twowls

You're a funny man, rlogan.
You are so wrapped up in trying to make your point that you don't even realize you could have done it without talking about wankers.

You know what? I was willing to listen to you (although not agree with you on all points) until you wrote this. I may have disagreed, but thought you were coming over as an fairly intelligent and rational chap who felt strongly about this issue.
Did you ever stop to think that some, if not MOST, of the people who complain about the objectification of the female sex on this board are not doing it out of jealousy but disgust with the concept of objectification? Sexism runs rampant in certain sub-fora on this site, and only the most egregious examples get shut down because of the very "plausible deniability" you denounce. It's all in good fun, oh, we're all chaps here, etc etc. The vilest examples make men look like bullies, idiots and thugs. By all means, praise your wife to the stars -- women LOVE to hear men praising women. Really. REALLY! What many of us -- both women and the men you claim are attacking you for your choice of spouse -- do not like to hear is how all other women are tramps, slatternly, inconsiderate, ballbusting, etc etc forever and ever amen.
I have never come across you, have no idea what you have posted about your wife, and I won't go looking for your posts. Your comment about the desirability of fifty-year-old women was also rather tacky (and believe me, I have many, many years to go until I reach that milestone). I know you will certainly care not a fig for my opinion, but I feel inserting your comment here has done you a great disservice.

Actually, the topic is being interpreted as a bait post by you but in and of itself it is not a bait post. It is a news story that states an organization stating it has lots of supporters financing it actually has few supporters with big pockets financing it. The 'attribution' of attitudes about the content of the article to individuals has not been made by Steven but by others who are making suppositions totally unrelated to the article in question. The article - and the included links - clearly state 'immigration' - not 'illegal-immigration'. The groups involved are not anti-illegal immigration only - they target both legal and illegal immigrants. The members here have turned it around to assume the group does not mean legal immigrant, only illegal immigrants and are using that to attack the OP. That is not what is presented in the article nor the links. Therefore, the comments being made are baiting and they are trolling as they are distorting the information presented in the article to be used as an attack on the OP.

oh Geez - Mr. B publishing some more stuff. I wonder what data he was using, what survey he pilfered this time? Or did he fund his own 'data collection' process this time?

As my good friend Scandal once implied, people tend to copy what works well. Therefore, it's no coincidence that no one wants US style freedom. Actually it's the butt of jokes abroad. I am sure you think who cares but, like I said, developed countries tend to copy what works best and they have avoided that like the plague.

Finances and money are very important aspects of a successful relationship. You are being very mature placing a high regard for those and your future lives together. Your relationship will only grow stronger due to these hardships and then when you are both ready to tackle the future together, you will.
Some folks just listen to their hearts and then find themselves at wit's end and their relationship suffers. Stay the course, you'll get through it.

Unlike Republican talkshow hosts of course, many who are dropouts or have no college education whatsoever. Nothing wrong with that either, but then don't claim you know everything about economics. I heard that tea-party candidate from Delaware claim Keynesian economics does not work. Seems to have worked well during the depression and to keep China steaming ahead. When I looked at her background, she had dropped out of her "communications" major in 93.
Professors are not the problem here, the issue is that intelligent people have become full of doubt, while the fools who know nothing cocksure. Palin might be a pretty-face, be she knows FA about economics. On the other hand, the two wealthiest people in the world are democrats. Personally I tend to want to listen to people much smarter and wealthier than me.

No, it's not so difficult.

Kathryn, most of the most egregious racist comments do not require any national experience, they are universal, yet you ignore them and claim some sort of national context. It's not that hard, if you don't understand the context of it, then maybe you should not be levying a decision based upon limited comprehension. I understand you are doing the best you can, but if you are making decisions based upon limited understanding and information, you should maybe recuse yourself or consult those who do.

What is or isn't racist is quite clear. Yes, the opinions vary between individuals but that's because lots of individuals are racist and tend to be "ok" with their own racism and not see it as racism.

Buscador beat me to it! I said that deliberately though. Many were Deists but hardly Christians. More from what Buscador quoted:
Consider this: IF indeed the members of the First Continental Congress were all bible-believing, "God-fearing" men, would there ever have been a revolution at all?
"For rebellion as is the sin of witchcraft."  1 Samuel, 15:23
Would they have initiated a rebellion if indeed they thought it was equal to witchcraft (a crime punishable by death)?  But that's only the tip of the iceberg.  The New Testament gives clear instructions to Christians on how to behave when ruled under a monarchy, as were the Founders.
1 Peter 2:13:  "For the Lord's sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right."
Paul wrote in Romans 13:1:  "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God.  Therefore whoever resist authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."
The Founders clearly did not heed what was written in the bible.  If they were in fact "good" Christians, there would never have been an American Revolution.  Compare the above passages with the Declaration of Independence:
"...when a long train of abuses and usurpations... evinces a design to reduce (the people) under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security..."
Anyone who can think for themselves can see that the Founders were not Christians.
 

