Mike

Don't those trolls know that half of Democrats opposed the President's ill advised adventure into Syria and that's the prettiest picture out of Dem/Ind/Rep?

I heard Obama talk about how Syria is no threat to the United States. Some jibber-jabber about how we should use our emotions instead of our brain. Mention of diplomatic solutions to the chemical weapons problem... And a plea for support to pre-emptively attack Syria before any diplomatic efforts have a chance to succeed. Does that about sum it up or are there more positions that I missed in there?

What do you all think? Yes or no? Somewhere in between? I'm very curious to know what we should call that monstrous injustice against our supposedly free society.

Source Petition: http://wh.gov/ll6xw

After all, they target EVERY Citizen with the spy programs. That's a very different word from any. Different to the point that they might be technically correct to say they don't target any Americans. Since they target all Americans.

As you know, technically correct is the best kind of correct. If you're a bureaucrat.

I'm talking about the neighbor that helped rescue the three abducted girls. He said that he has a job but they're going to be homeless and should have the money because they need it more. What's up with that? Hello, $25,000! Where is the greed in saying they need it more than I do, I'll be okay on my own?

Seems a bit sketchy that they can't stop pirates from downloading Metallica but they somehow think they can catch tens of thousands of individual merchants that will charge sales tax but never remit it. Should we shudder to think of the tax fraud nightmare that will pick our pockets while failing to fill the state's coffers?

My guess is about 30 cents for every dollar charged to the consumer, with the rest going to line the pockets of many thousands of individuals that don't HAVE to charge the tax but do anyway because no one will think twice about it and they can pocket the extra cash. What do you all think?

I ask this because some people on the right are upset that the Terrorist that bombed Boston will be tried in Federal Court instead of by a military tribunal. Even though the FBI, Justice Department and Federal Court system has an excellent record when it comes to convicting terrorists such as Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City Bomber.

Is it in line Constitutional principals to arbitrarily deny a right to an attorney, a right to a trial by jury and a right to due process to American citizens that are arrested for committing horrific crimes? Or is it in line with in line with American Tradition to give guilty murderers a proper defense, a proper trial and a proper execution? Any insight would be helpful, thanks.

In a way, it's very understandable that they want to catch the Marathon Bomber. At the same time, they're locking down a million plus American Citizens, cutting off the food supply of the city, are restricting travel, closing down all business and searching everyone's homes for purely arbitrary reasons just to be sure that the bomber isn't in there.

I don't understand why the media is stepping back and out of the way, refusing to ask hard questions and why everyone seems to be ok with all of that. It might be that it hasn't gone on for very long yet. I really don't know. Any answers that offer insights into this subject would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

For doing the exact same thing according to his political opponents?

Secular Humanism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

US Constitution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Constitution

Is that because people don't understand the concept of Secularism or is it because the politically minded wish to cause a backslide into the Dark Ages?

Dark Ages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_%28historio...

It has long been said that War changes a man. In ways that can't be understood by the person that was changed by their experience nor understood by those they return home to. Changes that have to be hidden so that the one who was changed can protect themselves. Not only from the experience but from the reactionary attitude of society as a whole. A society that neither cares nor forgives. A society in which it is better to pretend blamelessness while pointing fingers in all directions save at itself. Where to admit weakness, even if only for a moment, makes you something to be despised and reviled by all. After all, if someone admits a sliver of fallacy in such a society determined to hide all such instances, how much further does it go? Why, to no less than infinity.

With a state of affairs in which that passes for the norm, in which that is the way of the world, there is no true help that you can even provide. In order to save someone you must forever destroy them. Knowing that they would be destroyed, that it would cause collateral damage on all that they had touched since being initially damaged, it then might seem that the best course is to pretend that it doesn't exist. Hide it. Deny it. Pretend you don't hear a word, even when approached, when help is demanded. You protect yourself and them at the same time. How could a solution be more ideal?

The problem with all of the above is that it doesn't work for society. Not really. You can't keep pretending that a problem doesn't exist simply because it is inconvenient to address it. Our prisons are overflowing with the mentally ill. Our hospitals are under-equipped. Our soldiers are thrown out to stand on their own, to live or die by their own limited recourses. Military suicide rates are soaring.

What can we do about all of this? What sort of resources can be brought to bear in order to attempt healing the sickness that festers at the core of our very society as a whole? Do we need to re-establish an extensive network of mental health clinics, hospitals and asylums? Do we need to reform our laws? Do we need to re-examine some of our military's bureaucracy and alter it to be less damaging to our own? What can we do about all of this? Or, should we simply continue to ignore the problem in the hopes that it will solve itself in the wash of innocent blood lost?

It seems like an extreme entitlement mentality to me. So, what's up with that?

Are you justified in denying all kinds of candy except narrowly defined types? After all, you didn't say what KIND is allowed, just that it is. When your kid wants a Snickers bar, you can smack it out of their hand and ground them for wanting something other than tic-tacs? Help appreciated, thanks.

I'm guessing about 100 million. Not sure how many lawsuits the Federal Government would lose for sure, any help appreciated.

They're unfunded and a financial liability. Not sure if that means it should be both words together, help appreciated. Thanks.

cut taxes to the point it runs wildly out of control? I'm a little confused on what order Republicans best did that in. Any help appreciate, thanks!

That seems a little TOO transparent. They need lessons on how to bamboozle people. The sham is running thin these days and it's going to cost them. Does anyone know why Republicans can't be bothered to put a little effort into their political attacks? Thanks!

Apparently, some retailer accidentally charged a 2.3% medical excise tax on purchases when they're not supposed to. How many people are now convinced that it's a general sales tax, thanks to rampant stupidity amongst the American Sheeple?

of about half a million dollars a minute. At that rate, it appears that the budget deficit will be gone in about 4 years. Does that mean President Obama is likely to leave office on his second term with a balanced budget or is the debt clock wrong?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/