Rightwing theocrats whining that depriving them the right to punish non-affiliated employees is violating "religious freedom" while blocking any Muslim the right to even build a mosque.

Putin you know with every mosque we build we are just admitting defeat to the terrorists. Come on man everybody knows that.

Yeah, they wanted to build that mosque at ground zero to put a middle finger in the face of America (cite: fox news)

Bashing individual mandates as evil statism run amok when the plan was developed by the Heritage Foundation and endorsed by Republicans everywhere.

Here is a link to a September 28, 2006 speech that Barack Obama gave condemning the detention of enemy combatants at Gitmo.

http://obamaspeeches.com/092-Military-Commission-Legislation-Obama-Speech.htm

When I go hunting I can't kill a Doe do to the fact that she may be with child. Yet theres no problem when a women murders her unborn child. Strange.

Does the deer have a little doe?

what?

Two bucks!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sL5FjvH3AJc

@thatonekid: you are probably forbidden from killing pregnant deer for ecological reasons.

Beg, Its not pregnant deer, its any female deer, because its a possibility. And thats not the point. According to a liberal that possible deer fetus is more valuable than a human fetus.

oh i see (obviously i'm not a hunter). still i would say that the reasons for laws protecting female deer have more to do with conserving deer populations than a recognition of any rights entitled to the deer themselves. Its like the position that the rain forest should be protected

continued (posted the previous accidentally): ...because the huge variety of plants there could help scientists cure human diseases. One could argue this point without being committed to the position that the plants in the rain forest have any rights in themselves.

I bath in deer fetus blood regularly. Gives skin youthful radiance and feel.

"There has been no legislative initiative from the White House and no legislation from the Democratic Senate or the Republican House."

It would take a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, which basically means there is no legislative option.

"Yet President Obama now embraces Super Pac's funded by the very corporate dollars he condemned in the State of the Union speech and through his press secretary.

It their hypocrisy liberals/statists/socialists/progressives don't mind huge donations from big groups- Labor Unions. Now that other big groups have the same voice it's suddenly 'wrong.'"

Obama will totally play the Super Pac game (though he probably prefers he didn't have to). That's aint hypocrisy. That's pragmatism. Letting the other side exploit the ruling while you sit on your hands would be stupid.

For the record, however, a WashPo story reported that the President's SuperPac had raised little over 500k.. compared to I want to say 20 mill for the Repubs already.

Bel, you're still ignoring the fact that a human life is the lesser of the two in their eyes.

A human life is lesser in who's eyes?

this thread is stupid. liberals are no more hypocritical than conservatives. and it's great how you confuse liberal with statist. so hitler was a liberal? i am against statism though. but its main issue is not hypocrisy but misguided principles.

that said, statists tend to think that affirmative action prevents racism when it is by its nature a racist policy.

You're mistaken, bolshoi. Liberals have never misspoken or acted in a hypocritical manner. Those behaviors are the exclusive domain of conservatives.

hahaha. what are you talking about? i said liberals are no more hypocritical. that means they could be less. it means they could be not hypocritical at all, in fact.

but yes, i do think the hypocritical level is equal. and if it weren't, i couldn't measure the difference anyway, not enough information to say which side has more.

That is the most sensical thing I have ever heard out of bolshoi's head.

@Yellow: all 3 are:

first graph (http://jimcgreevy.com/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html)
Now lets include the Obama years onto this chart:
2009-1890 (NEW RECORD!)
2010- 1653
2011- 1235
2012 (based on Obama's budget)- 1587

Also I explain below in chart 3 why these numbers are BS.

second graph: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/a-bogus-chart-on-obama-and-the-debt-gets-a-new-lease-on-life/2011/09/28/gIQAx40Y6K_blog.html

read the article name BOGUS CHART is the name of the article. And a quote from the article:
"calculated the numbers as if Obama took office a year later than he did."
later on you see the real numbers:
Reagan: 15%
Bush sr: 7.1%
Clinton: -13.4% (Clinton had surpluses)
Bush jr: 5.6%
Obama: 24.6%

So that second site actually goes against you since Obama is the worst of the lot.

Third chart:
According to this chart, under Reagan/Bush, the debt-GDP ratio went from 32.5% to 66.1%.

In reality the debt to GDP ratio went from 26.1% to 48.1%. The other problem with this chart is that it ignores the interest on the debt during the republican years (when balancing a budget, the interest of the debt isn't included. Meaning you could technically have a balanced budget but still see the total debt rise. Clinton is the best example of where this happened, where he had a surplus in his final year, but the debt still grew by $18 Billion.

In fact under his definition of a Balanced budget, the last president to Balance the budget was Ike, who last time I checked was a republican.

In fact under his definition of a balanced budget the budget has only been balanced 3 times in history (Any data before 1935 cannot be defined under his definition). once under a democratic president (Truman) and twice under a republican president (both times being Ike). So his expectation that the republicans could have 16 straight years of budgets which meet a criteria that has only been met 3 times in history is unrealistic.

This chart also makes the mistake of double counting transfer payments (which is a common practice for those wishing to overstate the debt, and your earlier chart (chart 1) also made that mistake (as a result my Obama numbers for chart 1 did this as well).

The last mistake here is the dates the president went into office. The Debt-GDP ratio (again using the double count mistake) the month before Obama assumed office was 69.7% (I don't have data for the exact day, the month before is the closest day I have), the next data point I have is for 85.2%, which judging by their chart is the number they have for change between Obama and Bush. This means they did the same mistake your chart 2 did. Because they had to chose between one month before or 11 months after (and they did the same mistake for the transition between Bush and Clinton) they choose after since it makes their graph look better.

So now I did the calculations using the same method they did except lowering the requirement to consider a balanced budget to what is actually defined as balanced. Had they balanced the budgets during those years the debt to GDP ratio would have gone from 33.4% to 30.2% (using the double count method, to keep consistent with the other graph) during the Reagan and Bush I years, and from 57.3% down to 53.0% in the Bush SR years.

Counting both, rather then one or the other Clinton would have ended with 26.8% and Obama would currently have a 51.5%.

Bolshoi I've ready enough to determine you have less value than a stale fart POOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOF
Gone like a stale fart in the wind.

You mean gone like a TC in the wind.

A Duncan, you type that "it takes an amendment so there is no legislative option."
My God, please tell me you haven't found a woman brain dead enough to allow you to multiply.
When you get old enough to make money spend it on a basic Civics book.
There you will learn that a Constitutional Amendment in a piece of LEGISLATION.
OMG-dumber than dirt.
POOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOF,
ta tat and have a wonderful life as a fucking moron.

Just another example of TC proving that ignorance is bliss.

Meanwhile, I think I found what happened to your doe: http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/424788

Bumping all of your own, week-old threads once they're off the front page. -_-

Tettleton: Thanks for your keen insight.