DaVinci

Not really. You should read what the succeeding states said in their own words. Here, for example, is South Carolina: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp It really was all about slavery. Slavery was the rally point. But the real reason was States rights vs Federal powers. It took the FORM of the slavery issue. But the issue was that the States felt that the Federal Government did not have the right to over step what the States saw as their rights. It was State vs Federal power. Edit: From your link.

Try to get life insurance. So he is not lying, maybe using a blanket a bit too broadly. And many health insurance coverage try like hell not to cover risky activities.... Which is why many skydivers lie when they are asked how they got hurt, "I fell off a ladder".

It seems there has been a proliferation of Confederate flag waving in the last few years. Including the clown in front of the White House earlier this week waving the Stars & Bars along with the Flag of the USMC, perhaps he was was unable to see the irony. Perhaps a little more subtle than burning a cross on Obsma's front lawn, but the point was made. Everyone's in favor of states rights until it conflicts with thier own world view. I really wouldn't mind if the south succeeded, those Red states sure are a drain on our federal resources. Your point is only true if you equate the confederate flag as racist. Not saying some people don't do exactly that. But there was much more to the civil war than that. It was for sure a plank, but it was not the whole story.

What he said was pretty clear. If you want something, you have to work for it. Not a difficult concept. Wendy wanted something, she worked for it. I'd bet she made quite a few sacrifices along the way to get her goal. And the fact is that there are plenty of people that want something NOW and are not willing to work for a long distance goal. I have lots of kids at drive through's make comments that they like my car. My reply? "Thanks, complete college and you can easily have one too". I have a buddy, a packer at a DZ I was at, he wanted "something more" badly... Wanted to be more than a packer. I thought that was great and asked him if he wanted to talk about it. During our discussion we talked about a path off of the one he was on. He got his first real job off the DZ and started to make a little bit of money. He started to save up to go get an education..... And then instead, bought a new car. He is now trapped by the car payment and working just to keep the car. But he sure does look cool driving to his night job at Walmart. I think he would of looked better driving his old POS to school. But some car dealer got his hooks into him and made the sale. I had started planning his graduation gift if he had made it though school.... I was going to give him my car. He made a CHOICE. I personally think it was a terrible choice. But it was his to make. Some people make choices... Have a kid early before they can afford it. Decide they like alcohol more than a job. Not being poor is actually not that difficult. 1. Don't drink alcohol or smoke. If you smoke a pack a day that is about 2500/year (7 x 365) If you drink a 6 pack a day that is about 2500/year as well. So 5k a year you could save. 2. Don't buy a new car. My car is 7 years old. I just spent 500 dollars in maintenance on it, maybe another 1K in other repairs over the years. But other than that, I have not had a car payment in over 5 years. Even if I had taken payment to 5 years I would still have 'saved' over 10k dollars or 5k a year (500X24-repairs/2) by not having a new car. 3. Maybe don't do an expensive sport for fun unless you can afford it. The average person makes 50-100 jumps a year at 25/jump. 1250-2500 So just these three things and you could save 11-12K dollars a year. Take that and INVEST in education and you can improve your earning potential. Even if you don't go to school, you would have 11-12K dollars more a year. But most people would rather go to boogies, drink, and have fun. It is the CHOICES people make that put them where they are. Yes, there are some examples of people just being set up to fail. But even a half black kid with an absent father ended up as President. No, not everyone will "win". But avoiding certain behaviors and they sure as hell will do better.

Funny, but your point? Are you against States rights? Are you saying slavery still exists?

Most criminals fit this description.

Care to debate his points? How is forcing people to do something they do not want to do consistent with the principals that the Country was founded on? How is SS a "good" investment?

No, you are trying to dodge. He said it "did not change" but them mentioned it went up in price. Going up in price is a change. Unless it hurts your political position I guess. Selectively snipping YET AGAIN. We're onto you. Your intellectual dishonesty is getting you nowhere. Oh look the best you can do is personal attacks.... I expect as much whenever I deal with you. When you stop the selective editing to change the context of what another poster wrote, I'll stop pointing out that you are doing it. Ah yes... You can't grasp that he said it didn't change, but it did. Then when you can't, you start personal attacks. Now you just admit you do it and try to give an excuse. This is a pretty typical response pattern for you. You run out of fact, so you start personal jabs. At least you admit it now.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/ And who had the House and Senate at that time?

