LumRaiderFan

if the requirements I'm seeing to be a president or VP are still the same, I really don't think Cruz is eligible for either office.

 

It will be an interesting debate.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/08/19/no-ted-cruz-birthers-are-not-the-same-as-obama-birthers/

 

no doubt you're a radical in today's political climate. it's no insult. it just means you're far-right, and as times change, and things on both sides shift to the center, you'll become more and more radical. it's no more an insult than if i called you an "ultra-conservative".

 

I won't become more and more radical, the climate will become more and more "progressive" if anything.

 

Progressive...what a joke!

i mean, why even regulate the environment at all. to be honest, if the GOP had their way, we'd be catching speckled trout with two heads with all of the pollution they'd allow big oil to put out. so the question is this: no regulation, or too much regulation? I'd prefer moderate regulation, but unfortunately, neither side wants to provide that option.

Yep, that's what they want...to wreck the environment...you got us.  :rolleyes:

 

 

But thanks for making my point...you and many others seem to think that the fed gov is the only agency that can solve a problem.

 

Let's see, what is the problem?

 

Hungry kid..fed gov program

Unwed mother...fed gov program

School curriculum...fed gov program

Toilet capacity..fed gov regulation

Wood burning stove emissions...fed gov regulation

 

I believe Texas and any other state are capable of managing their own resources much better than the fed gov.

 
 
Radical, as in ultra-conservative? as in the "Radical Right". It's not an insult, just a statement of fact. Those farthest right and left are called radical, and he's so far right he's the face of a movement that formed because the GOP wasn't being radical enough.

 

The notion of following the Constitution to the letter, smaller gov so we can have lower taxes...these are radical ideas to many...no wonder we're in trouble.

 

The Tea Party formed because the Republicans were big gov spenders, just like the Democrats and conservatives no longer had representation...the only thing they wanted out of the elected Republicans was to quit spending more money than the fed gov took in and cut wasteful spending and bloated agencies and programs.

 

If that is radical (and it is to a progressive liberal) count me in as a radical.

http://blog.heritage.org/2014/04/07/obamacare-harry-reid-president-obama-horror-stories-and-tall-tales/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell

 
 
hahahaha.

 

I'll try again...radical in what way?

if they're proposing the restrictions on new stoves only, and not ones already in place, as stated in the article, what is the big deal? i'm not saying that i think this is an important issue that the government should be involved in, but how often do people, even in the colder states, buy a new wood stove? while i don't think it's an important issue, i also think it's a stretch to act like it's going to affect anybody very much. at worst a brand new wood stove costs somebody a little bit more the one time they buy one in their lives. i would look at it differently if people were going to have to spend hundreds and thousands of dollars to make changes to the ones already in place.

 

The big deal is this isn't something that the fed gov should even have on their radar.  Billions of dollars are wasted by this massive bloated fed gov because they feel they should oversee and regulate every area of our lives...and staff up to do just that.

 

And it will continue because there are many like yourself that go "what's the big deal?"  Let them go ahead and do it.

 

I feel most states are very capable to decide what type of wood stove can be sold or how many gallons of water a toilet flushes.

 

The fed gov has a very short list of responsibilities as stated in the Constitution for a good reason.

Do we really need our government involved in this? 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/05/obama-administration-faces-backlash-on-wood-stove-regulations/

 

The answer is no...and that could be said about a thousand other things they meddle in  Problem is, too many people feel the fed gov should be regulating every area of our lives.

You know, radical. 

 

Stuff like following the law, people paying their own way, lowering taxes.... other horrible stuff like that. 

 

Oh yeah...Gotcha.  Radical in a conservative kind of way.

 

The masses are much too enlightened to elect a guy like that.

I'm telling you, moderate is the only chance the GOP has. Jindal would have a slightly better chance than Cruz because he hasn't drawn nearly as much attention to how conservative he is. I don't think a radical like Cruz has any chance at all.

Radical in what way?

Outstanding!

