NBC Sports goes PC

[WTF]

Originally Posted by cptjohnstone

you are right, they even admitted to giving Obama 3 times the coverage vs McCain and you wonder why people call them the left coast media

I don't give a shit how much they cover whomever. I vote by either watching them or not. You can do the same.

I wanted to watch the US Open, not watch a bunch of little sheep recite the Pledge but you didn't hear me complaining about NBC broadcasting wtf ever they wanted to. You would rather they done the whole pledge, I would rather they done none of it, The difference is that I am not complaining what they did do, even though I did not care for any of the pledge to be broadcast. Like I said, this is much ado about nothing. Do you propose that we make a law outlawing wtf they did?

[Doove]

Originally Posted by WTF

You are like Amway, always trying to sign folks up.

Actually, i was thinkin' they're more like Jehovah's Witnesses - only they don't stop at just knocking at your door. If you don't answer, they try to break your door down and force their views on you.

Originally Posted by WTF

The difference is that I am not complaining what they did do, even though I did not care for any of the pledge to be broadcast. Like I said, this is much ado about nothing.

I'll even take it a step further. I doubt there's one person in here who actually gives a rat's ass about one insignificant rendition of the pledge having had the words "under (my imaginary) god" removed. They just view it as an opportunity to go around screaming about an entity (NBC) that they view as being on the liberal side of the ledger. Go around screaming about how oppressed they are as a people. They're angry. And if i got beat up as a kid, or picked last in gym class as often as they seem to have, i think i'd be pretty bitter too.

[Whirlaway]

Ha;;;TTH....we now know that all your preaching on divesity and tolerance is a sham. Funny, how it is always the left loonies who want the opposition to shut up.

This one is for you dude...True Colors......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhFSH...eature=related


Texas Tush Hog says: "Here's what I want: You and the rest of the American Taliban to get the fuck out of this free country. ,,,,,,,,,Leave America for those of us who really believe in freedom, liberty and the Constitution. I've had my belly full of poseurs."

[MrGiz]

ALL of this verbose grandiloquence from you Far Right & Far Left PC phuckers; over something so meaningless, simply points out how silly and hypocritical you both are!

P.S. - BTW... Rory Rocks! * He sure as fuc wasn't born rich!

[Doove]

Originally Posted by cptjohnstone

you are right, they even admitted to giving Obama 3 times the coverage vs McCain and you wonder why people call them the left coast media

Originally Posted by Doove

Link?

LINK?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by MrGiz

P.S. - BTW... Rory Rocks! * He sure as fuc wasn't born rich!

The other thread was asking about the poor, not the rich and how they (the poor) hardly stand a chance.

Rory was not born poor nor rich.

You are mixing up the two in trying to justify your POV.

Very few people stand a chance of becoming rich....that is just a mathmatical reality. The rich stand the best chance by far because of the wefare of their parents to them. Again , hard work has noting to do with which parents you are born to.

I know you are smarter than that, what I am suprised about is that you think we are not smart enough to see your deception. Maybe I gave you to much credit, maybe you aren't as smart as I thought.

Originally Posted by MrGiz

ALL of this verbose grandiloquence from you Far Right & Far Left PC phuckers; over something so meaningless, simply points out how silly and hypocritical you both are!
!

They left is laughing about the rights croc tears! That hardly counts as verbose grandiloquence.

[Little Stevie]

My post quoting the Treaty of Tripoli was NOT to champion atheism (even though the constitution guarantees anyone the freedom to believe what he wants or to have no belief at all). It was to point out that we did not establish Christianity as the country's religion and that everyone posting on a SHMB should especially fear the attempts by many among the radical religious right to thrust their moral values on us. The potential to the sport we all play or write about will absolutely suffer if that attitude continues.

Originally Posted by cptjohnstone

you are right, they even admitted to giving Obama 3 times the coverage vs McCain and you wonder why people call them the left coast media

I join Doove in asking to see the source verifying your assertion.

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Here's what I want: You and the rest of the American Taliban to get the fuck out of this free country. If you want to live in theocracy, pack your shit, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, hit the fuckin' road!! Leave America for those of us who really believe in freedom, liberty and the Constitution. I've had my belly full of poseurs.

When those on the far right express their opinions, they are often wishing for this same result concerning those more liberal. TTH has already stated the fact that either side should be able to have the freedom to follow their own beliefs but that they should not be allowed to shove those opinions and beliefs down the throat of anyone else.

