While I don't agree with their claim, you are seriously misrepresenting their point. They aren't saying that the government doesn't hire people - that would be very stupid. They argue that the government has to take resources from someone else in order to pay that person. Those resources could be used otherwise in the economy, such that you are eliminating a job's worth of economic activity in order to create a job.

They most certainly do! Every generation of plane that they have created is more efficient, safer, and easier to maintain than previous generations. The plane is a tool for other people to use to make money.

Where I part ways with the "government doesn't create jobs" people is that the view is too extreme. You can look hard and find instances of government creating wealth. They also completely ignore the fact that corporations are in fact granted a charter by the government and have very strong ties to the government. Their argument would better be stated as: in general, private enterprise is more efficient than government. That isn't as sexy, though. But don't completely dismiss their point, and if you do don't try to do it by playing games with language.

Exactly - if your "scientific" classification system can't even classify the President of the United States (let alone his children), it isn't of very much scientific value.

Sure, you can see a lot of people who clearly come from some place... but you can also see a lot more people who don't clearly fall into any bucket, especially in the US where everyone is so mixed up. You might see a redhead with curly hair and freckles, and that person may have a bunch of African ancestry despite those traits being so traditionally "Irish". Even if you were right about that person being "Irish" - so what? Irish people didn't always look like that - there has been quite a bit of genetic exchange over the millennia, and it is doubtful that your idea of what an Irish person looks like would be true when Christians were being fed to lions. So now your idea of "race" is frozen at some point in time. Scientifically, it is OK to say that race is meaningless as a classification system while still accepting that traits are heritable.

Because bats all ways twerk so weld.

How would you text without a free hand?

Naw, go look at their Yelp page. Hell, just Google them. This will sting.

I thought I was being outlandish. O_o

Yeah, pretty sure those wouldn't hold up.

It looks like "the market" is going to take care of these jokers. You should probably find a better example to make your point.

Ah, but there is also a privacy screen guard defeater!

Of course, it was also part of a sovereign country that they had treaty obligations to protect and the "referendum" took place after the territory was already completely occupied and under foreign control. And naturally, there was a big hurry to the whole process.

And then of course, it happened in a complete vacuum, totally separate from the continued occupation of and material support in other areas of Ukraine. No Russians there, where there IS actual shooting and resistance. Nope.

You forgot to put "referendum" in quotes.

Gays I agree - but women and religion? Where do Republicans differ from Democrats on women's rights? Where do Republicans and Democrats differ on freedom of religion?

Gay marriage... while I fully support it, it is hardly an issue critical to the nation's future. I certainly would not make it my litmus test when selecting a politician unless the two were otherwise very similar. Which, incidentally, happens to be the case most of the time.

While I agree that pharma holds a lot of sway with Republicans*, you are overlooking a huge reason for Medicare expansion: most of their supporters were (and still are) elderly. US politics is more about what "team" you are on then it is ideological in nature, and the Republicans were simply making a play that was popular with their fans.

* and Democrats, for that matter - witness the ACA

By that logic, the only moral problem with Iraq was that the opponent had the audacity to resist invasion. If they'd just surrendered, the US would have been in the right and could have gone further and annexed the territory.