Country's' not individually independent enough to elect a ticket like that...last two elections are proof.

Great news :)

Prayers for the Hooker family.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/04/states-sign-up-inmates-for-obamacare-shift-costs-to-federal-government/

Oh, the tolerance from the left on free speech...as long as they agree with your "free" speech.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/04/03/mozilla-ceo-steps-down-amid-protest-over-gay-marriage-views/

 

In a blog post Thursday, Mozilla's executive chairwoman, Mitchell Baker, apologized for Mr. Eich's appointment, writing, "We have employees with a wide diversity of views.(some we WILL NOT tolerate) Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public (obviously not)…But this time we failed to listen, to engage, and to be guided by our community."

 

What a load!

What the heck is wrong with some people?

Only thing you can do is take down the feeder because the birds can't won't change!

I wonder when the administration will start regulating volcanos?

i can understand them WANTING to do this for two reasons:

1. the smoking related healthcare costs for veterans totals over
a billion dollars a year
2. Non-smokers make much more fit, in-shape fighters.


That being said, screw them for considering actually acting on it. Our veterans give up large chunks of their lives (if not their life itself) to serve our country and protect our freedoms. And as far as I am concerned, if a man goes out and gets shot at for me and my country, he can smoke (chew, dip) as much as he wants, and we'll just find a way to foot the bill if he gets sick later. With all of the money being wasted by politicians on both sides of the aisle, the expense of veterans' healthcare should be the least of our worries.

 

I agree...one of the few things that the fed gov SHOULD actually be responsible for.

 

Be willing to engage the enemy, but don't smoke...smh.

Why would you have dogs like this...and around your 85 year old mother.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/04/01/texas-woman-85-killed-by-2-aggressive-pit-bulls-in-home-police-say/?intcmp=latestnews

:rolleyes:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/03/31/steven-seagal-praises-putin-slams-america-idiotic-ukraine-policy/?intcmp=features

 

From the article:

 

Seagal, who has toyed with the idea of seeking Russian citizenship, said that Putin's “desire to protect the Russian-speaking people of Crimea, his assets, and the Russian Black Sea military base in Sevastopol … is very reasonable."

 

Go for it...take Alec Baldwin with you!

 
 
 
 
The problem i run into on this site sometimes is that being in the major minority of many issues, i often make one point and end up having to make rebuttals against many different responses. sometimes it makes me come off as more supportive of something than i actually am because i have to reply over and over and over and over again on something to address multiple people. So here it is... I AM pro choice. While some take the view that it is murder, i personally feel that something the size of a walnut inside of a woman's body is still part of her body and her's to do with as she pleases. I understand that many of you will never agree with me on this, and i can respect that. what i have not had a chance to say is that morally, i disagree with abortions. there are certain situations where i don't have a problem with them (such as in rape, known severe mental retardation, and severe health risk to the mother), but i do not agree with abortions as a convenient form of birth control. that being said, i do feel that a mother should have that choice, and i honestly can understand a 15 or 16-year-old making that choice. even though it's a choice i don't like, it's a choice that should be legal... and if you outlaw it, what about women that are raped? What about women who have health issues? I know a woman who became pregnant, then was diagnosed with kidney cancer. she had to choose between taking chemotherapy to survive, or having the baby. she chose to survive (and her husband and child who'd already been born) over an early-term fetus. So despite the fact that morally i disagree with the act, i don't see it as murder, and i feel that it MUST be kept legal for the few circumstances where it is understandable. So while i am in fact pro-choice, i don't want to give you guys the impression that i'm ready to throw parades outside of the clinics or anything like that.

 

Just a few verses of what God's view of that "walnut" may be.

 

http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2014/03/30/feinstein-nsa-is-intimidating-my-staff/

 

Poor Diane...doesn't like it when she's treated like any other American.

Mandatory is more frightening to me.

One leads to the other...if you like your health care plan, you can keep it.

Hmmm... that sounds like you only have to participate in obamacare if you volunteer.