I did not vote for Obama Were you old enough to vote? Did you support or back him?

You don't have to drive to be in a car. They call the "accidents" for a reason. Did you vote for Obama? If you didn't, then I apologize

Yes, because sticking to the Constitution and being fiscally responsible is *so* extreme and out there. In what world are the recent actions of the teabaggers fiscally responsible? Blues, Dave Where have you seen ANY politician be fiscally responsible? 3rd grade name use aside..... When did you see the dems be responsible with a budget? Hell, Obama has not signed a budget since 2009. (The last time the Senate passed a budget was on April 29, 2009) Obama's last proposed budget was voted down in the Senate 97-0.... And the D's own the Senate. Since the last budget the Govt has spent $9.4 trillion, adding $4.1 trillion in debt.

The part where you are not seeing that it is working as designed.... Even if you don't like it.

Allan West. Obama - Nope Biden - Nope Clinton - Nope Reid - Nope I would not claim "total victory" http://www.whoserved.com/senate.asp Republicans with military service: 14% Democrats with military service: 12%

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/10/87474-yale-professors-surprising-discovery-tea-party-supporters-scientifically-literate/

Says the skydiver who is one low turn away from sticking the rest of the patients with a six figure bill. Blues, Dave Boooooooooo, read the thread, I'm not jumping anymore dingus One car accident One slip and fall Does not really matter the reason. You wanted Obama care, you got it.

No, you are trying to dodge. He said it "did not change" but them mentioned it went up in price. Going up in price is a change. Unless it hurts your political position I guess. Selectively snipping YET AGAIN. We're onto you. Your intellectual dishonesty is getting you nowhere. Oh look the best you can do is personal attacks.... I expect as much whenever I deal with you.

No, what he wrote was, which is a piss-poor example of sentence construction. As a result, you're left with a fragment that is ambiguous as to whether he is talking about the post or the poster. This is intentional because it's a troll. (see how easy that is?) But you're smart enough to deal with a little ambiguity. I guess some people are just asses.

Sigh. You clearly haven't paid attention that this is the house throwing a tantrum when they can't get their way through standard channels and is holding the country to ransom. they have been called on it and been found wanting, hence the approval rating dropping to around 25%. Sigh.... you clearly don't realize that this is a LEGAL method. It IS a standard channel designed into the Constitution. You also seem to ignore that the whole shutdown could have been avoided by the Senate passing the bill the House sent them. You also seem to be ignoring that Obama has done basically the same thing the House is asking to do (Obama suspended the Business mandate, the House wants to suspend the individual mandate). They both are doing the SAME thing. One is using a procedure allowed by the Founders.

He said the guy had "piss poor reading comprehension". That is playing the player and not the ball.

Temper get you much?

Most? I'd say there is a pretty significant group that wants the govt to take care of them but only in the ways they want to be taken care of.... For example, some want the govt to pay their medical expenses, but do not want the govt telling them they can't smoke. Some want the govt to cover their retirement, but not tell them when they can retire. Me? I think the Federal govt should limit itself to the Constitution and stay out of just about everything else and leave the rest to the States.

I can see you don't understand the whole idea of three branches of govt and two Houses (upper/lower). I can also see that you have not paid attention that the House has sent a bill funding everything but the ACA. I can also see that you must have missed how the House has sent three bills to the Senate to fund the most important projects... And it was the SENATE that refused to vote on them.

Aw look... more personal attacks.

Hate to break it to you, but using the House *IS* Constitutional. You do know that the House (R) has voted on a budget and the Senate (D) has refused to vote on it? Ya know, that whole three branches of govt thing. Budgets being started in the House. The House being the *representatives* of the people.... The House is following the Constitution. When Obama modified the ACA *FIVE* times since it was passed without input from the House or Senate... Including suspending the employer mandate, that was not considered "obstructionism". But when the House follows the RULES and tries to suspend the individual mandate you go crazy. Seems to me that you should maybe read the Constitution. And maybe you should look at the history of Obama doing almost EXACTLY what you are crying the Republicans are evil for. Still Constitutional. You incorrectly assume that just because you have the executive branch and ONE of the legislative branches that you get free reign to run the show as you see fit. The Founding Fathers thought differently.