Dan J

might become popular (if it's not this current bill mind you) because morons are easily lured into the trap of 'freebies.'

I personally don't feel like sacrificing quality for quantity nor do I like the idea of being denied coverage for something I actually want/going through a government bureaucracy like medicare/medicaid....

You would prefer to be denied coverage because you are not profitable

80% of the interest on the national debt is because of the military and Homeland Security, half of NASA and the FBI are military programs.

The chart is a piece of #######.

At least the recent debt we have incurred interest on has to do with military spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, in addition to the Bush Tax cuts. As far as the money used in the economic recovery that has just been borrowed and has yet only incurred a small amount of interest. It will in time grow to be a larger piece of the pie.

With the taxes he pays, there will be others who are wealthy who will follow him who don't want to pay for Obamacare and the rest of his programs. There are a lot of American expats there and in Panama. Rush can easily broadcast from Costa Rica but people will say he's even more out of touch.

A lot of people already do go overseas for medical care. But not to protested the american system, but because its the only care they can afford.

Easiest question of the day. Democrats are responsible.

By implementing the taxes that forced American companies to move manufacturing overseas to avoid the taxes, we simply shifted the manufacturing to a country with less environmental regulation. Brilliant move. Had they stayed here where the emissions were always lower and they employed Americans, it woul dbe easier to regulate emissions which business would tolerate if they were also not taxed to death. We should end all taxes on corporations now and bring those jobs back here (plus many more as we would be THE tax shelter for all manufacturers) and reduce those emissions. This would also fix the health care problem for the largest part and the illegal immigration problem. All without the government doing a thing except eliminating taxes.

Liberals won't favor that either. They really don't care about the environment because they really know global warming is a hoax. They are only concerned with increasing the role of government and increasing employment is not a good way to do that.

Taxes or not, manufacturing is going where labor is the cheapest since most of the work is repetitive and easily to train for. The only time it stays here is if the shipping costs outweigh the savings on labor.

Other than the cold winters, its a decent place to live. Around Minneapolis, winter temps generally stay above zero, but sometimes wind chill can send it lower.

As far as anything else, it depends what you are looking for in a city.

I really wouldn't go around touting an article of what "America thinks" the rest of the world views us as...

Either way, I'm still trying to figure out why we give a damn what the rest of the world thinks of us. Why should any nation care what the rest of the world thinks of them. Do what's right by your people and what works for you as a nation... not what everyone else 'thinks' you should be doing....

The only time the opinion should even matter is if you're going off and attacking foreign lands or occupying other nations.... oh wait... nvm

Public diplomacy can be quite a valuable tool in deterring public support for terrorism.

Usually Democrats and liberals say Palin is stupid. Why would that change because she went to Canada for health care?

Is it more proof she is stupid? Or is now proof she is smart? Maybe Democrats will vote for her now?

What a stupid thing to focus on.

This has nothing to do with lack of intelligence. This just has to do Republican mantra, Do as I say, not as I do.

Some people use Distilled water for the cooling , because Distilled Water will never boil due to the heat of the computer . Make sure its always filled with water . Maybe this was the problem your friend had .

Distilled water will boil if it gets hot enough, but if your computer is that hot, you have problems.

???

We all know that earning power for most people has significantly decreased to the point where many households require both adults to work in order survive. As this trend continues, there will need to be more earners in the household to just survive.

Most people would probably move in with family if available. But i can definitely see some people going the polyamorous route instead.

Multiple partners is going to be the next bandwagon issue 'forced' upon us. The same group of folks will come out and say 'what right do you have to tell someone how to live yada yada yada'.. The rest of us will then basically have to just take that too..

Forced? I think it might happen out of economic necessity.

Hi,

I have been under the impression that my husband (he's the immigrant and we are currently and finally in the US), couldn't apply for federal aid when he goes to school because of the part in the I864 that says he's not eligible for some means tested public benefits. However, when I looked at it today, it looks like that doesn't apply to programs under the secondary education act. Does anyone know what this act is and says? If he can apply, I should get that FAFSA done ASAP!

Thanks,

Laura

He can apply for the FAFSA. All it does it determine eligibility for grants and subsidized loans.

At certain times and places not only was/is homosexuality acceptable but pedaphilia was/is as well.

Even in the most "civilized" places.

And you get there one step at a time.

When you talk about pedophila are you talking about women getting married when they were young (12-13) which had al ot to do with life expectancy. Or adults preying on children, which usually involves an unwilling participant (A violation of human rights), something homosexuality does not have.

REPOST

U.S. Supreme Court

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)

Bowers v. Hardwick

No. 85-140

Argued March 31, 1986

Decided June 30, 1986

478 U.S. 186

Syllabus

After being charged with violating the Georgia statute criminalizing sodomy by committing that act with another adult male in the bedroom of his home, respondent Hardwick (respondent) brought suit in Federal District Court, challenging the constitutionality of the statute insofar as it criminalized consensual sodomy. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the Georgia statute violated respondent's fundamental rights.

