?

hint: I don't want to hear muslim prayers before my ball game either... or being teacher led in my schools... or Muslim laws in my laws...

however, if you can build a church, I guess they shoudl be able to build one too... and if you have a chapel in a hospital, I can see making similar means for other religions like Muslims?

it seems like if I want everyone to be equal that, according to cons means, that I hate Christians and love Muslims?

Job is the more obvious one, this guy was a great guy and then God let's the devil torture him just to prove how great he is?

and it was horrible stuff, right? like even kill his kids?

isn't that like me beating my kid just to see if he will still love me? or at least, letting someone else beat the kid?

and Judas... slightly less obvious, but the entire plan for humanity's salvation is based on one guy betraying Jesus... but he supposedly had free will? weren't Judas' actions necessary and yet he is demonized and committed suicide over them? if this was a court case they would probably say he was "set up"

when did civilized ideas leave the party?

they talk proudly about how they want hangings and televised firing squads... yeah, that's VERY POPULAR in middle eastern dictatorships...

they cheer torture... yeah, also very popular in the ME...

it seems like Reagan cons didn't like that stuff?

I only recently noticed this? does he have a napoleon complex?

he is listed at 5'7" but most people seem to think that's a "charles barkley" kind of number and he's actually closer to 5'5" in real life...

as he was convicted for computer fraud, part of his probation was that he couldn't get on a computer... yet, he obviously did when he posted a video to youtube...

why do cons want to let this computer fraudster go just because they don't like Obama?

is it OK to break the law as long as you're doing something cons think is OK? also see bundy?

do they not know the history of the CIA talking points?

do they NOT UNDERSTAND that the emails they have don't prove that they knew it was a lie at the time?

this is no different than Bush's WMD lies... they were just going off of what the CIA said at the time, which turned out to be a lie... the biggest difference is, Obama changed after two weeks when they had more evidence and Bush kept on lying for years despite the evidence...

ABC did a story about the alterations to the talking points memo a year ago... it seems you found an email that says exactly the same thing that the revisions said?

how is this a story?

while the records are showing record all time profits overall for companies?

"we can't raise minimum wages, because we're barely making it"... meanwhile, they're making more money than ever...

somewhere along the way, they figured out that MOST PEOPLE have no idea if the company is doing well or not and they can just say they're "about to go under" even when making record profits...

unfortunately... some people are paying attention...

which law did she break?

I see cons saying that there was some loss of "liberty" here?

looks to me that she just took her liberty to record a conversation and release it to the public and Sterling wasn't very good about paying attention to the fact that someone may be taking that liberty...

and is Obama's as bad?

cons make all kinds of allegations... I asked cons to support their claim...and no one seemingly could... so I went off to do my own research... and...

in 2009, GDP was 14.219...

in 2013, five or so years in, it's 15.684... 1.465 trillion growth

Reagan in 81 was 2.762...

and in 1988 was 4.698.... 1.936 Trillion growth in 8 years, which was more than Obama's granted... in 8 years

and just for sillies, after five years (like Obama's term so far) in 86, Reagan had 4.184... which was 1.422 trillion growth... interesting...

the interest that is paid on the loans is... up to a limit (which more and more are going over that limit, as loans are so high these days)...

but should the entire payment of the student loan be tax deductible?

again... this isn't "paying the bill for them"... just making the difered costs of the education tax deductible in full?

also, as cons like to crow, this would be a "TAX CUT" for those that "worked hard and got an education" right?

is, as cons say, "sitting around eating bon-bons all day collecting a check", when you can leave and get a job at any time... go to school at any time...

the same as "being beaten, with no freedom to leave the plantation, forced to work where and how they want for 18 hour days"?

even by con standards...

just wondering...Bundy seems to think that welfare is so horrible that slavery is better...

doesn't that seem silly?

why do cons ignore this part of the quote when they talk about the context?

"I want to tell you one more thing I know about the negro. When I go, went, go to Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, and I would see these little government houses, and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids -- and there's always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch. They didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

And because they were basically on government subsidy -- so now what do they do? They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never, they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered are they were better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things? Or are they better off under government subsidy?"

context means you explain ALL of the quote, just not ignore the parts you don't like?

I have read the full quote, as you claim you have, but, in context, what does the above part mean to you?

I see no way that this still isn't' racist, even in context?

Democrats say what Sterling did was horrible, there was no excuse... they want to boycott the games and they want his sponsors to leave...

they want the NBA to investigate and if there are findings of racist business dealings, maybe even take the team away...

cons make excuses... talk about how Bundy was "misquoted" and "right if you think about it"

... cons claim he's a victim of the "PC crowd" and that he's just a "good old guy who doesn't know how to talk to the media"

it's nice these events happened so close to each other and we can get a very clear picture...

while I do see you often talk about how you guys give to charity... which seems to be a lot of church giving...

is that a social responsibility to do so... or just "going above and beyond"

if you found out someone was rich and they didn't give... would you have a lower opinion of that person, or just be impressed if they gave?

the current party platform probably won't last longer than 20 or so more years... demographics are changing, it's a losing card in the long run...

will they move toward more libertarian ideas... or more become slightly more socially liberal and move more liberal on economic issues, kind of like some conservative democrats now?

I can only think of situations where big business was wrong and science was right when those two go head to head?

cigarettes, leaded gas