
Please anyone who reads this research this yourself. You would applaud her for what she said. Both sides of the isle should applaud her for what she said. This is a headline, read the truth.
Rights are rights and they should be for all not just a few (in power) at the time a new government starts.
When it comes to Hagan he's in office and wants to stay in office. I think he's fueling the fire on antifracking but I wonder how many emails he gets asking him so do so?
Also if people wanted to share in this oil money they should have bought land here when our areas were in big trouble instead of running away. We stayed so we profit. Royalities will be taxed as income on the State level so the money will be shared in the long run. That's how it should be.
I wonder why the black community can't trace back their roots very far? They were humans but for some reason they were not allowed those inalienable rights during the time the constitution was in full effect nor were they given a voice when it was drafted. Woman and american indians seem to have been excluded also, by not being given a voice. At the time some of these people were not considered to be in the "human" range. They are now due to what you call Nonsense "human rights"
In my opinion when they wrote men they meant men since at the time that is all that was represented. It's easy to look back and read what was written and in this day and age read those words "inalienable rights" and thin they meant for all, Men (oops we meant humans) but we must look at our history to see how it played out and other countries need to learn from mistakes made in the past and hopefully when they put in inalienable rights they mean it for all.
Again all I'm saying is anyone interested in this should either read what she said in a transcript not a blog where comments are added or injected or utube it with no commentary. That way you can take from it what you will.
Obviously this topic is a hot one for me so I'll stop now. I see history and you are reading a document written a long time ago and taking it in todays meaning and I'm glad today it means what it means, not what really happened and what we learned from it.
kathlen, read the 'north west ordinace'. it addresses the indians specifically.