Held: The Georgia statute is constitutional. Pp. 478 U. S. 190-196.

(a) The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy. None of the fundamental rights announced in this Court's prior cases involving family relationships, marriage, or procreation bear any resemblance to the right asserted in this case. And any claim that those cases stand for the proposition that any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable. Pp. 478 U. S. 190-191.

(b) Against a background in which many States have criminalized sodomy and still do, to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" is, at best, facetious. Pp. 478 U. S. 191-194.

© There should be great resistance to expand the reach of the Due Process Clauses to cover new fundamental rights. Otherwise, the Judiciary necessarily would take upon itself further authority to govern the country without constitutional authority. The claimed right in this case falls far short of overcoming this resistance. Pp. 478 U. S. 194-195.

(d) The fact that homosexual conduct occurs in the privacy of the home does not affect the result. Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S. 557, distinguished. Pp. 478 U. S. 195-196.

(e) Sodomy laws should not be invalidated on the asserted basis that majority belief that sodomy is immoral is an inadequate rationale to support the laws. P. 478 U. S. 196.

760 F.2d 1202, reversed.

Page 478 U. S. 187

Source: http://supreme.justia.com/us/478/186/index.html

This is currently legal precedent.

This statement refers to morality, and that morality asserted against sodomy is from religion. Claims that law is apart from religion in the US are false.

And in time, these kinds of precedence and laws are repealed. Why do you think religious groups have pushed to define marriage in state/federal constitutions, its harder to repeal.They know that they will eventually fall out of favor, and want to hang on imposing their morality as long as possible.

Let me slow the ball down, with you it is at least possible to converse.

Someone pointed out all the countries which Gay marriage has worked out so well, to that I made several points.

1. Homosexual marriage is fairly new in these countries only a few decades old at the most, hardly what anyone could call the -test of time.

2. Most of these same countries, have a double wammy going on. A. they are in a birth-rate nose dive which means their numbers are in decline and before long their voice and vote will be but a minority in these same countries. B. These same countries which have embraced Gay marriage are also importing lots of people from parts of the world which do not, I repeat DO NOT embrace all things Gay.

These same people are very fertile, soon they will out number the Republican Guard of Gay rights across Europe.

In other words, if this were a publicly held Stock... would you buy long-term?

There was a time when it wasn't acceptable to be gay anywhere in the world. ###### changes, live with it.

The here and now doesn't need gay marriage nor knuckle dragging creaton liberals. Both are regressive and from a time when there was no law or order.

Why do you hate freedom?

It baffles me how people can believe that "climate change" can destroy a society, but willfully weakening family structures can't. A lot of the western nations that have embraced gay marriage have merely given up. Too many have abandoned God, nannyisms have torn the fabric of their traditions and marriage is becoming an old fashioned notion for the young. Not a model to strive for. Europhilia, to the point of remaking your own culture to be more like those in decline, is more than a bit troubling. Not a model to strive for.

Climate change can affect very basic needs, from safety to food availability. The need for religion or social order is a much higher level need.

Ironically, the move to secularization in Europe has been the primary the result of state sponsored religion. Where as religion is a protected right in the US, and it sort of flourishes in an evolutionary way, constantly changing to meet the needs of its followers. If churches in the US attempt to assert themselves too much politically, which they have been through the Republican party, we will see a similar secularization of the US. We already are showing signs of that happening. The fastest growing religious group in the US, is no religion (Atheists, agnostics, deists, and other not religious groups).

Stable Population? which countries are you referring to?

Having children is a personal choice, maintaining a nations population.... it is a necessity.

Without having kids, you are left to importing other people to work and pay for those "social programs" you mentioned.

This is the modern story of Europe.

It baffles me how intelligent people can plot the complexities of Global warming but this simple math equation doesn't phase them.

You are making the assumption that the population growth will continue to decline instead of stabilize at a neutral rate. There is a period of transition in which the older generation may have more people than the younger generations, but as the older generation passes on, it will equal out. So there might be a need for extra workers to take care of the older generation until they do pass on, but it will not be a constant need, only a need during a transition. Its somewhat exacerbated with the baby boom following WW2.

True, and you might note, I never said it was.

Embracing Homosexuality is merely a symptom of a declining culture, again take not of those who embrace it and compare their birthrate.

When 4 grandparents are all sharing a single grandchild, I would say the writing is on the wall.

Spin that MC

How do we get from declining population to declining culture?

There is nothing wrong with a stable population, we can't keep expanding population and expect we will continue to have the resources to feed them. The shift to a lower growth rate has everything to do with economics and very little to do with culture. As an economy matures and there and social programs replace family as a means of retirement, there is no longer a need to have a lot of kids. Having children becomes of a choice than a necessity.

Gradual changes work over time without government intervention.

Government can't 'spend' its way out of a recession. Especially by giving rebates to the wrong people.

Even with the rebate, most people can't afford to get those changes done anyway, nor can many who can wait til the next tax season to get their rebate.

You can't just offer rebate to the individual when the product costs the same price.

You need to envigorate business by giving tax incentives to companies who's aim to give the best price available and give them a means to lower their prices to the consumer with tax breaks. Especially in the sense that many of these construction companies are small businesses who are stuck paying the corporate tax rate OR the owner is stuck paying the individual tax rate based on his revenue (either way is pretty crappy). Lower the tax rate for small businesses who incorporate and that will help greatly. The better deals they can offer, the more they can advertise, the more people can afford to buy it, and the more people they can hire... The cycle goes round and round...

Granted, all of this is pointless if all the manufactured materials are being made overseas.... Can't start up an economy when the manufacturing sector is still in the wrong place.

The only way the economy is going to recover is to get people who have money to spend to actually spend it. Of course there are people who right now could not afford this, but its not for them.

Tax incentives to businesses don't work, there is little incentive to put the money saved back to work in the economy. What the company saves from the tax incentive will more likely stay in a company's cash reserve.

Are you teaching how to safely "rim" at your school?

Of course I'm not sure what age your students are but as you can see from the vids, ... you can't start teaching the joy and pride of gay life soon enough.

http://massresistance.com/media/video/brainwashing.html

Apparently you have been brainwashed, this is the umpteenth post with the same video link.

societies around the world are crumbling.....and I cant see making gay union the same as marriage making it any better....I do see it as having a weakening effect on the family unit of mum dad and the kids....just as the divorce pandemic has done.

Your argument is just your perspective. Older generations often see the culture of the younger generations as declining, not because its actually a problem, but because the culture young people adapt is often much different from their parents.

If your acceptable music is church hymns, than rock music is terrible. Its been around for 50 years, has that destroyed society, depends who you ask. And the same even a generation forward, if you grew up on the Beatles and the Who, popular music today is probably just as discomforting.

There is one thing that is constant in society and culture, and its change. Your generation made culture of its own, just like your kids (if you have any) will do the same.

I dont know what effect it would have on society. So lets give it a try. Lets make gay marriage the same as hetero marriage. gay couples can adopt as many children as they like. Gay sexuality can be taught at school on an equal time basis with hetero. Lets promote gay marriage and gay sexuality as a normal, valid, healthy expression of a union equal in all respects to hetero marriage. Then in 50 years time if we see it has had a negative effect in society, lets just wind back the clock....... At the same time lets open the US borders to anyone and everyone and see how that works too shall we.

Pretty much the same arguments used against gay marriage were used against ending segregation and giving equal rights to blacks during the civil rights era. We are now 40 years past that, has society collapsed yet? Not at all.

There are some on the fringes of society that have problems with it. But for the most part, people have adjusted.

You don't have to wind the clock forward 50 yrs to see what happens. You only have to open your eyes to societies around the world that already allow it and see they haven't crumbled to the ground in heaps of immorality and decay.

-Blu-

Equality is immoral and a sign of decay. Get it right

World history isn't relevant to this discussion, so the only reason to insert it is so you can ignore American history. In American history, legitimizing gay marriage would be a major redefinition of marriage and a substantive culture shift.

I wish you folks would stop ofuscating; it's so gauche.

There was a point in the US, were marriage was defined as a between two people of the same race. People were protesting and hated that, and it even popped up again just a few months ago.

A religious institution of marriage and legal institution of marriage are two different things in this country. Just getting married in a church does not automatically grant the legal benefits of being married.

Changing the legal definition of marriage does not infringe on your right to practice the religious institution of marriage in any way you see fit.

And yet...you continue to do nothing towards proving your assumptions about the welfare of society if gays were allowed to marry.

I have now asked you repeatedly to list your reasons for the benefit and/or amusement for all the readers of this thread and you have only listed on thing...which was shot down mercilessly. Can you list more? Can you cite historical references? Or are your assumptions only that, based on your religeous and/or prejudcial thought processes?

-Blu-

It will go no where, as its often in the eye of the beholder. A more free society which moves away from legislating morality is consider a decline in society by some.

gay lovers: 0 unless you count "feelings". Those were some seriously piss poor responses, not grounded in reality or historical perspective. Is it considered analytical these days to disregard anything other than how you want thongs to be when considering a question?

Right, history has shown that the definition of marriage has changed and will keep on changing it has also shown that it does not belong to one culture, religion or otherwise. You are ignoring history and reality, if you think that people are going to always see marriage the way you see it.