Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


jbluhm86 last won the day on September 22 2012

jbluhm86 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

158 Excellent

About jbluhm86

  • Rank
    All Pro
  • Birthday 07/10/1986

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Southwest Ohio, USofA

Recent Profile Visitors

6,976 profile views
  1. I can agree with you on both counts. The Trump administration is technically enforcing the law that is on the books. However, I think we can all agree that curbing illegal I'm migration is one thing; ripping young children and infants from their parents for months at a time is another. Also, from what I've read, the Obama administration suspended the practice of separating these children from their parents in 2014, while Trump restarted the practice just recently. I wouldn't disagree, but, if you were in their shoes, wouldn't you be trying to do the same for you and your family? And that's on the MSM for not doing their job and reporting on it when it happened during Obama's tenure. But it doesn't negate the fact that what is going on down there is borderline inhumane. Separating children away from their parents like that is just wrong. I don't advocate an open border policy and I think that having a more effective immigration policy than we have now is ideal, but surely Congress can come up with one that doesn't destroy families like that.
  2. Texas Monthly: What’s Really Happening When Asylum-Seeking Families Are Separated?
  3. PolitiFact: Medicare and Social Security: What you paid compared with what you get
  4. jbluhm86

    So much winning...

    Bloomberg: Next Move Is Trump's After China Hits Back in Trade-War Opener
  5. Absolutely, you should get all the money you put in back. That, however, doesn't include the extra $3-4 dollars of benefits boomers on average are collecting that they didn't put in.
  6. All things being equal, both political parties have screwed the pooch on fixing and/or phasing out Social Security, simply because in order to do so, they'd need to either reduce the benefits for boomers already collecting or soon to collect Social Security, and/or increase the contribution rate from the younger generations paying into it while knowing full well that those people would never see their full benefits by the time they reach retirement age. This problem has been known since at least the 80s, yet no one dares to fix it, Republican or Democrat, because it's politically unpalatable. That's why my current retirement plans rely very little on projected Social Security benefits, because there's no chance in hell i'll be collecting near what Uncle Sam takes out of my paycheck every other week in Social Security taxes. I turn 32 next month.
  7. Well, since current and imminent retirees will be collecting $3 for every $1 they actually put in the social security system, courtesy of younger generations such as mine, that means every baby boomer will be eating tilapia and voting Democat, then.
  8. jbluhm86

    how is this draining tbe swamp?

    Even conservatives are starting to get tired of Scott Pruitt's bu.llshit: National Review: Scott Pruitt Should Go
  9. jbluhm86

    Trump's North Korean "Deal"

    I'll just leave this here, then...
  10. jbluhm86

    Oh no more Chick-fil-A

    You know the rules, Steve. Satirical statements go in pink font on this board. Report to the nearest college's Sociology department for immediate reeducation.
  11. jbluhm86

    Oh no more Chick-fil-A

    That article is obviously satire, my man:
  12. jbluhm86

    Oh no more Chick-fil-A

    The whole hub-bub over Chick-fil-A is because the owners do not believe in gay marriage because of their religious beliefs. Its a free country and they have the prerogative to believe whatever they want to, just as people who disagree with them also have the prerogative to not patronize the establishment if they so choose. But, to my knowledge, no Chick-fil-A has ever turned away a customer just because they were homosexual, so this whole thing has been overblown by both sides from the beginning.
  13. jbluhm86

    Trump's North Korean "Deal"

    Enlighten me, then, on what you believe about my line of thinking is "laughable". Trump legitimizes a ruthless dictator by agreeing to visit him with no preconditions, agrees to stop joint military exercises with South Korea - to the astonishment of the South Koreans - as a concession, and even took the threat of US military intervention off the table as a threat against North Korea if they fail to denuclearize...all for...what...exactly? A promise from Kim Jeong Un to denuclearize his country? Like that have dozens of times in the past, and gone back on their word every single time? Give me a fu.cking break. If Obama did the same thing that Trump just did - and, in a way, he did with Iran and Cuba - the Right would be losing their fu.cking minds over this, as they did with Iran and North Korea. And yet, the Right is going about this like Trump just made the deal of the century and deserves a Nobel Peace prize...again, the same exact sh.it the left did with Obama over Iran and Cuba. Hypocrisy abounds on both extreme ends of the political spectrum...
  14. Daily Wire: South Korea Bewildered By Trump Considering Cancellation Of Joint Military Exercises Daily Wire: Trump's Big North Korean Moment Is Either A Masterstroke Or A Horrible Debacle. There's No In-Between. So, here I sit, waiting for the grumbling and indignation from the Right that the President of the United States would meet with the dictator from North Korea and make overtures and deals with them that have no substantive concessions in return from North Korea. You know, like the outrage from Obama meeting with Iran and Cuba. I'll wait...
  15. jbluhm86

    how is this draining tbe swamp?

    Exactly; Trump is the president. The President is the head of the executive branch, which includes the EPA. The head of the EPA serves at the President's leisure, which means Trump can fire Pruitt for any reason, at any time he wishes. Your DOJ argument is irrelevant.