Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $10,500
Woo hoo!! And the first 12% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by justlurking

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Opus Delecti

    06/12/2014 4:13:50 PM PDT · 53 of 56
    justlurking to Responsibility2nd
    What do you mean “Did he”? Of course he did. I assume nothing.

    And I suspect you are dancing with glee because you think you "forced a long-time member into leaving FR", just because he had the audacity to disagree with you.

    Except I do assume you didn’t click the link in my post 7.

    No, I didn't follow your link. I looked at his posting history over the past few weeks, and I saw the usual set of FR bullies piling on him. It wasn't just that thread.

  • Clinton Blows Up at NPR Host Over Questions on Her Support for Gay Rights

    06/12/2014 3:44:07 PM PDT · 6 of 49
    justlurking to 2ndDivisionVet

    Not that Shrilly blew up, but that the knee-pad media is asking the question, persistently, without lobbing softballs.

    Are the wheels coming off the Democrat media oligarchy?

  • Sen. Cruz formally gives up Canadian citizenship

    06/12/2014 3:37:09 PM PDT · 240 of 269
    justlurking to Tau Food
    But, if you want to save yourself some time, you might invest a little time in reading how we in America have selected our presidents without any judicial screening process. You may not like our system, but it works. And, I think it works better without judges picking the candidates.

    Thanks, you've made a a good argument. I'm not sure the collective wisdom of the voters is that good (after all, it gave us two years of Obama), but I understand your point: that it isn't the place of a judge to decide whether a candidate is eligible.

    However, it is a bit of a slippery slope. Are all eligibility questions moot? What about all the other elected positions, federal, state, and local?

  • Opus Delecti

    06/12/2014 3:30:04 PM PDT · 50 of 56
    justlurking to Responsibility2nd
    Ok, you and I just had a disagreement in open forum. Will you also post an opus because of it? andy did.

    Did he? Or did you just assume he did, and use the opportunity to take a parting shot at him, knowing he wouldn't respond?

    So if you also do the same, I will also take you to task for overreacting.

    I don't think it was andy that overreacted. He isn't the one taking parting shots as he bid goodbye.

  • Opus Delecti

    06/12/2014 2:57:12 PM PDT · 47 of 56
    justlurking to fr_freak; andyk
    If you don't have a true medical condition which causes your obesity (these are really rare)

    Good advice, but I'll add one thing: if you are morbidly obese, consult a doctor before embarking on a major diet change.

    However, I wouldn't consider surgery unless nothing else works. I think there are two many risks to any surgery to do it "first".

  • Opus Delecti

    06/12/2014 2:52:53 PM PDT · 46 of 56
    justlurking to Responsibility2nd
    I attacked him? I think you do not understand what that word means.

    Is there an alternative meaning to: Grow up.?

    On it's own, it's considered a interjection, which is normally interpreted as "stop acting childishly".

    Was it really necessary to take a parting shot at him?

  • Sen. Cruz formally gives up Canadian citizenship

    06/12/2014 2:43:10 PM PDT · 237 of 269
    justlurking to CatherineofAragon
    It's like talking to a tree.

    Actually, that's a very good analogy.

    You are expecting me to be swayed to your viewpoint by coercion and belittlement.

    But, when you act like that, you might as well be talking to a tree. It's not an effective way to make your point, and it's certainly not an effective way to convince someone the merits of your argument.

    I don't have the patience for you.

    Have a nice day, too. :-)

  • Opus Delecti

    06/12/2014 2:36:33 PM PDT · 39 of 56
    justlurking to Responsibility2nd
    He posted his departing opus without attacking anyone, and bid a graceful goodbye.

    Why did you respond by attacking him in abstentia?


    06/12/2014 2:26:49 PM PDT · 39 of 113
    justlurking to HiTech RedNeck
    I take this as sarcasm. Hitting back at a perceived accusation that he’s too “backwards” or something.

    I think so, too. OK, I hope so, for his sake.

