My favorite part of the article: "If they really want this to work, they should first stop cars driving on it."
Translation: "Let's build a roadway for vehicular traffic for vehicular traffic, but prohibit vehicles from using it."

As someone that worked for a state DOT, I can tell you that "the gub-ment" notoriously does NOT spend much of the road-use revenues (fuel tax, permitting, vehicle registration, etc.) on usable roads. Rather, it's like most any other revenue stream for those knuckle-heads-find imaginative ways to mis-appropriate it, then cry that we need more taxes to pay for what should have already been paid for. I guess I wouldn't mind paying mroe taxes for something if I had the slightest confidence that I was getting what I'm paying for....

Also, where I presently live, Federal fuel taxes comprise less than 50% of the total taxation on fuel. There's state fuel tax (the biggest bite), municipal fuel tax, and, if this don't beat all, sales tax on top of it all. Government(s) (combined) make more of a profit off fuel sales than do the fuel producers.

Well, English is my first language, and I happen to be able to utilize it effectively. In this case, I agree w/ AC. For any of a number of legal reasons, and in most states, with certain exceptions (e.g., mental/physical disabilities; pursuit of a college education), the emancipation of minor children occurs at the age of eighteen years. Shoot, the privilege of voting is granted at that same age. Therefore, the responsibilities commensurate with that privilege are assumed. If you want the privilege of participating in how your life plays out, you should at least take some of the responsibility of participating in how your life plays out. Or would you rather "have your cake & eat it too"?

When YOU get a chance, search for "Gerrymandering". You'll find it's a process developed by...wait for it...Democrats. Terribly inconvenient when your opponents use the tools you developed for yourself....

If you bother to research the history of "gerrymandering", you'll find it was concocted by the Democrats to attempt to unfairly hold power in various legislative bodies (state & federal). I guess it's patently unfair of your opponents to use the catastrophic shenanigans you first started using. (How dare those dastardly no-good-nicks use my play-book against me!)

That's how it's supposed to work. Constitutionally, the House drafts appropriation legislation, then passes it to the Senate for their review. The Senate reviews the legislation, and either accepts it or makes recommendations for modification, at which point it goes back to the House for further consideration. Notice that the Senate is supposed to review it, then either accept or ask for modification? The Senate, actually Herr Reid, is refusing to do even that. He...errr...they are refusing to follow the process; their little temper tantrum is what's causing this malaise.

I care very much for the democratic process. That's why I'm willing to recognize that what's happening is constitutionally allowed. A majority of the representatives in the House are simply doing what their constituents elected them to do. "[T]heir legislative agenda" is to fairly represent those who voted them into office. Are you really too dense to see that doing otherwise would perpetuate the catastrophic precedent of not doing what you've been employed to do? You are entitled (by an amendment to our constitution) to freely opine, and state that you believe it's a form of "economic terrorism", But don't expect others to believe that that is what it is, simply because you say so. That's a rather silly stance to take....

Well, first off, the Democrats cannot simply (& unilaterally) declare that an amendment to the Constitution is repealed. There is a formal (constitutional) process that must be followed in order to repeal sections of the bedrock documents of this country. And it does not include allowing a minority portion of one half of one third of our government to declare such a thing willy-nilly. Again, you're simply spouting silliness.

If the government wants to enact legislation declaring that every worker must be unionized, they can attempt to do so. But they would (a) be running afoul of that pesky constitution which states otherwise, (b) be running afoul of the desires of their constituents, and risk passing legislation which would quickly be invalidated, and/or (c) run the risk of being voted out of office (kind of like what happened to several Democrats in the mid-term elections, when many "tea baggers" were voted into office by those constituents who were unhappy that their will was not enforced). And the President is free to sign such legislation into law as well. But as Chief Executive, I imagine he would experience some interesting times executing that legislation against the majority will of the people (kind of like what's happening right now.)

Regarding a 95% tax rate in peoples' income: See above for an outline of the process and results. The House has the constitutional authority to draft such legislation, and the Senate can either support or reject it, and the President can either agree or veto as well. But they would then be held to account to those who voted them into office.

Ain't it a real twist in the undergarments when government starts trying to do what they're supposed to do?

I'm somewhat sorry your myopia kept you from reading along when they looked at the Constitution in that civics class. Otherwise, you'd know that that's how it's supposed to work in this particular country, constitutionally.

I know of several banana republics where they actively discourage an understanding of the truth and a quest for knowledge. Which one have you chosen for your relocation?

Once again, another ill-informed ignoramus spouting invective-filled opinion, in the hopes that it would drown out worthwhile debate based upon facts and history....
(Are you, perhaps, a young product of the modern public education system, which sacrifices education on the altar of social engineering?)

Ummm...no one's prohibiting you from acquiring personal health insurance. There are plenty of insurance agents all over the place just waiting to help you out. They'll even offer you all sorts of options to try to fit within your budget. There's just one catch--they'd like you to pay premiums for the coverage.

What's that? You want someone else to pay your premiums?! Ohhh.........

Idiots outsmarting the system? Idiot=smarter than other? What's that say about those "others" What/who is dumber than an idiot if s/he can be outsmarted in that way? Whoever that may be, I'd choose the idiot any day of the week....

Jeepers Wally! A living breathing example of "ocular rectitis" right here! The historical record shows that not a single Republican voted for this particular piece of legislative madness. Quite a few Democrats were opposed to it as well. Please get your facts straight....

