You would get excessive fund allocation to feel good expenses like lgbt parade while starving tax dollars toward boring things like roads.

Yes that is a potential downside.

Lots of people are pretty bad with money.

It could also be structured that you only get to use what you pay into.

To prevent people from wasting money on wants instead of needs.

Plus planned parenthood isn't a government institution.

If planned parenthood is to exist as an institution, it should stand on it's own.

They get taxpayer money though.

Yup.

Imagine if the NRA got a taxpayer money kickback.

And I agree. Same with sports. They should be able to survive on their own without taxpayer money.

Absolutely.

Stadiums shouldn't be allowed to filch a local government of money for a stadium

Or for an Amazon headquarters

Your allocation proposal has the problem of free riders. How do you refuse to defend people in the country from foreign powers? we're either defending the country or we're not

I don't think wealthy industrialists are going to voluntarily fund the welfare state

At best you can convince them "a rising tide lifts all boats", and its hard to make that case when your country has weak borders

A sturdy boat has shiplap walls. - _-

coasta del tanic

The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.
(Psa 119:160)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4R97ukIgUA

The UK Labour party 2018.
White ppl have to pay for tickets while POCs get a free ones.
No male candidates allowed to stand for certain seats.
No private closed groups on the net if they are over a certain size.
No anonymous accounts on social media.
A do over of the largest democratic decision in UK history.
What have I missed?

Redistribution of wealth and no support for the Zionist state of Israel

@Poppy Rider are they members of EPP ? Then they voted for internet censorship

All but one of their MEPs voted in favour of the EU copyright shite.

A good little podcast from Spiked. Talking to a writer about art in the current climate. 1 hour long.
https://soundcloud.com/spikedonline/lionel-shriver-the-brendan-oneill-show

I have a brett kavanaugh question...

Since what he is accused of happened when he was a minor...

If it had been brought up at the time, tried, and convicted...

Anyone with decent representation would have their records sealed... and he was definitely connected...

would his accuser be allowed to bring it up now?

Also at a trial it'd be her word against his, he could say he tried to makea move on her, she rejected him, and that was that

sure, lets ignore those details for now. What I'm trying to figure out is, with hind sight of course...

"Would it be better to be guilty, and convicted as a minor, than innocent and falsely accused as an adult?"

(That's ignoring whether he is innocent or guilty, I'm just using his case as an example to keep from having to describe a full hypothetical.)

Yeah I agree, if he was convicted it'd probably be sealed record

I was a mischievous young hacker and I once plead guilty to a crime. Part of the deal was that I kept out of trouble for a year and a half until I turned 18 and my record would be sealed.

It's my assumption that Wal-Mart couldn't go to my employer now that I'm 40 and say, yeah you shouldn't trust him to do this white hat shit because of what he did to us as a minor.

I don't really know how this works. I grew up poor; didn't have a real lawyer. But my public defender seemed pretty confident that I should take the deal.

All I know is that with my social engineering skills, if I were bret k. and having this accusation made against me, I'd give a testimony before congress that would put the whole thing to rest in under 500 words.

Dont know the circumstances and I cant ask, but I assume if they arrested you they had good evidence