Black militia group wants to arrest Trayvon Martin shooter

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Does that invitation include funding that benefits a certain shipping/logistics company's operations, funding that .GOV uses to help make sure that company treats its employees fairly, and also funding that the GSA awarded to that company for a government contract that expires in 2014?

I believe you've mixed the shape and/or color of your dots. You have the link to the (11+MB, yeah, thanks) download of the DOT 2013 budget, replete with POTUS' lofty rhetoric, you have the database reflecting court/out-of-court settlements between aggrieved workers and their employer (UPS), and a simple recording of a GSA contract between big-G and UPS for services.

Please connect the dots as relates to "grants" which seldom, in my experience, turn out to be free (of strings) by the Great Benefactor in Washington DC. I believe Grateful Citizen was speaking to that.

The bleating in this state by some over our current Governor is because, among other things, he "broke a contract over the light-rail project that already had the go-ahead (from previous gov)." Not true; what new Gov did was tell Big-G not to send any more of their money - the project was bloated and he, like many state governors, understands the implied tribute/conformance to be paid later. More state chief execs should grow a similar set; TX and AZ have theirs as well and could serve as regional examples.

This kind of game has been going around since the first kid said, "I'll buy you an ice cream but you gotta be my friend" and the ice cream was accepted. Sometimes the ice cream ain't worth it.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Does that invitation include funding that benefits a certain shipping/logistics company's operations, funding that .GOV uses to help make sure that company treats its employees fairly, and also funding that the GSA awarded to that company for a government contract that expires in 2014?

Well, the analogies need to be made congruent.
Also, arriving at a decision involves considering all of the pertinent roles and circles of influence.

In the case of the federal government and the Arizona government, it is within my circle of influence from 2 directions.
I am a shareholder of both the federal government and the Arizona government.

As a shareholder of the federal government, I want non-defense spending (as a percentage of GDP) to be reduced.
It would follow that I am generally against grants to any/all of the states.

As a shareholder of the Arizona government, I want the federal government to stay out of our business (especially when it comes to gun/self-defense laws).
It would follow that I am specifically against grants with strings attached meddling in gun/self-defense laws.


In the case of the federal government and UPS, it is within my circle of influence from 1 direction.
I am a shareholder of the federal government but I am not a shareholder nor a bondholder of UPS.

Concerning the DOT:
-The DOT as a whole should be scrapped and the powers/spending rescinded entirely.
-It is a waste of money.

Concerning the contractor misconduct:
-Obligation of contracts should be enforced.
-This is a valid function of government.

Concerning the GSA contract:
-If the federal government is going to spend money for a service, it should use the provider which delivers sufficient service at the least cost.

In the hypothetical case that I was a shareholder/bondholder of UPS:
-I would want government spending as a percentage of GDP to decrease.
-This would result in greater economic growth which benefits UPS because they get a piece of almost all domestic commerce.

As a UPS driver, the issues you cited are not within my circle of influence.
They may or may not have a significant effect in that realm, but how I would deal with any effects involves decisions within a much smaller/local circle of influence.

[afchic]

There is no way this will brought to the floor for a vote, especially in this political environment. All the Dems are doing is squacking hoping to make political points. For the same reason Repub leadership will never allow this to go forward.

[plato]

Just to be contrary..... Who, me? I've fired off a couple of emails to my senators asking them how they feel about the Gov taxing me and then letting me have some of my money back only if the congresscritters from other states like the way I act. I gotta see how they weasel-word the reply

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Badger52

I believe you've mixed the shape and/or color of your dots. You have the link to the (11+MB, yeah, thanks) download of the DOT 2013 budget, replete with POTUS' lofty rhetoric, you have the database reflecting court/out-of-court settlements between aggrieved workers and their employer (UPS), and a simple recording of a GSA contract between big-G and UPS for services.

Please connect the dots as relates to "grants" which seldom, in my experience, turn out to be free (of strings) by the Great Benefactor in Washington DC. I believe Grateful Citizen was speaking to that.

The bleating in this state by some over our current Governor is because, among other things, he "broke a contract over the light-rail project that already had the go-ahead (from previous gov)." Not true; what new Gov did was tell Big-G not to send any more of their money - the project was bloated and he, like many state governors, understands the implied tribute/conformance to be paid later. More state chief execs should grow a similar set; TX and AZ have theirs as well and could serve as regional examples.

This kind of game has been going around since the first kid said, "I'll buy you an ice cream but you gotta be my friend" and the ice cream was accepted. Sometimes the ice cream ain't worth it.

The common factor is the fact that UPS and its employees benefit directly from funding from the federal government.

A strident argument for limiting the power the federal government has over states through such funding (as offered in post #437) works better if it at least acknowledges the tension between that position and how one makes a living.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

The common factor is the fact that UPS and its employees benefit directly from funding from the federal government.

A strident argument for limiting the power the federal government has over states through such funding (as offered in post #437) works better if it at least acknowledges the tension between that position and how one makes a living.

I don't vote based on myopic self-interest.
Anyone who does so is a fool.

If voters delegate to the federal government the authority to meddle with their neighbors, they should not be suprised when that authority is used against them.
This applies to self-defense laws or resources confiscated through the spending of fiat currency.

The federal government wants the people to be predictable and dependent, so they can change the rules faster than the people can adjust.
An abundance of diverse state governments competing for productive citizens give the people ways to avoid the heavy hand of tyranny.

Government should be predictable and slow-moving.
Top domestic priorities should be enforcement of contracts and protection of private property (which would logically include your ability to protect your life).

This results in the rule of law, rather than mob rule, elite rule, and the inevitable consequence thereof: despotism.

[Peregrino]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

The common factor is the fact that UPS and its employees benefit directly from funding from the federal government.

A strident argument for limiting the power the federal government has over states through such funding (as offered in post #437) works better if it at least acknowledges the tension between that position and how one makes a living.

Is the Federal Government funding UPS (a la the USPS) or is it purchasing a service (spending money to contract deliveries)? I think you've created an apples/oranges situation.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

Is the Federal Government funding UPS (a la the USPS) or is it purchasing a service (spending money to contract deliveries)? I think you've created an apples/oranges situation.

Not sure how significant those federal contracts are to a private shipping company which makes north of $50 billion/year in revenue.

[Streck-Fu]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

Not sure how significant those federal contracts are to a private shipping company which makes north of $50 billion/year in revenue.

They can still be very significant.

[tonyz]

New developments.

ABC World News
Diane Saywer
May 15, 2012

"A medical report compiled by the family physician of Trayvon Martin shooter George Zimmerman and obtained exclusively by ABC News found that Zimmerman was diagnosed with a "closed fracture" of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury the day after he fatally shot Martin during an alleged altercation."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimm...ry?id=16353532

I heard this on talk radio yesterday. They claim profiling and stalking. This can carry the death penalty.

I guess the FBI hasn't had any luck with high profile cases recently, so they are considering all their options with this one.

http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.a...81474981334598

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Sarski

I heard this on talk radio yesterday. They claim profiling and stalking. This can carry the death penalty.

I guess the FBI hasn't had any luck with high profile cases recently, so they are considering all their options with this one.

http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.a...81474981334598

If he doesn't absolutely get the max possible sentence for whatever the charge, there will be severe rioting, especially if it happens in July/August when it's hot.

Originally Posted by Dusty

If he doesn't absolutely get the max possible sentence for whatever the charge, there will be severe rioting, especially if it happens in July/August when it's hot.

The only way to avoid that or at least begin prelim damage control now, is a trial in which GZ has his "day in court."