jackson33

Probably the single most important difference in Texas and most all other States, is the general attitude toward business or said differently they are business friendly. Second would be no State Income Tax and third they allow the many Counties to regulate their own affairs. All this then leading to many of your conclusion. 1- Texas Corporate Taxes are -0-, as is Washington State, SD, Nevada and Wyoming. California is near 9% and based from the first dollar of profit. Then by comparison, permits for most any project are easy to obtain, local courts cooperative and few disputes reach the National Courts, based on Texas precedence, hard for extremist groups to fight in a State already with major oil refineries or chemical plants. Additionally California is in the 9th District Court of Appeals and Texas is in the the 5th. http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/state_corp_income_rates-20100325.pdf Then Texas, is a "Right to Work State" restricting union activity, where as California is not. http://www.nrtw.org/ 2- In California, every person with a net income (pay minus deductions) pays a tax and has a millionaires tax, giving it the highest marginal tax rates in the Country, 10.55%. Texas has none. http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/state-taxes-california.aspx 3- Zoning, Alcohol and other laws normally controlled by States (California) are done at the County level in Texas. Dallas for instance is partially dry in one County and wide open in their other County and Houston, has very relaxed zoning laws, non existent until recently. Summery; Texas, has by no means always been Conservative, in fact quite Liberal until Bush beat out Ma Richards for Governor in the early 90's. However at about the same time States began increasing taxes, regulations, Lyndon Johnson's (a Texan) welfare programs were kicking in Nationwide and Texas just happened to be in the best position to attract business and the jobs. Think there going to be redistricting four House Seat next year and will probably remain Republican for some time.

Some things I don't think any of you are considering, but generally speaking, IMO and with the regards to the Canadian problems, nec is more correct than most here, on this issue...

Okay CR, lets take Mr. Smith and apply the El-Al system. The agent knowing his name ask a couple leading questions that can easily be verified. If warranted, the flyer is perceived nervous or uncomfortable, the agent will simply verify the answers and I feel sure their hooked directly to more than one source to do just that. That is if Mr. Smith is flying to Germany on Business, but is unemployed...well you get the picture. Obviously if Mr. Smith had converted to any form of Radical Islam, changing his name (legally or not), been active in Internet or Mosque activity, groping him would make NO difference and the point of my argument. Yes, I'm aware of Ms. Napolitano, her desire to become a Supreme Court Justice and how she is able to articulate the Presidents personal viewpoints. In fact, while Governor of Arizona she articulated the exact opposite on many issues. I don't doubt there are plenty of, other than Radical Muslims to be PC, that have it in for Americans and for any number of reasons, here or elsewhere, but the odds of planning an attack here on behalf of a specific group based overseas is extremely improbable, in my opinion. As for being inspired BY, that's very difficulty to argue, many people are inspired to do many things seen/heard/read over any media, actually committing many crimes on a daily basis. padren; The operative phrase was "to satisfy Muslim Law" and yes in more than a few cases, Muslim Ladies have been required to show a face to get a Drivers License, ID Card, receive welfare or many other things. Making adjustments, in my mind indicates a desire to make changes, which as said, I don't believe will be permitted. I am NOT concerned about any religion (of all things) changing our legal system.

Pangloss not knowing where you wishing to go with the topic, IMO the original intent (2001) and purpose for the TSA has long been lost. Briefly it's ineffective and has simply become an excuse for another Government arm into the affairs of American Business and the rights of Americans, worse yet will soon become far too costly for any Airline to substitute the Governments system.

blackhole; Science itself stemmed from Philosophy and Philosophy from religion, they were/have always been directly or indirectly related in some manner whether the intentions were to promote via understanding or proving the understandable. The young lady, from "Church Elder", tells me she is probably a Morman, possibly Jewish but both opposed to any justification to satanic worshiping, which I believe was the argument used, over the Harry Potter Books/Movies. While I would disagree with the message, I doubt the Elder was concerned with her changing character or being influenced, rather buying the Book, would be an act of endorsement. As for Scientist being Religious, I believe the figure is near the general publics figure of 85% are to some degree religious and there is virtually no empirical "rationality or evidence" to support any of the major Religions, basically a faith based understanding of existence. A person can easily believe humans evolved through "Evolution" or in thousands of Scientific Laws/Theory, yet maintain a belief in what constitutes a beginning and end to humanity. My two cents anyway and my only concern would be to accept the notion a religious person should not advance their science interest because they have religious convictions.

Looking at the same information available to the Bush Administration, the Senate Voted 77-23 basically saying they agreed with THAT information.

At "The Keys" request;

bascule, until 2007 with relation to the GDP the Nation had very little problem with deficits (60-65% of GDP) and in agreeing Government can play a role, spending during good times can play a positive role or to discourage inflation cutting back a bit. Yes, TODAY the problems are both spending and revenues, but the question we've been arguing over for over years is how to increase economic activity (GDP), to get through the problem. The used method has been to use Government and it has simply not worked, GDP stagnant and then basically only Federal spending. Keynesian Economics, if you wish. If you increase taxes at this point, your simply drawing from a flat economy, leading to more job loses, less investments and further declines. It's a toss up on how effective it will be, since Government must cut back (will not help the economy), however the private sector does have a great deal of $$$ to work with, the Government(s) has/have nothing and the idea is to give a green light/ confidence to business and the CONSUMER to participate. None of them have any idea what there taxes will be next year, now going into the Christmas buying season, where normally over half small business shows a profit. I disagree with you blaming Bush, short of TARP and HIS "Prescription Drug Bill", even though TARP money has pretty much been repaid but those days are gone. The problems today are much greater, with ever greater problems coming in the form Health Care and Finance Reform, which both lead to that lack of confidence. With out trying to prove this point, when your researching the 2000's keep in mind the increases in entitlements, welfare and military spending or mandatory spending which has been steadily increasing and WILL be getting much worse. IMO, neither Bush or Obama has taken this problem seriously.

bascule;On the "Bush Tax Cuts", what is there to compromise, if one side wants to make them permanent as is now and the other side in any way wants targeted increases in taxes. Seems kind of cut and dry to me, however Cantor also refused to use the word permanent. Cantor's quote, your link but said on Fox News...

CP; One reason, I participate, probably read more, in these political forums is to get the viewpoint of people not from the US. It's vital, yet neither the EU or the North American media IMO give an accurate viewpoint of the political differences, I suggest maybe excluding Fox/Sky News, but this is not the place to suggest that...

I'd rather have seen someone else bring this up Nationally, since his Dad has been behind such moves for many years and Libertarian is sort of a bad word for Conservatives and downright treasonous to the Republican Establishment. However he "the whack job" did place it in the context of "across the board".

nec; It's difficult for me to figure where you are from, but if your in the US what's taught and how is primarily a local issue. I'd like to know which State your from or if not in the US what Country and about how long ago you quit school (needing a GED)? Republicans generally believe k-12 education should remain a local issue and both parties have played with Science and NASA programs. NASA in fact first appeared under Eisenhower, who was a Republican. Are you going to prepare for your GED test or try it on your own? There are many ways to study for a GED, probably some free and it's always a good idea to refresh what you learned in school and getting that GED is an admirable objective, well worth some time to prepare for.