I join him in saying that we hear the "America, Love It or Leave It" crowd essentially demand that action (leave America) from anyone who doesn't agree with their hypocrisy. In other words, they think it is perfectly fine to demand that those who disagree need to leave just like the Taliban do in Afghanistan. Just like the real Taliban our own American Taliban does not think anyone who does not agree with their narrow views should be in the U.S.

TTH simply defends his constitutionally-guaranteed right to wish the American Taliban (the narrow-minded and hypocritical religious right) would leave but he still states everyone should be entitled to wish that, including those who wish he would leave.

Look how many jumped to attack his right to WISH that while WISHING for the same thing for his side.

There is the problem. The American Taliban believes they have the right to establish a state religion and to persecute those who do not agree.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Tsk, tsk, TTH! Where is that “embrace all creeds, colors, faiths, social diversity, etc.,” liberalism you are so well known for? After all, no one is asking for the repeal of the 1st Amendment. What is expected, is that the same PC extended to other creeds be accorded to Christians. Your expressed attitude, so similar to this blatant affront by NBC, is an attack on the sensibilities of most - 76% - Americans.

Way off the mark, IB, just like your inference that defending atheism was the underlying reason for my posting Article 11 in the Treaty of Tripoli. My reason was to point out the danger I see in the religious right's efforts toward establishing an unconstitutional state religion trough changing textbook, enforcement of certain laws and general dominance of the national dialog about morality and "family values". I see the insertion of the 76% figure as an attempt to defend and then effect a dictatorship by majority without affording constitutional rights to any moral or religious minority, which INCLUDES EVERYONE posting on a SHMB! Despite what you may believe, you belong in the 24% if you reject the "sensibilities" of the 10 Commandment and because you are posting here, I am going to suppose that you disagree with at least TWO of those "sensibilities" (the ones dealing with "bearing false witness" and "committing adultery". Not that you would, but please don't get into the "only Jeebus was perfect" defense argument here because we can expand that to cover all of the sins you attribute to TTH and me and thereby negate this whole discussion.

Originally Posted by WTF

No he was just pointing out how similar to the Taliban some of you righties religious cats are.... +1

As to your blatant affront, nothing could be further from the truth. Nobody on our side wants you to embrace science, you can believe in God all you want. All we want is you to do is quit shoving it down our throats..... +1

You are like Amway, always trying to sign folks up..... +1

You can't handle freedom of the press? +1

I guess you now want some new regulation in place so no other network can disagree with your God..... +!

Originally Posted by Doove

Actually, i was thinkin' they're more like Jehovah's Witnesses - only they don't stop at just knocking at your door. If you don't answer, they try to break your door down and force their views on you. +1

I'll even take it a step further. I doubt there's one person in here who actually gives a rat's ass about one insignificant rendition of the pledge having had the words "under (my imaginary) god" removed. They just view it as an opportunity to go around screaming about an entity (NBC) (Blue type changed to add emphasis to what Dove asserts) that they view as being on the liberal side of the ledger. +1 Go around screaming about how oppressed they are as a people. They're angry. +1 And if i got beat up as a kid, or picked last in gym class as often as they seem to have, i think i'd be pretty bitter too. +1

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Ha;;;TTH....we now know that all your preaching on divesity and tolerance is a shame. Funny, how it is always the left loonies who want the opposition to shut up. I think you meant a "sham" but even if you meant a "shame" , that is not at all what his statement inferred. He has the right to wish you would STFU just as you have that same right. It is just that the overwhelming majority of the religious fanatics (who you should really fear especially given their beliefs about SHMBoards and the conjoined sport) seem to vocalize the "America, Love It or Leave It" mentality far more than any other group.

Not one single one of you whining about NBC's Faux Pas would be doing anything but squealing if MMMiche/lle/BBBBach/mannn were elected and began to impose her way out religious beliefs by beefing up Christian Morality-based LE activity! And that would be true even if it were only to concentrate on hyper enforcement the laws already in place.

Be careful what you wish for.

My pet peeve is spending millions to re-write textbooks that encourage a return to some form of Biblical "Science" when (1) we've got far better things that need funding and (2) because letting those thoughts and teachings re-enter the eduction process is another step backward for the education gap we've allowed to occur between us and countries we used to regularly beat in science and math and (3) it is a HUGE STEP TOWARD Ten Commandment Justice.

That 10 Commandment Justice, my fellow SHMB posters, would make the things we write about here sheer HERESY!