    But, someone with his experience in politics has to know that this will be repeated out of context, and bury him.

  • Sen. Cruz formally gives up Canadian citizenship

    06/12/2014 2:21:26 PM PDT · 235 of 269
    justlurking to CatherineofAragon
    And still you persist with “argument of assertion”, even though you’ve been shown the facts about Ted Cruz’s NBC status.

    You've shown me many opinions. Did you read my link about what constitutes an "argument by assertion"?

    You might also find Argumentum ad populum interesting.

    Did you check out that link from the Atlantic?

    I did, and as I posted above: I found it interesting, and had seen the CRS document from another source. It's worth discussing, but I don't think it's the slam-dunk you apparently believe it is.

    But, I'm open to reading arguments from both sides. However, don't think that threatening with being banned is going to convince me.

  • Sen. Cruz formally gives up Canadian citizenship

    06/12/2014 2:10:58 PM PDT · 234 of 269
    justlurking to CatherineofAragon
    No, it's an argument backed up by the simple truth.

    Which is the definition of "argument by assertion". It's true "because you said so".

    Was Cruz ever naturalized? No. Therefore, he's natural born.

    This is called a False dilemma. It attempts to restrict the choices to two, and eliminate any others.

    They don't have to be; here's another link for you.

    An interesting article, thank you. I had seen the CRS document from another source, though. The thing I noticed before: the CRS sidestepped an important issue: that the meaning of "natural-born", in the context of Presidential eligibility, has never been been considered by the Supreme Court (or even a Court of Appeals). Congress enacted a statute for the benefit McCain, but even that hasn't been tested above a district court.

    All other challenges have been dismissed due to "lack of remedy" or "lack of standing".

    Global warming is a hoax and is not backed up by fact. Ted Cruz's NBC status is backed up by fact. Do you get that?

    The existence (or lack) of anthropogenic global warning is largely opinion, not fact. There are "facts", but they are not exact (outside the past few decades), and subject to interpretation. Most of the disagreement is about interpretation.

    What constitutes a national born citizen (Cruz, Obama, or anyone else) is also backed up by opinions. There is your opinion, my opinion, court opinions, etc. The important ones are court opinions, and there are even disagreements among them. But as I noted above, the ultimate Court has yet to rule on the specific issue. And even then, they have been known to get it wrong and reverse themselves later.

    Well, if you're going to talk about him behind his back, don't you think you should ping him?

    You asked me if I was surprised that someone got banned, and I said that I was. This is a public conversation, and anyone that wants to read it is welcome to do so. But, if you feel compelled to tattle on me, then let your conscience be your guide.

  • Sen. Cruz formally gives up Canadian citizenship

    06/12/2014 1:33:06 PM PDT · 230 of 269
    justlurking to DJ MacWoW
    The GOPe has trolls on this forum. I wouldn't side with them if I were you. Their goal is destruction of Conservatives.

    I'm not siding with anyone, and if I'm trying to help anyone, it's conservatives.

    I've already voted for Ted Cruz twice, and given the opportunity, I'd vote for him again. If that makes me a hypocrite, then I'll live with it -- because I think we need leadership from someone with his views.

    But, I don't think Argument by assertion is going to satisfy the people on both sides of the aisle that are opposed to Ted Cruz. If you want him to succeed, then you have to be prepared for the inevitable blowback, and prepare a cogent response.

    Democrats don't "play fair". Neither does the GOP establishment. They looked the other way for Obama, but I doubt they will do the same for Ted.

  • Bergdahl’s Letters From a Taliban Prison

    06/12/2014 12:32:27 PM PDT · 1 of 34
  • Time for right to let go of Bowe Bergdahl political controversy (Must be hurting them)

    06/12/2014 12:24:47 PM PDT · 14 of 30
    justlurking to 2ndDivisionVet
    Yes, but go to the link, that’s not how they spell it. Someone asks me that almost every time...

    Sorry, the question wasn't intended for you -- it was rhetorical question intended for the author of the column.