Yes they do! I remember purchasing health insurance when I was in college and it stipulated that I can not get more than 6 x-rays per calender year. If that is not rationing, what is it?
And it is against the TOS to call me (or anyone) sweetie.

When the exit polls indicate your supposition is the case, I guess we'll see. As for what can and will happen legislatively, is yet to be seen.
Furthermore, if the bill was a sham to benefit big business, then there goes the ridiculous Obamahatesbusiness lunacy the GOP is spewing.

That would make them what? Like 500+ years old on average?
Mexica -> Mexico -> Mexicans.
Deal with your fail. If you want to apply context, apply the context in the speech, not the one you may want to see.

I can buy you a Kimodo Dragon for your exotic animal enclosure if it makes you feel better. And a yacht. Then you can do a sort of BY's Ark type of thing. Everything will be unironic and misted with a delicate salty sheen as you sail off toward the Isle of Strident Opinion.

It's the seafaring contingent who suffers the most. Also eccentric personal zoo-havers. Time was you could get a nice Siberian tiger for your Central Asia enclosure. Now see what they have to make do with: a couple of camels and a binturong. They say things like, "No, we're doing great! Once you binturong, you'll never go back." But you can see a sadness in their eyes.

The SATs are all about knowing how to take them. Even with training though, some people are just never going to get it. I worked as an SAT tutor and my students, even though they were paying many thousands of dollars to be coached, made the most miserably small improvements. I only taught white kids though, which might explain the poor performance.
You'd think with the highest levels of hand-holding, some of these rich caucasian suburbanites would excel more. Alas, some cultures are just lazier and more entitled than others. I expect some of them have had to settle for their second choice legacy college and might eventually be forced to keep only one yacht. Or a yacht and a smaller motorboat, for shorter jaunts and cruising.

While unicorns are magical, they are not the most magical creatures in the forest: those would be gnomes.
Danno: "I notice you didn't spend any time talking about how magical unicorns are. Typical gnome-wing b*llsh*t."
World: "..."

I can't watch the video, the paycheck gods have blocked it. I was commenting on the bit you added under the video. Nonetheless, it is clear what he meant. You are arguing semantics and ignoring any and all context. He meant the the people who would come to be Mexicans were here long before us. This is absolutely nothing like Palin saying "I can see Russia from my house" as if her location imbued foreign policy knowledge and experience. He was not perfectly clear in his speech, but you know what he was talking about. Don't delude yourself, you understood his reference, you are just nitpicking things to be selectively outraged about.

While unicorns are magical, they are not the most magical creatures in the forest: those would be gnomes.
Danno: "I notice you didn't spend any time talking about how magical unicorns are. Typical gnome-wing b*llsh*t."
World: "..."

While unicorns are magical, they are not the most magical creatures in the forest: those would be gnomes.
Danno: "I notice you didn't spend any time talking about how magical unicorns are. Typical gnome-wing b*llsh*t."
World: "..."

You were gone?

While unicorns are magical, they are not the most magical creatures in the forest: those would be gnomes.
Danno: "I notice you didn't spend any time talking about how magical unicorns are. Typical gnome-wing b*llsh*t."
World: "..."

Danno, you poor imbecile. Did you even read the article? Clearly from your posts after you did not. The point of the article is to show the right wingnuts penchant for misquoting or just making up quotes to support the pillars of the conservative movement; no-separation of state,anti gun-control, etc. This is an obvious OP-ED piece with a liberal slant. But with most artitcles that don't fall into your narrow minded political view, you just dismissed it out of hand and decided to try to hijack and redirect the thread to suit your political view. The article does stipulate in the beginning that misquoting is done my liberals too, but that is not the focus of the piece. You can't seem to grasp that. It comes down to a basic level of comprehension which you don't seem to comprehend. You can either try to refute the claim made in the OP, or do what you're trying to do and derail or hijack the thread to suit your political view.

Again Danno, it's not very hard to understand this. You are trying to change the subject here to suit your political point of view. If you want to discuss that, go start your own thread.