Is that the one where the one telling about it talks about him charging the cop?

There were at least as many witnesses saying that Michael Brown was charging the officer when he was shot. Witnesses who are significantly more credible than those whom you are relying on. In addition, the evidence from the autopsy completely contradicts the idea that Michael Brown was standing with his hands up when he was shot. The evidence from the autopsy actually supports Officer Wilson's account that Michael Brown was charging him when he was shot.

In addition to there being witnesses (black males and females) who contradicted that statement, the autopsy of Michael Brown clearly contradicted it as well. Furthermore, forensic evidence from the scene contradicts that account of events. It is possible that Officer Wilson behaved inappropriately by shooting Michael Brown, but the evidence suggests otherwise.
This is in contrast to the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case where the evidence merely failed to support the idea that George Zimmerman did anything wrong.

Yes, $53 billion was SPENT by the Highway Trust Fund, but approximately 1/4 of that was spent on things OTHER than roads and bridges (or about $14 billion). Interestingly enough the amount of tax revenue which went INTO the Highway Trust Fund was about $14 billion LESS than what was spent.
In other words, the Highway Trust Fund collected about $39 billion in tax revenues AND spent about $39 billion on roads and bridges (the rest of it being spent on things not related to highways)...Or approximately what "Snotnose" was claiming.

$53 billion does not equal $39 billion.

NO, according to the figures I have, the difference between revenue (primarily from gas taxes) and spending is the money that is spent on things OTHER than highways. Which supports "Snotnose"'s claim.

As someone else asked, what kind of input did Chuck Grassley have? Just because he was there during the discussion does not mean that any of his ideas were included.

I have no idea where you got your numbers from, but spending from the Highway Trust Fund was about $53 billion last year. Approximately a quarter of that (or over $14 billion) was spent on non-highway purposes (mass transit, bicycle lanes, etc). Over the same period, the HTF received $39 billion in revenue, most of that from gas taxes. which means that the person you responded to was basically correct.

Wow, talk about revisionist history. The Republicans had NO input in drafting PPACA. As to the reason they opposed it, it was not because they thought it would be popular, but because it was, and is, unpopular. Furthermore, the insurance companies were not, and are not, against this law. They actually supported its passage and still support the law because it forces everyone to buy health insurance and guarantees that the Federal government will bail them out if they lose money.
And it is not healthcare that millions of Americans have, it is health insurance. As to actual health care, as a result of this law, it is harder to get than it was before because it has led to many health care professionals leaving the business. Oh yeah, most of those millions with health insurance have it because Obama is illegally giving subsidies in states that did not set up their own exchanges.

I like the idea of Net Neutrality. However, I do not believe that the government regulation that will implement "Net Neutrality" will reflect that good idea. And of course that leaves out the question of which form of Net Neutrality? Is it:

• A) All packets must be treated the same, no matter what protocol they are?

• Or

• B) All packets must be treated the same, no matter their source or destination (but different protocols can be treated differently)?

• I am convinced that government regulators will find a third definition for Net Neutrality if they actually implement a regulation which will contain some provision which will encourage (and possibly require) ISPs to throttle data from those who represent those not politically favored.

Perhaps. However, would you care to list what those problems were and which regulations eliminated them. Your answer may be correct, but without knowing what the specific issues were we cannot determine if the regulations did what they were created to do, or if they are still necessary. In addition, some of the "problems" the regulations were created to fix, may no longer be things we would consider problems.

You really should spend some time learning about that which you speak. Citizens United was a group formed to oppose Hillary Clinton's run for President. They made a documentary about her career that they intended to distribute leading up to the primaries (and then the general election) in 2008. When the FEC told them that they were not allowed to do so within a certain number of days of the election because it violated campaign finance laws, they sued.
I remember reading about them as they gathered support and money to make the movie. Several prominent members in Citizens United had been speaking out against a Hillary Clinton presidency for several years at that point. So, the idea that this group was formed solely to challenge election finance law is ludicrous.

Actually, there was no time in history that people who studied how the physical world worked believed that the earth is flat.

The problem with your qualifier is that if they do not discover something that can be made to qualify as a serious threat, most of the time no one will ever know they were monitoring the communication. The "serious threat" they find may have no connection to what they were looking for, but if they will face significant punishment for failing to find one, they will find one.

That is actually how the DMCA is written to work.