Next step for Christmas - dolls showing how fetuses are conceived! Collect the entire Kama Sutra!

I think the ultimate observer is Santa Claus. He knows if you've been naughty or nice and lets face it, blowing up cats in a bunker is pretty darned "naughty." The information is on his list, we just have to wait until Christmas to receive it.

This, of course, explains why physicists never get good toys for Christmas and why members of the so-called "scientific community" are all so intent on trying to disprove Santa's existence.

The music was interesting, but watching the mouth-breather making goofy faces the whole time was distracting.

>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:

Any idea what the context is?
If it's tax policy, Romney has a point. Taxing a corporation is the same as taxing its shareholders and customers. It would be interesting to see republican voters thinking seriously about who is actually going to pay for fixing our national finances. Unfortunately they're likely to come to the same conclusion as the populists: "not me."


I could be mistaken, but in the full exchange I think he was saying that Democrats want to "raise people's taxes" and someone in the audience heckles "not people, corporations, corporations" then he responds with what's shown in this clip. Only saw the full segment once though, so I'm probably paraphrasing a bit.

Anyway, if people own corporations, but corporations have the Constitutional rights of people, isn't that slavery? Maybe Romney could free them and be the next Lincoln. We'll look back at oppressive shareholders in the same way we now view southern plantation owners.

I think that worked out just about as well as could be expected.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

There's no way he stopped filming there. Why do people always cut off the good shit!?


Here's what happened next <>

"ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!"

"Haha, ya. You should have seen your face! I thought you were going to drop a load!"

"Wait... really? Oh man, you totally got me. I thought you were seriously trying to kill me. Oh well, laters!"

"Bye!"

Or something like that. Maybe.

What'd he do for an encore, demonstrate playing "red rocket" with his dogs?

PALIN/FIRE HYDRANT 2012?

Clearly the fire hydrant would be carrying that ticket. And hey, unlike Palin, maybe it'd make it through the full term without quitting.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Unfortunately my assessment of His Earness can't be proven wrong by his successes.
People make mistakes. Sucks being human doesn't it?
Tell it to the leftmedia jackals terrified of Palin.
Minus the fibs, I couldn't care less if Barack steps on his Telepromptongue now and again. It's the whole inexperienced-total-failure-as-President part that bothers me.
PALIN/FIRE HYDRANT 2012

Mars has two moons. Your point is invalid.

Magnets. He should have gone with magnets. Nobody can explain how those work.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Who do these marxist frauds think they're fooling?
The vermin looted the Treasury and were unable to create jobs or anything else. Money is less a problem than the theft which took it by force from the productive who earned it.
Even if you left the Bush tax cuts intact, they'll barely dent the slew of new taxes from the obamateur's commiecare, already beginning to negatively the economy.


Who do you think you're fooling? With all of information available to anyone who bothers to look for themselves, what kind of moron falls for that propaganda you're spouting?

For example, your propaganda wants to blame Obama for the increased number of people liable for the alternative minimum tax. Funny how it doesn't mention that people have seen this issue coming for years and nobody, including Bush and the Republican Congress bothered to fix it.

A brief issued by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) (No. 4, April 15, 2004), concludes:

"Over the coming decade, a growing number of taxpayers will become liable for the AMT. In 2010, if nothing is changed, one in five taxpayers will have AMT liability and nearly every married taxpayer with income between $100,000 and $500,000 will owe the alternative tax. Rather than affecting only high-income taxpayers who would otherwise pay no tax, the AMT has extended its reach to many upper-middle-income households. As an increasing number of taxpayers incur the AMT, pressures to reduce or eliminate the tax are likely to grow."

April 2004. Before Obama was even elected to the Senate. Republicans controlled Congress and the Presidency, they had the report, and did nothing. But that's Obama's fault now? That's one of his "new taxes?" By the way, every year Congress simply ups the minimum (even under Obama).

There's absolutely nothing wrong with criticizing Obama for his policies. There's enough there that you shouldn't have to resort to distorting reality, name calling, or outright lies.

>> ^blankfist:

Price increases started with government intervention that forced hospitals to treat everyone. Sure we want everyone to be taken care of, but if you come into the hospital with a hangnail or a runny nose, they MUST treat you.
And a lot of people don't pay their bill, and yet they're still allowed under penalty of law to return for service. Someone has to eat that cost, right? Well, welcome to the world of $7000 stitches.

Blankfist, you've got your facts confused. The law you're talking about, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) wasn't in effect until 1986, so it certainly couldn't have been the "start" of price increases which have skyrocketed since the 60's. Furthermore, it does NOT require treatment for something as minor as a hangnail or runny nose. Hospitals are only required to treat when there's a serious emergency and even then they only have to treat the patient enough to stabilize them.


That's not to say EMTALA isn't costing us though, because I'm sure it does. It creates a system where the poor aren't given easy access to cheap preventative medicine, yet are given unlimited expensive emergency care which just seems backwards.

>> ^blankfist:

Those look like they run on magic.


They run on marketing hype. It's like magic where the magician gives a pile of crap the illusion of being desirable and then makes your money disappear.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

Love that redneck lady at the end:
"I don't really think there's any big deal about it. I think there's much worse things going on in the schools today..."
And what are those? Sex education? Evolution being taught? STFU before you make yourself sound even dumber, if that's possible.


The problem is that we're only seeing a small portion of the school's curriculum out of context. As Ms. Hughes points out, this wasn't really suprising and there's a lot worse going in in the school. Here's a typical day:
Geometry - how to use angles and geometry to hypothetically assasinate the president.
Chemistry - how to use bunsen burners and test tubes to hypothetically create a fertilizer bomb to blow up the IRS.
English - how to use pursuasive writing to hypothetically write a terrorist bomb threat.
Biology - how to use petri dishes to hypothetically smuggle explosives past bomb-sniffing dogs.
Drivers ed - how to use proper signaling to hypothetically drive a truck filled with explosives through a government checkpoint.

>> ^NordlichReiter:

Listen people. If it is a public beach, the government has no authority to keep you out; only if it is a state of emergency. That means something dangerous to people is taking place. The oil spill is not directly dangerous to humans, ergo they cannot keep people out.
If it is a private beach they have no authority to keep people out, because the beach does not belong to them; it belongs to whatever municipality the beach falls in.


I honestly don't know what the deal is here, but I can guess. Back in 1989, after the Exxon spill, Congress passed a law that basically put the entire responsibility on oil companies to clean up their own mess. The government oversees it, but we expect the company to have planned ahead, have the expertise, pay for the equipment, etc. It sort of makes sense then that the company gets some say in the procedure. If one of the rules is meant to prevent gawkers from getting in the way of clean-up crews, then I suppose it makes sense. Obviously, they can fly over the site (as many people have) or send crews to the beaches, the just can't expect to send a bunch of boats into the middle of the slick. It isn't much different than police roping off a scene - you can stand outside it and take pictures, but you can't expect to waltz in the middle.

As far as the government's authority goes, that thing about "only if it is a state of emergency. That means something dangerous to people is taking place." is completely wrong. The federal government certainly has the authority to keep people out of the water affected by the spill regardless of whether it is a public or private beach. There's no question here. The better issue is whether they improperly delegated the power to a private party (BP), but it looks like they made sure to have coast guard officials present.