Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Post by arlenefavreau1 on Mar 28, 2011 7:51:40 GMT -5
Ok I'll explain pay farmers to grow canabis by the gouvernment buying it from them. Then the gouvernment sells it we the people buy it. All of the money collected goes into a bank account and is dispersed to pay off the national debt as well as the deficit (which is money we owe our selves). When that is paid in full we pay for elementary education and high school education first and what is left over goes toward secondary education. Now I don't want to pay teacher salleries I want to pay for books, art supplys, musical instruments, athletic equipment, school supplys (teaching tools). Is this clear enough or do I need to itemize my list further?
Last Edit: Mar 28, 2011 7:54:51 GMT -5 by arlenefavreau1 - Back to Top
Ok I'll explain pay farmers to grow canabis by the gouvernment buying it from them. Then the gouvernment sells it we the people buy it. All of the money collected goes into a bank account and is dispersed to pay off the national debt as well as the deficit (which is money we owe our selves). When that is paid in full we pay for elementary education and high school education first and what is left over goes toward secondary education. Now I don't want to pay teacher salleries I want to pay for books, art supplys, musical instruments, athletic equipment, school supplys (teaching tools). Is this clear enough or do I need to itemize my list dow further?
By most estimates the US Market for cannabis is approximately 35 billion per year. So even if we assumed that your scheme had a low 25% overhead, and the prices did not drop, it would still take twenty plus years to even start to make a dent in the national debt.
Well at our current rate of doing nothing but barrowing we will never pay it off which do you prefer. Twenty years or going third world
No it would be twenty years before it started to make a difference not twenty years until it was paid off. If that is your master plan it is not going to have any effect on us going "third world". Not that I am against it, but 17 billion a year is just a drop of piss in the bucket. The problem is that we do not make anything in America anymore but ideas, and it has led to two distinct social groups. I think we would be better served by congress using taxation to protect our jobs from being moved overseas and to Mexico so that employers can save 5 dollars per man hour.
Post by arlenefavreau1 on Mar 28, 2011 8:50:37 GMT -5
Yes I understood the twenty years part and like I said which do you prefer twenty years or going third world. Because our gouvernment is NEVER going to give us back what they have taken. At this time we have half the amount of the house of representatives on full pay yet they have been convicted of a crime placing them in incarceration or removing them from congress it's self. Yes theese people served our country but they also served themselves in an ilegal capacity more and we are obligated by law to pay them and provide them healthcare yes even when they are in prison.
Yes I understood the twenty years part and like I said which do you prefer twenty years or going third world. Because our gouvernment is NEVER going to give us back what they have taken. At this time we have half the amount of the house of representatives on full pay yet they have been convicted of a crime placing them in incarceration or removing them from congress it's self. Yes theese people served our country but they also served themselves in an ilegal capacity more and we are obligated by law to pay them and provide them healthcare yes even when they are in prison.
Which half of congress has been convicted of a crime?
Post by arlenefavreau1 on Mar 28, 2011 9:12:27 GMT -5
I'm saying right now we have a total number of ex-congressional representitives that equal half of what are currently there. Still being paid still being covered medically yet they are in jail or have served there time and all are still receiving full pay full medical. Yet they FULLY disgrased our country.
I'm saying right now we have a total number of ex-congressional representitives that equal half of what are currently there. Still being paid still being covered medically yet they are in jail or have served there time and all are still receiving full pay full medical. Yet they FULLY disgrased our country.
Ummm no we do not have 245 congressmen in jail or recently released from jail. I am giving you a pass on the spelling, bit not the facts.
Post by arlenefavreau1 on Mar 28, 2011 9:35:27 GMT -5
Look up the number of congressmen that have been kicked out of congress in recent history and you will se what I'm talking about because even the ones that have been kicked out for commiting acts that are deemed unappropriate behavior for a congressman. We still pay them. We still cover them medically. And we will as long as they are alive.
What is it you dont understand itm explain. Was I not explainnig enough for you do I need to break it down further for you?
That whole sentence is just weird. Spelling and grammar errors make it hard to understand and take you seriously. Just read the sentence I quoted out loud a few times and see if it makes sense.
Look up the number of congressmen that have been kicked out of congress in recent history and you will se what I'm talking about because even the ones that have been kicked out for commiting acts that are deemed unappropriate behavior for a congressman. We still pay them. We still cover them medically. And we will as long as they are alive.
The number is nothing like 250 however it appears to be 5 or since 1980.
Post by arlenefavreau1 on Mar 28, 2011 11:09:25 GMT -5
Your right the number is much lower it only comes up to 217. Just looked it up and the charges go from misdemeanor to all out multiple fellonies. Now as for ITM I'll make sure everything is spelled right out giving exact detail then you wont have to have a previos knowledge of what the gouvernment gives out. And I will make sure to use only the best grammer to ensure you understand exactly what it is I am talking about. Add to this I will slow down trying to type there by ensuring total comprehension on your part.
Now as for ITM I'll make sure everything is spelled right out giving exact detail then you wont have to have a previos knowledge of what the gouvernment gives out. And I will make sure to use only the best grammer to ensure you understand exactly what it is I am talking about. Add to this I will slow down trying to type there by ensuring total comprehension on your part.
