Andy9o8

In that case I'm a devout, evangelical Euphemist. I know over 100 ways to call someone a fucking moron and still stay on the right side of the law.

In other news, the state of Florida has just banned the use of the word "liberal".

An aside, for curiosity's sake: Is the word "ass" in 2015 America still considered so offensive that it merits "placeholder letters"? Would "tushie" offend you as much?

I would call that "suicide", but hey, that's me.

An absolutly perfect liberal reply thanks Yep. Perfectly stated. Well, at least it's more syllables than "Bam!" Good boy. Bark like a dog. Now go fetch!

Jeebus! I hope a freshman senator doesn't get elected as POTUS. We would be in a world of hurt if that ever happened. You do know the meaning of "freshman", don't you? The United States Senate career of Barack Obama began on January 4, 2005 and ended on November 16, 2008. How many 6 year terms do you think he served in those 4 years? You and I have a different view of the term Freshman. BAM! Wow, bam right back atcha! The utter brilliance of Driver1's response aside, and to answer airdvr's post on point, let's consider this: Nixon spent 5 years in the US House & 2 years in the Senate (7 years total elected government service) before being elected Vice President at age 39, a hearbeat away from Eisenhower, whose heartbeat was almost stopped by a heart attack during his first term. He was 47 the first time he ran for president in 1960. JFK spent 5 years in the House & 8 years in the Senate (13 years total) before being elected President at age 43. Theodore Roosevelt spent 5 years in elective offices plus a few years in various appointed offices before being elected Vice President at age 42; he was still 42 when he succeeded to the presidency. Now let's compare. Obama spent 9 years in the state Senate and 3 years in the US Senate (12 years total) before being elected President at age 47. If that's your definition of freshman, then that's on you.

Which means she's not a freshman.

Jeebus! I hope a freshman senator doesn't get elected as POTUS. We would be in a world of hurt if that ever happened. You do know the meaning of "freshman", don't you?

It's the old divide and conquer issue like in some elections: Except for the Republican FOX worshippers, news organizations aren't trusted all that much so none gets many votes, with the vote split across many alternatives. That leaves FOX averaging out to be the "most trusted." It shows how many nutters are out there! (I'll note that the poll also gets into the degree of trust for news organizations. Even for Republicans and FOX, only 35% said they trusted FOX "A Great Deal". Numbers for others and other news organizations were always less. People in general don't have high trust in news organizations.) Exactly. I've posted on this before. The people will basically answer like they would a popularity contest, choosing the outlet they happen to watch the most. Fox is the only very-conservative major outlet on TV; the rest are either liberal or moderate. So the conservatives vote for their 1 option, while the mods and libs split their votes. Statistical illusions. It's also much like the "splitting the vote" effect in elections. If you have a strong independent candidate, he'll hurt the Republican candidate if he's also conservative, or will hurt the Democratic candidate if he's also liberal or if he's very moderate. (For example, Perot's candidacy probably hurt GHW Bush's re-election campaign and helped Clinton's campaign in 1992.) Nice try, Marc. Your usual fail , but nice try.

Welcome to my world.

Since you're basically repeating yourself, so will I: Yes, but the millions who were kidnapped and forcibly "immigrated" via slave ships, as well as those millions who were already here and perished through genocide, did not. Sure, we're getting better; yet the devastating effects of over an additional century of lasting institutional racism continue to affect very many of their descendants to this day. Childish questions, childishly asked. Unworthy of a response by the grownups. Raise your game to post-pubescent level, or go play in the sandbox with the other rugrats.

What? I coughed. Jeez, it's like my wife.

I swear, they take all the fun out of shit.

Add too much OJ? Too much OJ

One more reason why my kids won't be going to college.

To whom? First, I'll answer that question: To me, and to my wife, and to our children. All of our recent ancestors immigrated to America from Europe in the 19th or early 20th Centuries, and those immigrant-ancestors and almost all of their descendants have had lives filled with rights, liberties and opportunities, especially compared to what might have been had they not immigrated. But to the descendants of the Native Americans living in the 18th & 19th Centuries, it is a symbol of the conquest and genocide of their ancestors. Prior to the Civil War, it was one of the symbols of the mass kidnapping, genocide and enslavement of Africans. To the victims of banana republics' repression and exploitation of their own citizens by brutal dictators installed and propped up by American military-commercial imperialism, it was the symbol of that. The Big Picture: not something that lends itself to catchy patriotic slogans.

Yeah, but there's also a war on Christmas, so that makes it worth it.

clicky.

Googlez ur frend.

I've occasionally poured the water from the carafe into the coffee maker, set the carafe aside on the stove, and then turned the thing on. With no carafe in it. The result is stimulating.

This, right here, is why you guys chronically don't stand a chance right out of the starting blocks. Yes, you guys like to say it makes no difference, but in reality it only makes "no difference" to yourselves.

Socializing works both ways. If your proposition were correct, then logically people wouldn't "choose to be gay" in extremely socially conservative societies in which being outed would mean not only their being ostracized, but being brutally killed, like in most Arab and sub-Saharan African societies. By way of rather brutal examples, I rather doubt that people would willfully choose to subject themselves to the risk of THIS, or THIS, or THIS.

There's a popular expression that African-Americans say to each other, and they're referring to white people: "Up North, they don't care how high you get, as long as you don't get too close. In the South, they don't care how close you get, as long as you don't get too high." Oprah has gotten really, really high, and has the audacity to show it. And you just can't handle that.

Well, they pay the same taxes on typical consumer goods and services that most everybody else does. No, it's unlikely they pay income taxes on their pay for picking the produce on your plate, for which they almost certainly get paid below minimum wage. And if you're worried about how much in tax revenue goes uncollected for that, compare it to the fact that most of the income earned by the wealthiest people in the US is taxed not as ordinary income (like yours or mine), but at the bargain-basement 15% rate for capital gains. How much is lost by not taxing that shit as ordinary income? Look at the big picture. >"...bargain-basement 15% rate for capital gains." Capital gains are not a bad thing. I have a 401K account, Roth IRA, stocks, and some property. I hope to enjoy the same tax rate as those with larger assets than myself when I sell some of my property. I think the issue is, the wealthy in many cases are selling an asset which generates an income stream and having only to pay 15%. Millions of American's receive their income from wages or (Ordinary Income) which can be taxed at a higher rates. I don't see that being unfair, I see it as an opportunity to mirror the habits of the wealthy as best one can and reap the rewards. My point isn't referring to middle-class folks like yourself who have some investments alongside your ordinary income. It's directed to the 1-percenters, who derive the majority of their income streams, for the majority of their lives, from assets classified as capital gains, and then are subsidized by the rest of society by having that taxed at the 15% capital gains rate. My point was, that the amount of revenue uncollected by illegal immigrants who don't pay income taxes on their usually very low wages (net the offset gain from their production of cheap goods and services) is probably a good deal less than the amount of revenues that would be collected if those 1-percenters' capital gains were taxed closer to the ordinary income rate. Put another way: either go after both problems, or go after the bigger of the problems. But stop the hypocrisy of scapegoating the far lesser of the problems, populated by those who have orders of magnitude less power to advocate for themselves and rebut being demonized. Like pickpockets, the real thieves are diverting attention to the scapegoats while they're the ones who really have their sticky hands around your wallet.

Um. He doesn't take my calls.