carmenc

So the government should be able to arbitrarily clamp down on the ability to do anything that isn't essential? Well d'uh. The internet is a right. No. It is another convenience. What about healthcare? Convenience?

Since your calling a dead man a Liar please post your facts that he lied. You seem to have undeniable proof so lets hear it. As for the defamation lawsuit the judge changed the rules the jury was hung. They should win on appeal. Last I do not believe for a second you even went to see the movie, and if you actually went it was for no other reason then to once again show your anti Americanism. It will always be amazing to me the lack of respect shown to the men and women that make it possible for you to have the freedom have the opinions that you do. Me id prefer to ship you off to Iraq and let you see how far your opinions get you. How does his (or your, or my) freedom depend in any way on the invasion of Iraq?

How many record cold years have there been in the past decade?

Mosey! I LOVE moseying.

So.... what you're saying is that the universe may really be nothing more than some pimply-faced kid's vinegar and baking soda volcano ? I'm good with that. Could be an N-dimensional Monty Python sketch.

It didn't "resemble" the Nazi SS symbol, it was identical. Why are you trying to excuse the inexcusable?

I know a number of Morans. Huge family. Almost certainly pro-life. Not all of them. ourworlds.topcities.com/space1889/stories/sh-moran.html

Northern NJ is nuts! Average home today still costs $400k. It is not a cheap place to live at all! But for now it's home, even though my property tax is $6k Luck you. Mine's $9k.

Something like three hundred posts ago I told you that I agree there is a problem, I just disagree on exactly what the problem is. You think there is a problem with inanimate pieces of metal and plastic. I think there is a problem with violent crime, a problem with our mental health system, and number ofnother problems in our country. I don't think that we have too many rights or that any of them are too widely protected by the government. I'm willing to discuss solutions. It's difficult to discuss them though when youbare incapable of articulating a clear position. I've stated my position many times. It'd be nice if you could do it just once. I haven't seen you suggest a single idea for discussion. Did I miss something?

It's obvious. The climate is changing in ways we don't completely understand.

You didn't use the post as a change of topic, you used it as a response to the ongoing discussion - the whole 'set an example' thing made that clear. Again, nice try. Mike, the expression you are looking for is "red herring", not "strawman".

Has that happened to you, or are you just fear mongering? See you could do a freedom of information act and get the video from the car.... That would tell you if a light was out. But please... Tell me, have you been pulled over for a broken taillight and then arrested for "driving while X"????? I've been pulled over for a traffic offense that wasn't. Advised by attorney not to contest it since she said the judge always believes the cop in a "he said she said" case.

If they are driving, they need to carry a driver's license, just like anyone else. . But according to this: a NM driver's license doesn't count. Which brings us back to: So the state's claim that citizens don't need to carry ID is false, if they look Hispanic and drive in from NM.

What do they currently do to prove their citizenship? After all, the AZ police are already allowed (but not required) to question anyone's legal status. If their driver's license isn't proof that they are in the country legally, then they may want to carry one of the other documents listed. So the state's claim that citizens don't need to carry ID is false, if they look Hispanic and drive in from NM. What do you think might constitute "reasonable suspicion"? A tatoo on the forehead saying "Mexican"?

Never said otherwise, I just asked him to back it with more than a bumper sticker. And you know those types of charges have to be proven in court and are not just accepted. Oh, right. Just try challenging a cop's sworn statement that your brake light was out, or you were doing 33 in a 25 limit, before a municipal court judge.

My understanding is that you are not required to carry ID except in a situation where you would normally be required to, such as driving a vehicle. But if you are involved in some sort of altercation while, for instance, walking, you are not required to have an ID on you, but you may be required to retrieve an ID. Which is the way it already is. And the law says nothing about "looking Hispanic." In fact, the AZ bill specifically says that race should not be used as reasonable suspicion that someone is in the country illegally. Now some folks think that the cops are incapapble of following the law, and that they will make up excuses to harrass "brown people." And that may very well be so, in which case it is the problem that should be addressed. Claiming that the actual bill is racist is incorrect, because it is quite specifically not. I believe NM is a state that issues drivers licenses without proof of legal status. Lots of Hispanic CITIZENS live in NM and drive across into AZ. So if one is stopped with a blown tail-light on his pick-up are you seriously telling us that there won't be an issue? SERIOUSLY? If so, there is a really nice bridge you may be interested in buying.

Or nothing will happen since you are wearing running apparel. Now, try running in jeans and a jacket with a ski mask and the result might be different. Or simply running while Hispanic.

So if you're a US citizen from a state that doesn't comply with AZ's driver's license requirement, and you look Hispanic, you are both NOT required to carry ID and ARE required to simultaneously.

Yeaaaa...Blame George again...NOT the man that caused it! Oy vey.... Who caused George's war if not George? Who took credit for the tax cuts?

Sorry. I don't think the Bible is full of shit. People who take it literally as the story of creation are full of shit.

The thread is about TAXES (see your own thread title). The point at issue is rushmc's claim that cutting taxes raises gov revenues. The evidence is clear that it does not when measured in constant (non inflated) dollars. www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=165 With your expressed concern about the deficit you should be pleased that taxes are to be raised.

Since you (like kallend) mention this, I'm sure that you have the countervailing information to prove that false? I'm also sure that your information will show the increase of the number of TAXPAYERS and not the overall population increase, of course. According to Gawain, "Revenues are down, despite a growing population and growing available workforce."

Here ya go... knock yourself out. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/charts That doesn't show gov revenues increasing following the tax cuts after inflation and population growth are taken into account. Rushmc's own links proved him wrong on that score too. Even the Heritage Foundation admitted that the tax cuts are responsible for 14% of the growth in the deficit. Gawain also told us that revenues are down just a few posts ago.

Did you read those articles? Your first link shows that the Bush tax cuts were responsible for 14% of the deficit increase. Your second link includes: "There is no evidence that the tax cuts on net produced more revenue than the Treasury would have realized without them. That claim could be true — if we were to credit most or all of the economic growth during the period in question to tax cuts, but that is an awfully big claim, one that no serious economist would be likely to entertain. It’s a just-so story, a bedtime fairy tale Republicans tell themselves to shake off fear of the deficit bogeyman. It’s whistling past the fiscal graveyard. But this kind of talk is distressingly unremarkable in Republican political circles." Nothing you linked showed that real revenues increased after inflation and population growth were taken into account.

Gunshots from whom? Bad guys, felons? Police, armed citizens defending themselves? If the majority of those dead from gunshots are the bad guys shor by police or armed citizens, who cares? They're dead and no longer a burden or threat. Or better yet, if they're bad guys shot by bad guys, so much the better. Good riddance. See my response. It was more mindless propaganda from the gun grabbers, with a lot of rounding up. Most of the gunshots are self inflicted. Are you claiming that if a gunshot is self-inflicted then the person can't die?