LOL!!!

Because some people rather look at the big picture. Perhaps that neighbor is trying to get a government that will charge him less for the "privilege" of being American.

Yes, Gail, you should generalize whole groups of people based on the behavior of one guy.

sounds like sour grapes. use the courts and stop your whining

Likewise.

Ditto

Gail, what you said contradicts what is displayed--I saw countless amounts far below $100.

Gail, you are correct. Courts still can't make a father pay child support. Look at Joe Walsh and I'm not referring to the rock star.

Northern Virginia is becoming more and more communist each year...

Hey, Scott - prove it. Let's see the data. Otherwise, throwing around your opinion does not reflect well upon you.

Do like WaPo's top donations to the candidates. $26M from Adelson - whhhoooaa!

You can't donate more than $2,500 to a federal candidate per election. So, for the 2011-2012 biennial cycle, you are limited to $2,500 in the primary and $2,500 in the general, for a total of $5,000. So, not sure how you "donated $51,600" to Obama without breaking federal law.

Amanda's comment just goes to show, as usual, how easily duped democrats are.

Clueless, utterly clueless.
But then;
http://patdollard.com/2012/09/howard-stern-exposes-obama-supporters-2012/

That latest Howard Stern man-in-the-street segment is incredibly hilarious, and has gone viral in the last 48 hours. Although it represents those on the extreme end of the ignorance scale, it nonetheless illustrates that--overall--Obama appeals to those who make decisions based on emotion.

Yes, Kind of like believing the White House when it says that the attack in Libya was a result of a video or a mob--and not orchestrated terrorism.

The world is in flames, 23 million people in our country are unemployed, and our president says he doesn't have time to meet with Benjamin Netanyahu or other world leaders--yet he makes sure he goes to hip-hop radio interviews with hosts such as "The Pimp with a Limp," to Las Vegas fundraisers with ghetto rapper Jay-Z and booty-shaker Beyonce, appearances on Letterman and The View (where his remarks are about being "eye candy" and other such jive of vital importance)...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2935804/posts

The world is in flames, our American embassies are set on fire and under siege, our diplomats are raped, murdered, and their corpses dragged through the 'Arab street' while our flags are trampled and burned and the flag of Al Qaeda hoisted over our sovereign territory in its place...23 million people in our country are unemployed, and our president says he doesn't have time to meet with Benjamin Netanyahu or other world leaders--yet he makes sure he goes to hip-hop radio interviews with hosts such as "The Pimp with a Limp," to Las Vegas fundraisers with ghetto rapper Jay-Z and booty-shaker Beyonce, appearances on Letterman and The View (where his remarks are about being "eye candy" and other such jive of vital importance)...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2935804/posts

Hey, William - did you switch parties? Given your numerous comments on conservative voices (humanevents.org), the Washington Examiner, and The Patch - guess Romney's not your man after all!

Hmmm, still can't find your donations to Obama on OpenSecrets.org...

Generally, I have little use for a cretin like Stern, but this segment(like the identical one he did on Obama voters back in 2008) is priceless.

Amanda, you're the one who responded to Bill's post as if it was other than obvious satire, which means you made a DUPE of yourself.

Gail--a totalitarian, oppressive police state is always required under communism in order to keep people from engaging in free enterprise and from owning/maintaining private property rights, from expressing any views opposed to the state control of everything, etc. Anything resembling liberty and basic individual rights is a dire threat to communist control, that's why communists always wind up throwing dissenters in gulags, declaring them mentally ill and imprisoning them in "hospitals," and killing them off by the millions; it cannot tolerate its antithesis in any form, to any degree--all individualism must be smashed under the boot of the totalitarian state.

Gaiul, you are so way off--the Tea Party is about limited government that merely protects individual rights(NOT collectivism), as opposed to the state-enforced, big-government, centrally-planned collectivism that characterizes the democrat-communist party of Obama and his legions of zombie followers.

Bailing out corrupt and incompetent enterprises is the opposite of capitalism--"too big to fail" is the direct result of big-government interference in the markets, not free markets at all.

The Dulles Toll Road is not what you say it is. The Dulles Greenway is.

See what I mean about democrats being utterly ignorant of basic economics?

With all due respect Gail communists aren't anarchists but rather folks that subscribe to a political ideology. Marxism that is form of economic theory.

And asserting that there has never been a pure communist government is a rather odd way of explaining away the fundamental contradictions inherent within the ideology. Communist parties govern in several countries today - notably China and North Korea. The fact that neither rules in such a way as to be consistent with the theory rather makes the point about its fundamental flaws. I realize you are trying to make a larger point but you have obscured it some with a fairly loose explanation of communism.

I miss the days of reporting on the Waterfront and our schools. You know - local issues in a local paper. Speaking of communists why do I need to know who my neighbors donated money too. Geez.

Don, you make my point for me. Thanks so much!

Karen, the last time we went 'round on a discussion thread, you hypocritically insisted that people on the thread in question "stick to the topic"--even as you made sure to get YOUR licks in on what had become the subject, just before closing the thread so that nobody could reply to your rhetoric. I realize you're a democrat and that you just can't stand to have anyone oppose Obama, etc. Your fellow democrats call us republicans names on here all the time, and you never do a darned thing about it. Why don't you just do what communists always do, which is shut me off, prevent me from posting, ban me, block me, report me to the PC police, etc?

