<Removed>

[ooge]

That's right, and when Obamacare is seen for the violent nudge into socialism that it is, we will remind America of this, to the 30th power. It's a lot like the bullshit story they sold us when creating the IRS, with the promise that income taxes would never go over 5%, and only the top 1% of earners would have to pay it. Now it turns out even the pre-existing condition bit was a lie.

The Tea Party will suffice.

So far, the Tea Party seems to be little more than an embarrassment.

that's your narrow uninformed sheeple opinion. The truth is the Tea Party is growing, winning more seats every election. Whatever you want to call it, I am more than happy to continue doing the same thing. But like I keep trying to remind you, and like you keep ignoring, we are done talking. We are taking over now.

You should accept reality soon Woodruff, because when the time comes that you can't ignore reality anymore, you are going to snap.

I'm not at all likely to snap. I do, however, wish the "Tea Party" would stop concerning themselves with homosexuals and abortion. Then perhaps they wouldn't be so embarrassing.

The Tea Party is only concerned with fiscal issues and Constitutional adherence. Homosesuality and abortion have nothing to do with the Tea Party.

I will laugh forever at the amount of time you spend talking about things you don't know a damn thing about.

Now that's embarrassing! Keep up the excellent work.

Tea peoples motto "teabag Washington before Washington teabags you"....really you cant make this stuff up,what a bunch of knuckle dragging simpletons they are.

[ooge]

this is what the repubs are.

[john9blue]

this is what the repubs are.

wat? rand hated religion and republicans love religion.

[ooge]

[ooge]

[ooge]

[Woodruff]

this is what the repubs are.

wat? rand hated religion and republicans love religion.

Which has created a really odd mixture that has taken place within the Tea Party.

[john9blue]

this is what the repubs are.

wat? rand hated religion and republicans love religion.

Which has created a really odd mixture that has taken place within the Tea Party.

the thing is that it would be so easy to confront one of these politicians and show how their political beliefs are inconsistent with the christian bible. but nobody ever does it, or if they do, it's not televised. the media sucks ass.

BTW i finally picked up a copy of atlas shrugged today. never got around to it, despite the fact that i read the fountainhead way back in high school.

[Woodruff]

the thing is that it would be so easy to confront one of these politicians and show how their political beliefs are inconsistent with the christian bible. but nobody ever does it, or if they do, it's not televised. the media sucks ass.

Regarding the US media, this is an absolute truth.

But the really sad part is that it isn't even necessary...their own stated ideals run counter to the Bible (or counter to the Tea Party ideals, whichever). All it takes is for more people to pay attention to what they say (which is just as sad of a state of affairs).

[stahrgazer]

1) That's not true. You can opt-out of paying all of your income taxes, then pay what's due at the end of the year instead. Over-paying your taxes is entirely a choice.

Actually you cannot pay all your taxes at the end of the year without incurring both interest and penalties.

Wrong. Only businesses including self-employed persons have to pay taxes on a quarterly basis, or incur penalties; the population can, indeed, wait until "tax time" (April 15 of the year following December 31 of the year the income was made) to pay 100% of any taxes owed.

A single person or couple can claim extra exemptions (as though they have more children than they have) through the year 2013 to have "no taxes" come out of a paycheck, then pay it all by April 15, 2014 and incur no penalties or interest.

As for the discussion of political ideals vs. biblical ideals, ANY ideals can be found to be supported by, or rejected by, the Bible, depending on which section you quote and sometimes, how different people interpret the same section.

But since our country is founded with an ideal of "separation between church and state," I'd prefer politicians to LIVE the word they believe, but not force ME to live it, too. Unfortunately, what I see from any party is folks that live however the heck they want and try to force me to live according to "their beliefs," that they themselves don't live. (Abortion, for example... anyone who's anti-choice or anti-abortion shouldn't be having sex outside of marriage, if they do, they're hypocrites.)

[ooge]

I also agree, the U.S. media is pathetic,as for not calling politicians out on it,when they always get called "liberal media bias" The media looks for balance in a story when there isn't any.if people are interested I will continue to post some truthful and maybe funny republican story's.

[Woodruff]

But since our country is founded with an ideal of "separation between church and state," I'd prefer politicians to LIVE the word they believe, but not force ME to live it, too. Unfortunately, what I see from any party is folks that live however the heck they want and try to force me to live according to "their beliefs," that they themselves don't live. (Abortion, for example... anyone who's anti-choice or anti-abortion shouldn't be having sex outside of marriage, if they do, they're hypocrites.)

