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

'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate

There are 261672 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.

Teahad

Wichita, KS

#160216 Apr 4, 2014
RepubliCONS wrote:
WATCH: Four Star General Destroys Fox News’ Claim That Arming Soldiers On Military Bases Would Prevent Shootings
Fox News invited retired four-star general Jack Keane to talk about the Ft. Hood shooting on their show, America’s News HQ, according to Media Matters for America. They may not have gotten what they wanted from him, though. Instead of saying,“Yes, absolutely, we need to make sure that all soldiers who want to be armed can be armed on post,” he said the following:
“I don’t believe our soldiers should be armed on the base.[…] Can you imagine the first responders coming on a scene, and there’s people shooting all over the place, and they have to determine who is friend and who is foe? I think the potential for leading to more violence by arming everybody is rather significant.”
He went on to say that soldiers are not police, and aren’t trained in how to control and de-escalate a situation the way police are. Which is true. There’s no way to know how these soldiers would have reacted to Ivan Lopez shooting them. Ft. Hood is not a war zone, and Lopez was not an enemy combatant.
Tragedies like Ft. Hood might be considerably worse if everyone is armed.
He also makes a good point about possible shootouts. If someone walks onto a base and opens fire, that many people carrying their own guns could turn it into a shootout. Without knowing who’s whom in such a situation, those who come in later could potentially pull their guns out and start firing at the wrong people. That would just create more casualties. How much harder would the responding MP’s job have been if she’d arrived at a scene of chaos like that? How many more might have died?
The myth of shooters specifically targeting gun-free zones like Ft. Hood.
There is this growing myth about shooters targeting gun-free zones. After the Navy Yard shooting, conservatives started loudly claiming that if military bases weren’t gun-free zones, then the Navy Yard shooting wouldn’t have happened. That’s what the pundits on Fox & Friends are saying about Ft. Hood, too. They think there’s logic to that, but logic must stand up to facts and data, too. The truth is that some of the victims at the Navy Yard shooting were, in fact, armed personnel.
The woman who stopped Lopez at Ft. Hood was an MP; she was trained to handle those situations. There’s no way to gauge how quickly and effectively the soldiers who were shot at would have reacted, had they been armed, because they didn’t have that training. They were also probably caught by surprise.
Lax gun regulation does not lead to less gun violence.
There’s also data to support the idea that more guns do not lead to less violence. The Center for American Progress did a report on gun laws in all 50 states in 2013, which cites other studies and reports. It highlights a link between weak gun laws and high gun violence. They do note that correlation is not causation, which is true. But that’s a correlation that should not be ignored, especially in light of General Keane’s comments on Ft. Hood.
The idea that more guns are the answer to tragedies like Ft. Hood is absurd on its face, because it grossly oversimplifies a very complex problem. It also assumes that every shooter is in his right mind, and carefully evaluating things the way that “normal” people do, and that armed people will be able to respond calmly and appropriately. As General Keane pointed out, more guns on bases could lead to significantly more problems during a shooting. Will the right-wing gun nuts listen, though? Probably not.
Watch the video:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/04/03/watch...
Typical repuke mentality. Arm everyone so the MP's don't know who is who. How ignorant.
RIP GOP
DITCH MITCH
LMAO!!! I fail to see the validity of your post, since one can't carry a privately owned concealed weapon on post. A question was asked and answered. NBFD

Since: Oct 09

.

#160217 Apr 4, 2014
positronium wrote:
<quoted text>Sure do.....He was in my class in Hawaii. I think he joined a gang. They said he was from Kenya. Can't remember his name but it sounded like blak blama.
Morning Ari.
LMAO!
sorry I missed you today.
Looks like you were busy.

:)
Fed Up Again

Frankfort, KY

#160218 Apr 4, 2014
RayOne wrote:
<quoted text>Putin will teach the Russian Oligarchs of Obama's America how to party.
It is a sad day in America when the nazi-communist Putin can draw more respect from Americans than the American leader.
Fed Up Again

Frankfort, KY

#160219 Apr 4, 2014
harmonious wrote:
<quoted text>
Dirty Harry, the most vile, filthy scumbag traitor to ever walk the halls of congress..........
Old and feeble too.
Fed Up Again

Frankfort, KY

#160220 Apr 4, 2014
wtf wrote:
<quoted text>
cRAzY? Which parts are crazy? Instead of just posting "crazy" why don't you post facts that would dispute Harmonious' facts? We will be waiting. lmao We've been waiting for a long time for repugnantCON to answer some questions but she always goes to a party and is suddenly too busy to answer anything. Do you know that old bat-shit crazy repugnantCON? I bet you do!!
She is trying to tell you why. She is crazy and a lib, they don't recognize the truth.
Jay

Springville, TN

#160221 Apr 4, 2014
Mao-bama Zombies wrote:
<quoted text>
Hell yes, you're right ...!!
**********

Imagine the bandwidth she sucks up publishing her newspaper articles that nobody reads!

Since: Oct 09

.

#160222 Apr 4, 2014
Commietator wrote:
<quoted text>You are correct. When will Obama be given credit by all you Repub hypocrites for having reduced the US Deficit spending by 1/2 of what it was and at a rate faster than anytime in US history since the end of WWII?
You know full well the the "Party of NO" new spending did that...while POTUS and Dimocrats screamed LQQK GOP wants Obama to fail...they will not allow new spending that will help America!

You're full of $#it if you think anyone believes that line for one second.
Well

Lexington, KY

#160223 Apr 4, 2014
Commietator wrote:
<quoted text>I agree. But what would we do with the elderly in America? Let them die homeless in the streets or do a Logan's Run? As far as destroying wealth don't lose sleep over that one. When Reagan announced Trickle Down the top had a combined wealth of $8 Trillion. Today they have a combined wealth of $24 Trillion. The 400 Richest Americans have more wealth than the first 150 Million Americans COMBINED.
.
Here's a footnote of something I never knew until the new 2013 tax code: The super rich like Romney that list their incomes as Capital Gains never paid into SS or Medicare. Capital Gains income was exempt from those taxes until 1/1/13.
Most elderly people have more assets and cumulative wealth than the young workers who are having their income diverted from investments that could make them less dependent on future generations. Why do you assume some elderly people will die? Don't these people have family? Were people dying in the streets before we began forcibly taking the money from younger workers to pay older people? Social security incentivizes people to save less for the eventuality of old age by removing a significant portion of their income that could be used for savings for themselves and creates the expectation that the burden of old age will be borne by other people. The burden of old age should be borne by other people if someone is not able to care for himself and those other people should be first and foremost his family. Adult children should take care of their parents. Its called honoring thy Mother and Father. Today, they can get some other American to honor their Mother and Father.

I don't lose sleep over the rich accumulating more wealth. Try not to think of wealthy people as an exclusive group of individuals who hold a monopoly on getting rich. People move in out of the top 1% all the time. I am pleased to see we have more billionaires than before. It doesn't exclude other people from earning money and becoming wealthy. The entire notion of people getting rich that excludes others from doing the same is rather silly.. People get wealthy for the most part by doing things that serve and please their fellow man. People have different capacities to do that and that is reflected by the disparities in people's wealth. It simply represents a disparity in people's ability to please and serve others.
Commietator

Madisonville, KY

#160224 Apr 4, 2014
Jay wrote:
<quoted text>
**********
This government changes laws like it's citizens change their underwear. It's been a long time since Reagan dufus!
What is wrong with you? Maybe you'd like to go back another 100 years and tell us how they did it then!
The Law has been the same since Reagan signed it. It has never been changed. Very stupid post on your part. Mine explained why everyone by LAW must be treated.
Commietator

Madisonville, KY

#160225 Apr 4, 2014
Well wrote:
<quoted text>Most elderly people have more assets and cumulative wealth than the young workers who are having their income diverted from investments that could make them less dependent on future generations. Why do you assume some elderly people will die? Don't these people have family? Were people dying in the streets before we began forcibly taking the money from younger workers to pay older people? Social security incentivizes people to save less for the eventuality of old age by removing a significant portion of their income that could be used for savings for themselves and creates the expectation that the burden of old age will be borne by other people. The burden of old age should be borne by other people if someone is not able to care for himself and those other people should be first and foremost his family. Adult children should take care of their parents. Its called honoring thy Mother and Father. Today, they can get some other American to honor their Mother and Father.
I don't lose sleep over the rich accumulating more wealth. Try not to think of wealthy people as an exclusive group of individuals who hold a monopoly on getting rich. People move in out of the top 1% all the time. I am pleased to see we have more billionaires than before. It doesn't exclude other people from earning money and becoming wealthy. The entire notion of people getting rich that excludes others from doing the same is rather silly.. People get wealthy for the most part by doing things that serve and please their fellow man. People have different capacities to do that and that is reflected by the disparities in people's wealth. It simply represents a disparity in people's ability to please and serve others.
Do you think the average person over 65 has $250,000 in the bank to pay for their heart attack or cancer treatment?
Let's look at the difference SS made in the elderly's life.
Without Social Security, 22.2 million more Americans would be poor, according to the latest available Census data (for 2012). At the beginning of SS 80% of those over 65 was listed as poor. Today due to SS only 10% of those over 65 fall into the poverty level.
.
Like I have posted many times. There are many nations without any form of government social services. Nations like Haiti and most nations in Africa. I know it would be a Repub dream to turn America into a third world nation but most people don't want to see that happen.
stankoCON

Johnson City, TN

#160226 Apr 4, 2014
RepubliCONS wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Calvin. Sorry I missed you. Thanks for the laughs. My partner and I DID win that tournament. Won $200 and a new set of darts. It was fun.
How many RepubliCONS does it take to fix a problem?
No one knows, it has never happened.
RIP GOP
DITCH MITCH
Hey calvin, how many STANKY FINGERS DOES IT TAKE? all of StankoCONS and your fists!
RIP MY BIG HOLE
KEEP MITCH
JEB 2016
Jay

Springville, TN

#160227 Apr 4, 2014
Commietator wrote:
<quoted text>The Law has been the same since Reagan signed it. It has never been changed. Very stupid post on your part. Mine explained why everyone by LAW must be treated.
**********