Gail, you're using rational thought to make a salient point. Thank you.

Wrong, Gail. It was all the result of people like Obama(as in when he sued CITIBank on behalf of ACORN in 1994) using the force of government, the Community Reinvestment Act, and so on to force private enterprises--banks and mortgage lenders--to engage in egalitarian, affirmative-action levelling schemes in the name of "social justice" because everyone deserves to own a house, etc. "Affordable housing" via FNMA/FDMC and the Fed and democrats subsidizing all kinds of imprudent lending, encouraging it, and punishing banks which were reluctant to engage in it, all led to excess demand, which drove prices up and gave us extremely un-affordable housing, and the corruption spread through the entire industry and financial sector because prudent standards were abandoned due to government forcing socialist "equal opportunity" on the whole economy. Without that key factor, the absence of Glass-Steagall restrictions would have resulted in not much more than some lessons of caveat emptor being brought home to unwise investors, or, banks rightfully going under due to their own recklessness, practices, etc.

Don't you even know what the basis of our inalienable individual rights is?? The very definition of a right is that it does NOT deprive someone else of theirs! This is in stark contrast to what you delusional, dishonest democrats claim--that people have the "right" to demand labor, services, and goods from others--to deprive them of their time, property, etc--without payment!

+1!

We been yelled at twice by folks because of our "Obama" and "Tea Parties are for little girls with imaginary friends" bumper stickers. However, I get more thumbs ups because of them. I would like for someone to explain what "big Government" actually is?

Also, I love Howard Stern, however, you can go into any neighbor and ask the same questions and get the same response. People are just not informed at all. They really know more about the contestants on American Idol or AGT than who's running for office and their platform.

That's my favorite about the Tea Partiers, they claim to be protectors of the Constitution, but you get individual liberties confused with federal powers. Maybe take a class or two in constitutional law before you pontificate on what powers are and are not granted to the federal government.

Also, your selective definition of socialism is entertaining as well. I'm sure you currently do or will in the future pull social security while you complain about being forced into socialism. Socialism is not a catch-all bucket you can throw every idea you disagree with into.

Amanda, ever heard of the 10th Amendment? How about Article I, Section 8?

The federal government now controls 90% of home mortgages and 97% of student loans, not to mention GM, and they are now elbows-deep in the energy sector, and altogether seeking ever-more of a central planning role in the economy of our once-free enterprise country. This all has been the deliberate strategy of Marxists throughout the decades. Anyone who denies that this is socialism is not worth debating.

You do see the irony is asking for civil discourse, don't you? Do you honestly believe you have been civil and/or engaged in discourse?

You don't get it. I'm not the one whining about any alleged lack of civil discourse, I was merely responding to those who are. My position is that "civil discourse" with those who are trying to use force to violate your rights is folly.

As is civil discourse with paranoia and hyperbole.

Here's an example for you: Claiming that one has a "right" to health care, housing, birth control supplies, education, food, etc., in the kind of collectivist scheme that Obamacare represents(and in the entire collectivist, redistributive philosophy that Obama espouses) means that someone else has to perform labor to produce and provide it. If it is one's right to have it, that means one can simply demand it without payment. If there is no payment to the producer, that is slavery. Pretty simple. What democrats think of as "rights" are not rights at all. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

Don, do I understand your position to be that government should not pay for anyone's health care if they aren't able to pay for it themselves? If a hospital treats an accident victim or sick child, the hospital should make sure they have cash in hand first, or risk never being paid? The poor can die as far as you're concerned, unless they're lucky enough to get charity from some private organization? I'd go out on a limb to say that most Americans would be willing to sacrifice a bit of their labor to the collective good to ensure that the sick and elderly are cared for, whether they have the financial resources or not. That's hardly "slavery" except in some warped, exaggerated metaphor.

By the way - we consider films like "Lassie" and "Eight Below" blasphemous and are planning on burning the US Embassies and the local ASPCA offices.

You never learned the lesson of the grasshopper and the ant, from Aesop, did you? Vast differences in wealth are in many cases evidence of justice, not injustice.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/12/the_ant_and_the_grasshopper_--_an_allegory_for_the_country.html

If you are so skeptical that private altruism is ample enough to give aid to those with real need, then why is it that, before all of this socialistic "Great Society" and "New Deal" leviathan runaway failures of statist train-wrecks, there were thriving and robust voluntary mutual aid societies in every community, much more community/civic involvement, church membership and participation in charities, church-sponsored and operated hospitals, etc? Furthermore, in study after study, those of us on the right give far more of our own property voluntarily to charity than do democrats...heck, Mitt Romney gave more last year (over $4 million) than Obama has in his entire life! The real situation where we see the poor dying by the millions is under these collectivist "utopias," these "workers' paradises" of Marxist totalitarian redistribution, where production is disincentivized, sloth and torpor are subsidized, dissent and freedom are squashed, millions starve and are "disposed of" etc.

While there, be sure to pick up your free cell phone. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tpAOwJvTOio

+1!