    I almost added to the original: "dumb leftist journalist can't even use a dictionary", but I thought it was redundant. :-)

  • Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl Heading Back to U.S.

    06/12/2014 12:13:56 PM PDT · 56 of 83
    justlurking to AU72; CGASMIA68; Eric in the Ozarks
    Had a couple like that in my company at Cape May. They were quickly routed to the punishment company then routed out the gate.

    I worked with someone long ago that was given that choice: jail or the Navy. He took the Navy.

    He came out of the Navy with an education, and had a decent job as an electronics technician.

    Sometimes, it works.

  • Time for right to let go of Bowe Bergdahl political controversy (Must be hurting them)

    06/12/2014 12:10:02 PM PDT · 4 of 30
    justlurking to 2ndDivisionVet
    Umm, isn't it the "plumb line"?
  • Sen. Cruz formally gives up Canadian citizenship

    06/12/2014 12:03:37 PM PDT · 226 of 269
    justlurking to CatherineofAragon
    t's pretty simple and straightforward--Cruz is an NBC. Conservatives will just have to work to get that message out with the help of talk radio, Breitbart, and other sources.

    This is called Argument by assertion. It doesn't really work, unless you have the knee-pad media behind you.

    I don't see that Obama's particular situation has any bearing on that of Cruz, which, like i said, is pretty simple, no matter how folks try to muddy it up with mile-long posts.

    Actually, it has everything to do with Obama's situation. The crux of the argument against him is that his birth certificate is fraudulent and he wasn't born in Hawaii. If that's the case, he's not a natural born citizen (although according to US law at the time, it's even questionable if he is a US citizen at all, unless he was naturalized later).

    The people questioning Cruz appear to be a subset of those questioning Obama. Some of the others may have abandoned their previous position in favor of Cruz, because they figure it's a moot point now. Or they may have done so for ideological reasons.

    But, there won't be people searching through posting histories and determining if someone opposed Obama and are not supporting Cruz. Instead, they'll be asking: why did you oppose Obama on NBC grounds, and not Cruz?

    If Cruz goes down this path, he has to be ready to answer this question. And he'll have to throw a lot of people under the bus: CNN Poll: Quarter doubt Obama was born in U.S.

    There were plenty of attempts to educate Millie about this issue. I myself have posted the CATO link to her, more than once.

    I've read it, and I thought it was interesting. And maybe she read it. But, has it ever occurred to you that she just doesn't agree with it? I like the CATO Institute and Ilya Shapiro, but they aren't the last word on the subject.

    Claiming that settles the issue isn't much different than the claim that 97% of scientists believe that global warming is being caused by man. First, it's a tortured statistic, and second -- consensus doesn't prove anything.

    And you're surprised that she got banned?

    Honestly, I am. I thought Jim was above that.

  • Yes, Ted Cruz Can Be Born in Canada and Still Become President of the U.S.

    06/12/2014 11:18:11 AM PDT · 129 of 245
    justlurking to wagglebee
    All of my questions were based on the assumption of birth in Hawaii. Obviously, if he had been born abroad there are other questions.

    You made your demand in response to his suggestion that Obama's mother may not have passed on citizenship. It wasn't clear to me that you had imposed this prerequisite.

    Many questions remain about the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate, even if you don't share them. Evidence of forgery has been submitted, but as far as I know there has been no adjudication of the issue.

    Nevertheless, this thread is about Cruz.

    It is. But, I don't think it is unreasonable to ask whether the goalposts are being moved because the political football is being kicked by Cruz instead of Obama.

    Yes, I realize you in particular aren't moving the goalposts. But, if you were to search for the topic "NaturalBornCitizen", you would find that Obama's eligibility is still being discussed on FR by a number of people.

  • Yes, Ted Cruz Can Be Born in Canada and Still Become President of the U.S.

    06/12/2014 10:57:13 AM PDT · 121 of 245
    justlurking to wagglebee; MileHi; Jim Robinson; xzins; P-Marlowe
    Let's try again, YOU need to provide documentation from the 1960s, not conspiracy theories cooked up in the last few years, to prove your point.

