JS28

Both George Zimmerman and Obama have one white parent and one parent of a minority race. One is half black, while the other is half Hispanic. So, if George Zimmerman is in fact a white guy, then Obama isn't actually the first black POTUS.

How confident are the Cards fans that they can take down UK at Rupp this year?

They keep trying to compare the 2012-13 squad to the over the top team that is going to be in Lexington this coming season.

Bear in mind, UK beat you guys twice in 2011-12 and then your returning Final Four team only beat our ridiculously overrated team by 3 points last year.

I'm curious to see if the folks in red are still calling it "Russ" Arena come New Years.

"I’m not here at as a serf or a vassal. I’m not begging my lords for mercy. I’m a born-free American woman, wife, mother and citizen. And I’m telling my government that you’ve forgotten your place. It’s not your responsibility to look out for my well-being and to monitor my speech. It’s not your right to assert an agenda. Your post, the post that you occupy exists to preserve American liberty. You’ve sworn to perform that duty. And you have faltered"

-Becky Gerritson at today's IRS hearing

I'm white and I'm employed, so I didn't know if I could get in on this.

I mean, like we got exactly what we wanted. We have a really cool, hip prez that never knows what is going on in the government. I love his vaca picz, they're so effing cool. idk I mean I guess I'm just like in a happy mood cuz yesterday wuz the 1st of tha month n my gov check came in for me and my baybay! gonna get me some new nail polish! Im sooo excited!

Hillary '16 betch

So, you guys tend to argue that corporate CEOs have ridiculously inflated salaries that are undeserving. Many actually call CEOs lazy, and say that the people lower down on the totem pole do all of the real work. Well, I have a solution that you should find appealing.

We'll use Walmart as an example.

The first order of business is to come up with a flat salary for all people under the Walmart umbrella. A rate that allows all employees to live a comfortable, reasonable lifestyle. This rate would change over time so that the employees wouldn't be negatively affected by things like inflation.

Alright, so we've determined some ideal salary that everyone in the company receives. It's completely fair, everyone gets the same money and benefits from the CEO down to the guy that greets people at the door. Now, what Walmart will do after the employees get paid is keep only what money they need for the company to continue. After all, their absurd profits are of no use to them. They company will keep whatever it needs to actually survive, and the rest will be given to the government.

Now we have a fair and balanced model for the corporate food chain. Here's the fun part. All of those lazy CEOs and other executives that used to make absurd amounts of money? They're now at the bottom of the corporate ladder. They are the ones who actually work in the stores.

The folks who used to work in the stores are now distributed along the corporate ladder in an inverse manner. The people who stocked shelves and ran the registers are the top executives. They get to make the big picture decisions now and make sure that the company is steered in the right direction on a daily basis. The people that used to work as managers in the stores are now directly under the new company executives. The rest of the Walmart family is given their jobs in the same inverse manner.

Now everything is completely fair, because no one is unfairly being paid over what anyone else is. The folks that used to be stuck at the bottom are now living it up at the top, while the once high and mighty now have to do all of the real work.

Is this a fair solution? Should major American corporations implement such a strategy?

Several months ago I was considering doing some temporary work at a warehouse. I was required to show government issued identification as well as my original birth certificate. The first time I went in person to finish the hiring process, I was turned away on the spot because I didn't have the actual, original copy of my birth certificate.

So I wonder, why shouldn't folks have to prove that they are citizens of our country in order to vote for our elected officials?

...in order to divert attention from the various scandals that are currently unfolding and making him look like an incompetent fool who knows nothing about what is going on in the federal government?

(I better be careful and stop there, otherwise I might get audited and/or my and my parents' phones and emails might get tapped)

He's in the start of his second term, and I can't recall a time that anyone on the left has ever even come close to attributing anything bad to him. Everything negative is either blamed on GWB or Obama's subordinates from way down the food chain.

Also, are his admissions that he doesn't know anything about any of the current scandals indicative of the fact that his inflated, huge government is a bad idea since neither he nor any of his people seem to ever have a clue what is going on under their noses? He never knows anything, Clinton had no clue what was going on with Libya, and Holder may as well have a government issued dunce cap.

I find it somewhat disturbing that the kinds of the things that are currently going on in Washington can occur without anyone in charge having a clue. They're either lying or they are incompetent at a staggering level. Even if you give the president the benefit of the doubt, does it honestly make anyone feel good to know that our president evidently learns about major things going on from watching the news just like the rest of us?

Such as forgetting to turn off a computer at night, accidentally leaving an air conditioner on overnight, spilling something and ruining a carpet, etc.

