bullets13

Hahaha, I don't watch fox, although I do look at it when I try to verify some of the cockamamie "news pieces" on here. But it's funny how defensive you guys got. I just thought it was funny as hell. Who do you guys think will win the NAACP women's national championship tonight? It's the first time in the history of NAACP basketball that two undefeated teams have competed for a NAACP championship. :)

was his/her performance on par with other subs?  did he/her dress appropriately or in a provocative outfit?  did he/her try to push an agenda on the kids, or simply perform his/her duties? those are all questions i'd need answered before i was bothered by this. 

there are dozens, if not hundreds of politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle who rival Obama's unfounded arrogance, but i'll agree, Holder is certainly one of the crowd.

[Hidden Content]    

every article i've read online, whether from cnn or from the right, has basically said "Ted Cruz can run for president... probably."    either way, i can't wait to watch the birthers justify their support of him, as his ability to run is certainly on more shaky ground than Obama's, who'm they tried to claim was ineligible. 

you wanna explain it for me?  because in several places i've seen it stated exactly how i said it on here.

i'm not talking about numbers.  i'm talking about comparable intelligence.

I'm not applauding him, just stating an opinion.  In MY opinion, it was one of the few things that he did that actually helped his cause.  I'd say those that voted for him twice are pretty much on par with those that claimed a conspiracy theory about his location of birth.  neither proved to be particularly intelligent.

Waiting to release his birth certificate might be one of the few things Obama has gotten right, as it took attention off of his 1st term failures and in the process made a lot of people on the opposite side look ridiculous.

Haha, we have a birther! I guess you'll definitely agree Cruz shouldn't be allowed to run then?

[Hidden Content]

Was he? What I saw on the presidential requirements was being born in the states, or being born outside of the states to TWO American citizens. He satisfies neither of those criteria. He actually is in the exact same position that the birther conspiracists claimed Obama was in, which was allegedly being born out of the country with only one citizen as a parent. Cruz was born in Canada, and his father was not naturalized as a US citizen until 2005.

Here's what will be interesting... Birthers claimed that Obama should not qualify to be president because he didn't satisfy the constitutional requirements based on the "fact" that he wasn't born in the US, and only had one parent that was a US citizen. Now you have Ted Cruz, who follows their ideologies, but it is an ACTUAL fact that he was born out of the country to only one American parent. I'm really curious to see the rationale that will be used to support him by the same people who tried to have Obama removed under what they claimed were the same circumstances.

I wholeheartedly agree on this. Also, no Medicaid for kids if their parents smoke in the house. I don't know how many students I've had who came in stinking of smoke all the time who had chronic allergies and sinus infections.

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.

  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".

    yes, i would. wouldn't you? radical right is assigned to politicians who are staunchly ultra-conservative. again, i'm not using the term "radical" as an insult.

Thanks to the dragging death there many years ago, "Jasper" is more likely to get them some press time.

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.

If my understanding is correct, Cruz isn't eligible to become president anyway. So it should not matter.

    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.

I'm kind of hoping he gets nominated so that we can see another "birther" scandal.

    hahahaha.

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.

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.