    I think this is what the poster is referring to:

    Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by a Child Born Abroad

    Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock

    A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.

    (emphasis on that sentence is my own, and not in the original)

    If you presume Obama's birth certificate is fraudulent, and he was born in Kenya as his own book claimed (but later retracted), his mother would not have met the requirement of five years after the age of 14. I believe she was 18 at the time of his birth.

    I might have gotten some of Obama's details wrong. But, the interpretation of the law is straight from the US State department's own web page. There's no need to go back to a newspaper article from the 60's.

  • Sen. Cruz formally gives up Canadian citizenship

    06/12/2014 10:33:57 AM PDT · 209 of 269
    justlurking to CatherineofAragon
    What is it with all this shaking in fear of the Democrats?

    The difference is the Democrats will use the pursuit of Obama as the rationale.

    Yes, it was a minority of people. The GOP wasn't behind it, and tried to wash their hands of it. But, the Democrats will try to tie that albatross around both the candidate and the party, and with the help of the knee-pad media, they'll succeed.

    If you have the "topic" bar enabled, you'll still see NaturalBornCitizen at the top of the FR news index page. But suddenly, when the discussion turns to Ted Cruz, the subject is verboten?

    Regardless of what you believe about the issue, why are you celebrating silencing someone that expresses a contrary opinion?

  • Deceptively Edits Dave Brat to Suggest He Was 'Dodging' Questions

    06/12/2014 10:06:44 AM PDT · 14 of 24
    justlurking to EveningStar
    Why do Republicans, and conservative Republicans in particular, even bother to talk to MSNBC?

    Stop talking to the knee-pad media! All they will do is just try to trip you up with "gotcha" questions.

    The Democrats ignore unfriendly media all the time. The Republicans should do the same.

  • Chris Matthews: ‘This looking down our noses at Tea Party people has got to stop’(VIDEOS)

    06/12/2014 9:54:31 AM PDT · 23 of 30
    justlurking to Paulie
    Looks to me like Chrissy just wants to be on the side that’s winning.

    Either that, or he sees the writing on the wall and doesn't want to find himself excluded by the winning side.

    I've posted this in the context of Republicans, but I think it's excellent advance for candidates backed by the Tea Party, and conservatives in general:

    Stop talking to the knee-pad media!

    By "stop talking", I mean: no interviews and no invitations to press conferences. Just exclude them, completely.

    All the knee-pad media will do is try to trip you up, asking you "gotcha" questions they can trumpet on the nightly news and undermine you. Don't give them the opportunity.

    Limit yourself to friendly media. If the unfriendly media protests, ignore them. Democrats do this to Fox News, and no one ever calls them on it.

    Dave Brat won his primary campaign against the House Majority leader and millions in spending. He answered Cantor's attack ads with his own YouTube videos.

    There's a lesson there for everyone. I hope they learn it.

  • Dave Brat On What His Shocking Win Means For The GOP

    06/12/2014 8:04:53 AM PDT · 42 of 44
    justlurking to expat2
    If you wish to call that amnesty, then I am in favor of it and ask "What is your solution?"

    I like what you have suggested, other than I think that "controlling the border" is impossible, in practicality. It's too large, and the incentive for sneaking across it is too large. They will always find a way.

    The only way to "close" the border is to stop providing incentives for crossing it illegally. Cut off the freebies (including medical care and education), and make it as difficult as possible to get a job, rent a house, drive a car, etc. and the incentive dries up. Unfortunately, completely eliminating the freebies would require a change in the Constitution, or at least a reinterpretation of the 14th amendment to eliminate "anchor babies".

    I understand the appeal of "guest workers", but we have plenty of people that would like entry level jobs. Yes, there are many that don't want to work that hard, but without the illegal immigrant flood, wages will go up. There was an article a few days ago noting that entry level jobs at Wal-Mart were paying $17/hour in North Dakota, because it was the only way they could get applicants. Of course, we would risk more inflation, because they can't raise wages without raising prices. But, that money would stay in the US, rather than being remitted to Mexico.

