DaVinci

You think people should have rights taken away due only to age? Age has nothing to do with ill intent.

Wouldn't making fun of his spelling be an example of playing the player and not the ball?????

People always like to claim that taxing the rich and giving to others will stimulate the economy better than tax breaks for those who work..... http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Wealthy-Reduce-Buying-in-a-nytimes-3611525031.html?x=0&.v=1 Nice story, but does not seem to be supported

Or, just watch as market forces work the way they work.

Translation: I can't spin this.... He lied and he created a new tax. Translation: I can't defend, so I will make attacks and call people names.

Repubs... think you should try to take care of yourself and will help a *little* if you need it. Dems.... think that the Govt should provide you everything and that an individual matters very little. If you work for a living, one is the clear choice. If you want others to give you things.... again a clear choice.

With all that "proof" it should have been a slam dunk for your side. Wait for it..... Wait for it..... Except you were unable to PROVE anything. BTW your link says: "The actual count, when adjusted for the fact that accuvote systems are used in Republican precincts and punchcard systems are used in Democratic precincts mean that a Democrat has an inherent 3% disadvantage relative to a Republican candidate (Punchcard system have a total spoilage rate (overvote plus undervote) of 4% while accuvote systems have less than a .8% spoilage rate" So your rant about the voting machines is not supported by your own source. Also, he lists exit polls.... They have been shown wrong so many times it is not funny. And a bunch of other unscientific made up stuff.... You seem to give MUCH more weight to made up emotional babble than any real data.

The SC does not control the economy. You just WANT to feel that way so you can justify your name calling. The FACTS do not support your rants. And as for the SC on the election... It is the law. You can't bitch when it falls against you and claim it is BS and applaud when it goes your way.... Well clearly you can, but it makes no sense and is just more heat than light. No, the right wing just uses facts and data not just emotional BS. You seem to have an emotional need to discuss the size of people private parts... Freud would call it envy.

I got my numbers from here: http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1231921022.85/

A felon is able in some States to get the right to vote back. If there is a process in place to get a the right to vote back in that State... I personally think it should apply to firearms as well. I don't know the process.... But my current State has a process to get the right to vote back.

I'd like to see him run against the new black panthers candidate. Now, instead of trying to tie a whole movement to one guy... You could just say there are loonies in all walks of life. But that would not further your views even if it is more correct.

There are programs the child would be entitled to.... Social Security survivor benefits is not one of them, IMO. Germany's budget deficit will soar well over four percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2010 according to reports. Being nice is one thing..... Running yourself bankrupt is another. By letting people who are not alive father kids and expect SS to cover it, it will just add expenses onto an already hurt system.

Has that happened to you, or are you just fear mongering? See you could do a freedom of information act and get the video from the car.... That would tell you if a light was out. But please... Tell me, have you been pulled over for a broken taillight and then arrested for "driving while X"?????

More heat than light AGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIN. I am sure you have a point other than just complaining about how the process works? See a President gets to nominate a justice. The Senate gets to vote on that Justice. Then the Justice is supposed to rule based on law. So one branch, nominates, one branch votes. That is how our three branch system works. You can complain about it..... But it also goes both ways.

Talking about yourself? I have asked several times for you to debate the ISSUE... You have REFUSED and came back with PA's. Again, the FIRST reply to me by YOU was off topic and personal. I have asked you to play the ball, you have refused to even try. I have even pointed out my position that you ignored when you just made up a position for me.... I even quoted it, you just ignored it again. Again.... anyone know how to block an individual? I don't mind, and in fact LIKE, opposing view points. I just don't care to read insulting babel without any point and not based in fact. Your posts are more heat than light.

No one is saying the child is not a citizen or entitled to other benefits that come with being a citizen. They are saying that the reason for SS is to handle what happens when a bread winner dies and he has dependents. That was not the case here. The income was gone LONG before the child was conceived.

Wow, a very tough position. Is Ian Micheal's Son? IMO, Yes. Is Ian entitled to the inheritance? IMO, Yes. Is Ian entitled to SS survivor benefits? IMO, No. SS is as another poster put it, 'Insurance in case something happens'. In this case Gayle knew Micheal was dead and had the child anyway. While I think she has that right, that does not IMO fit into what survivor benefits are for or about.

Got it... you are unable to discuss the issue based on facts and can only resort to theatrics and name calling. In other words, your position is more heat than light. Is there a way to block posters who's signal to noise ratio is out of whack?

Again, you refuse to use more than childish antics. You did read my first post, second sentence again right? (Personally, I doubt you read it ever since it does not fit into your rants). But here is is again so you can't say I didn't try to help you out. " My only issues are her lack of judicial exp. I had the same issue with Myers, but this time it seems not to be an issue? " You may continue to avoid using anything but personal attacks.... It seems that is all you do. But the data is out there for everyone else to read.

Never said otherwise, I just asked him to back it with more than a bumper sticker. And you know those types of charges have to be proven in court and are not just accepted. Can you back that up, or are you guessing? You think a black man that day had a higher chance of being stopped? Fact is that things that are out of place draw attention: The 40 year old riding a BMX bike at 10PM. The guy wearing a dress. The woman crying as she walks down the street. The white guy in a "black neighborhood". The black guy in a "white neighborhood". I think most of us would agree that a guy in Nike gear with an iPod and a heart rate monitor while running is less likely to get stopped than a guy running wearing jeans. Your case proves that it does happen to whites. No one said it does not happen to blacks or Hispanics. But it is up to the accusers to prove it happens MORE and ONLY due to color when they make that claim.

Got something to back that statement up? Or just trying to play the player with no basis and no data to back up your position. Now just to bust your little bubble... maybe you should read my first post to this thread again.... Pay close attention to the 2nd sentence. In other words.... You are wrong again.

Maybe, but it would be acceptable to assume that liberals are pro choice and while not 100% accurate, it still would be OK to make that connection. And we are talking about liberals as a group, not an individual. Yet most would consider the ACLU to be a 'liberal' organization and they maintain it is a collective right. Again, in general not based on single individuals.

No, responding to your BS claims of irony. Show where I said that? What I DID say is that if a guy like me claims that he does not like Kagan based off of NO Judicial exp.... You make some claim that I have some other issue. But folks like you held the SAME position on Miers. Me pointing out the double standard may not feel comfortable to you, but there is one on this issue.

You have some data points to back that up, or just a bumper sticker slogan you like? Andy is a white guy and he has been stopped while running.

I found this to be a GREAT example of my personal confusion with how a 'liberal' can be for individual interpretations of the BoR's EXCEPT where it applies to the 2nd. I mean a person who supports the right for gays to marry, the right for individuals to use drugs, the right of an individual to exercise free speech, the right of an individual to be protected against illegal search, the right of an individual...ect. EXCEPT when it comes to the 2nd they wish to claim it is a collective right. Makes no sense to me. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/7/4/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment points I personally found interesting: I think a well written piece about a discrepancy that has always amazed me. 1. Can anyone explain why the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th should be considered to apply to individuals, but the 2nd should not? 2. Can anyone explain why the internet/TV/radio should be considered protected under the 1st, but a Machinegun should not be protected under the 2nd?