Jeebus

How bad is it if you use the internet for 4-6 hours daily, for at least the last 10 years, and never heard of Yelp?

POST OF THE MONTH.

Thank you Red.

Looks like Perry is going to turn down part of the money as well, for what has been reported as the same reasons that Jindal is turning it down - because once the stimulus expires, the cost inscrease for unemployment insurance will be passed on to businesses via increased taxes. So, without drawing any sarcastic answers, why is what these two are doing a bad idea, and how is causing small businesses to pay more tax going to help continue to stimulate the economy three years now - or are we just in denial that the stimulus has an expiration date and that states will have to foot the bill eventually?

Can he? What if he knows that the legislature wouldn't pass such a provision, so he's trying to stay ahead of it by just not taking it? So then to continue to fund the unemployment benefit increase from the federal stimulus package after it expires, you are suggesting that Jindal just cut other areas of the budget - and punish those areas to keep the unemployed paid extra?

Had Colin Powell ran? Yes. Name some other prominant possible GOP qualifiers and we can discuss them on a case by case basis This is how I interpreted Jindal's decision to turn down part of the funding, and I'm going to use small hypothetical numbers: $10.00 - Current unemployment benefit at a cost of $1.00 to each resident $15.00 - Obama stimulus benefit amount, still at a cost of $1.00 to each resident with .50 cents paid from stimulous $15.00 - After stimulus expires, now no longer funded, the cost to each resident is now $1.50 So to keep the benefits after the federal stimulus funding expires, the state is going to have to pony up the extra cash, which means they'll have to raise tax rates. Did I misunderstand this?

I didn't say it before, but since you're baiting me now, then sure, I think the votes that were needed to secure Obama's win were cast based on skin color. Are you saying that you think that all 69 million people went down to the polls with metaphorical blindfolds on and voted strictly for "change" based on the merits of the Democratic candidate? Now let me take a guess: this somehow makes me a racist? Or perhaps a bigot? Maybe I'm just crazy with all my right-wing propaganda? It must be one of those three though, right?

Wow... Okay, Democratic Presidential Canidate wins Maine, New Hampshire, & Vermont: 2008: YES 2004: YES 2000: 2 of 3 (Bush took New Hampshire) 1996: YES 1992: YES 1988: NO - Bush/Quayle win all three. Now, that's an EPIC FAIL. I would reply to the rest of your post, but your inability to obtain common knowledge pretty much invalidates anything else you might have to say. Had there been non-white candidates and 43 times the white guy was chosen, sure.

I guess my beef is with anyone who says Obama was elected on his merit, and not the color of his skin. I know that I'm not going to change anyone's mind, I would just like for those to disagree to argue their point to help disprove mine. I really want to belief that everyone - hell, even just the majority of those who voted for him - voted for Obama for his merits, and not the color of his skin, but the attitudes of those who openly brag about voting for him seem to know nothing about him, much less where he actually stands on any issue beyond the generic "helping the poor".

I apologize, I should have clarified. This entire time I've been referring to the number of NEW, first-time (in spite of being able to vote in previous elections) minority voters that organizations that supported Obama brought to the polls. My question is why didn't these organizations mobilize in the last two campaigns for the previous Democratic nominees?

You'll have to refresh my memory on this one.

I NEVER implied that you would even have to pay taxes to vote. In fact, I specifically stated that even if you didn't earn an income, you can still file a return - which you could use to vote with. No, it perfectly illustrates my point. It however was in the last election, and unlike Obama's "grass-roots" organizations, evangelical groups didn't launch a campaign to register as many evangelicals, all on the premise that one: Bush was white like them, and two: that his election would get them closer to Heaven. Really, is that the best retort you have? Basically you're saying you've got nothing intelligent to reply with, so you'll just proclaim my statement crazy. Seems about right for you. All bark, no bite. At least Red gives SUBSTANCE to his replies. I'm afraid almost every professional sports athlete can disprove that theory.

You're right, I found it funny that for the first time neighborhood voter registration groups actually got out and registered new voters - but only in the primarily minority areas, showed no discretion in letting people register multiple time without checking any credentials, and openly campaigned for Obama as they registered people. (I watched multiple stories on both local and national news about it - perhaps is was all conservative propaganda?) I found it funny that Blacks and Hispanics allowed themselves to be interviewed and proclaimed things like how Obama was in essence, going to take care of them - and then to have white educated people, who voted the same, laugh in my face when I point out that this was occurring. I guess again the news was spreading conservative propaganda? I found it the funniest however, that no Democrat in the past seemed to garner the support of the minority masses, but suddenly, a minority candidate emerges and everyone mobilizes. From minority aimed community action groups to liberal voters with the chance to wash away the white guilt of their anscestors clean, Obama made people jump for one reason - he was Black. The majority wanted a Black president, and their actions leading up to the election along with the results prove it. The only other reason could be that he's such a proven leader that he was the obvious choice as the Democratic candidate - which is why minorities voted for him - for his proven leadership, and not the color of his skin. Based on everything I've read, watched, and experienced, that is NOT the case. Can you honestly prove to me that minorities would have mobilized for a white man, or even a white woman? If so, then why didn't they do it last election, or the election before? Were those Democrats such lame ducks that they couldn't get minorities to the polls? Answer that one with out changing your stance while having to resort to racist remarks about whitey, crackers, and honkeys, and I will be impressed. Yes, all three which have gone to Democrat canidates the last FIVE elections! Talk about a prediction! I'm too lazy to look up the 23 other states, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the results. What I would be surprised to find is if more than eight million new Hispanic and Black voters voted in this election. That would validate the 8 million vote margin Obama won by. -- As for changing the voting laws, I wanted them changed long before Obama came along. And I don't think there's anything legally wrong with everyone wanting to vote for someone who is a certain anything, be it gender, race, political stance - whatever. Elections are popularity contests. I just want to see more educated voters to help curb the desire to vote for what one would feel is the most popular, and rather the most capable. My reasons have nothing to do with Obama, but Obama proves my point.

