carlfense

While we're "fact" checking.....http://www.lifenews.com/2012/09/05/media-hides-fact-planned-parenthood-does-40-of-abortions/

Did you just cite "Life News" as "fact" checking?

Anecdotal. For every story like this there are a handful of stories that couldn't be told because PP aborted the potential story teller.

Care to back that up? With numbers please, unless you're embracing the anecdotal evidence that you just dismissed.

(Kasich, Perry, Walker, and Bush). These guys are wildly popular . . .

Come again?

 

Rubio is a star and raw talent just as Obama was in 2008.

Rubio would be the strongest candidate in the general but he won't make it there. The Jeb W. Romney campaign will salt the earth under his feet. And from a conviction standpoint it's difficult to be impressed. Rubio has made one big legislative effort in his career and he abandoned it immediately when the winds changed.

 

Ted Cruz is to the right what Bernie Sanders is to the left...an ideological purist.

Ted Cruz is an ideologue who has nothing but contempt for the intelligence of his supporters. Unfortunately, that seems to be working for him. It says quite a bit more about the far right than it does about ol' Ted.

 

And let's not forget Fiorina who, while some may not like her tenure of challenging the status quo at HP, was the first ever female CEO of a Fortune 100 company.

Oh, good lord. "Challenging the status quo" is probably the saddest spin that I've seen of a complete failure of a tenure that resulted in the firing of more than 30,000 people, a golden parachute for Carly, and a giant jump in stock prices when the market saw that she had been fired.

 

If you want to believe that she'd be a good politician (and not just an anti-Hillary prop) that's fine . . . but you'd do well to not base it on her career in the private sector.

Ya. 4-5 of them.

Could you name those 4-5?

. . . is destroying servers . . .

You didn't vote for Romney, right?

I would think a fair/flat tax (with a lower or zero rate for those under the poverty line or at a threshold of $40K or below) would make both sides happy.

So someone who makes $41,000 would take home $32,800 after your "fair tax" . . . while someone making $39,000 would take home $39,000?

 

Might want to work on your proposal. That or come up with a new name.

What makes this scandal so bad is that they have been caught trying to sell/profit from body parts of fetuses.

Despite the hysterical claims by the conservative media there is no evidence of this.

Two police officers who supported the apparently false narrative given by officer Ray Tensing to justify his fatal shooting of unarmed black motorist Sam DuBose have been placed on paid administrative leave, as two new videos that seem to further damage all three officers’ original accounts were made public on Thursday.

 

Tensing was charged with murdering DuBose on Wednesday and city officials released video footage from his body camera that seemed to contradict the officer’s account that he shot DuBose in self-defense after being dragged by the driver's car.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/07/30/sam_dubose_murder_phillip_kidd_and_david_lindenschmidt_suspended_after_backing.html

If you can provide some hard data points or trend lines showing its improved, or stabilized, please share with us all.

Given your arguments in that thread and this one, I have little doubt that that would be a waste of time for the both of us.

 

Have a nice weekend.

For starters, the Independent leans to the left on most political topics, so I would not identify that as being a strong source.

http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/64360-wealth-inequality-in-america/?view=findpost&p=1556047

This seems to be popping back up again . . . so I'd like to propose that if we're going to drug test welfare recipients that we should drug test everyone who receives money from the government.

 

That's fair right?

On a more serious note, I thought Republicans were all for less government involvement. So what's the ideology behind passing a law that essentially involves the government in marriage? If a party stands for freedom, why the restrictions on freedom?

Why, indeed?

Let's be clear about something.

 

Similar things happen in larger cities.

 

When I was in Des Moines, there was one guy who was s real estate developer that literally dictated how the city was developed. Oh, and guess who would own large plots of land that would be annexed into cities.

See TD Ameritrade and the absolute BS about the need to close Rosenblatt.

 

Guess whose buddies owned that land north of downtown?

you dont live here do you? Lol

No . . . but my wife does have a standing job offer there.

LOL

 

Yeah, only if you fit in with the good ole boy network. even millions dont mean sh#t in this political, moldymoney, cashtown if you dont roll with and bow down to the right people.

Why would anyone want to hang out with them? I'd have a shooting range, a professional style kitchen, a nano brewery, and I'd take vacations.

 

Haha.

As you said, "rich" is a relative term.

Yeah. If you make $300,000 in Hastings, NE you can live like a king. If you made the same money in San Francisco you might have to rent a house.

Ok, so those who make more than $100,000 are wrong and deserve to have things taken away?

I don't think that it's a matter of right and wrong. In fact, I'd argue that that is a strange way to think about taxation.

 

And I'll debate that that household is a far cry from middle class in say, the west coast, or east coast, or Chicago......

No doubt.

 

It's also pretty interesting that the article linked says college isn't a free ticket to the hallowed "middle class".

There aren't a lot of free tickets in life unless you're born rich or incredibly lucky.

 

 

I don't think there's a $100,000 household anywhere that would qualify themselves as that.

That's because everyone thinks that they are middle class.

 

 

????

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/159029/americans-likely-say-belong-middle-class.aspx

I don't think there's a $100,000 household anywhere that would qualify themselves as that.

That's because everyone thinks that they are middle class.

Have to admit, this doesn't make sense.

 

when it struck a wall and for sport or target shooting the engine stopped,

 

It makes my head hurt.

No it's pretty meaningless. I could rob five banks and launder the money into my business, I'd increase revenue in my business in a budget neutral manner, but it's still not a good thing.

. . . uh . . . yeah. I don't think that's comparable.

"Police officers shot dead a teenager armed with a handgun after he got out of a stolen car in St. Louis on Wednesday night.

The shooting comes five months after a police officer shot dead an unarmed teenager in a suburb of the city.

Officers were tailing the car, which was reported stolen in December, when it struck a wall and for sport or target shooting the engine stopped, St. Louis Police Chief Sam Dotson told reporters.

 

The 19-year-old passenger was carrying a Tec 9 handgun (semi automatic hand gun, what's he doing with this?) when he got out of the car to flee, and officers ordered him to drop the weapon, Dotson said. Both officers opened fire when he did not, fatally wounding him, he added."

What?

Good Faith Exception to Exclusionary Rule

 

An exception to the exclusionary rule barring the use at trial of evidence obtained pursuant to an unlawful search and seizure. If officers had reasonable, good faith belief that they were acting according to legal authority, such as by relying on a search warrant that is later found to have been legally defective, the illegally seized evidence is admissible.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/good_faith_exception_to_exclusionary_rule

Boy there's a meaningless phrase, "budget neutral".

Meaningless unless it isn't budget neutral . . . and then it's characterized as exploding the deficit, "THE DEBT!!," irresponsible spending, and "we need to tighten the belt".

 

According to that article, which obviously isn't gospel, sure, it's not an added expenditure, but it appears to take away from households earning more than $100000 and funneling it elsewhere.

Yep. Boogeyman aside . . . I'm not sure how people can look at stagnating middle and lower class wages coinciding with the incredible gains made by the wealthiest Americans and conclude that we don't need wealth redistribution. In fact, take the government and the big, mean, scary phrases out of it and I'd bet that most Republicans would agree.

 

I don't think I want the Keystone XL project moved ahead btw.

Frankly, I don't think that the GOP does either. It's far more valuable as cover for the fact that they don't have an economic plan or a jobs plan than it is as an actual infrastructure project. When it's approved they will have to come up with a real plan or a new distraction.