bullets13

Huh? Factual? It's just one big long opinion.

The real point is that you will defend him, even if he does something wrong. And when your article by the biased liberal writer implying that the administration had done no wrong was proven false (no intentional culpability does not mean no culpability), you attacked the guy who proved your article wrong, rather than admitting that your article was misleading. I have a long history of going after those on this site who post misleading articles to try and attack Obama (in fact I just did before I responded to this post). But your article is just as bad, and IMO someone who will defend the president on issues where he doesn't deserve defending are no better than those who attack him when he doesn't deserve attacking.

I was smashing TVC but he made a nice rally at the end

Oooooh, you deserve a rainbow card

I'm sure that there is still the occasional case of discrimination that it remedies, but I believe it perpetrates many more cases of reverse discrimination, which goes against the purpose it is supposed to serve.

The real point is that you will defend him, even if he does something wrong. And when your article by the biased liberal writer implying that the administration had done no wrong was proven false (no intentional culpability does not mean no culpability), you attacked the guy who proved your article wrong, rather than admitting that your article was misleading. I have a long history of going after those on this site who post misleading articles to try and attack Obama (in fact I just did before I responded to this post). But your article is just as bad, and IMO someone who will defend the president on issues where he doesn't deserve defending are no better than those who attack him when he doesn't deserve attacking.

The real point is that you will defend him, even if he does something wrong. And when your article by the biased liberal writer implying that the administration had done no wrong was proven false (no intentional culpability does not mean no culpability), you attacked the guy who proved your article wrong, rather than admitting that your article was misleading. I have a long history of going after those on this site who post misleading articles to try and attack Obama (in fact I just did before I responded to this post). But your article is just as bad, and IMO someone who will defend the president on issues where he doesn't deserve defending are no better than those who attack him when he doesn't deserve attacking.

I guess if I take liberty with 1000 more quotes Smitty and I'll be even. And since you never question him, always giving a very serious response to his posts, I guess I owe you 1000 more as well.

When the subject intentionally misquotes people to fit the narrative they're trying to spin, this creating a fake talking point, I'd say it's unworthy to be posted.

When the subject intentionally misquotes people to fit the narrative they're trying to spin, this creating a fake talking point, I'd say it's unworthy to be posted.

When the subject intentionally misquotes people to fit the narrative they're trying to spin, this creating a fake talking point, I'd say it's unworthy to be posted.

It may be a part of the problem, but there are many more issues that have caused a downturn in the number of father/mother combination households.
A change in priorities. Both men and women are more likely to put other things before family. Money, drugs, sex, fun, and freedom have made people decide they didn't want a marriage. Some divorced, some never married.
It has become more acceptable for a single woman to be pregnant. When Murphy Brown got pregnant there was a large cry for the show to be cancelled. When Rachel on Friends got pregnant there was very little said about it.
Men have decided it is better to spread their seed with multiple women and then leave it up to the woman to care for the children. I know several guys who had 3 babies born to 3 different mothers in the same year. After they get te woman pregnant, they are gone again and out having fun.
I know a lesbian couple that adopted a child. I am very close friends with one of the ladies brothers. That child has two parents who love him and care for him. He is better off than a lot of kids whose daddy is out drinking or using drugs or is just gone. This kid is still young, and later in life he may have a harder time, but for now he is a heck of a baseball player and a good well mannered kid. His uncle and I have talked a couple of times about it and wonder if he realizes he is the only black kid in school with two white mommies and no daddy.

Wow. Unbelievable! You don't understand the very valid point he made? SMH

At one time it was needed to ensure people like big girl's dad a shot at getting hired when they DESERVED to get hired. Now it seems that more often than not it is used to get chances that are given at the expense of better candidates. If your scores are good enough, you'll get the scholarship or the job if you deserve it, regardless of race now. And in situations where someone is passed over unfairly, our legal system can now be trusted to make things right. To me, affirmative action is an outdated law that now discriminates against deserving applicants, which counters the reasons it was established in the first place.

He's 2 legit to quit... Like Calvin Walker.

He's 2 legit to quit... Like Calvin Walker.

If one president doesn't act on a major problem, that does not excuse the next president to also not act on that problem. That being said, most of the "identical" situations that are posed in these threads of Big Girl's have obvious and fundamental differences which are pointed out, and then blindly ignored.

He's 2 legit to quit... Like Calvin Walker.

Unchecked spending, theft, mismanagement, and contracts awarded by nepotism rather than quality and cost, just to name a few reasons.

It will be interesting to see how a trial goes with BISD's cooperation, as opposed to the first trial, with the old regime that refused to acknowledge that they were victims, even going so far as to renew his contract.

While I'm not in agreement with y'all on shipping back immigrants who want to live here, I AM in agreement with y'all that we should ship back CRIMINALS who want to live here.

We don't need a fence. We need a system in place that properly taxes immigrants and does not reward them with freebies and handouts when they get here. If someone wants to move to the US and become a productive, taxpaying member of society, great! All of us on here come from families of immigrants, unless we have some pure native Americans on here I don't know about. But their being here should be at a benefit to our country, not a detriment. We should be making tax dollars off of them, not spending tax dollars on them. An aside to that, criminals need to be deported. You want to live here, you get one chance to follow the rules.

I have a new favorite poster on this site and his name is bedelmon. This thread is awesome. I haven't figured out yet whether I am laughing with him or at him though.

AAW, MoFo must be a move-in to the HJ school district.  Anyone having gone to school in the HJ system would know what an average is.

The topic of this thread is a poll showing that Mitt Romney would win in a landslide if the 2012 election were held again today, not which voting base is more intelligent or less informed.
 
Personally, I think this is evidence that a lot of moderates, independents and swing voters begrudgingly gave Obama their vote in 2012, and now wish they could go back and change it.