May 31, 2014 at 16:19:01
“It's downright fascinating to read so many of the comments here based on the commentator's personal idea of what "reparations" would be. Make up your own idea of what "reparations" mean -- even though no one else has expressed the same idea -- and then make a comment based solely on your own idea of what "reparations" mean.
Read the article above. For the black folks in this article and others I have read, all that "reparations" would mean is giving their neighborhoods and communities and children the same opportunities that every American neighborhood and community and child should have, white, black or whatever. Forget about trying to make things right in the past, people, make things right **now** and that's enough for all the black folks I've talked to and read about.
I'd love someone to explain to me how that is an unreasonable request. (Full disclosure: I'm Hispanic, from a family that lived here before the United States came through.)”
May 31, 2014 at 15:39:24
“"There isn't one person alive in the U.S. today that owned slaves. "
No, but there are many who have the positions they have in our society because of the leg up their ancestors had from owning slaves. Not all "white" Americans but many of them were born into well-off families only because of the economic benefits their families obtained from slavery, and jim crow, and redlining, and all the other issues being discussed.”
Oregonpapa on Jun 3, 2014 at 13:16:28
“Okay, fine. So let's start by dismantling the Kennedy fortune, then move on to the Rockefeller fortune. From there, we can attack the Ford Foundation, then move on to the fortunes of a multitude of billionaire limousine liberal. Hey, lets decimate the Hollywood elites. They are full of guilt, so I'm sure they wouldn't mind.”
“The fun part is how these businesses didn't really care until the gun nuts forced them to. Nice play, gun nuts! Please continue threatening as many businesses and other public places as possible. May I suggest you guys next walk around heavily armed in as many malls as possible? thanks a bunch.”
Fortuna Victrix on May 30, 2014 at 20:02:12
“Ya they will screw up their so called good thing. It's just a matter of time.”
“Promises to "repeal and replace" are hilarious. Republicans did not have a plan to care for the poor and the most vulnerable Americans before "Obamacare" (which *is* a Republican plan, by the way). Republicans do not have a plan to care for the poor and the most vulnerable Americans now. And Republicans will never have a plan to care for the poor and the most vulnerable Americans (especially since Republicans won't even embrace the Republican plan, which is "Obamacare). Republican leaders just want to flat out abandon those people, and give another tax cut to the rich while they're doing it.”
“"Weak" because he caught or killed the terrorists and pirates and other evildoers that you couldn't catch, Mr. Cheney? And as the article states, the prez is doing a lot more for Ukraine than Cheney did for Georgia.”
“Mr. Maher is right about the principles that he spoke about. The problem is that he focused on the wrong principles. People are wrong in debating the Sterling on the grounds of civil rights or privacy, etc. The NBA is not exactly a civil rights leader. It did nothing after Sterling's many other racial incidents. The players did not protest after Sterling's many other racial incidents, and black players have never had a problem taking the racist's money.
The NBA's action this time was made purely, solely 100 percent on business terms. And it has the right to make that decision purely on business terms. It was in the documents Sterling signed when he became an owner. Sterling had done something that not only threatened the success of his business, but also the business of every other NBA owner. The past incidents didn't threaten the owners' business, which is why he got away with this stuff in the past. On business terms, the owners pretty much had no choice. But please don't be confused that they debated this on the grounds of civil rights or privacy rights or any other right besides the right to protect their money.”
“Funny? Yes. Funniest ever? No way. But I did enjoy it. My favorite part was where even Jack Bauer and Chloe from "24" couldn't save that guy from the cult. They can handle the Russians, Mideast terrorists and the Chinese. But the Beygency? No chance.”
“As usual with these kinds of laws, they are not about preventing abortions. If Texas Republicans really wanted to prevent abortions, they would have pushed hard for wider access to birth control and they would have passed laws that would crack down on the men who get these women pregnant, at the least. Nothing stops abortions better than birth control. And states that have cracked down on the men have seen their abortion rates drop. ... But then again, as noted, these Texas lawmakers were not focused on actually preventing abortions.”
grandmablue on Apr 4, 2014 at 09:40:37
“TX closed 76 women's clinics that did NOT provide abortion, but provided affordable contraception, cancer screening, STD testing and treatment, etc.
I* read somewhere that there were an estimated additional 30,000 pregnancies so far because of women's loss of the ability to get affordable, accessible contraception.”
metogamekun on Apr 4, 2014 at 05:18:22
“It's about control, and obsession with sex—women having sex.”
“No surprise. Every Republican president since Reagan increased the annual deficit. And every Dem president has reduced the annual deficit. And a lot of people still think the Republicans are the ones who are fiscally "responsible."”
tallen on Feb 27, 2014 at 21:47:17
“Obama increased the national debt MORE in five years than Bush did in eight.”
Elsinor on Feb 27, 2014 at 21:44:37
“That is actually factually true. Even the average deficits run by Carter over his fours was about 14% lower than the average run by Ford over his two years. By the end of Reagan's first term his deficits were three times as high as Carter's in his final year. They hit a record high in the George H.W. Bush administration and then more-or-less steadily declined under Clinton until the government was actually running a surplus. When W. took over they rocketed upward hitting new record highs in his third and fourth years.
“Ahhh, the blog run by Romney's health care adviser. There's an unbiased source for you. Not. Even. Close.
1) Almost all of those are old plans. The concern is with today's Republicans. The guys in the House who have taken 40-some votes to repeal Obamacare and not one single vote on a replacement plan to provide health care to all Americans. You might as well mention Richard Nixon's plan, which was more liberal than Obamacare.
2) And those old Republican plans do not provide health care to all Americans. Those plans nibble at this corner and that corner, but they don't provide health care to all Americans. They do provide some nifty tax cuts to the rich though, which is what those plans really are, tax-break plans, not health care plans.
Republicans run the House. Let's see them send their plan to the Senate. (Don't hold your breath.)
The fact remains: ****Today's**** Republicans, the guys running the House, don't want to provide health care to all Americans. They prefer what we have now, the "plan" which shines so brightly in that graph above.”
“And as Obama spoke, insurance execs across the nation were yelling, "NO NO, this is not what we want! We don't want people to keep their old policies."
This is hilarious, mainly because, as far as I can tell, this is a very minor change. Obamacare already lets people keep their health care insurance policies. What Obamacare doesn't do is force insurance companies to continue those policies. If your insurance company cancels your policy, it's because your insurance company wants to cancel your policy, not because of Obamacare. Insurance companies have been canceling policies since the start of the system. True yesterday; still true today and tomorrow.
The one difference; it's now harder for companies to blame Obamacare when the companies screw customers the way they have always screwed customers. I predict that during 2014, the crazy anti-Obamacare people who insist on keeping their terrible policies will decide on their own to move over to one of the better and cheaper Obamacare policies. But they will continue to slam Obama while doing it...”
“Where he screwed up is that he suggested that his pants are designed for the way a woman's body should be, and if you don't fit in my pants, well that because your body is not the way a woman's body should be. ..... amazed that a guy like that is even married.”
“Yeah, Google sucks, but how is Google supposed to make back the $1.65 billion it paid? If the co-founders didn't want anything bad to happen to their baby, they shouldn't have taken the $1.65 billion. Once you take the cash, your former baby now has to somehow earn the cash that was paid to you, so you should just walk away and don't look back. That money that you took didn't appear from magic.”
Imaliberal67 on Nov 8, 2013 at 23:23:01
“Isn't it reasonable that they should still be able to complain as end users of the product? I think if we can, so can they.”