Again, look to the lessons of history. The Democrats pulled every procedural gimmick out of the book to get this passed. Republicans start using the same play-book & you get your panties in a wad. Talk about infantile. "Mommy! He's beating me at my own game!! Make him stop!!!"

Which perhaps explains why, according to every credible poll, the American public is opposed to this particular piece of chicanery. After Pelosi famously argued that we need to pass it to see what's in it, people have had a chance to do so. And they don't like what they see. And their elected representatives are doing their bidding. And the demoncrats...err...Democrats, and POS...errr...POTUS, are doing everything to "make it hurt" to round up the flock and make us behave once again.

Oops! I almost forgot this doozy:

"Requiring government-issued IDs less than a year old for voting...." It's kind of silly, don't you think, to claim that someone under a year old would attempt to vote. Especially since the law states that one must be at least eighteen years of age in order to vote. No, actually the requirement is that proof of existence of dependant(s) be provided if you apply for government assistance in providing for the welfare of that dependent and/or to lessen your fair burden of taxes, Don't you, as a taxpayer(...assuming you are a US citizen and you pay your share of taxes...otherwise shut up), find it in your best interest to know that someone legally exists if they are to benefit from the laws that entitle them to those benefits? Otherwise, I could tell you that I am a disadvantaged citizen, with 47 dependants, many of whom would like to vote from their respective day-cares/vocational schools/juvie halls because that's where they spend most of their time, while I actually live in Tijuana but do come to Vegas whenever I receive my monthly assistance allowance. This has nothing to do with voting, and everything to do with ensuring that those who need assistance, and are lawfully entitled to that assistance, receive their fair amount of assistance. Is this not a good thing?!

"...even as the offices that issue those IDs are being closed in poor and minority neighborhoods." It seems that in most, if not all, states, you can acquire an acceptable ID card, or at least initiate the process, by visiting (a) a local DMV office, (b) a local law enforcement office, (c) a local library, (d) a local courthouse, (e) any of a number of on-line sites, (f-z) etc., and presenting yourself in person, and providing any of a number of supporting documents attesting that you are who you say you are (utility bills, rent receipts, birth certificate, prove of government assistance, etc.) Unless, of course, you have an aversion to visiting any of those afore-mentioned offices for whatever personal reason you may have. If such venues are becoming less accessible in minority neighborhoods, perhaps you should investigate what the local authorities are doing to hinder access by the disadvantaged. And since governmental representation in such areas is predominantly Democrat, perhaps you should ask the Democrats why this is happening under their watch....

Oh, and a couple of other points:

"Movement in states to secede from the Union.": There is nothing in the US constitution which disallows a state from seceding from the union. Incorporation in the union is voluntary. And acceptance of that state into the union is voluntary. And there is nothing which demands that the state may not at some future point remove itself from that union. In fact, the consensus view is that each individual state retains a certain level of autonomy, even while it is a member of the union. It is an individual state's constitution which determines the viability of secession, and not the other way around. Let's look at it in a way you might better understand: If you join a club, and pay the dues (etc.), you are entitled to the benefits derived from being a member of that club. If you choose to leave that club, and stop paying your dues, you are entitled to do so...the club cannot force you to stay a member and continue to pay dues for a service you no longer desire. Of course, you lose the privileges associated with being a member of that club. But you also are free of whatever encumbrances that club places upon you.

"Forcing students to vote in their home districts instead of where they live 9 months of the year.": In order to exercise your privilege of voting as a lawful citizen of one of the states of this union (known as the US), you are legally required to (a) affirm your citizenship, and (b) affirm your place of permanent residence. This ensures that (a) you are legally entitled to vote, and (b) you vote upon matters that are pertinent to your place of residence. With regard to your legal place of permanent residence, exceptions are allowed that entitle students to temporarily reside some place other than their permanent place of residence. Many students avail themselves of these exceptions (e.g., remain legal dependants of their parents for financial reasons), etc., but that does not alter the fact that their permanent place of residence is mommy & daddy's house. If the students so choose, they can claim that where they live 9 months out of the year is their permanent place of residence, and mom&pop's is where they go for an extended summer vacation. But they cannot claim (for financial/taxation reasons) that that house in the Hamptons is their summer vacation cottage, while (for electoral reasons) that 12x12 hovel at Harvard is their permanent place of residence. You can't "have your cake and eat it too" simply because that is most convenient for you.

I notice you reference "gerrymandering", and choose to use it to slam Republicans. If you bother to trace the history of gerrymandering in the US, you'll notice that it was first developed by the precursors of what is the present-day Democratic party. So, in essence, what you are saying is that present-day Republicans are capitalizing upon what was originally used by Democrats. It's kind of a "bite in the shorts" when your opponents start using the political weapons you first developed against you. *boo hoo* *boo hoo* I think you'll notice that whatever tool/trick/gimmick/voodoo is employed, if the Democrats use it, the ill-informed masses believe it to be a good thing, but if the "other guys" use it, it's evil incarnate. That's the real shame....

"148 years ago"?! Really?! Civil Rights Act of 1957 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1957): "Democratic Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, an ardent segregationist, sustained the longest one-person filibuster in history in an attempt to keep the bill from becoming law."

"Try to keep up." For the past 48 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Amendments_of_1965), the Democrats have been perpetuating a 'nanny state' which feeds off the abject dependence upon "the state" for the basic necessities of life. For 2-3 generations, their failed policies have done little to actually improve the plight of the disadvantaged, and have done much to keep the masses beholden to their new "massahs".

In these modern times, the DNC is the major US party attacking the civil rights of everybody, regardless their ethnicity, gender, and religious affiliation.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" -- George Santayana