"There's a pretty strong current of entertainment in her work"

yeah just like "Rush Limbaugh is entertainment"

bullshit. they're hate mongers who make money off kicking people with fearful personality types (this is scientific fact if you've been paying attention) into a fear frenzy so that their $-masters can do what they want.

in many states Felons loose the right to vote. Did you not know this?

Someone who knew what the bill was :D good. I was hoping an informed person would actually crawl out of the framework.

As a progressive and a defender of the collective right to gun ownership (voting is also a collective right) - i have no issue with a well formulated assault weapons ban. One more formulated than "scary looking guns" - ie weapons that can be easily altered to fully automatic, etc.

The simple fact is that the claim that "more guns make for a safer society" is proven unequivocally wrong by global statistics. So I'm not gun up on guns.

I believe that you should have the right to own guns, but I also believe that right comes with the responsibility to prove that you can be trusted with them. I also believe that right, like many other rights, is subject to reasonable restriction.

Yes he has failed to fulfill a campaign promise thus far (renew the AWB), but he never vowed not to let them into national parks. The idea that you couldn't take a rifle into national parks is also retarded, some of those parks are vast and if you're back country camping you might need that rifle to defend yourself against a large predator. (not likely if you're careful, but it can happen)

sorry, but you simply don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Legislation requires a simple majority. Only constitutional amendments require a supermajority per the constitution. Cloture and Filibusters are merely a senate rule, and can be changed if the senate so wishes it - in fact they need to be changed as the "filibuster without consequences" we have today is being abused.

The Health Insurance Reform act is entirely constitutional as set out by standing caselaw, as is the "individual mandate" (the item most claimed to be supposedly unconstitutional) as it is merely enforced by tax code - tax code is something the federal government has broad and explicit authority on.

The entire idea that "the only goal of government is to make itself bigger" shows a warped view of the world.

The only goal of government is to serve it's protect - to protect them from threats both foreign and domestic, to help them secure the fruits of liberty and prosperity.

Sometimes the best way for the government to do some of those things is to do nothing, some times it is to enforce regulation, sometime it is to raise an army and defend against an aggressor, and sometimes it requires removing the greet motive from interfering with security the fruits of prosperity for the most people.

The idea that "the smaller the government the better" means that the best form of government is no government. Guess what happens then? warlords.

Stop thinking about politics in macros and soundbytes and start actually thinking.

You sound like yet another "10th Amendment says what i want it to person".

I've seen far too much

Person A: "Where does the constitution say that?"
Person B: "10th Amendment!"
Person A: "Um... no, the 10th doesn't say that"

the section of the constitution pertaining to the census specifically allows for other information as pointed out by a poster above who quoted the section that was conveniently left out by the Wyatt

The Constitution doesn't work that way. It doesn't prohibit them asking for more information, and other clauses imply that so long as it isn't prohibited expressly or implicitly then there is no problem as long as it serves a legitimate government purpose.

being able to anticipate how diseases might affect the population certainly falls under a legitimate government purpose.

Just because the American Libertarian Party tells you incorrect information about the constitution doesn't make that information correct.

says who? we collect the information anyway - statistics aren't harming anyone. and I'm sure at some point someone sued over the release of them and it was found constitutional.

What's your issue?

to go for low-hanging fruit:

Ever heard of the CDC?

There are many more uses, but I don't have the time to think of all of them. It's harmless information that anyone can get by simply looking at you, what is your hang up?

that is a fair point, but Ayn Rand doesn't merit my time to debunk her nonsense. people far more knowledgeable than me in those fields have already done it.

Ayn Rand's writing is a natural reaction to the Stalinistic system she grew up in, but that doesn't mean her writings were particularly insightful. She reacted to one, crappy extreme, by idealizing another crappy extreme.

[x] Gun Owner
[x] Jingoistic internet-tough-guy dipshit

no.. fixed that for you both.

Ever heard of a white person with Sickle-Cell Anemia? (yes i know it can happen, not very likely)
How about a black person with melanoma? (yes i know it can happen, not very likely)

Just because you don't know the beneficial to harmless uses of the data doesn't mean it must be "omg bad!".

"Real American(TM)"s.. shitting on the every part of the constitution - including the 2nd Amendment [while they purport to be concerned with it*] - since 1980

* their warped idea of the 2nd amendment leads to the inability to ban felons from owning weapons. Gun rights are like voting - you can loose it if you're a criminal - not like the right to not be tortured - which you can never loose. These are the same fucks who are fine with torture... sick demented people.

i hope you're writing this post from the perspective of playing along with Rush and Glen's paranoid delusions... if you actually believe what you typed is going to happen then you're pure dipshit.

whatever happened to "Obama is going to take our guns!!!!"?

hey wait, didn't he sign the bill that said that you can take your guns onto national park lands?

Medical researchers who would like to know the demographics of an area and how they affect various health issues
Demographers who research race/ethnicity and a whole host of things

i could go on, but you've clearly got an axe to grind.

Keep tilting at windmills.

You're also not a reactionary douchebag who doesn't like that there is a mean black man in the white house who wants to spend money taking care of our own people instead of bombing the middle east.

You don't put your political team and your insanity before the good of your country and those who live in it.