tnguy

They are calculated and taken out of your paycheck (where the CC tips are also credited) just like a normal paycheck.   Hmm. Lumber_jack says it's a bit different. It's been a long time, I am likely incorrect.

  There's a fairly interesting story out there that the revolution may have only been days away from being averted and pretty much only happened due to some bad luck. I'll have to track it down.

  The Judeo-Christian belief system can be argued to say that one should respect the governments one is under as they have been put there by God. This is actually pretty explicit in one or two places (though most moder Christians believe that most of the old law has been superseded by Christ. But he still says to render-unto-Caesar). I once asked a pastor how this reconciled with the American Revolution. I never did get an answer to that one.

  Sure. All that. But the overall information in the article leads to the indication of there being no settled legal definition of what it means to be a natural born citizen. Certainly Romney's father matched the same template as Cruz and he ran. I'm not really up for an argument about what it is or isn't and certainly, if you want to say that you should have to be born in the US to run for president, I don't have a strong argument against it. All I'm saying is that the requirement as it stands would have to be settled legally.   Your logic as to, for example, Obama is not without merit but does start to go out on a limb a little. And he is president so that is an indication of where things tend to lean there. I would argue that you do not bear allegiance simply because the nationality of one of your parents is not American. And how would this stand if you did not know who one of your parents was? Starting to get a bit tenuous in my opinion.   The differences between the 1790 and 1795 law could be important or it may not. If the clause was removed because it was considered redundant that is one thing. If it was removed because its meaning was supposed to be negated, they probably should have made that explicit. They didn't so, once more, it'll probably be for courts to decide should it go that far. Which it won't.

  The Wikipedia page seems not to agree with your point of view (Standard disclaimers about Wikipedia apply). The big issue is that the constitution itself does not define the term and since citizenship itself is an artificial concept not rooted in natural definitions, there is something of a quandry. As I say, I suspect it would have to be decided in the courts and I don't think that is a battle we are likely to see. I'll leave you with this quote from the top of the wikipedia article.  

  I always try to tip cash for that reason. I already do too much unpaid work for the IRS.

  This is America. It's my god-given right to bitch on the internet!   I read one post on another site the other day whining about people ordering waters instead of fountain drinks and hence lower tips. Really? But again, that's another reason why tipping is probably a bad idea, especially as currently implemented. You're paying based on the price of the food, not the service. As The Itis says, what makes a plate of lobster worth a better tip? (I do up my tip if we're doing a cheap meal like just sharing an appetizer or dessert though. Only fair).

  On the other hand, the constitution *is* just a piece of paper and relies on the belief and support of the living to remain in effect. Those primarily charged with upholding it have failed us. What's next?

  Could be voting is an illusion because even when the result *is* what that portion of the population wants the results to be, the outcome is much the same.

Catching bad criminals is hard. It's easier to take good people, turn them into criminals and catch them instead. They don't put up so much of a struggle.

    So basically, if you tip well, you could just be subsidising the poor tippers.

I'm not a big fan of tipping. I think people should do their job and get paid for it. All it really does is allow the restaurant to advertise lower prices than what the cost really is. It's frequently unfair on the server, it seems to have gone up over the years (It was bad enough going from the 10% standard in England to the 15% here but now it's crept up to 20% somehow) and more and more jobs where service simply doesn't count are putting out their little begging tip-jars.   It's not like leaving a really low tip is an option unless service is really so terrible that you need to make a point since you'll just run the risk of your food being contaminated next time in. And it's not like the level of service varies that much anyway. You brought my food to my table without dropping it and dropped off three, not two rounds of drinks? Sure, that's worth a bunch more money.   Tips for anything other than exceptional service should be 0 and servers should be making a proper wage.

  It's a tricky game to play. Unless Obamacare fails dismally, the mud may not stick to the Dems, they get to say "It would have worked but for those meddling republicans" and we get stuck with all the crappy bits that manage to stick around.   I don't have a good answer. It seems that there is no good outcome from this bill having passed in the first place and no likelihood of the perpetrators ever answering for their sins

FWIW, I kinda keep an eye on the "natural born citizen" thing and it's far from settled for Cruz's situation. He was born a US citizen, not naturalized which is arguably the distinction.   In truth, it would probably have to go through the courts which would probably be something best avoided. And considering the lack of will to pursue all the irregularities in the past few elections, probably will be.

I think the Republican party will produce another weak candidate in 2016 and people will begin to get a clue as to what's going on. It wasn't quite so obvious the last couple of cycles as there were not many good prospectives but the climate has started to put some in the light and they absolutely will not be allowed to succeed.   Make no mistake, both parties have their snouts deep in the trough and no one who would challenge that can be tolerated even if they are who we need to put the country back on track (Or at least prevent it from sliding over the cliff).

  This is pretty much the way I see it playing out. But I would love for a big surprise.

When it got to the open primary states, Dems got to vote. That's when he started to surge.   I think it's crazy that the states dictate all this stuff anyway. The party should select their candidate however they want to.

  I hear it's going to be a musical. With dancing.

Well, I think we all know that there are way too many people out there who react in a knee-jerk emotional way to anything that comes along. A lot (I'd be willing to accept close to 50%) are on "our side". So yeah.   That's why we have the law after all and don't just march down the street to find someone to string from a tree every time a crime is committed.

I was just being dense and thought it was a comparison of Obama vs McCain and Obama vs Romney. Nothing to see here...

    I'll give you that nuance often goes over peoples heads and I'm the first one to stand up for someone I disagree with if I see it happening. But IMO, there's not much nuance to find here.   Just to be clear, here is the actual text (which I haven't seen quoted in this thread so far).   That's a long way from your claimed meaning.

I wasn't thinking of it that way. Good point.

  I'm not a big fan of Mitt but Obama did have the incumbent advantage. I'm surprised Bush made it to term 2 as well.

It's not so much the religion as the lust for power. There's been plenty of bad actors from all quarters.

I was kinda surprised. We were getting ready to pay out of pocket for a new roof. The old one was worn out and, to be sure, was not put on properly (I'd replaced parts of it myself and there were multiple things done wrong by the previous installer). Called in the roofer to get a quote, ready for the big hit and he managed to put it all on insurance. We got architectural shingles and didn't have to pay a penny.   To be sure, there was a bit of damage from a storm but mostly it was just plain worn out. Can't really blame the insurance companies for wanting to avoid paying all of that. If I wrecked my 2000 car, I wouldn't get to drive a 2013 model off the lot.