'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Se...

'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate

There are 228388 comments on the thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com story from Oct 1, 2010, titled 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate. In it, thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com reports that:

"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.

Syl

Ashland, KY

#101377 May 24, 2013
Calvin_Coolish wrote:
<quoted text>
that might be the stupidest thing you've ever said (that would really be something)
are you going to shoot him?
or hire a hitman?
I read "WILL", Not "KILL" as in resigning, rather than being impeached and saving himself a lot of embarrassment. Stop salivating over it.

“Butt-hole Mouth”

Since: Apr 13

..No wonder he says S#|T.....

#101378 May 24, 2013
LQQKb4UleapOK wrote:
I have never suggested IMPEACHMENT of Obama; I think anyone ignorant enough to have voted for a man with a Muslim name deserves the representation they receive from that vote.
I'm am disgusted the rest of us must be dragged down that road also.
When you think of how few Americans actually participated in the election it is appalling!
The freedoms we enjoy, the right to vote, free speech (Obama and Holder are working on that!); people who do not vote deserve no rights as Americans!
People who perpetrate vote fraud should be exiled to some third world country.
so yes..Clinton was acquitted?

Since: Oct 09

.

#101379 May 24, 2013
Calvin_Coolish wrote:
<quoted text>
so YES...he was acquitted?
"YES" he was acquitted, was he "GUILTY" HELL YES!
Maybe he and Monica could start a new Cigar Company...
Lewd and Lascivious LLC?
"Smells like tuna, tastes like putty tat!"

“Butt-hole Mouth”

Since: Apr 13

..No wonder he says S#|T.....

#101380 May 24, 2013
LQQKb4UleapOK wrote:
<quoted text>
"YES" he was acquitted, was he "GUILTY" HELL YES!
Maybe he and Monica could start a new Cigar Company...
Lewd and Lascivious LLC?
"Smells like tuna, tastes like putty tat!"
Can Congress overturn a Supreme Court decision?

“Butt-hole Mouth”

Since: Apr 13

..No wonder he says S#|T.....

#101381 May 24, 2013
LQQKb4UleapOK wrote:
<quoted text>
"YES" he was acquitted, was he "GUILTY" HELL YES!
Maybe he and Monica could start a new Cigar Company...
Lewd and Lascivious LLC?
"Smells like tuna, tastes like putty tat!"
"Smells like tuna, tastes like putty tat!"????
what does that even mean?

Since: Oct 09

.

#101382 May 24, 2013
Calvin_Coolish wrote:
<quoted text>
acquitted:
past participle, past tense of ac·quit (Verb)
1. Free (someone) from a criminal charge by a verdict of not guilty.
2. Conduct oneself or perform in a specified way.
ACQUITTED by IDIOTS (Senate) in suits by a vote?
NO way in HELL that is the same as "NOT guilty by a Judge or Jury"!
Dont hit on me

Winchester, KY

#101383 May 24, 2013
I forget, how many patriotic repubs had to step down from the Clinton "Sperm Gate" impeachment because they had secret Mistresses?
The repubs tried slinging every accusation they could dream up against Clinton. When they finally did find something to persecute him for, it turned out they were more guilty than he.

The repubs seem to be even more vicious towards President Obama.... Hmmm I wonder why....

“Butt-hole Mouth”

Since: Apr 13

..No wonder he says S#|T.....

#101384 May 24, 2013
LQQKb4UleapOK wrote:
<quoted text>
ACQUITTED by IDIOTS (Senate) in suits by a vote?
NO way in HELL that is the same as "NOT guilty by a Judge or Jury"!
actually, it's exactly the same...juries vote 'guilty' or 'not guilty'
and if he were found guilty, wouldn't that have been by IDIOTS in suits? And didn't some republicans vote 'not guilty'

Since: Oct 09

.

#101386 May 24, 2013
Calvin_Coolish wrote:
<quoted text>
Can Congress overturn a Supreme Court decision?
There are two ways it can happen:
1. States can amend the Constitution itself. This requires approval by three-quarters of the state legislatures.
If there would be a "Constitutional Convention to rewrite the United States Constitution; since Article III created the SCOTUS it is entirely possible that another Constitutional Convention could erase the Supreme Court it once created!(hence my chicken or egg argument, which came first?).
2. The Supreme Court can overrule itself:

Lochner case then West Coast Hotel v. Parrish

Adkins case

Chisholm v. Georgia

Keyishian v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York

Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)*This one should be of special intrest to you and Cornholio Scudmissle aka Uncle Tabitha.*

There are more but my time valuable...do some research with the correct search terms.

Since: Oct 09

.

#101387 May 24, 2013
[interest].

“Butt-hole Mouth”

Since: Apr 13

..No wonder he says S#|T.....

#101389 May 24, 2013
LQQKb4UleapOK wrote:
<quoted text>
There are two ways it can happen:
1. States can amend the Constitution itself. This requires approval by three-quarters of the state legislatures.
If there would be a "Constitutional Convention to rewrite the United States Constitution; since Article III created the SCOTUS it is entirely possible that another Constitutional Convention could erase the Supreme Court it once created!(hence my chicken or egg argument, which came first?).
2. The Supreme Court can overrule itself:
Lochner case then West Coast Hotel v. Parrish
Adkins case
Chisholm v. Georgia
Keyishian v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York
Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)*This one should be of special intrest to you and Cornholio Scudmissle aka Uncle Tabitha.*
There are more but my time valuable...do some research with the correct search terms.
So, NO?
American Lady

Danville, KY

#101390 May 24, 2013
THE OBAMACARE NIGHTMARE
Exclusive: Patrice Lewis envisions bureaucrats using political leanings to deny treatment

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/the-obamacare-nigh...

Since: Oct 09

.

#101391 May 24, 2013
Calvin_Coolish wrote:
<quoted text>
actually, it's exactly the same...juries vote 'guilty' or 'not guilty'
and if he were found guilty, wouldn't that have been by IDIOTS in suits? And didn't some republicans vote 'not guilty'
NO, two thirds in agreement is called a "Super Majority"
If SCOTUS voted 5 to 4 would that be less guilty?

TWO thirds of any politically biased group means nothing more than "popular opinion", IF they had ruled by the letter of the LAW he would not have walked on acquittal!
Do you think for one second a political HACK like Pelosi would ever vote a noose around one of her own crooked comrades?
That cow is as delusional as Cornholio Scudmissile!

“Butt-hole Mouth”

Since: Apr 13

..No wonder he says S#|T.....

#101393 May 24, 2013
LQQKb4UleapOK wrote:
<quoted text>
NO, two thirds in agreement is called a "Super Majority"
If SCOTUS voted 5 to 4 would that be less guilty?
TWO thirds of any politically biased group means nothing more than "popular opinion", IF they had ruled by the letter of the LAW he would not have walked on acquittal!
Do you think for one second a political HACK like Pelosi would ever vote a noose around one of her own crooked comrades?
That cow is as delusional as Cornholio Scudmissile!
Not guilty...no amount of Jonesian can change it now
and
No, Congress can't overturn a Supreme Court decision
NO, I don't think Pelosi would hang a comrade

“Butt-hole Mouth”

Since: Apr 13

..No wonder he says S#|T.....

#101394 May 24, 2013
[Jonesian spin]

Since: Oct 09

.

#101395 May 24, 2013
Calvin_Coolish wrote:
<quoted text>
actually, it's exactly the same...juries vote 'guilty' or 'not guilty'
and if he were found guilty, wouldn't that have been by IDIOTS in suits? And didn't some republicans vote 'not guilty'
Here is article that breaks the votes down in detail; Senate and House:
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/20/us/impeachm...
In hindsight; we all know Slick Willy LIED, he committed PERJURY under oath, he attempted to coerce witnesses and obstructed justice! You have some highly educated (lawyers, attorneys, prosecutors, etc.) people who understand the importance of the "rule of law" and then you have idiots like; who once asked if the Mars lander could take pictures of the flag the astronauts planted in the 60's...WTF?
Sure...legal genius right?

“Butt-hole Mouth”

Since: Apr 13

..No wonder he says S#|T.....

#101396 May 24, 2013
LQQKb4UleapOK wrote:
<quoted text>
NO, two thirds in agreement is called a "Super Majority"
If SCOTUS voted 5 to 4 would that be less guilty?
TWO thirds of any politically biased group means nothing more than "popular opinion", IF they had ruled by the letter of the LAW he would not have walked on acquittal!
Do you think for one second a political HACK like Pelosi would ever vote a noose around one of her own crooked comrades?
That cow is as delusional as Cornholio Scudmissile!
Is 332 to 206 a landslide?

“Butt-hole Mouth”

Since: Apr 13

..No wonder he says S#|T.....

#101397 May 24, 2013
LQQKb4UleapOK wrote:
<quoted text>
NO, two thirds in agreement is called a "Super Majority"
If SCOTUS voted 5 to 4 would that be less guilty?
TWO thirds of any politically biased group means nothing more than "popular opinion", IF they had ruled by the letter of the LAW he would not have walked on acquittal!
Do you think for one second a political HACK like Pelosi would ever vote a noose around one of her own crooked comrades?
That cow is as delusional as Cornholio Scudmissile!
Isn't Farah a Muslim name? Syrian? Lebanese?

“Butt-hole Mouth”

Since: Apr 13

..No wonder he says S#|T.....

#101398 May 24, 2013
LQQKb4UleapOK wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is article that breaks the votes down in detail; Senate and House:
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/20/us/impeachm...
In hindsight; we all know Slick Willy LIED, he committed PERJURY under oath, he attempted to coerce witnesses and obstructed justice! You have some highly educated (lawyers, attorneys, prosecutors, etc.) people who understand the importance of the "rule of law" and then you have idiots like; who once asked if the Mars lander could take pictures of the flag the astronauts planted in the 60's...WTF?
Sure...legal genius right?
Geez..everyone knows man didn't land on Mars til the 70s, right?

Since: Oct 09

.

#101399 May 24, 2013
Calvin_Coolish wrote:
<quoted text>
Not guilty...no amount of Jonesian can change it now
and
No, Congress can't overturn a Supreme Court decision
NO, I don't think Pelosi would hang a comrade
NOT just overturn a decision...
ABOLISH the ENTIRE SCOTUS!

So answer is YES! Constitution created, therefore Constitution can ABOLISH! It's called a Constitutional Convention, there have been many calls for another one! Just because it has not happen YET, does not mean it will NOT happen.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Barbourville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Anyone seen Kilgore fight ? 25 min Plueeezzzee 4
Shawntaea and curt Brown? 36 min Shame 12
What happened with Jojo Ore in court today 37 min Judge 5
amber brock (Oct '09) 1 hr lol at funny 39
All pallet auction is return CRAP Beware !! 2 hr Mad buyer 16
Liquor sales or kids welfare ? CHOICE ! 2 hr BHS mom 4
News Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 3 hr yabadabado 148,848
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Barbourville Mortgages