    The other suggestion I would make: no green card or guest worker permits if you are already in the US illegally. You go home and apply for one. If you are caught in the US while waiting for approval, you are excluded -- permanently.

  • Sen. Cruz formally gives up Canadian citizenship

    06/12/2014 7:47:06 AM PDT · 197 of 269
    justlurking to Cboldt
    That said, at least one presidential candidate was denied having his name appear on the ballot, Eldridge Cleaver, due to his being too young.

    That's interesting. I did some digging and found it was back in 1968. Courts in New York and Hawaii ruled he wasn't eligible. The article says he still received 36,571 votes, but I don't know if they were write-in's or if he was on the ballot in at least one other state.

    It's ironic, because Cleaver's party was named "Peace and Freedom". That same year in April, he led an ambush of Oakland police officers, and subsequently jumped bail and fled to Cuba.

    A few years back, California refused to exclude someone from the ballot, even though they were clearly ineligible. I don't remember if it was due to age, or possibly even US citizenship. I think they said something to the effect of: "we aren't empowered to make that decision".

  • Sen. Cruz formally gives up Canadian citizenship

    06/12/2014 7:33:29 AM PDT · 194 of 269
    justlurking to JRandomFreeper
    It is a dead horse on this forum. The forum owner has decreed that FR isn't a debating society for the subject.

    If Ted decides to run for President, and the Democrats (or even the Republican establishment) pursue the issue in the courts, will it still be a verboten subject?

  • Sen. Cruz formally gives up Canadian citizenship

    06/12/2014 7:22:25 AM PDT · 188 of 269
    justlurking to JRandomFreeper
    It's not threatening. It's warning. People that persist in beating this dead horse tend to get the zot.

    Unfortunately, it's not a dead horse, despite how much you want it to be.

    You can be sure that the Democrats will use this issue against Ted. But, instead of Orly Taitz tilting at windmills, they will have an experienced legal team that will make a full-court press.

    And they will know where to find judges sympathetic to their cause. Over the past few years, we've seen many cases where judges have ruled contrary to established precedent on the flimsiest of rationale. Do you think the case ended up in their court by accident?

    I won't pretend to know how the higher courts would rule. But, I don't think it would even get that far: one unfavorable ruling would be trumpeted by the knee-pad media, and muddy the waters so much that Ted would either withdraw, or be eliminated in the primaries. Don't forget that the GOP establishment might not actively participate, but they would be cheerleading against Ted from the sidelines.

    Democrats were ready to pounce on Barry Goldwater because he was born in Arizona while it was still a US territory. I'm sure you know enough about LBJ to know he would have relished that fight. Do you really think they would let this one slide, especially after all the attempts to portray their anointed Won with the same problem?

    Jim's opinion matters to the extent he controls who has access to his forum.

    If Jim chooses to use his power to squelch debate, he does everyone a disservice, including himself. That's his right, but it doesn't make his opinion "correct".

    I think this debate is healthy, because it gives people on both sides to learn about the issues and develop good information that supports their position. And each side can learn what counters their position, and develop responses to it.

    If Ted decides to run, then both sides will be better prepared to make their case in situations where you can't shut down debate by simply calling in an airstrike by Jim.

  • Sen. Cruz formally gives up Canadian citizenship

    06/12/2014 6:49:09 AM PDT · 183 of 269
    justlurking to JRandomFreeper
    See post #39 on this thread and take it up with Jim.

    Citing Jim's opinion as conclusive is a logical fallacy: Name dropping and Appeal to inappropriate authority.

    Jim is entitled to his opinion, just like you and I, and the poster you are replying to. But, it's not an appropriate argument to make your case.

    I've seen long term posters get the zot over this issue.

    Threatening someone with a ban is DEFINITELY not an argument to make your case. It's bullying.

