bullets13

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.

Nah, he only broke NCAA rules, not the law.

The refs and Louisville themselves gave UK that game. I sat there and watched them call touch fouls against Louisville the last 10 minutes and then let UK knock guys over with no call. And I was paying VERY close attention to that game, as I had Louisville in my finals. Louisville also made some stupid plays and missed some easy shots.

What's funny about the NCAA tourney is that I can look at the few brackets that picked a UConn/Kentucky final and call them morons, even though they got it completely right. Neither team should've made it this far. St. Joes handed UConn the game after blowing a big lead late in the opening round, and Louisville did the same thing for Kentucky in the round of 16. That's what makes the tourney awesome, though.

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.

Hahahahaha.

Mandatory is more frightening to me.

The number of cows in the world that I found is 1.3 billion. If each one gives off the same of methane in a day as a car, that seems it could be a real problem. Then again, I'm no environmentalist.

Bush 2 was the one that expanded it, not Bush 1. Sorry I didn't make that clearer. I would love to see the numbers, as I'm sure they're worse now. But that would not change the fact that Obamaphone is an erroneous title. Obamacare, on the other hand, is properly named.