cg2112

Those pictures are Photoshopped.

Oops http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/16/romney-called-for-tax-transparency-in-past-campaigns/ "It's time the biggest-taxing senator in Washington shows the people of Massachusetts how much he pays in taxes," Romney said in April of 1994, according to a report in the Boston Globe.

Roads and bridges: He was talking about infrastructure, that was the whole point. Wouldn't it be really weird for him to be talking about infrastructure, then throw in exactly one sentence in the middle of all that to say that business owners didn't build their own businesses? ...... As far as Romney's taxes go, I think this was a pretty low move by Harry Reid. My guess is that Reid was not being honest. And certainly, I'm not about to claim that Romney didn't pay taxes - but I will say that he released his returns to the McCain campaign, and they chose Palin....

HAHAHAHA If only President Obama had actually said anything remotely like that...

Books and movies, maybe not. I don't know that there was ideology behind Death of a President, though. But as far as being pretty public about violence towards liberals goes - I'm pretty sure Ted Nugent is a conservative, right?

It's even more simple than that. President Obama is a natural born citizen as a result of being born the United States and under its jurisdiction. The citizenship of his mother is irrelevant.

What, exactly, is my "side?" Surely, I have one, but I haven't posted about that here, as far as I know. I guess I don't understand this post at all. Is your argument here since I don't buy every negative thing that Fox News says about President Obama, I probably sit outside 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, waiting patiently for my chance to fellate the President when he leaves for his morning run? Or is it just that it's easier to respond like this when there's nothing left for you to be corrected on?

I have "looked up" what Karl Marx "pushed." Yes. I'm a "dillusional liberal brain dead Obama bot," because I understand history, and know what words mean. The fact that a person believes in some principles that are also held by socialists does not make one a socialist. You clearly believe that President Obama is not a good President. You know who else believes he isn't a good President? The KKK. Shall I assume, then, that since you and the KKK share this ideal, you must be a member of the KKK? You mean "you're," by the way. I don't think you're a "big meanie." I just don't think you know what either Marxism or Socialism actually are. I think you probably have a limited understanding of both history and politics, which is true of so many people, given that last rant there. It's pretty easy to fall back on insults and ranting when you're unable to make a solid point.

President Obama isn't a Marxist. Or a Socialist, or any of those other scary words. One who calls him a Marxism is merely demonstrating that he doesn't know what Marxism is (or Socialism, for that matter). I'm kind of surprised that one redneck racist sheriff so quickly spun up a 7 page thread here so quickly.

Sarcasm

30 seconds of critical thinking made me think "These jokes, in addition to not being terribly funny, are gross exaggerations and misleading representations of any sane Democratic position."

I don't get it.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/geocard.html One should not make too much of the "geographical code." It is not meant to be any kind of useable geographical information. The numbering scheme was designed in 1936 (before computers) to make it easier for SSA to store the applications in our files in Baltimore since the files were organized by regions as well as alphabetically. It was really just a bookkeeping device for our own internal use and was never intended to be anything more than that.

What I think it means? No, not at all. Common sense, though, tells me that making sure some rednecks aren't irritated because the guy selling them rolling papers doesn't speak English is not providing for the general welfare of the United States.

I don't know that this is the case. I know of no federal law requiring English in school. The Supreme Court, however, has ruled that a student cannot be denied an education because he or she cannot speak English. In fact, mandating understanding of English in order to obtain an eduction is a violation of the Civil Rights Act. There is a difference between the actual general welfare of the nation (for instance, maintaining a healthy citizenry) and being annoyed because in the real world you have to encounter people who don't speak the language that you want them to in the way that you want them to.

Our military is voluntary, and should remain that way for all resident. Additionally, these people already pay taxes. While many (maybe most) do not pay income taxes (though some do), they are paying many local and state taxes, and contributing to the economy. This initiative doesn't allow Mexicans to just cross the border illegally to be granted automatic citizenship. If anything, it's a way to allow people who are already functioning members of society to stay here and continue to contribute. Deadbeats, violent criminals, the unemployed and uneducated, etc, aren't eligible. This applies only to a particular subject of illegal immigrants who did not choose to enter this country, but who have become productive members of our society in spite of this. As far as the idea that English must be learned - not only would such a requirement never make it through Congress, I doubt that it would be Constitutional. As far as I know, the federal government does not have the authority to dictate which language residents must speak. A Constitutional amendment must be passed in order to do this, and though such an amendment is proposed by nearly every session of Congress, it has never even come close to passing.

Obama should be impeached for this. Seriously. The fact that he won't deport young adults who were brought here by no choice of their own, are educated, have lived here most of their lives, are functioning, contributing members are our society just makes me sick. He should be taking these people, most of whom have no ties to any country other than the United States, and drop them in the middle of the desert in Mexico. That seems like a fitting punishment for the crime of sitting in a stroller while one's parents crossed the border.

That would be nice. But are high health care costs are largely due to advertising and overhead. Our lack of overall health can be attributed to lifestyle, for sure. But when you look at the rising costs of health care, it's hard to blame those costs on smoking and McDonalds. People smoke less than they used to 15 years ago, not more, and we're becoming better educated about nutrition and exercise. Heart disease, for instance, is on a dramatic decline. Meanwhile, the cost of health care has gone up like 150% over the last 10 years. Our technology is not the most advanced in the world, not across the board. Much of our technology is imported. Our ability to fight HIV, for instance, largely comes from Canada, as does our knowledge of heart health, diabetes, etc. Canada, in fact, has historically has a disproportionately large number of medical breakthroughs and discoveries, despite spending far less than the US for health care. And please, before someone says "But Canadian health care sucks!" you'll be hard pressed to find a large number of Canadians making this complaint. Sean Hannity and G Gordon Liddy aren't Canadian, despite their vast knowledge and always 100% honest account of Canadian health care.

I would. But I'm pretty far left when it comes to health care. All of the industrialized nations that have better health care than us have some sort of universal/single-payer system, and they all spend less than us. In fact, we're the only industrialized nations without universal health care, yet we spend more than anyone else in the world, by far.

That's like once every 10 days. I say: "eh."

None of that is an indicator of who initiated contact.

"Evidence points to Martin. No evidence seems to suggest otherwise. Clear cut." What evidence points to a Martin? The only evidence at all, aside from Zimmerman's statement, about the initiation of contact points to Zimmerman. He was actively following Martin.

Hi Scott, I don't know you at all, but I just wanted to post and say that I'm sorry that you're going through this, and to tell you that you're not alone. My family is going through the same thing, my dad is stage 4 non-small lung cancer. We're not as close as it sounds like you and your dad are, but it still sucks. Sorry, man.

I've been out of town, so I haven't been able to post anything, but I just read through this thread, and it included some really good points, and some of the dumbest shit I've ever read. This kind of stuck out to me (I'm not saying it's a great point or that it's stupid, it really seems like neither to me): I'm really surprised that someone could come to this conclusion. It would seem that after only a couple of minutes of thought, one might consider that homosexuality would be a great way to control an already booming population naturally. If an entire species evolved to be homosexual, sure, that species would go extinct. On the other hand, if a small segment of the population had no desire to physically procreate, you drastically reduce the use of natural resources. The math is pretty simple. Make the (probably erroneous) assumption that, since there are 4,000,000 gay people in the US, there are 2 million couples that cannot procreate. If a couple has two kids, and those two kids each have two kids, and so on and so forth, you're talking about a thousand descendants over 10 generations. Not all that bad. But when you consider back to the 2,000,000 non-procreating hypothetical couples that we have today, you're talking about two billion descendants over 10 generations, just in the US.