  • Sen. Cruz formally gives up Canadian citizenship

    06/12/2014 6:39:09 AM PDT · 182 of 269
    justlurking to MrsEmmaPeel
    Maybe this might help: Our Founding Fathers Born In Ireland

    If you were to read the Constitution, you would find that it has an explicit qualifier for them:

    No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

  • Sen. Cruz formally gives up Canadian citizenship

    06/12/2014 6:27:54 AM PDT · 181 of 269
    justlurking to Jane Long
    Maybe you’ve not seen this thread...the one where The Boss, himself, says Sen Cruz is eligible...

    I like Jim, but he isn't the authority on the subject.

    Citing his opinion as such is a logical fallacy: Name dropping and Appeal to inappropriate authority.

  • Hillary's Book Signing Rules, Regulations, Advisories, and Warnings This is how you Hillary

    06/11/2014 2:52:33 PM PDT · 23 of 40
    justlurking to JPG
    Hillary supporter ready for book signing.

    LOL. Talk about hazardous duty.

  • Hillary's Book Signing Rules, Regulations, Advisories, and Warnings This is how you Hillary

    06/11/2014 2:51:53 PM PDT · 22 of 40
    justlurking to Hot Tabasco
    I did and it's obviously satire.............

    No! Really??!!!

  • Hillary's Book Signing Rules, Regulations, Advisories, and Warnings This is how you Hillary

    06/11/2014 2:31:33 PM PDT · 10 of 40
    justlurking to This Just In
  • Hillary's Book Signing Rules, Regulations, Advisories, and Warnings This is how you Hillary

    06/11/2014 2:29:47 PM PDT · 7 of 40
    justlurking to This Just In
    Page 2:

  • Hillary's Book Signing Rules, Regulations, Advisories, and Warnings This is how you Hillary

    06/11/2014 2:28:57 PM PDT · 5 of 40
    justlurking to This Just In
  • Soccer Fan Drives from San Francisco to Brazil for 2014 World Cup

    06/11/2014 2:16:38 PM PDT · 5 of 40
    justlurking to nickcarraway
    I am wondering how he got through Panama. The road just ends in the jungle, before it gets to the Colombian border:,-77.7918441,10z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x8e521066570f64cd:0x8f376eeba7a76941

  • CIA Makes An Ill-Advised Foray Into the Twitterverse

    06/11/2014 1:49:42 PM PDT · 2 of 5
    justlurking to Kaslin

    Lighten up, Francis.

  • David Brat’s Writings: Hitler’s Rise ‘Could All Happen Again’ (Incredible Journalism Malpractice)

    06/11/2014 1:27:25 PM PDT · 10 of 35
    justlurking to Mount Athos
    Good grief. Brat's statement is a WARNING, not a boast.

    Anyone that can't see that is completely delusional. And anyone that can't see he is right is completely clueless.

    Saddam was a modern-day Hitler. His mentor even attempted a pro-Nazi coup in Iraq.

  • Why the tea party should favor immigration

    06/11/2014 1:21:30 PM PDT · 114 of 142
    justlurking to kabar
    No limits? Is that the sole criterion to allow people to enter this country?

    I don't think I wrote "no limits". I don't think we have had "no limits" in modern history, and I'm not proposing to change that. I just think that people should have the opportunity to apply, and expect to be considered -- rather than feeling like they are last in line, behind all the illegal immigrants.

    Without the freebies, legal immigration would either drop significantly, or shift immigration to more productive people. And those are who I welcome: the ones that are willing to work.

    In 1970 we had 9.7 million foreign-born; today it is approximately 45 million.

    In 1970, we had 200 million people in the US. If you subtract out the estimated 20 million illegals, 25 million in 2014 is only about 66% more than the 15 million foreign-born that would be expected after a 50% increase in population.

    No Social Security? Do you expect them to pay into the system and not receive benefits?

    If they don't become citizens before retiring, yes. We can use those excess taxes to help dig Social Security out of the hole.

