Is Taco Bell Authentic Mexican Food? You have your beans, your sour cream, your tortillas. What's more Mexican than that? Or does it fall more in the lines of: "Bitch, I know Taco Bell ain't real Meixcan Food. I eat Taco Bell 'cause I'm broke ass poor."    

The more efficient comapnies that I've seen are the ones where you have just one boss. If you're lucky, you see him maybe once a month. The less efficient companies have so many bosses you forget who it is you report to. You have meetings all day long, which accomplish absolutely nothing.  And they put this idea in everyone's head that they should aspire to be a manager too. So, not only do you have your real bosses, but you have dozens of wanna-be bosses, who squeal on you at a moment's notice.

In some places of the world, people engage in the ancient and barbaric practice of urine therapy. Urine therapy is the belief that one's own urine contains necessary antibodies for warding off illnesses. Some people engage in the practice of drinking their own urine as a medicinal therapy. While the rest of the civilized world considers this to be entirely vulgar, everyone is entitled to make their own choices. Should those who practice urine therapy be required to tell you before they kiss you? And does it make a difference if it's a "French" kiss involving the tongue or just a lip kiss?  

If God impregnated Mary without her consenting to it, then he is a rapist.  If Mary consented to becoming pregnant, then she's a whore, because she was already espoused to Joseph.  

I have never really had a problem using tax dollars to fund something that society as a whole can benefit from: roads, schools, hospitals, bridges, etc. I support cancer research, gene studies, things that actually benefit society. I've never really seen the public benefit of spending billions of dollars travelling to the moon or travelling to mars ----assuming they didn't film the whole damn thing on the sand dunes of Monhollen Drive. It just seems like a very expensive waste.  Now, if they took their operations private and found their own damn funding, I wouldn't mind.  

When social security, pension programs, and a lot of retirement plans were initially set-up, the average life-expectancy was 65 years of age. You lived for a few years and then you died. Now, people are living forever and that's great (because everyone loves Granma!). My grandma retired from teaching in 1980. She's 96, still drawing $50,000 a year from the pension (not to mentin medical coverage).  That's 32 years she's been drawing of the system (1.6 million dollars).  Savings and compound interest will only take you so far. The point is that she's drawn far more from the system than she could have ever paid into the system. The thing is she's the only person in that situation. I've met a lot of older people who have been retired since the 1970s. And mathematically,  grandma at least could not have accrued 1.6 million. It means she's living off what someone else is paying into the system. No one wants the unpopular choice of cutting Grandma off (she's 96). We're starting to see people living longer.  That's just one area where the system is underfunded.  

Immigration has become such a dirty word. We think about people sneaking across the border illegally and living vagrant drifter lives. A lot of countries welcome immigration (they're just smarter about it). Some countires require that you have a certain networth, a certain education or skillset before you're able to immigrate. With America's shifting demographics, we  actually have a considerably aging population. With boomers apporaching retirement, we're soon approaching that point where we will have more people retired and drawing social security than we have workers who are paying into it.  Younger people don't have as many kids anymore (too expensive). How else do you grow your tax base? You import it?  

A lot of people feel like they did everything on their own. They didn't get any help from family, friends, community It was 100% them. They sure as hell didn't get help off a liberal jerk-off government. Nor did they benefit in any way by living in a free society, where there's at least a modicrum of respect for the rule of law. 

If we did away with all forms of goverrnment, all forms of law and order, and said that everyone is completely on their own, who would suffer the most? Who would benefit the most?  

It seems to me that most people are so entrenched in their viewpoints that it's nearly impossible for them to change. You're never going to convince the far-left liberal that supply-side economics is a good thing. Conversely, you're not going to convince the fiscal conservative that we need universal health care coverage in the United States. Hell, even whether or not you believe in Global Warming is a matter of where you stand politically. And you're not going to get the other side to budge. I don't really want this to be my side is great and the other sucks kind of argument. Instead, I'd like to hear about a time in your life when you changed your viewpoints on any given topic. Did that change come around as part of a debate? Was it a change that happened over time?    

Some people don't think there should be any income taxes at all, but those people aren't living in reality. In the real world, it's necessary for a governement to provide certain public goods that is not feasible for people to provide on an individual level. We can argue the size of governement all day, but I'm referring to how we collect taxes. We keep having this argument that says tax that guy more, but tax me less. And that's just horse shit! I understand writing off certain qualified business expenses. That make sense. After all, if you spend $500,000 to start a business that brings in a million, you didn't really make a million. You made $500,000 and that's what you pay taxes on. But some people don't pay taxes at all. And then others play bullshit games with their income. Romney recently said that he paid 13% income taxes. And that means that I paid a tax rate that's nearly twice was his.  And I'm not making tens of millions of dollars a year. Or I wouldn't spend so much time on here fucking around with you people. I'm not one of those who says tax the rich MORE, but they certainly pay less. Whatever we establish as a fair income tax rate ---if there is such a thing--- needs to apply across the board. If I pay 25% then Romeny pays 25%. Like that. This supply side theory that cutting the taxes on the rich leads to job growth is bullshit! We started that in the 1980s under Reagan and the working man has been struggling to keep his corn hole clean ever since.