kytwell

You are? Cool. Maybe ICE can ask the site administrator for your ISP, as we know this website does not tolerate any illegal activity.

Correct. They were children BROUGHT here. Neither of them are USCs. I'm not blaming the children for being brought here. There is a difference between 'not blaming' and 'rewarding' though. Some of these children are now adults, and must make adult choices. You asked me if I thought they liked this situation? No, I don't think they like their current situation. It is, however, their adult choice to remain here ILLEGALLY!

Walk. Hitchhike. Ride the bus. Catch a ride with somebody else. Maybe even use a foreign driver's license. How were they getting to work before, when they were working illegally? Arizona is not Mississippi, you know!

Well, they say it's controversial in the national news, but almost everybody I've talked with (and I'm in Tucson AZ) is glad she did this. If the president doesn't want us to enforce our national immigration laws, that's his choice. The Gov. of Arizona doesn't want people choosing to stay here illegally to receive state benefits (which cost our state lots of money). Nobody here believes her choice is unreasonable. The president himself said this isn't a path to citizenship, just a promise to stop deporting them for a set time. I believe everybody here (in Arizona and on VJ) favors doing things the legal way, and not rewarding the people that do it the illegal way (especially if it negatively affects people doing it the honest way).

He's predicting low minority turnout. He's not "hoping" for it. Stop lying, Commie Appeaser.

There's no vajajay in the world, that is worth going to prison for.

There's no vajajay in the world, that is worth going to prison for.

I was reading some things and women who were violated orally and anally are classified as rape victims(as they should be) but they don't end up pregnant. Also objects(not a #######) shoved into women's #######, are also classified as rape, but again wouldn't end up pregnant as a result of this type of attack. Some rapists wear condoms, to avoid leaving DNA evidence( I know they can break), but usually don't so those women wouldn't end up pregnant. Maybe this is what that whacko meant by legitimate rape? I know "date" rape may be the most common and these women know their attackers and there's typically some alcohol or drugs involved and at some point the woman says no and anything after is considered rape. I also know a husband can be charged with raping his wife. Not that date or marriage rape isn't "legitimate", but they are the ones I could see sometimes ending up in an unwanted pregnancy.
When most people, who know no victims of rape, hear the word "rape" most conjure up an image of some stranger abducting a woman off the street and forcing himself upon her or breaking into her house or something like this. Is there a statistic somewhere that says how many of these "type" of victims there were of this sort and how many actually ended up pregnant? That would end the debate about how rare or common it actually is.
We classify drunk driving accidents, hand gun related, cancer types, etc. Are rape victims classified too? So that we can have an actual breakdown. I am not trying to diminish anything, a murder victim is a murder victim, a cancer death is a cancer death; no matter how or what was used to kill them. So just as a rape victim is a rape victim, no matter who did it or what method was used. I am just trying to get an actual stat that has them classified into categories, as I can find for the other examples I listed.

If that is how you feel, do not vote for him.
The issue of tax returns is stupid. People such as yourself will find something to complain about, but you already do that. Is there any possibility you would review his released tax returns and then vote for him? Where is the upside to releasing tax returns, especially beyond 3 years?
I would just say "Bite me."

I don't think Romney is that guy.
But I know that Obama isn't.
U.S. politicians suck (with a few rare exceptions).

In order for a statement to be defamation or slander, it has to be false and malicious. There is nothing false about referring to Obama as "The Kenyan" because he is half Kenyan. No different than anyone referring to me as "The Italian", I am half Italian. In order for the use of the term "The Kenyan" to be malicious, you would have to prove that the person using the term intended harm towards the person being referred to as "The Kenyan". I certainly don't see that here, do you? In order to sue someone for defamation or slander you must prove libel, or some type of loss or personal harm, that does not exist either. There are also a whole different set of standards for defamation and slander against public figures, the burden of proof becomes much tougher for a public figure to pursue a defamation or slander case.

you shoulda made the title: Obama unleashing "The ####### Dog" in battleground states

I don't see the moderators supporting your case.

Get over yourself.

Prove it. Show the original birth certificate and release all his school records, and social security records. The apple didn't fall too far from the tree.

And it was too late to edit it to add...not into it
Not one bit. They are diversionary/ wedge issues used by politicians to pit us against one another for their amusement and financial benefit.

And it was too late to edit it to add...not into it
Not one bit. They are diversionary/ wedge issues used by politicians to pit us against one another for their amusement and financial benefit.

Yes, workers with 4 year degrees or better do earn more in the private sector. Those with less education earn more in the public sector. However, the latter being a significantly smaller share in the public vs. the private sector, overall public sector employees earn more than private sector employees. That's not an apples to apples comparison, however. When you compare apples to apples, the picture changes dramatically and - at least for the workers with higher education, working for the government doesn't exactly pay off.
Same goes for the gender gap - if you compare apples to apples you will find that men and women are compensated equally.

That's the calculation. Which is why this number is very misleading.
Right, if you look at comparable men and women - i.e. in the same industry, same education, grade levels, etc. - then there is no pay gap.

Did I say that? I haven't worked at Walmart and don't know what their practices are. I've spoken about my personal experience in corporate America and that personal experience does not support the claim that there's systemic gender discrimination going on. Now, is it possible that there are corporations out there where gender or other discrimination is tolerated or part of the corporate culture even? Yes, that's possible. And if that happens to be the case, then by all means, we ought to do what can be done to stop it. For the record, I have no problem with the LLFP Act.
All that said, the thread started with the claim that women in America get paid 77% of a man's pay for the same work. And that claim is simply false.

Of course. How about a man and a man doing the same job and getting paid differently? Or two women?
There's no rule that says that any two people should get the same paycheck for the same job.

Sowell should be West's VP in 2016.

and how did that work out for the Indians. Illegal imigration was not good for the Indians and it is not good for us.
and how did that work out for the Indians. Illegal imigration was not good for the Indians and it is not good for us.

People shouldn't have kids if they cannot afford to take care of them.
Everyone else shouldn't have to pay for their brat's meals.
Of course you feel that these kids should be taken care of, there are plenty of charities that you can donate to that don't require government intervention.