SkyDekker

Those were indeed the chemical weapons you already knew he had. Not the ones used for justification of the invasion. Interestingly, now these will probably be used to justify invading.....again. Ok so show us your itinerary where you went to Iraq and inspected these wmd's yourself. You spouting off like you have firsthand knowledge indicating that these weapons are from the same cache should insult ever one with a moderate IQ. The fact is until you pull documents out your speculations are just as unqualified as these reports. And here, Ladies and Gentlemen, we have the ramblings of a true believer, a true patriot. Why would we want facts to stand in the way of a good war. Keep digging buddy, keep digging that hole.

There are a few active threads in which he gets a little flustered when encountering a different viewpoint.

Yeah, didn't think you would be able to come up with anything smarter.

So you are willing to spend significant money to "solve" a problem which currently does not exist?

Um . . . rather than read the tripe on the web site you just linked to, it might be better to go to the actual source being used to substantiate its claims. https://plus.google.com/u/0/events/crg295evsd4kl66qu7c14qrtjis How the fuck anyone could be so stupid as to misread that is beyond me. Yeah, it is pretty clear from the google+ site.. Don't think that was the link you wanted to copy

Now that it turns out that the report wasn't what you thought it was....will you now just say....yes, it was a lie?

Because the US Census told me so... Ahh sorry. For a second I thought you didn't want to BS and have a conversation. Had hoped you thought beyond what the federal government tells you and had wondered about a possible reason.

You may want to exchange the popcorn for crow on the way back

Those were indeed the chemical weapons you already knew he had. Not the ones used for justification of the invasion. Interestingly, now these will probably be used to justify invading.....again.

Wasn't playing a trite. Obviously the law needs to be followed. However, at this point we don't even know how severly the law is being broken. New laws are being proposed based on what could happen, not on what is actually happening. Hence, my question was how much should get spent on that. Specially since you normally advocate a very reduced government, with very limited expenses. Hence, how much money should get spent implementing a program that is supposed to prevent a problem, which isn't actually a problem at this point. Sorry if you saw that as an attack or insult. When your response was: well I don't really care, I only post here for entertainment, I responded in kind.

If BS means you are having to think about how you are going to maintain your opinion, I'll take the bullshit. I am still waiting as to why YOU think poverty is higher among non-white communities.

Yeah, I have enjoyed watching Kozun so far. Hope this is a breakout year for him.

So other than a TV report you sort of remember, but not entirely sure, do you have any hard numbers? How many are on welfare and how many actively chose to remain on welfare over having a job?

Sorry, I can't decipher what you are trying to say. You really think there are many people who just chose to live off welfare? Have you tried to live off the amount supplied? It isn't easy, or fun. Are there some, yes absolutely. But no program will ever be 100% effective.

Then why is poverty amongst those cultures higher? Yea that sealed the deal for me.....

Really???? Really, thats all you know how to do here.... When it comes to rush and his off topic one liners....yeah. I have tried logical arguments and sicussions with him, but it has proven to be impossible. Actually many have tried, non have succeeded.

Im not even going to go there with you in this thread. If you want to discuss it I will be more than happy if you wish to start a new one. Why? This whole thread has been about race... Poverty tends to be higher among non-white communities. Is that beacuse they are lazier, or dummer, or because there are external issues and forces reducing their ability to succeed? Or is it because of welfare like rush pointed out?

And if society has made it more difficult for one race to succeed? these are called welfare programs You mean like subsidies for oil and coal companies?

I thought health care was best handled by the private sector? What do you need the CDC and surgeon general for? All you closeted conservatives who call yourselves libertarians, who should be responsible here?

And if society has made it more difficult for one race to succeed?

Ahh ok, so you are just thinking out of the box and doing some synergistic brainstorming on a highly engagable solution. Ie. just throwing around some "motherhood statements" to sound important....gotcha, you betcha.

Primarily southern states put primarily black people in prison?

hey, look how fiscally conservative you've become. how convenient So you have no answer?

Your private health care has done a bang up job containing and dealing with the ebola! Send home a guy with ebola symptoms who told them he had been to west Africa. Two health care workers infected. Top notch work! Wonder how long it is going to take for Republicans to blame the government. The same government they say isn't capable of handling health care.

There are states that require registration which requires ID States that Require Registration of All Firearms District of Columbia11 Hawaii12 States that Require Registration of Handguns New York13 States that Require New Residents to Report Their Firearms California14 Maryland15 (handguns and assault weapons) States that Require Registration of Pre-Ban Assault Weapons or 50 Caliber Rifles California16 (assault weapons and 50 caliber rifles) Connecticut17 (assault weapons and large capacity magazines) Hawaii18 (assault pistols) Maryland19 (assault pistols) New Jersey20 (assault weapons) New York21 (assault weapons) Or do you need ID to buy one? Federal Form 4473 requires ID Looks like in the majority of the US you do not need ID then. So silly to use that as an argument for ID requirement for voting. Yes, one illegal vote could theoretically determine the outcome of an election. Many things are theoretically possible. The question is around probability and possibility. The possibility is extremely limited and the probability is maybe even smaller. So just how much tax revenue should be spent on this? How much more tax are you willing to spend to deal with this?