If being burned at the stake or dunked in an elaborate dunking stool until you drown is what you want, then by all means, please SUPPORT what you've been supporting because that is where this giant coalition of single-issue voters you identify with and that was once called the "Moral Majority" by JJJ/erry/FFFal/wellll has come together to form this awful and totally intolerant attitude.

[MrGiz]

Originally Posted by WTF

The other thread was asking about the poor, not the rich and how they (the poor) hardly stand a chance.

Rory was not born poor nor rich.

You are mixing up the two in trying to justify your POV.

Very few people stand a chance of becoming rich....that is just a mathmatical reality. The rich stand the best chance by far because of the wefare of their parents to them. Again , hard work has noting to do with which parents you are born to.

I know you are smarter than that, what I am suprised about is that you think we are not smart enough to see your deception. Maybe I gave you to much credit, maybe you aren't as smart as I thought.



They left is laughing about the rights croc tears! That hardly counts as verbose grandiloquence.

I haven't really disagreed with you about the poor. Lack of opportunity in the way of family back-up and support (no matter the reason) was one of the things I listed in a definition which I said "too often" existed.

My main point was the "real" credit for Rory's success lies within himself! No amount of money... no amount of pre-advantages , no lack of competition , and very little amount of luck enabled him to loft the 2011 U.S. Open Trophy! * He had to go out and DO IT !

I couldn't give a shit less, about what NBC did or didn't do with the pledge.
But , was it a poorly chosen, poorly timed, chickenshit, overly PC thing... which they had every right to do?? *
Absolutely... they did a fine job!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

My post quoting the Treaty of Tripoli was NOT to champion atheism (even though the constitution guarantees anyone the freedom to believe what he wants or to have no belief at all). It was to point out that we did not establish Christianity as the country's religion and that everyone posting on a SHMB should especially fear the attempts by many among the radical religious right to thrust their moral values on us. The potential to the sport we all play or write about will absolutely suffer if that attitude continues.

Please read:

Article X.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now look at the Massachusetts’s Constitution written in 1780 (still in effect) by John Adams: @ http://www.malegislature.gov/laws/constitution. Make sure you read it through to Chapter VI. Oaths And Subscriptions. And then refer back to the 10th Amendment.

After I posted, I continued reading and studying the Treaty of Tripoli (BTW, that is the only real reason I bother to participate in this mental masturbation in the first place – it prompts me to learn and justify my opinion with more than hot air). It’s been some time since I studied this issue, but what I found is very interesting.

“THE ORIGINAL [Tripoli] TREATY

“The first to be noted is that which contains the original treaty. It is a book in the literal sense. There are fourteen pages of Arabic text; all of these are right-hand pages. In the Arabic order, the first of them is the ‘note’ of the money and presents, mentioned, according to the Barlow translation, in Article 10 of the treaty; the second is the ‘receipt,’ also mentioned in that article, and this page, like the first, is sealed with the seal of the Dey of Algiers. Then come the twelve pages of the treaty; the preamble is on the first of these with Article 1; and there is one article on a page, except that the script on the page between Articles 10 and 12, is, as fully explained in the annotated translation of 1930, not an article at all. The last of those twelve pages has also the seals and superscriptions, of which there are eleven In all, including one for the Dey of Algiers. The fourteen pages of Arabic text are reproduced above in left-to-right order of pagination; but the twelve treaty pages come first and then the ‘receipt’ and then the ‘note.’”

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796n.asp#n1

There is an interesting debate about the origins and veracity of Article XI. These Yale authors don’t dismiss the article out of hand, but they do say it is suspect. Furthermore, the authors point out that when the treaty is updated eight years later, it contains no equivalent text.

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

Way off the mark, IB, just like your inference that defending atheism was the underlying reason for my posting Article 11 in the Treaty of Tripoli.

But this is the same argument put forth by atheists.

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

My reason was to point out the danger I see in the religious right's efforts toward establishing an unconstitutional state religion trough changing textbook, enforcement of certain laws and general dominance of the national dialog about morality and "family values". I see the insertion of the 76% figure as an attempt to defend and then effect a dictatorship by majority without affording constitutional rights to any moral or religious minority, which INCLUDES EVERYONE posting on a SHMB!

What you are in fact witnessing is a response from the religious right to the self same incursions you describe driven by the left. All here know what makes up the text to the Pledge of Allegiance. It hasn’t changed since 1954. So I ask again, “Why did they do it?” Could it have been a “mistake”? No. It was a complex montage that involved too many people—someone along the way would have pointed out the omission (and probably did, but he or she was still ignored).

