Incorrect. The House passed numerous bills since 2010 and made numerous concessions to Democrats. Only the Democrats (Reid, Obama) would not negotiate. It's well documented.

Now, that's not to say the GOP didn't stop negotiations on some points; but what's the point of negotiating at all if you know the other side won't? There is none. So Reid and Obama's lack of negotiations brought everything to a stand still and gave the GOP zero reason to even try negotiating - especially after getting burned by trying (documented).

This is Obama you're talking about. He's not interested in anything that isn't 100% of what he wants. Reid did good in hiding that by not allowing anything through the Senate that Obama wouldn't sign; but that protection is no longer there.

That is technically already law; the problem is there is an executive order that allows for an expanded use, which essentially turned SSN (which was only suppose to be used for Tax and SS benefits and nothing else) into a National ID number, thus leading to the problems you see with it today.

Typically the "public" IP is considered "route-able"; but regardless, I was trying to stay within the bounds of the OP's request of:

The term "route-able" would be considered "network speak"; thus I avoided it.

That has nothing to do with it.

All IP addresses are only suppose to point to one device; though a device may have multiple IP addresses. The difference is whether or not they are publically visible and routeable.

There is nothing saying that North Korea didn't take a part of the 10.a.b.c range and define it as a public network within their country. So they are not necessarily segregating the whole country. Simply put - there is not enough information to substantiate whether the whole country is in a private range, or if they just utilized part of the private range for some country specific services, and made that range public within the country.

Network Addresses, known as IP Addresses, are allocated into several groupings, namely Public, Private, Multicast, Local, and non-usable.
The addresses are also allocated in blocks - A, B, and C - which has to do with how many addresses are available in the block purchased.

The Private group consists of addresses 10.a.b.c, 192.168.x.y, and 172.16.x.y. These are considered class A, B, and C respectively. These addresses are suppose to only be used on private networks - e.g in your home, office, etc - as such, networks are typically configured to now be able to route to them. So if your at location A 10.0.0.1 will be a different server specifically on their network than if you were at location B.

The Local group is similar and consists of 127.a.b.c, though typically only 127.0.0.1 is used. The big difference is that it will never route off the computer you are using.
The Multicast group is a special group reserved at the upper end of the IPv4 spectrum. It was suppose to be for things like Video distribution where you have one sender and many receivers so as to optimize the network by allowing everyone to listen to the same stream - kind of like a TV over-the-air broadcast. However, they've been reclaiming addresses from it for the Public group because the Internet is basically not configured to support Multicast functionality.

The Public group is pretty much everything else except the a special IP address in the 169.a.b.c range that is "do not use" range.

So essentially, North Korea is making the entire country look like your work office or home network. At least, that's the claim.

Nothing has passed since then b/c Democrat controlled Senate brought only the minimal it had to to a vote; anything they didn't like they didn't bring to a vote; saving Obama from having to veto anything; and then blaming it on the Republicans and the House for not giving them what they wanted.

If you think the Dems would be able to do that...well, I got a bridge to sell you.

Closing Gitmo was never feasible. Obama ran on it because he didn't know any better and it sounded good. But once you learn the details, it neigh impossible without letting everyone loose, and most of the people in there are people no one wants let loose.

As far as the NSA is concerned, the liberals/Dems are far more likely to support what the NSA was doing since they are in favor of a "Nanny State" to start with; and they're too tied to corporations to let anything major get through as far as the environment is concerned.

Boeing 777 series is not yet 30 years old, and 787 (which not many have been on yet) is only a couple years old; and many sub-models of various other 700 series are also not 30 years old yet. And that's just Beoing. Airbus has similar aircraft.

So there is probably a 50/50 chance for people having been on an aircraft under 30 years of age versus one that is over 30 years of age.

Then you chose a poor example to use.

Though even then, God does not always do the same thing every time. The Bible, for instance, records many miracles in both Old and New Testaments; however, it is generally accepted that miracles as done then are not done commonly today. So the lack of a miracle does not negate there being a God.

Likewise, for many other things that have "so far been false". It may be able to be shown to be false, but a negative test does not disprove the existence of God. As the parent to your post was saying, you cannot DISprove God (negative test), only prove (positive test) that God does exist.

Think of it this way, can we test that you do not exist by asking you do something and you simply say "no"?
For instance, do you not exist because you do not choose to give anyone reading your comment $100?
Same for God.

Funny since it's primarily the agricultural lobby, environmentalists, and liberal dems pushing corn-based ethanol. Most in the US don't want it - especially since it is raising prices on anything that uses other corn derivatives.

Oh, so because you didn't get the answer that you wanted God no longer exists?
Sorry, doesn't work that way. An "answer to prayer" may be the answer you wanted, or it may not be.

For instance, praying that God make your bank account contain a million dollars out of thing air will probably not make that happen; thus a negative (no) answer. That doesn't mean that God didn't answer your prayer - just that he chose to answer it in the negative instead of the affirmative.

So again, that is not a valid method of DISproving God's existence.

Sad when people respond that way; but it goes to show their lack of understanding of what an "answered prayer" means. Too often people expect that an answer is only the answer they are looking for, when the answer may just as well be the opposite.

This is actually demonstrated Biblically as well - when Jesus was in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:36-46) where he asked that what needed to be done be taken from him if at all possible. The answer was clearly "no" - he didn't get what he prayed for, but rather submitted himself to that response.

DOMA did not invalidate anything. It just said for the purposes of the Federal Government certain things would not be recognized.

If you read the history of marriage with respect to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, it has not been used for force States to recognize marriages from other States that the State does not wish to recognize - that does not invalidate the marriage license isssued in the other State in any way whatsoever which is what the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires. So it is completely in applicable here, especially as this is not an inter-State issue but an issue between State and Federal government.

In the case of DOMA the Federal Government was saying "yes, we recognize your marriage license and its validity with respect to the States; but with respect to the Federal Government it doesn't apply".

DOMA did not affect States and had nothing to do with States rights. It only had to do with the Federal Government, so that's not really a conflict like you make it out to be.

Federal Government can make decisions regarding itself and its own policies, as DOMA was, without affect the States whateversoever. The issue comes when the Federal Government tries to push its policies and agenda onto the States - e.g Welfare, DOE, Social Security, Health Care, etc - through means not really granted to it via the U.S Constitution - usually through over reach of the Commerce Clause which only regulates inter-state commerce.