Have you seen the interview with Will Smith by the French news agency. He's all about socialism, loves to pay his taxes. Then he hears 75% tax rate and the look on his face is priceless. He even follows with "God Bless America."

The natural born citizen argument continues. The difficulty is that the constitution mandates the president must be a natural born citizen, but does not define a natural born citizen. There have been a couple of Supreme Court cases which alluded to the clause, and gave somewhat of a description in the arguments. The cases are contradictory. Since no natural born case has been brought before the court, the issue has remained unresolved. After Obama fulfills his term in office, it become moot. A natural born citizen is a person born in the United States. Rubio qualifies.

My understanding of the constitution is that the same requirements apply to both the president and vice president, since the VP is expected to take over if needed. Could be wrong, since high school civics was a million years ago and I don't have the constitution open atm. Easier to ask then look it up I guess. As to selecting a vp based on qualifications instead of votes, I would agree, except if you didn't get the votes, you wouldn't be president, making it irrelevant. Better to get elected.
If Obama can serve based on a Hawaiian birth, so can Rubio based on a Florida birth.

OK so here's a question. My father was a policeman and a hunter. Growing up, we always had guns in the house. There were 7 children in the family, and somehow, not one of us accidentally shot anyone else. We all knew where the guns were kept (in my father's room,) and we all understood it was hands off. On many occasions, I was taken "shooting" with my dad, and we would go fire off several hundred rounds of ammo in the woods or sand pits.
So I have a wife. She is the daughter of New York democrats. Although I have converted her to the conservative path, she is steadfast in her opposition to guns. I have a 10 year old daughter, which is her primary reason for not wanting them in the house. I'm not sure of the logic, since I promised not to shoot her (joke).
How do I persuade my wife to allow weapons in the house. I think wtshtf, having a weapon to protect your property will be essential. I will not "sneak" one in, I have to much respect for our marriage to simply ignore her wishes. She must bend to my will. How do I make her do that.

Dear Suzie,
I took my "name" back when 9-12 first came out because it was my intention to become more a part of the political world, and make people aware of the problems the government was creating. (Also because my first choice wasn't available.) Although I have improved my "involvement" considerably from before that time, I could only wish I had been as successful as you in doing exactly that. This site and forum has been a woderful boon of knowledge to me. I've been educated to things which would never get on the MSM here, and there is no question that this site has been monumental in shaping many of the opinions I hold today. I am in awe of your passion, energy and patience. I am frustrated by the animosity which develops between members who disagree. It seems we argue vehemently over shades of red when the opposing side is made of blue. I want to say thanks for all you have done and are doing. Please keep it up.

I agree to a point. However you can not legislate morality. The fiscal mess that our country has gotten itself into by providing a safety net for all of the "lost souls" is at the heart of both problems. Without a safety net, teen pregnancy would decline rapidly. The lifestyle that is sometimes chosen by today's youth of section 8 housing, food stamps and EBT cards evaporates if fiscal sanity is implemented. The moral decline of America which has taken place in the last 50 years is a result of fiscal policy which enabled it, not the other way around. American decay can be attributed to the destruction of the family, but the destruction of the family can be attributed to fiscal policy.
Nobody wants to see anyone suffer. However, suffering is a consequence and a deterrent to irresponsibility. Removing the consequences of actions, whether it be teen pregnancy, poor study habits in schools, or failure to save for retirement causes an increase in such behavior and an explosion of dependence on the government. Which is what the liberals want.

It's our job to get Mitt elected because Mitt, whatever his failings, is a better choice for President than Obama. Even as you deride him as Obama Lite, it is better for our country than 100% Obama. We have a 2 party system. It is not perfect, but it is what we have. Our country is on the brink of ruin (if we haven't already gone over). If Obama is elected, we move that much closer. If Romney is elected. we hope we don't get as close. It is true that there is little difference between the parties-but there is a difference. I can not "wash my hands" of it and allow others to decide. I fought for my candidate in the primary and he lost. I am left with 2 realistic options for President. I will choose the better of the two, because to not do so is to give my country less than it deserves.

As someone in the "industry" what effect do you think a flat tax would have on the economy. Do you think the benefits would outweigh the disadvantages? Do you support it?

Well done. Although he was not my first choice in this election, he was in 2008, before I became a Paul disciple. He is not a typical Washington politician. He has spent most of his adult life in the private sector, knows what it's like to have to meet payroll, and basically work for a living. He may not be perfect, no one is. It is possible we could have done better in the primary. It is just as likely we could have done worse. Regardless of who wins the Republican nomination, Obama is worse. I struggle to understand how some can't see that.

I might be wrong. I know she recused herself from the Arizona immigration case which is going on. I'm pretty sure she did not recuse herself from the Obamacare one.