Was there a profit motive? No. As cited above, 76% of Americans (per wiki) describe themselves as Christians. All NBC did was antagonize a large part of their audience.

The only alternative then is that who ever made and approved the “selective editing” was seeking to shove a thumb into the collective eye of 76% of American citizens. NBC’s behavior reminds me of the stupid kid with the too short stick jabbing at a hornet’s nest. The left needs to be wiser in selecting its battles.

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

Despite what you may believe, you belong in the 24% if you reject the "sensibilities" of the 10 Commandment and because you are posting here, I am going to suppose that you disagree with at least TWO of those "sensibilities" (the ones dealing with "bearing false witness" and "committing adultery". Not that you would, but please don't get into the "only Jeebus was perfect" defense argument here because we can expand that to cover all of the sins you attribute to TTH and me and thereby negate this whole discussion.

I attempt do so covertly and without antagonism. And I admit I sometimes speed on Interstate, but that doesn’t mean I do not respect the rules and why they were conceived. Hell, the laws are already there. I’m not seeking to re-impose anything. Plus, if I recall correctly, it was President Carter that said looking at woman and having “lust” in your heart was a sin. Carter isn’t on the right.

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

Not one single one of you whining about NBC's Faux Pas

It wasn’t a Faux Pas, that is the issue. It was an intentional poke in the eye.

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

would be doing anything but squealing if MMMiche/lle/BBBBach/mannn were elected and began to impose her way out religious beliefs by beefing up Christian Morality-based LE activity! And that would be true even if it were only to concentrate on hyper enforcement the laws already in place.

Be careful what you wish for.

Hmm, and this might be hard for you to accept, but a city council woman in a city I know about recently had “solicitation” raised to a felony offense. And she’s a liberal Dimocrat.

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

My pet peeve is spending millions to re-write textbooks that encourage a return to some form of Biblical "Science" when (1) we've got far better things that need funding and (2) because letting those thoughts and teachings re-enter the eduction process is another step backward for the education gap we've allowed to occur between us and countries we used to regularly beat in science and math and (3) it is a HUGE STEP TOWARD Ten Commandment Justice.

I agree. Genesis belongs in Church and in literature classes, not in a science classroom. But I must point out, that for some reason, since liberal activists have pushed the state to remove morality from the classroom and include “touchy feely,” “feel good” subject matter, there has been a corresponding drop in education.

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

That 10 Commandment Justice, my fellow SHMB posters, would make the things we write about here sheer HERESY!

Not heresy, they are just good rules to live by in order to preserve social harmony in a community of men and women.

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

If being burned at the stake or dunked in an elaborate dunking stool until you drown is what you want, then by all means, please SUPPORT what you've been supporting because that is where this giant coalition of single-issue voters you identify with and that was once called the "Moral Majority" by JJJ/erry/FFFal/wellll has come together to form this awful and totally intolerant attitude.

Hitler and Stalin both persecuted sexual deviation. They didn’t need religion to justify their actions. They just used the law.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by MrGiz

I haven't really disagreed with you about the poor. Lack of opportunity in the way of family back-up and support (no matter the reason) was one of the things I listed in a definition which I said "too often" existed.

My main point was the "real" credit for Rory's success lies within himself! No amount of money... no amount of pre-advantages , no lack of competition , and very little amount of luck enabled him to loft the 2011 U.S. Open Trophy! * He had to go out and DO IT !

What you are not getting is that zero times anything is still zero.

Have you heard of the 10,000 hour rule.

http://www.gladwell.com/outliers/outliers_excerpt1.html

Luck is a much larger factor than you are giving any credit to.

Let me ask you this....Do you believe a child deserves an inheritance? Is it thier God given right. (Sorry NBC but I like to use the word God) What factor do you account for a child being given hundred of millions of dollars, Is that hard work?

Yes Rory put in a llot of work but had he been born a 100 years earlier he sure as hell wouldn't have been able to put hois God given talent to use.

There I've worked God in twice, take that NBC!

Originally Posted by MrGiz

I couldn't give a shit less, about what NBC did or didn't do with the pledge.
But , was it a poorly chosen, poorly timed, chickenshit, overly PC thing... which they had every right to do?? *
Absolutely... they did a fine job!

See, we see things just alike yet so differently.

We agree that NBC can do wtf they want and we totally disagree on this being chickenshit or not or better stated , just wtf is chickenshit and what isn't.

The only thing I thought NBC did that was chickenshit was not issuing a statement telling folks that wanted an apology to go fuc themselves in any nation under the God of their choosing.

[Little Stevie]

See red below

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Please read:

Article X.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now look at the Massachusetts’s Constitution written in 1780 (still in effect) by John Adams: @ http://www.malegislature.gov/laws/constitution. Make sure you read it through to Chapter VI. Oaths And Subscriptions. And then refer back to the 10th Amendment.

After I posted, I continued reading and studying the Treaty of Tripoli (BTW, that is the only real reason I bother to participate in this mental masturbation in the first place – it prompts me to learn and justify my opinion with more than hot air). It’s been some time since I studied this issue, but what I found is very interesting.

“THE ORIGINAL [Tripoli] TREATY

“The first to be noted is that which contains the original treaty. It is a book in the literal sense. There are fourteen pages of Arabic text; all of these are right-hand pages. In the Arabic order, the first of them is the ‘note’ of the money and presents, mentioned, according to the Barlow translation, in Article 10 of the treaty; the second is the ‘receipt,’ also mentioned in that article, and this page, like the first, is sealed with the seal of the Dey of Algiers. Then come the twelve pages of the treaty; the preamble is on the first of these with Article 1; and there is one article on a page, except that the script on the page between Articles 10 and 12, is, as fully explained in the annotated translation of 1930, not an article at all. The last of those twelve pages has also the seals and superscriptions, of which there are eleven In all, including one for the Dey of Algiers. The fourteen pages of Arabic text are reproduced above in left-to-right order of pagination; but the twelve treaty pages come first and then the ‘receipt’ and then the ‘note.’”

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796n.asp#n1

There is an interesting debate about the origins and veracity of Article XI. These Yale authors don’t dismiss the article out of hand, but they do say it is suspect. Furthermore, the authors point out that when the treaty is updated eight years later, it contains no equivalent text.

It really doesn't matter because it is in the records we research today. You continue to refuse to acknowledge my point that the verbiage simply reflects the separation of Church and State in the Constitution and that is as it should be - No establishment of a state religion or of state Christianity.

But this is the same argument put forth by atheists. That is like saying that meteorologists forecast weather - so? A lot of others forecast weather as well. If it is raining, it is raining whether a meteorologist says it is or a non meteorologist says so. The atheist argument is a non-sequitur.

What you are in fact witnessing is a response from the religious right to the self same incursions you describe driven by the left. All here know what makes up the text to the Pledge of Allegiance. It hasn’t changed since 1954. So I ask again, “Why did they do it?” Could it have been a “mistake”? No. I assert that you have no way of knowing if it was a closet atheist, a disgruntled employee, a middle management producer or even someone trying to sully NBC's reputation. For all you know, it could have been the other Christian Bogeyman, a Muslim "anchor editor" ala that moron L*ouie G*ohmert (R-TX). LOL - You simply assume and attempt to defend a theory you have no way of proving! It was a complex montage that involved too many people—someone along the way would have pointed out the omission (and probably did, but he or she was still ignored). Not entirely true! Although it COULD have happened with multiple "conspirators", it could have just as easily been done by one person. When they queue the tape, the producer may never have seen it all the way through and it might have been checked from start to finish by anyone but the person who put it on the secondary tape. My assertion is that I think it originated at a much lower level than all the bleaters here are assuming. You have to look no further than the "fallout: to realize that upper tier personnel don't choose to make gaffes that inflame a huge portion of the audience.

Was there a profit motive? No. As cited above, 76% of Americans (per wiki) describe themselves as Christians. All NBC did was antagonize a large part of their audience.

The only alternative then is that who ever made and approved the “selective editing” was seeking to shove a thumb into the collective eye of 76% of American citizens. NBC’s behavior reminds me of the stupid kid with the too short stick jabbing at a hornet’s nest. The left needs to be wiser in selecting its battles. You far underrate the IQ's of NBC upper tier production personnel and I also doubt they only hire "non-76 percenters" to work there!

