Your post is intelligent and to the point. However, just look at the reply from 'wtf'. I have been reporting his abuse of the forum. If enough report him, we might have some room for healthy mature debate.Who cares who elected them?They are terrorists?Dispense with them!!
Again,the oil production is on private land by private companies,the gov`t land is restricted!Obama is the cause ,along with the ones that follow him,of not allowing leases on the gov`t land to cut off our need to buy oil and to give jobs to the unemployed.He must be in control and what he thinks is his only way.(needs-- be not considered)
Ever use your head to think and reason?Or,is this impossible?There are others ways to do things ,you know!
"Fox News Sunday" is heading to Louisville, Ky. Jack Conway, Kentucky's attorney general and the Democratic candidate for Senate , and Rand Paul, the Republican nominee and son of Representative Ron Paul, Republican of Texas, have agreed to a live debate on "Fox News Sunday" on Oct.3 at 9 a.m. (Eastern time).
Join the discussion below, or Read more at thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com.
#78939 Feb 4, 2013
#78940 Feb 4, 2013
He's an idiot. You just have to treat him that way.
#78942 Feb 4, 2013
Of course the Debates are rigged and phony.
Both sides like it that way.
Divide and Conquer our ignorant masses.
No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates / http://tinyurl.com/4q5vf8 / October 2, 2008
The Obama and McCain campaigns jointly negotiated a detailed, secret contract dictating the terms of all the 2008 debates. This includes who gets to participate as well as the topics raised during the debates. We speak to Open Debates founder and executive director George Farah.
Whats missing however is any concern about the fairness of the very structure of the debate. The Obama and McCain campaigns jointly negotiated a detailed contract dictating the terms of all the 2008 debates. This includes who gets to participate as well as the topics raised during the debates. But the contract remains secret and the Commission on Presidential Debates, a private corporation created by the two major parties, has refused to release the contract to the public.
Open Debates is a non-profit committed to democratizing the presidential debate process. Last month Open Debates and nine other pro-democracy groups called on the Commission to make the contract public.
#78944 Feb 4, 2013
We need to rid ourselves of such as 'wtf'. Placating has not helped. 'report abuse'.
#78946 Feb 4, 2013
Thanks TOFY,now I am a Repub.or vote both ways when it seems the better person,but the list provided,seems we all have benefited from most,yet some as always,get a little too ambitious.
#78947 Feb 4, 2013
I wonder if this also involves the libs plan to stop people from growing their own crops. If this Admin. can control the food intake of people, they can control the people.
Since: Oct 11
#78948 Feb 4, 2013
Yes whitehair, as bad as politics are. This Nation has the best form of government ever devised, and the world it self could not function without our economy, so no one would benefit from our destruction. I know that certain extremist would relish that, if it were to happen. But neither democrats nor republicans want bad things for this country we just disagree on the course we should use.
I think that's a pretty healthy approach, but you are correct about ambition and overreach. They're people who just crave power always have been!
I love this country whitehair, and I love people. I think diversity
is good thing and should be embraced, no one can stand alone, it's strange but when a disaster hits...it doesn't seem to matter about your neighbors politics or ethnicity, we all just come together and help one another. As it should be!
#78949 Feb 4, 2013
These spores had to get in the soil someway. The spores just all of sudden appeared. This was not a problem decades ago, was it?
This would spike up the profits for pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, doctors and don't forget, the lawyers.
Thank you for the info, did not know this.
Hmmmm, maybe this another reason to shut down the internet as the Obama Admin. wanted---people will not be able to communicate info such as this.
#78951 Feb 4, 2013
They still voted for Obama, just because of his race.
Black was all they saw, what a shame.
#78952 Feb 4, 2013
Hi R...if you have a chance watch on cable "MONSTERS INSIDE ME"...all about parasites, bacterias, illness, very informative ...real people!
#78954 Feb 4, 2013
Will do. Thanks.
#78956 Feb 4, 2013
#78960 Feb 4, 2013
Being aware of that fact; would you follow a political party who learns from failed policies or on that learns from history?
A Jackass is stubborn, an elephant never forgets!
If you follow the Jackass you are DOOMED to repeat the failures od socialism, if toy follow the Elephant you may avoid falling into the same mistakes of history.
Since: Oct 11
#78962 Feb 4, 2013
We are a Republic and that republic derives it's governance through Democracy.
At no point in our nations history can you point to and say socialism was the controlling institution. Never happened, never will, as we are a market-based society through which you and I and everyone can achieve our potential.
As for your metaphor...About following a jackass or an elephant,seems to me the logical choice would be the jackass,for no other reason than there would be a whole lot less excrement to walk through!
#78963 Feb 4, 2013
No, we are a Republic that derives its governance from the US Constitution.
The US Constitution has jurisdiction over all branches of the government and all branches must adhere to its law.
Even the USSC can be overruled by the Constitution.