Well, I have a theory as to why you and all the other people in the top 2% tax bracket voted for him, but that's neither here nor there. What is debatable is that I'd be willing to be that the number of registered African American and Hispanic voters compared to the 2004 and the 2008 election would more than over-compensate for the eight million total vote increase from 2004 to 2008. Without the push from ACORN and other groups, all these people who had no incentive to vote before, would have continued to not vote in this election. Why else were minorities coming out of the woodwork and publicly praising Obama on how he was going to end their poverty by erasing their self-accumulated debt, pay their past-due ARM mortgages, get them a better paying job, get them free social-services, and buy them a car? Who filled their heads with this stuff? Why would a Democrat suddenly be able to deliver this promise to them? If it wasn't the color of his skin then tell me, from one mature, educated, intelligent adult man to another, why did minorities who have never voted before, never cared to vote before, suddenly register in droves just to vote for this Democrat? And if you say: "because he is a good speaker", you lose all credibility. Sure, under my plan all you have to do is show that your competent enough to vote by filing an income tax return - you might not have made any money, but its a form of accountability. It says to the government, I'm here, I'm counted. If you want to live off the grid and not be counted, then you don't need to vote. Obama might have still won under this policy, but unlike the ACORN driven voter registration fiasco, instead, you would have more accountability at the polls: One State ID, One Federal Income Tax Return, One Social Security Number. Why should someone without all three be allowed to vote!? Why else are rules changed? Perhaps if you said someone wanted to cheat because they don't like the outcome, then you'd have something. Special treatment is not special when you pay for it, eg: premium health services compared to free health services. On the other hand, any treatment is special when you don't have to pay for it. So, who's getting the special treatment? The rich who not only pay for their goods & services, but also the poor's free and reduced services? Or the poor, who simply show up and get things for free, or at a reduced rate?

Thanks for the heads up Flip. Here's link directly to the story.

Which is why I say that you should only need two things to vote: 1. Driver's License/State Id (which EVERYONE in my humble opinion should be required to have in this post 9-11 society) and 2. previous year's income-tax return (which is free to file at any public library via e-file).

I don't understand these numbers, particularly the % of all taxes. Shouldn't they add up to 100%? Perhaps we at least start with allowing only those who have to/choose to FILE a tax-return as those who can vote. That would be more fair and just as all of us who have to file a tax return can vote, and all those who don't have to, but still choose to, allow themselves to the right to vote. I think that would be more than fair, and cover your competency requirement. EDIT: Also, I do think the wealthy benefit more from the police and fire. The police tend to spend more time protecting with wealthy where as they typically spend more time enforcing laws against the poor. As for the fire department, all the fires in the ghettos they fight tend to be apartments, who are owned by landlords, who in spite of the condition of their complexes, are wealthy.

Well, it wouldn't be a perfect system, but HD could charge a fee from each of the labors, say five dollars a day listing fee? You're right, it is free market, which is why it would benefit HD to capitalize on it.

Well, they're still around - they just don't hang out in front of the Home Depot. I think the primary employment for the day laborers is by sub-contractors during the week. I'm surprised Home Depot hasn't tried to capitalize on the day laborer phenomenon and create some sort of organized way of hiring one. I'd be 10x more likely to hire a day laborer if all I had to do was go to a desk, and request how many I need, versus the current process.

AWESOME! Thanks!

But still by choice, right?

lol.. How does that old saying go? You can put lipstick on pig... The fact remains that for a suburb of this area - the crime is beyond too high, both in and around the neighborhood. The schools show some of the lowest scores for the area, there are dozens of ARM related foreclosures. And, for all intensive purposes, I would equate KB builders to that of the quality of the construction of homes in Southpark.

If you're looking for graphic T's, I would recommend Bustedtees.com. Locally, try the big places like Walmart, Target, Kohls, Marshalls, Ross, and BCF. Steve and Barry's was the best - but i think they're going out of business. This is going to hurt feelings, but to drop a dime in places like Urban Outfitters, or A&F is just sad. Especially when you can find the same designs at the above stores for at least half the price. I know you might feel lame and "uncool", but once you (and I'm not singling you out - I'm just speaking in generality) get over it, you'll find yourself suffering from Costanza wallet more often again.

Oh I do. I thought it was spot on too. Still do.

She's the tall blonde in white. She's easily the second most attractive girl in the picture.