bullets13

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.

Actually, the "article" you read mentioned nothing about the policy after making a big deal of it in the title. I followed the link to the EPA website, which said it is voluntary. Some of the "mental giants" on here choose to take everything at face value that some of these propaganda sites wish them to believe.

I would not know. I am just saying that I can see the necessity of someone in a work program getting bus fare and a Reaganbush phone with limited minutes.

Looks like they're trying some sort of voluntary program. I'm not sure what it is, because after using the title to try and make the left look as stupid as possible, the author didn't actually mention anything about the plan itself.

I would hope so. Living in a halfway house work program is about as clear an example of someone "getting back on their feet" as I can think of.

Misleading in many ways. First, the "Obamaphone" program was started under Reagan and greatly expanded under Bush. The inventors of the term Obamaphone conveniently forget this. Despite that, is it really a bad thing for someone in a halfway house who's trying to get back on their feet to have a way to communicate with their boss and transportation to and from work? I feel better about that scenario than someone getting a free cellphone sitting in their government housing choosing not to work. I'm pretty positive someone in a work program HAS to work. As long as they're holding down a job, I think they're exactly the type of people who should get a little help while they get back on their feet, rather than those who just choose to sit on their butt.

It's a voluntary program. Who new a cow let off as much methane in a day as a car? Kind of a silly issue, but a perfect example of the types of articles that Smitty posts that I mentioned in the other thread.

A couple of those questions have "no" for an answer. I'm on record as not supporting him. People on here often confuse asking for truthful articles and not blindly supporting lies about liberals as being a "koolaid drinker." I find it ironic, because one of you guys will post a false article from western journalism, and everyone gulps it down, then gets pissed when I dispute it, even if I can prove it erroneous or misleading. Not supporting Obama does not mean I'm required to swallow every fake article about him, although you'd think so based on the responses I get whenever I choose not to blindly believe it. Smitty is the king of posting ridiculous articles that seldom have any validity, and even more seldomly do they come from a reputable source. That was the basis of my original comment, not any "drooling" over Obama.

Am I considered one of the "Obama droolers"?

almost done building our house and then i'll be ready to hit the water. i've only been twice since november. one trip we limited on trout in 45 minutes, and one trip we didnt catch a fish in 3 hours.

one point and two questions: the point: this is not a real news site first question: who really cares what Obama and the pope talked about? second question: isn't making sure that everyone has access to birth control a wonderful thing? if there's two things that conservatives hate, it's abortion and paying for handouts for the poor. free birth control is a wonderful preventative for both. i do not like Obamacare, but i think guaranteed access to birth control is one of the few things it actually got right, and i also think it's the one thing that Republicans ought to be able to look at as a positive.

    don't worry. several have kept up your tradition of posting blogs and forwarded emails and propaganda pieces under the guise of factual news articles.

        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.

That's the conundrum. The right would like to protect them before they're born, then complain about having to support them once they're born. I respect your beliefs against abortion, but I entirely disagree that if all of these unwanted babies were born and Medicaid, WIC, and welfare all increased dramatically that the right would be okay with that.