#78964 Feb 4, 2013
More that one factor is involved here.The oil companies,so they say,only earn about 4 % on investment.Not what you would call great.The reason for drilling is to allow this Nation to have it`s own,produce it`s own,selling only excess,and if possible go to the point of rebating to the people any possible money for use of the Countries fossil fuel and withdrawal of same.(limited amount available)Same as the Eastern Countries do.Now if the gov`t could sell to China,maybe offset our debt?The real problem with Obama and his environmental group is they don`t want us to use fossil fuel,even when the ethanol fouls the engines of our autos here.
In other words,there are a good many ways to look at this problem,and the best way,in my opinion,is to do what is best for the people and the Country<NOW!
We could refine our own,sell only excess.Gasoline price could be lower as well.The problem still is refusal to do what is in front of the face to get the best results for the Nation.
#78965 Feb 4, 2013
The price of oil should be regulated at $35.00 per barrel inside the US borders, this would stop all speculators and bring gas prices down where they should be $1.65 a gallon.
#78967 Feb 4, 2013
...right, gasoline in So. CA is $3.75+/ gal.
Our politicians don't pay for gas, we pay...they don't care!
#78969 Feb 4, 2013
Tofy, nobody is knocking the Democrats of old! It's this NEW set of "liberal minds" that are the ruination of the Dem Party! Back then Congress STILL worked together! Now a days the liberals HOLLER "it's OUR way or the highway!"
Most everyone liked IKE!
Can you say the SAME about the 0? NO!
OWL Gore of 'today' is NOTHING like his Father!
THAT is the "problem" of today's Dem's, most were/are riding on their families **COAT TAILS ... NOT making their name for themselves ... Clinton WAS/IS one of the BIGGEST crooks this Nation has EVER seen! Tho you guys STILL think he was GREAT!
Go "behind-the-scenes" and CHECK where the media did NOT tell the TRUTH about him, just the HIGH and good points! It was Newt Gingrich's Speaker term that balanced C's BUDGETS!
Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956: Creating the Interstate System
Interstate Highway System
Persons traveling through the United States today may find it difficult to imagine our country without the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System. It was not until June 29, 1956, when President Eisenhower signed the Federal Aid Highway Act, that interstate highways began to meet the challenge of the growing number of automobiles on the nation’s highways. While in Europe during World War II General Eisenhower viewed the ease of travel on the German autobahns. That, coupled with the experiences of a young Lt. Col. Eisenhower in the 1919 Transcontinental Convoy, convinced the President of the overwhelming need for safer and speedier highways. The President also felt that the newer, multi-lane highways were essential to a strong national defense.
#78970 Feb 4, 2013
No other future Supreme Court or any court is allowed to use Bush v Gore as precedent. Bush is truly an illegitimate President. http://tinyurl.com/2ps3e3
George W. Bush's January 20, 2001 inauguration was unconstitutional. This isn't because Bush lost the popular vote. Nor is it because he lost Florida and thus the electoral vote. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to hear the Florida recount lawsuit, Bush v. Gore, violated the U.S. Constitution. It's a states' rights issue. Elections fall under state law; the highest court that may resolve a legal challenge about an election is a state supreme court. The U.S. Supreme Court--a federal body--didn't have jurisdiction in the case.
Has Bush v. Gore Become the Case That Must Not Be Named?
August 15, 2006 / http://tinyurl.com/qbx2s
At a law school Supreme Court conference that I attended last fall, there was a panel on “The Rehnquist Court.” No one mentioned Bush v. Gore, the most historic case of William Rehnquist’s time as chief justice, and during the Q. and A. no one asked about it. When I asked a prominent law professor about this strange omission, he told me he had been invited to participate in another Rehnquist retrospective, and was told in advance that Bush v. Gore would not be discussed.
The ruling that stopped the Florida recount and handed the presidency to George W. Bush is disappearing down the legal world’s version of the memory hole, the slot where, in George Orwell’s “1984,” government workers disposed of politically inconvenient records. The Supreme Court has not cited it once since it was decided, and when Justice Antonin Scalia, who loves to hold forth on court precedents, was asked about it at a forum earlier this year, he snapped,“Come on, get over it.”
There is a legal argument for pushing Bush v. Gore aside. The majority opinion announced that the ruling was “limited to the present circumstances” and could not be cited as precedent. But many legal scholars insisted at the time that this assertion was itself dictum — the part of a legal opinion that is nonbinding — and illegitimate, because under the doctrine of stare decisis, courts cannot make rulings whose reasoning applies only to a single case.
Add your comments below
|Vote Yes for Alcohol||9 min||Wtf||64|
|free jess hubbard!!!||1 hr||Family member||96|
|you people are the trashiest people||1 hr||Biotches be trippin||21|
|Caution! Knox Jail Escape||1 hr||Biotches be trippin||20|
|butterfinger cake Recipes (Aug '10)||1 hr||Biotches be trippin||35|
|Union college students right to vote BLOCKED||1 hr||Biotches be trippin||107|
|Timmy Jordan||3 hr||bigdawg||2|
|How to make homemade ice melt for steps, sidewa... (Jan '13)||Nov 23||Feloni||77|
Find what you want!
Search Barbourville Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC