Sandbox – 15sep14

September 2014
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30

OUR LINKS

YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

Sandbox – 15sep14

15 September 2014

[I salt this sandbox with a reminder to RR readers that Obama (with the enthusiastic aid of acolyte Schumer) is planning his next step to take the US down another notch – we are already 32 out of 34 developed countries. Today in the 15sep14 WSJ lead editorial we read –

Any day now the White House and Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) will attempt to raise taxes on business, while making the U.S. tax code even more complex. The Obama and Schumer plans to punish businesses for moving their legal domicile overseas will arrive even as a new international ranking shows that the U.S. tax burden on business is close to the worst in the industrialized world. Way to go, Washington. … On Monday the Tax Foundation, which manages the widely followed State Business Tax Climate Index, will launch a new global benchmark, the International Tax Competitiveness Index. According to the foundation, the new index measures “the extent to which a country’s tax system adheres to two important principles of tax policy: competitiveness and neutrality.” (chart filched from the article) – gjr]

Posted in Comment Sandbox

61 responses to “Sandbox – 15sep14”

Walt

18 September 2014

Seems the elected and appointed LIBS really don’t want the people to know just how much danger we are in due to the Southern boarder insecurity.
HELL! Word has it just South of the TX. boarder the terrorists have operational
facilities. And here we thought Mex. was our friend. Seems they are allowing this to happen.
Never mind the four that were caught, it’s the untold hundreds that have already made it here.
The publics right to know supersedes saving seats in NOV. That may change if an attack happens before then. Do they ever think about that?

LikeLike
Bill Tozer

18 September 2014

The war for more poverty should really heat up if Scotland votes to go independent. Since Scotland is a left of center country and is upset with not getting enough welfare being in the United Kingdom, this should be interesting. A yes vote from disenchanted voters means a vote for more government handouts.
The new independent Scotland will not be part of the EU automatically, which means that their Scotch will lose all protections and generous export tariff monopoly. Right now Scotch can be made only in Scotland with no imitations or counterfeits allowed. Say goodbye to those protections.
Guess they are left alone to defend their own country and do their own socialized medicine alone as they deliver the promised expansion of the welfare and step up the war for poverty. Maybe they will tax the plaid off of their number one ag export, Scotch. Heck, folks outside of Russia make potato vodka now, and soon folks outside of Scotland will be making…….
And no, they cannot use the sterling as currency. Gotta print their own and form their own Federal Reserve, it they can muster together any reserve. All hail the war for poverty…

LikeLike
Don Bessee

18 September 2014

The water grab by the southland and moonbeam is not well understood. I have people calling and asking if they really cut off water to the pot growers thinking this is a good thing. The lefty spin goes on and on. Just was made aware that over on lefty jeffys that the pot heads are again trying to speak for the anti-drug coalition. The head shop owner that is hosting the Yes on S headquarters has trolled our meetings as a ‘parent’ and has used it to try and learn our plans and to spread disinformation. Now they want to bitch that I called em out as liars. The dreadlocked owner is not a member of our Steering Committee as he claimed in the Union when he opened his head shop. When the official ballot statements come out the NO on S team is comprised of the Sheriff, Supervisors Anderson, Beason, Scofield, Weston and Ariel Lovett the Director of the Coalition for a Drug Free Nevada County. The Yes on S is Danny W. Wheat, Jami Hopper of Rare Earth, Pattie Smith and lawyers Munkelt and Jenifer Granger. The reply to the Official No on S is by the head shop owner who signs as a member of the Drug Free Coalition. They are feeling threatened because I make the point that Pattie Smith as the yes on S boss in the paper work better make sure she follows the FPPC rules. Shame on me for having an expectation they keep to the rules. They don’t now so why should I expect they to do it in the election? The International Faith Based Coalition will have a Press Release very soon. The IFBC does not have the same grant restrictions the local Coalition has. The pot heads are so deluded that they think people will buy that the drug free Coalition is suddenly pro S despite the years of suppressing access to drugs.

LikeLike
George Rebane

18 September 2014

DonB 1011pm – Thanks for the comment and clarification Don. I think the readers would be better served if you reposted this comment under ‘Marijuana Ordinance Utility …’ where this discussion is very active, and in which comment stream Ms Patricia Smith just posted a long comment (link below) that takes you to task. This would provide some continuity in this exchange.
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2014/09/marijuana-ordinance-utilitycriteria/comments/page/2/#comments

LikeLike
Walt

19 September 2014

RL strikes again. Love the latest edition. But the Sheriff’s “star” should have looked more like a pot leaf.

LikeLike
Don Bessee

19 September 2014

The Measure S debate is back on 6pm Tuesday at the Rood Center.

LikeLike
Walt

19 September 2014

Well life imitates art once again. The Simpsons movie from 2007 looks like today.
Just take Arnold out, and insert “O”, the rest is pretty much accurate.

LikeLike
Walt

24 September 2014

Greedy government in our own backyard. Watch it nature lovers, be careful where you aim that camera.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/24/feds-could-fine-you-1000-for-taking-an-unauthorized-photo-on-wild-lands/

LikeLike
George Rebane

24 September 2014

Walt 606pm – “Greedy government” my ass! Another scumbag agency stepping out to remove our freedoms and fill their coffers. These lands are public lands – remember ‘we the people’? – and the public is free to use them for private enjoyment or commercial purposes. But if the affected commercial interests buckle with a whimper, then we indeed don’t deserve our freedoms and the Great Experiment left into our care by the Founders will fail – Man is not fit to govern himself.
Good pick-up Walt.

LikeLike
RL Crabb

24 September 2014

Don’t tax him. Don’t tax me. Tax that picture of a tree.

LikeLike
Walt

24 September 2014

Vary USSR like. ” It belongs to the people… But we will say just which people can use it. ”
There is a National park in Hawaii that is accessed by PERMIT ONLY. We were lucky enough to be one of the few this year to visit. And even there, photography was(is) limited to specific arias. It is forbidden to photograph the residents, even by accident. ( The leper colony)
When the last resident passes, I’m pretty sure it will be turned into a “retreat” for the top dogs of the park service.
But right here, taking a pic. of a bear and “selling” the pic. to a tourist is WAY over the top.

LikeLike