Why do birthers insist we didn't have diplomatic relations with the Pakistan in 1981? In 1981 diplomatic relations were better than ever with pakistan, we were using their intelligence service to funnel money to the Afghan resistance to the soviets.

To believe Obama was not born in Hawaii, despite the fact that there a birth announcements in two newspapers, is to believe that there's been an ongoing conspiracy SINCE THE YEAR OF HIS BIRTH, to make him eligible for the presidency. It's utterly ridiculous.

The birthers will never be satisfied no matter how much evidence there is until they have a video tape of Obama's mother giving birth with the Hawaii state bird flying around her head.

No one said single secular guy is immoral for giving to government as if it's charity.

What's immoral is when he volunteers everyone else's money.

"the "religious married folks" are free to reduce their personal contributions to charities in kind."

Right, so the coercion that the government and enablers (like single secular guy) bring to bear gives them less choice with the resources they've earned. They must reduce voluntary charitable giving in order to pay for what is forcibly confiscated.

Single secular guy has decided that he knows how to use married religious folks money better than they do, and that is by having them give it to government to redistribute it rather than their church, or local soup kitchen, or for that matter, to carnival cruises for a vacation if they're not the giving type.

Married religious folk on the other hand didn't force single...

"And when the political pendulum swings left and government increase funding to social programs, the "religious married folks" are free to reduce their contributions in kind."

No, they're not free to reduce their contributions as they see fit as they didn't agree to the tax in the first place, it was taken by force. Taxes are involuntary, you can't voluntarily reduce your taxes, although if you want you CAN volunteer to pay more. The fact that there's a minute amount of leeway with regards to deductibles and such doesn't change that.

"does the person who donates directly to a charity have the moral high ground compared to "secular single guy" who is willing to pay more in taxes and let the government distribute the money?"

Taxes are taken by force. Donations aren't. If "secular single guy" is advocating for more taxes because he is willing to pay them, he's also advocating for others to be forced to, even if they are not willing.

If "secular single guy" wants to pay more in taxes, he can do so by refusing deductibles, moving to a state or county with higher tax rates, He can also donate to government run charities.

"Yep, you are correct. Conservatives tend to be more religious and thus donate more to their church. I google and failed to find out, how much money goes to the upkeep of your church vs. helping the needy.

Now nothing wrong with this but donating money to pay for the heat for the Sunday morning mass is a bit like donating money to yourself."

Conservatives also volunteer more. And this'll put to bed your hypothesis about conservatives only giving more to religious charities:

"Religious people are more generous than secular people with nonreligious causes as well as with religious ones. While 68 percent of the total population gives (and 51 percent volunteers) to nonreligious causes each year, religious people are 10...

No way Hollywood could pull it off. Better of remaking the Fountainhead.

A. George W. Bush was not the Owner of the ball park, he was the Managing General Partner of the team.

B. The team was owned by a group of investors. As a matter of fact, Bush owned less than 1% of the team.

C. The ballpark itself is owned by the City of Arlington.

Please check your facts.

"Don't lecture me on the definition of socialism, it is the righties who are using this term so freely on whatever Obama does."

No, I think I'll lecture you all I want, especially when your justification for your own mischaracterization of Socialism is that the "righties" do it too. How weak...

"Concerning Avatar, a equivalent situation would be for Japan invading Alaska in order to open up ANWR for it much needed oil.

Why would a conservative support Japan in this case?"

Can you please point to a single conservative poster here who justifying the actions of the fantasy humans in Avatar? Rizzuto's article only discusses the social aspects of the movie, not the militaristic. Awesome use of a strawman argument...