Just examples out of curiosity.

This is a multiple choice question. Go ahead and take a stab, especially you liberal folks who soak your minds in MSNBC talking points.

A) NRA members

B) Tea Party members

C) Anti-tax protesters

D) Islamic extremists

I'm just saying, if my town was on lock down and the lunatic on the loose was likely to still have explosives, I might be game for protecting my family with an AR15.

I understand that liberals are getting upset because there are dozens of similar questions being posted today. Well, sorry jerkoffs, but when morons on the left openly share their hopes that those responsible are white conservatives or pull a Chris Matthews and immediately begin to characterize the then unknown suspects at "typical conservatives who hate America", I think that those who were so wrongly accused without any real cause are entitled to throw it back in your faces. I'll be waiting for those who wanted GWB in jail for 9/11 to begin saying the same thing about the president who assured us multiple times in November on national television that such terrorist threats were becoming irrelevant.

I've written short fiction my whole life, but I've never really considered trying to publish anything until now. I was wondering if anyone has advice on how to successfully get a short story published for the first time? I just think that the publishing process and giving it a try would be fun. I don't really care if I get paid, but I'd like to try with a legit publisher, whether it be print or internet.

Information on different publishers and just different tips in general are greatly appreciated.

Writing has always been a passion for me, and I've always thought that travel writing would be a great thing to try. I'm just looking for some honest, constructive advice on how I might break into such a field. Tips on classes to take and other such things is greatly appreciated. Thanks.

I don't mean this as a trolling question. You all claim that the government has absolutely no right to tell us who we are or aren't allowed to marry. I've heard the viewpoint that no one has a right to put a legal definition on marriage, thus making it exclusive to certain people.

So in all honesty, are the two aforementioned people groups best off voting for those who lean to the left since that is the group that supports their rights to polygamy and inner-family marriage (as in brother/sister or cousins)?

I'm planning on buying a new phone soon and I want to go from Android to Iphone. I've heard some people say that getting a 5 is rather pointless and that I may as well get a 4s since it's close enough and much cheaper, while on the other hand I've heard other people say that getting a 5 is well worth the extra money and the best way to go.

I'm honestly just looking for clear, objective opinions on which I should go for. Any valuable insight would be very greatly appreciated.

Oh, and please don't comment on how I should stick with android. I have nothing against Android phones, in fact mine has served me reasonably well, I'd just like to give Apple a try for a while because I never actually have.

Crocodile tears and blatant, angry dodging of remotely tough questions was a cute act.

Sorry, but the origin of the attack and how it was handled accordingly does matter. She said that it doesn't matter whether it was over a video or just guys out for a walk who decided to kill Americans. Well, it was actually none of the above. It was a strategic attack, we quickly knew that it was, and there was even feed going into the situation room. Don't forget the fact that they told us it was an act of terror the next day and then spent a couple of weeks telling us that they had no reason to believe that it was an act of terror and that it was a spontaneous act due to a youtube video.

So yeah, it does matter what it actually was just like it matters what they told the people. Funny how it took months just to get the B movie level performance that she gave today.

But go ahead liberal media parrots, regurgitate the MSNBC talking points that I'm sure they're spinning the entire hearing with. Really, it's cute to watch you all fall into line and chirp like good little parrots do.

I mean, I saw plenty of water boarding and other such tactics get a great deal of information. Tactics that he vowed to get rid of. Funny enough, it seemed as though he didn't really have much to do with it other than giving the green light to go take him down. In fact, it seemed as though he took credit for an accomplishment that he didn't have much to do with, which was completed in large thanks to tactics that he has publicly condemned for years.

Kind of ironic, right?

As long as they aren't trying to forcibly get married in your house of worship or trying to force a minister to marry them against his/her will, why is it any of your business whether or not they get married?

Saying that same sex marriage should be illegal on grounds that it is a sin doesn't make sense to me. In that case, should we pass legislation to prohibit gluttony, sexual activity out of wedlock, and laziness due to the fact that they are all viewed as sins in the christian religion?

The argument that same sex marriage violates and perverts tradition doesn't stand very firmly to me. After all, marriage is something that has been around for a very long time in many cultures and religions outside of Christianity. The idea that christians have any more of a right to dictate tradition when it comes to marriage is only in their minds and is very arrogant.

The bottom line is, if it doesn't concern you leave it alone. I'm not a homosexual, therefore I think that the idea of same sex marriage concerns me as much as what a christian might choose to eat for dinner on any given night concerns me. As long as people aren't doing anything to directly infringe upon your own rights, leave them alone.