    Their American-born children are automatically citizens thru birthright citizenship. They are entitled immediately to all the benefits any other American citizen is.

    I agree, this is an issue. The US is unique in this respect, and I've read arguments that it was never the intent of the 14th Amendment. But, it would take another Constitutional Amendment or a Supreme Court decision to address it.

  • Why the tea party should favor immigration

    06/11/2014 12:47:10 PM PDT · 107 of 142
    justlurking to cuban leaf
    I’m all for legal immigration. And, truth be told, if we eliminate all the government direct handouts to citizens in general, I’d be all for increasing the number of legal immigrants.

    If we eliminated all the handouts, there would be very little illegal immigration.

    A life of just scraping by on handouts in the US is much, much better than life in the third world. As long as that is true, we can't stop illegal immigration. Despite their draconian efforts, even the Berlin Wall couldn't keep all of the East Germans in.

  • Why the tea party should favor immigration

    06/11/2014 12:43:17 PM PDT · 105 of 142
    justlurking to illiac
    I favor legal immigration.

    If someone wants to come to this country and build a life here, I welcome them. My ancestors did it a few centuries ago (pre-Revolution). My wife's ancestors did it about a century ago. I don't want to "close the door", simply because I'm already here.

    But, I expect them to apply for citizenship as soon as they are eligible, or return to their country or origin. You want to live in American, you become an American.

    And until you are a citizen, you are on your own. No welfare, no Social Security, no government freebies or benefits of any kind. If you need help, there are many mutual aid societies organized by religion, culture, or nationality.

    Until then, you are a guest, and are expected to act like one. If you wear out your welcome, it's time for you to go back to your home.

  • Hagel throws Obama under bus over Bergdahl White House tried to pin swap scandal on Defense chief

    06/11/2014 8:14:44 AM PDT · 36 of 65
    justlurking to latina4dubya
    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) claimed he was told the day before the Bergdahl was released, but administration officials say that was not true.

    I never thought this was true. I said the day afterwards that Harry Reid was the only Democrat willing to lie for the administration. Or perhaps he is just senile.

    What I find funny is the administration realized that his claim was more damaging, because the rest of Congress wanted to know why they weren't also informed.

    So, Harry got thrown under the bus. Perhaps the White House is realizing he won't be running the Senate next year.

  • Liberal Denizens of the Fourth Estate Present a Distorted View of America

    06/11/2014 8:06:39 AM PDT · 7 of 9
    justlurking to Sherman Logan
    But it was also not controlled by ideologists pretending to be honest and unbiased.

    This is the key.

    Today's kneepad media is neither honest or unbiased. But, ideologues have gained control of most of it. By coordinating and presenting a unified viewpoint, the low-information voter is duped into believing they are telling the whole truth.

    Fox News isn't fair or unbiased either. They are just presenting a different viewpoint. But, since they are one voice among many, the low-information voter thinks they are the only outlier.

    Yes, the 'Net and the "blogosphere" provides an alternate view. But, too many people can't be bothered -- they are either trying to earn a living, or are more interested in who is fighting each other on Jerry Springer, American Idol, or Survivor.

    The only solution is free market capitalism: conservatives have to take control of one or more of these large media outlets, and clean house. This means they have to put their money where their mouth is.

    It's not hard to identify the kneepad journalists. Give them their orders: you start reporting the news, not your opinion. And you report ALL the news, not just the stuff that fits your opinion. If you don't like it, there's the door.

    There will be much screaming about "loss of objectivity" in the news. But, the truth is: there isn't any, now. All this would do is lay it out for everyone to see.

    The other half is for conservatives to stop giving the kneepad media an audience. Stop granting interviews to obviously biased journalists. Let them scream and wail about being excluded, and just do it. Leftists do this to Fox News. It's time to do the same to the other side.

    I'll repeat the example I've given before: After Candy Crowley's shameful performance in the Presidential debate, CNN (and every CNN journalist) should have gotten the "death penalty". No Republican should be talking to CNN, period -- until Crowley is fired, and CNN announces their steps to prevent any of their "journalists" from taking sides in any debate.