Married people do occasionally get abortions as well, I should point out.

I don't think your analogy is quite accurate though. Someone who is anti-abortion shouldn't be having an abortion. They're not anti-sex, they're anti-abortion. Being anti-abortion means you're willing to live with the consequences of your having sex, should it come to that. Otherwise, I agree with you.

[Woodruff]

I also agree, the U.S. media is pathetic,as for not calling politicians out on it,when they always get called "liberal media bias" The media looks for balance in a story when there isn't any.if people are interested I will continue to post some truthful and maybe funny republican story's.

These days, the US media doesn't look for balance so much as they look for whatever they think will sell or gain them favor with politicians. Balance isn't particularly an interest any longer, I don't believe.

[ooge]

I also agree, the U.S. media is pathetic,as for not calling politicians out on it,when they always get called "liberal media bias" The media looks for balance in a story when there isn't any.if people are interested I will continue to post some truthful and maybe funny republican story's.

These days, the US media doesn't look for balance so much as they look for whatever they think will sell or gain them favor with politicians. Balance isn't particularly an interest any longer, I don't believe.

True, media has been sectioned off into their target audiences,I call it the "fox effect" CNN has attempted to do more traditional coverage and their ratings have cratered as a result.Dan Rather has discussed when the news division went from being considered a "lost liter" for the networks to a profitable arm of the networks.with the news suffering as a result.

[stahrgazer]

But since our country is founded with an ideal of "separation between church and state," I'd prefer politicians to LIVE the word they believe, but not force ME to live it, too. Unfortunately, what I see from any party is folks that live however the heck they want and try to force me to live according to "their beliefs," that they themselves don't live. (Abortion, for example... anyone who's anti-choice or anti-abortion shouldn't be having sex outside of marriage, if they do, they're hypocrites.)

Married people do occasionally get abortions as well, I should point out.

I don't think your analogy is quite accurate though. Someone who is anti-abortion shouldn't be having an abortion. They're not anti-sex, they're anti-abortion. Being anti-abortion means you're willing to live with the consequences of your having sex, should it come to that. Otherwise, I agree with you.

Nope. Remember, "Christianity," is supposed to be based on biblical things, right? Biblically speaking, sexual relations are supposed to be sacred to someone you're committed to raising a family with, and bibilically speaking, you're not supposed to do that outside of marriage - although, also biblically speaking, it was acceptable to have more than one spouse provided you could care for that spouse.

You see, it's still hypocritical of someone to say, "YOU need to follow 'this part' of MY beliefs even if I won't follow 'that part' of what is SUPPOSED TO BE 'my beliefs.'"

So, if someone wants to practice Christianity so zealously, they should not be having sex outside of marriage and in that way, they won't potentially force someone who doesn't share their beliefs about abortion to make a choice they wouldn't approve. Otherwise, maybe the someone they're screwing without marriage believes it's a sin to bring a child into the world without hope of BOTH parents being active fulltime; maybe that someone believes a fetus isn't a child with a soul until the first breath (as some religions state.) Or maybe that person believes... all sorts of things.

So just maybe, as I stated, the person who wants to be so utterly zealous about what OTHERS do or don't do, based on that person's "bible" should be more zealous about what he or she is doing or not doing that their own "bible" frowns on.

Oh.. and if they're gonna have sex out of wedlock, they should also stop whining about having to support all these children "on welfare" born out of wedlock whose mothers chose to have a child rather than have an abortion (biblically speaking, they're supposed to be charitable even to the point of giving all of their earthly possessions away to do God's/Christ's work, right?).

[patrickaa317]

But since our country is founded with an ideal of "separation between church and state," I'd prefer politicians to LIVE the word they believe, but not force ME to live it, too. Unfortunately, what I see from any party is folks that live however the heck they want and try to force me to live according to "their beliefs," that they themselves don't live. (Abortion, for example... anyone who's anti-choice or anti-abortion shouldn't be having sex outside of marriage, if they do, they're hypocrites.)

Married people do occasionally get abortions as well, I should point out.

I don't think your analogy is quite accurate though. Someone who is anti-abortion shouldn't be having an abortion. They're not anti-sex, they're anti-abortion. Being anti-abortion means you're willing to live with the consequences of your having sex, should it come to that. Otherwise, I agree with you.

I agree with Woodruff on this that being pro-life is way different than being anti-sex. Quite surprised that someone thinks that if you want to have sex you have to believe in abortion.

[patrickaa317]

But since our country is founded with an ideal of "separation between church and state," I'd prefer politicians to LIVE the word they believe, but not force ME to live it, too. Unfortunately, what I see from any party is folks that live however the heck they want and try to force me to live according to "their beliefs," that they themselves don't live. (Abortion, for example... anyone who's anti-choice or anti-abortion shouldn't be having sex outside of marriage, if they do, they're hypocrites.)

Married people do occasionally get abortions as well, I should point out.

I don't think your analogy is quite accurate though. Someone who is anti-abortion shouldn't be having an abortion. They're not anti-sex, they're anti-abortion. Being anti-abortion means you're willing to live with the consequences of your having sex, should it come to that. Otherwise, I agree with you.

Nope. Remember, "Christianity," is supposed to be based on biblical things, right? Biblically speaking, sexual relations are supposed to be sacred to someone you're committed to raising a family with, and bibilically speaking, you're not supposed to do that outside of marriage - although, also biblically speaking, it was acceptable to have more than one spouse provided you could care for that spouse.

You see, it's still hypocritical of someone to say, "YOU need to follow 'this part' of MY beliefs even if I won't follow 'that part' of what is SUPPOSED TO BE 'my beliefs.'"

So, if someone wants to practice Christianity so zealously, they should not be having sex outside of marriage and in that way, they won't potentially force someone who doesn't share their beliefs about abortion to make a choice they wouldn't approve. Otherwise, maybe the someone they're screwing without marriage believes it's a sin to bring a child into the world without hope of BOTH parents being active fulltime; maybe that someone believes a fetus isn't a child with a soul until the first breath (as some religions state.) Or maybe that person believes... all sorts of things.

So just maybe, as I stated, the person who wants to be so utterly zealous about what OTHERS do or don't do, based on that person's "bible" should be more zealous about what he or she is doing or not doing that their own "bible" frowns on.

Oh.. and if they're gonna have sex out of wedlock, they should also stop whining about having to support all these children "on welfare" born out of wedlock whose mothers chose to have a child rather than have an abortion (biblically speaking, they're supposed to be charitable even to the point of giving all of their earthly possessions away to do God's/Christ's work, right?).

You don't have to be Christian to believe abortion and ending the life of the unborn is wrong.

[tzor]

You don't have to be Christian to believe abortion and ending the life of the unborn is wrong.

No, but it helps. It's really interesting and disappointing how the pro-life movement has not caught on in various non-Christian faiths.

[Woodruff]

But since our country is founded with an ideal of "separation between church and state," I'd prefer politicians to LIVE the word they believe, but not force ME to live it, too. Unfortunately, what I see from any party is folks that live however the heck they want and try to force me to live according to "their beliefs," that they themselves don't live. (Abortion, for example... anyone who's anti-choice or anti-abortion shouldn't be having sex outside of marriage, if they do, they're hypocrites.)

Married people do occasionally get abortions as well, I should point out.

I don't think your analogy is quite accurate though. Someone who is anti-abortion shouldn't be having an abortion. They're not anti-sex, they're anti-abortion. Being anti-abortion means you're willing to live with the consequences of your having sex, should it come to that. Otherwise, I agree with you.

Nope. Remember, "Christianity," is supposed to be based on biblical things, right? Biblically speaking, sexual relations are supposed to be sacred to someone you're committed to raising a family with, and bibilically speaking, you're not supposed to do that outside of marriage - although, also biblically speaking, it was acceptable to have more than one spouse provided you could care for that spouse.

You see, it's still hypocritical of someone to say, "YOU need to follow 'this part' of MY beliefs even if I won't follow 'that part' of what is SUPPOSED TO BE 'my beliefs.'"

So, if someone wants to practice Christianity so zealously, they should not be having sex outside of marriage and in that way, they won't potentially force someone who doesn't share their beliefs about abortion to make a choice they wouldn't approve. Otherwise, maybe the someone they're screwing without marriage believes it's a sin to bring a child into the world without hope of BOTH parents being active fulltime; maybe that someone believes a fetus isn't a child with a soul until the first breath (as some religions state.) Or maybe that person believes... all sorts of things.