I attempt do so covertly and without antagonism. And I admit I sometimes speed on Interstate, but that doesn’t mean I do not respect the rules and why they were conceived. Hell, the laws are already there. I’m not seeking to re-impose anything. Plus, if I recall correctly, it was President Carter that said looking at woman and having “lust” in your heart was a sin. Carter isn’t on the right. Right-on, brotha! And I still remember the SNL skit about his lusting after Tina Louise. Ha Ha

It wasn’t a Faux Pas, that is the issue. It was an intentional poke in the eye. I strongly disagree for the reasons stated above and also because I have been behind the camera on numerous occasions and know what goes on at various sporting event broadcasts. The tape queues are often done blind after being seen only by one or two people. I do agree that the person could have been a closet atheist but I think it is folly to assume that such a trick would even be seen as an effective "poke in the eye" to champion taking "under God" out of the Pledge. NBC - even NBC Sports could think of other ways to make the point in a far more effective and less inflammatory way. There is absolutely no doubt about that!

Hmm, and this might be hard for you to accept, but a city council woman in a city I know about recently had “solicitation” raised to a felony offense. And she’s a liberal Dimocrat. If you will follow things a little more closely, you will see my assertion deals mainly with being wary of the Religious right but it also makes the point that the whole lot of the "Family Values" contenders and pretenders would frown and PROSECUTE those in our sport. I do not trust much of what the Bible Thumpers of any stripe have planned for our schools and extracurricular activities and you shouldn't either!

I agree. Genesis belongs in Church and in literature classes, not in a science classroom. But I must point out, that for some reason, since liberal activists have pushed the state to remove morality from the classroom and include “touchy feely,” “feel good” subject matter, there has been a corresponding drop in education. Please source those assertions. Who has removed morality? Maybe they just disagree with "Fundie" morality. So do I but not all morality.

Not heresy, they are just good rules to live by in order to preserve social harmony in a community of men and women. Agree that many concepts are good to use to live by but establishing those concepts as part of a "Christian only" curriculum is a de facto and unlawful establishment of Christianity as the state's religion.

Hitler and Stalin both persecuted sexual deviation. They didn’t need religion to justify their actions. They just used the law. It reminds me of the way Evangelicals are attempting to use the constitution, the schools, our representatives and the law to influence society. They want to rewrite science books and history to the extreme detriment of our country and its children. Our children do not need to be impeded by fundamentalist evangelical hogwash as they try to compete in the world. I'm not talking about believers who accept the possibility that some portions of the Bible might be figurative lessons and accounts rather than literal ones.

Your example forgets that there are other nations and cultures that tend to be peaceful and generally even more tranquil than the United States even when other religions or custom form the basis of directing their moral compass.

[MrGiz]

Originally Posted by WTF

.... Let me ask you this....Do you believe a child deserves an inheritance? Is it thier God given right. (Sorry NBC but I like to use the word God) What factor do you account for a child being given hundred of millions of dollars, Is that hard work?

- Do you believe a child deserves an inheritance?
- If you are equating "deserving" to "earning" .... No.

- Is it their God given right?
- No... but it is the inalienable right of the parent to give it.

- What factor do you account for a child being given hundred of millions of dollars, Is that hard work?
- No... it is a privilege born from luck.

Do U.S. Citizens not have the "right " to leave their earned estate to whomever they wish?

*

[WTF]

Originally Posted by MrGiz

- Do you believe a child deserves an inheritance?
- If you are equating "deserving" to "earning" .... No.

- Is it their God given right?
- No... but it is the inalienable right of the parent to give it.

- What factor do you account for a child being given hundred of millions of dollars, Is that hard work?
- No... it is a privilege born from luck.

Do U.S. Citizens not have the "right " to leave their earned estate to whomever they wish?

*

I never said they could not give it to whom they damn well please.
They can leave it but it should be taxed as income or taxed as an estate tax. Either way it should be taxed. The kid earns it as income and it should br taxed as such, we call it an estate tax and the parent can not take it with them.

We agree on the luck part.

[cptjohnstone]

Originally Posted by WTF

I don't give a shit how much they cover whomever. I vote by either watching them or not. You can do the same.

I wanted to watch the US Open, not watch a bunch of little sheep recite the Pledge but you didn't hear me complaining about NBC broadcasting wtf ever they wanted to. You would rather they done the whole pledge, I would rather they done none of it, The difference is that I am not complaining what they did do, even though I did not care for any of the pledge to be broadcast. Like I said, this is much ado about nothing. Do you propose that we make a law outlawing wtf they did?

I did, I switch to Fox News! fair and balanced

LINK I will google it tomorrow

[Little Stevie]

"Fair and Balanced" just like Jon Stewart got Chris Wallace to admit!

http://wwwDOTthedailyshowDOTcom/watc...air---balanced

Substitute periods for the DOTS when your browser displays the URL