  • $10 billion oil sands crude refinery planned for Canada's Pacific coast

    06/10/2014 3:05:33 PM PDT · 12 of 12
    justlurking to Ben Ficklin
    Search for "Steyer Transmountain"

    You'll find lots of info. Steyer claims he has divested his investments in this venture, but without looking at the books, I'm skeptical.

  • Boeing Formation Flight: Saving Energy Like Birds Do

    06/10/2014 2:34:12 PM PDT · 7 of 30
    justlurking to Baynative; Admin Moderator

    Please, this isn’t breaking news. Put it in Technical, if anything.

  • Rand Paul to Hillary: Take Your 'Sad Song' of Financial Difficulties to the American People

    06/10/2014 2:32:03 PM PDT · 4 of 22
    justlurking to BradtotheBone
    This is what I think as well.

    Hillary may think she had to endure some "hardship", and I suppose it was after years in the AR governor's mansion and the White House.

    But, please spare me the "I feel your pain" bullcrap. The Clintons haven't felt any financial pain since 1978. That's over 3 decades.

    99.9% of the people in the US would love to experience what you considered "dead broke". Maybe if you exchanged places with some of them, you'd find out what "dead broke" really feels like.

  • $10 billion oil sands crude refinery planned for Canada's Pacific coast

    06/10/2014 1:49:41 PM PDT · 9 of 12
    justlurking to thackney
    I posted on another thread about Steyer, but I'll repeat it here.

    This refinery is part of the reason Steyer is giving $100 million to Democrats to oppose the Keystone XL pipeline. Not "climate change".

    Steyer stands to make a bunch of money from a Trans-Canada pipeline from the oil sands to Canada's west coast. If the oil instead goes south through Keystone, he loses a bunch (or at least doesn't collect it).

  • Tom Steyer group’s latest Keystone XL attack: Pipeline would be too vulnerable to terrorist attacks

    06/10/2014 1:43:35 PM PDT · 6 of 19
    justlurking to SeekAndFind
    If this isn't already known by FReepers, it should be:

    After unraveling Steyer's associations, investments, and proxies, it has become apparent that Steyer stands to benefit very greatly from the construction of a pipeline from Alberta's oil sands west to BC, where it can be easily exported to Asia.

    If the Keystone XL pipeline is built, the western pipeline won't be economically viable, and Steyer will lose a bunch of money, or at least won't be making more.

    It's not about "climate change", or "terrorism". It's all about money.

    Steyer's money.

    Apparently, the $100 million he has committed to Democrats is chump change, by comparison.

  • The backtracking begins: Hillary hustles to halt fallout from ‘dead broke’ controversy

    06/10/2014 11:36:57 AM PDT · 3 of 92
    justlurking to mandaladon
    “As I recall, we were something like $12 million in debt.”

    Which could have been paid off with just the advance for BJ's autobiography. Hillary also received nearly $3 million of the eventual $8 million advance for her memoirs. Both of these payoffs were received in 2001, within 12 months after BJ left office.

    On top of that, the Secret Service was paying enough "rent" for a "guard shack" on the grounds of the Clinton mansion in NY to make that mortgage payment every month.

    99.9% of the people in the US would have loved to be in that position.

  • Obama narrative about Bergdahl deal torched by ...MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell? (VIDEO)

    06/10/2014 11:35:08 AM PDT · 8 of 33
    justlurking to Argus
    WTF is going on???!!!

    I'm wondering the same think.

    Maybe the kneepad media sees the Obama ship is sinking, and they have decided they can't keep bailing, lest they go down with the ship.

  • No, A 'Supercomputer' Did NOT Pass The Turing Test For The First Time

    06/10/2014 11:30:00 AM PDT · 10 of 22
    justlurking to nuke rocketeer
    it’s all abot you isn’t it?

    We were discussing you, not me.

    Eliza Chat bot