Your right the number is much lower it only comes up to 217. Just looked it up and the charges go from misdemeanor to all out multiple fellonies. Now as for ITM I'll make sure everything is spelled right out giving exact detail then you wont have to have a previos knowledge of what the gouvernment gives out. And I will make sure to use only the best grammer to ensure you understand exactly what it is I am talking about. Add to this I will slow down trying to type there by ensuring total comprehension on your part.
Show me the site where you found 217 members of congress have been removed from office since 1980.
Post by arlenefavreau1 on Mar 28, 2011 12:57:09 GMT -5
Dr Teeth are you abdicating for an even more crooked gouvernment by paying the crooks who get thrown out of congress? Because thats how it sound's to me. In my opinion they should'nt receive any money. Why hasn't any body elected the third world option in my statement? Yet you question my facts on paying crooks. I take it you are all for keeping the crooks happy. And not for getting the us back to being financially solvent.
Dr Teeth are you abdicating for an even more crooked gouvernment by paying the crooks who get thrown out of congress? Because thats how it sound's to me. In my opinion they should'nt receive any money. Why hasn't any body elected the third world option in my statement? Yet you question my facts on paying crooks. I take it you are all for keeping the crooks happy. And not for getting the us back to being financially solvent.
Post by arlenefavreau1 on Mar 28, 2011 14:17:53 GMT -5
I did answer the question I gave up exactly what I typed into the google search engine and the list comes up. What do you expect me to do type the whole list up so you don't have to do any work? I did my job I looked it up put the information I found up. Now do you think you can do your job and look it up so you will be as informed as I am? Or does somebody alwats do your job for you?
Dr Teeth are you abdicating for an even more crooked gouvernment by paying the crooks who get thrown out of congress? Because thats how it sound's to me. In my opinion they should'nt receive any money. Why hasn't any body elected the third world option in my statement? Yet you question my facts on paying crooks. I take it you are all for keeping the crooks happy. And not for getting the us back to being financially solvent.
5 people have been removed from the house only 2 since 1980, 8 Senators have been removed only 3 in this century. Please provide the names or the website which is giving you this 215 number. You are entitled to a private opinion not private facts my friend. You need to calm down and start using spell check you are barely coming off as coherent at this point.
Representatives and Delegates serve for two-year terms, while the Resident Commissioner serves for four years. The Constitution permits the House to expel a member with a two-thirds vote. In the history of the United States, only five members have been expelled from the House; in 1861, three were removed for supporting the Confederate states' secession, John Bullock Clark (D-MO), John William Reid (D-MO), and Henry Cornelius Burnett (D-KY). Michael Myers (D-PA) was expelled after his criminal conviction for accepting bribes in 1980, and James Traficant (D-OH) was expelled in 2002 following his conviction for corruption.[13] The House also has the power to formally censure or reprimand its members; censure or reprimand requires only a simple majority, but does not remove a member from office.
No. You did not. He asked what they were convicted of. You attacked his motives.
I gave up exactly what I typed into the google search engine and the list comes up. What do you expect me to do type the whole list up so you don't have to do any work?
Providing a few examples and then a link to your source would be sufficient. Copy and Paste is not hard to do.
I did my job I looked it up put the information I found up.
lol read that sentence again.
Now do you think you can do your job and look it up so you will be as informed as I am? Or does somebody alwats do your job for you?
How about you just copy and paste the link here so we can all discuss it rather than you avoiding actually providing a source for your arguments.
Ok however on the page you listed only 5 were "kicked out" of office. You should work on your readin g comprehension along with your spelling. Also as far as the rest most will not receive their pension due to the Duke Cunningham act.
Unofficially known as the 'Duke Cunningham Act', the Federal Pension Forfeiture Act is a piece of legislation introduced by Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Ken Salazar (D-CO) that would cause a member of Congress to lose the pension due to:
* Bribery of public officials or witnesses * Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the United States * Perjury while denying the commission of bribery or conspiracy * Subornation of perjury committed in connection with false denial or false testimony of another individual
Anything else we can help you to understand there partner?
Post by arlenefavreau1 on Mar 28, 2011 17:35:13 GMT -5
Ok the list states congressman convicted while in office. I suppose theese guys all got to finish there term in office while being incarcerated that must be why we continued to pay them. They were of such great service to our country that they went to jail for being boyscouts. So hey what hell you obviously want to keep all theese convicted criminals on our dime. Ok . In my opinion they were a disgrace to us as a nation but to you they are obviously a hero I get it.
Ok the list states congressman convicted while in office. I suppose theese guys all got to finish there term in office while being incarcerated that must be why we continued to pay them. They were of such great service to our country that they went to jail for being boyscouts. So hey what hell you obviously want to keep all theese convicted criminals on our dime. Ok . In my opinion they were a disgrace to us as a nation but to you they are obviously a hero I get it.
Man I am out of this with you read the FRIKKIN PAGE, this is not a list of people convicted while in office, just people convicted period. This is like arguing with a brick wall minus the witty reparte the wall can throw out there. You obviously have no idea what the hell you are talking about and have resorted to misinformation and parroting others talking points.