So just maybe, as I stated, the person who wants to be so utterly zealous about what OTHERS do or don't do, based on that person's "bible" should be more zealous about what he or she is doing or not doing that their own "bible" frowns on.

You're making a terrible mistake in thinking that it's necessarily a religious thing. They're just the ones that most people think of, probably because they're the most common. Not everyone who is anti-abortion is Christian. Heck, not everyone who is anti-abortion is religious at all. So your statements still don't work.

Oh.. and if they're gonna have sex out of wedlock, they should also stop whining about having to support all these children "on welfare" born out of wedlock whose mothers chose to have a child rather than have an abortion (biblically speaking, they're supposed to be charitable even to the point of giving all of their earthly possessions away to do God's/Christ's work, right?).

Not all children on welfare are born out of wedlock.

I do agree with you regarding the complaints about abortion and then also complaining about welfare that involves families with children. Anyone holding those two positions are really not thinking particularly clearly.

[thegreekdog]

A few questions about this proposed law:

What employees does it apply to? All employees of all companies? Just union employees? Just government employees? Just hourly employees?

I must admit, I've read Juan's posts here and I'm very confused about the purpose of this proposed law.

The bill is for all hourly employees across the country who have 1000 hours in their respective company. Salaried employees don't count, because they don't get paid overtime. A few Unions already have a similar program negotiated for themselves.

The jist is that if the employee agrees, then all of their overtime pay gets rolled into "Comp Time." It's like extra paid vacation hours, but you're being payed the money that you already earned in overtime. At the end of the company's business year, they're supposed to pay you back your money for any unused comp hours. You can also ask for your Comp Pay in cash at any time, but the company gets 30 days to pay you. There's also no guarantee that the business has to give you the time off that you request, and there will be no enforcement agency.

So instead of taking vacation you can make more money? Doesn't seem like something the government should get involved in. I've been trying for that at my firm and we're getting there.

[ooge]

http://politicalmemes.blogspot.com/2013 ... ZqR_a7D-pq

[BigBallinStalin]

this is what the repubs are.

wat? rand hated religion and republicans love religion.

Which has created a really odd mixture that has taken place within the Tea Party.

the thing is that it would be so easy to confront one of these politicians and show how their political beliefs are inconsistent with the christian bible. but nobody ever does it, or if they do, it's not televised. the media sucks ass.

BTW i finally picked up a copy of atlas shrugged today. never got around to it, despite the fact that i read the fountainhead way back in high school.

It's a good, entertaining work of art. Feel the rhetoric, enjoy the aesthetic. That's how I take my Ayn Rand.*

*That's the only book I've read. Once you've read Atlas Shrugged, ya get it. Some say Fountainhead is enough, but you're missing out on the Epic.

[BigBallinStalin]

I also agree, the U.S. media is pathetic,as for not calling politicians out on it,when they always get called "liberal media bias" The media looks for balance in a story when there isn't any.if people are interested I will continue to post some truthful and maybe funny republican story's.

These days, the US media doesn't look for balance so much as they look for whatever they think will sell or gain them favor with politicians. Balance isn't particularly an interest any longer, I don't believe.

Sadly, their product is what their markets demand (a bunch of crap), so for me the mass media is partly to blame, the other belongs to their consumers. As substitutes emerge, we may see this split--where smarter people opt for substitutes on the internet (blogs, more specific blogs, finely picked articles from several online news vendors on specific topics) while the remainder stay glued to their television.

*(citation needed).

[Lootifer]

I also agree, the U.S. media is pathetic,as for not calling politicians out on it,when they always get called "liberal media bias" The media looks for balance in a story when there isn't any.if people are interested I will continue to post some truthful and maybe funny republican story's.

These days, the US media doesn't look for balance so much as they look for whatever they think will sell or gain them favor with politicians. Balance isn't particularly an interest any longer, I don't believe.

Sadly, their product is what their markets demand (a bunch of crap), so for me the mass media is partly to blame, the other belongs to their consumers. As substitutes emerge, we may see this split--where smarter people opt for substitutes on the internet (blogs, more specific blogs, finely picked articles from several online news vendors on specific topics) while the remainder stay glued to their television.

*(citation needed).

I concur.

[Woodruff]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/05/24/fox-news-host-incites-violence-against-democrats-audio/