The point is - if you don't like the laws now on the books, gather your minions, write your congressman and/or senator and oppose it. There are numbers of petitions on line that oppose a former law. Get with it and complain, get it done, change it.....what else can I say?
Commietator

Madisonville, KY

#160229 Apr 4, 2014
Jay wrote:
<quoted text>**********

The point is - if you don't like the laws now on the books, gather your minions, write your congressman and/or senator and oppose it. There are numbers of petitions on line that oppose a former law. Get with it and complain, get it done, change it.....what else can I say?
Never said didn't like the Law. Only pointed out that it is the Law. By the way there are Laws still today that are over 100 years old.
Mao-bama Zombies

United States

#160230 Apr 4, 2014
Jay wrote:
<quoted text>
**********
Imagine the bandwidth she sucks up publishing her newspaper articles that nobody reads!
Long and boring, sheesh ...

Reagan, Bush, Bush, Reagan, and there was no other president in between that can do those changes, Republicans screwed up...according to liberals...!!
Mao-bama Zombies

San Diego, CA

#160231 Apr 4, 2014
Commietator wrote:
<quoted text>The Law has been the same since Reagan signed it. It has never been changed. Very stupid post on your part. Mine explained why everyone by LAW must be treated.
So, the laws cannot be changed between Reagan and Bush right ...????? You just like to bitch bitch bitch...enough already ...!!
Jay

Springville, TN

#160232 Apr 4, 2014
Commietator wrote:
<quoted text>
Never said didn't like the Law. Only pointed out that it is the Law. By the way there are Laws still today that are over 100 years old.
**********

Like no spitting on the sidewalk?

8p
Well

Lexington, KY

#160233 Apr 4, 2014
Commietator wrote:
<quoted text>Do you think the average person over 65 has $250,000 in the bank to pay for their heart attack or cancer treatment?
Let's look at the difference SS made in the elderly's life.
Without Social Security, 22.2 million more Americans would be poor, according to the latest available Census data (for 2012). At the beginning of SS 80% of those over 65 was listed as poor. Today due to SS only 10% of those over 65 fall into the poverty level.
.
Like I have posted many times. There are many nations without any form of government social services. Nations like Haiti and most nations in Africa. I know it would be a Repub dream to turn America into a third world nation but most people don't want to see that happen.
Would these people have been better off taking their earnings that were given to SS and investing for their own retirement needs? I believe so. There would be far fewer people needing others to pay for their old age needs. To credit SS as the reason fewer people over 65 are poor today ignores the opportunity cost to these people having their earnings confiscated. Without SS, its likely these people would have been better off with the chance to receive a greater return elsewhere. We need to take into account the "invisible" effects of making people less able to care of themselves by forcing them to contribute to SS. Its harder to see that most people would have been better off using their money as they see fit. Some people of course will make unwise decisions and need the charity of others but most people left to take care of themselves would be better off. But aside from the economic issue whether people are better off with or without SS, government taking a person's money to give to another person for SS is no different morally than me taking a person's money to give to a needy old person.

There are other factors that make nations like Haiti and these African countries poor. It is not a lack of government social services. Lack of property rights, rule of law, and corruption are far more likely the culprit that keeps these nations poor - not lack of government services. Was the US before social welfare programs even close to the level of poverty that the nations you mention? What these nations need is a healthy dose of capitalism. But capitalism requires a property rights structure and rule of law.
Commietator

Madisonville, KY

#160234 Apr 4, 2014
Mao-bama Zombies wrote:
<quoted text>So, the laws cannot be changed between Reagan and Bush right ...????? You just like to bitch bitch bitch...enough already ...!!
No. I simply present facts you Serb Hag.
Commietator

Madisonville, KY

#160235 Apr 4, 2014
Well wrote:
<quoted text>Would these people have been better off taking their earnings that were given to SS and investing for their own retirement needs? I believe so. There would be far fewer people needing others to pay for their old age needs. To credit SS as the reason fewer people over 65 are poor today ignores the opportunity cost to these people having their earnings confiscated. Without SS, its likely these people would have been better off with the chance to receive a greater return elsewhere. We need to take into account the "invisible" effects of making people less able to care of themselves by forcing them to contribute to SS. Its harder to see that most people would have been better off using their money as they see fit. Some people of course will make unwise decisions and need the charity of others but most people left to take care of themselves would be better off. But aside from the economic issue whether people are better off with or without SS, government taking a person's money to give to another person for SS is no different morally than me taking a person's money to give to a needy old person.

There are other factors that make nations like Haiti and these African countries poor. It is not a lack of government social services. Lack of property rights, rule of law, and corruption are far more likely the culprit that keeps these nations poor - not lack of government services. Was the US before social welfare programs even close to the level of poverty that the nations you mention? What these nations need is a healthy dose of capitalism. But capitalism requires a property rights structure and rule of law.
Capitalism like America gave to teens in China at .30/ hr?
Jay

Springville, TN

#160236 Apr 4, 2014
Commietator wrote:
<quoted text>
Never said didn't like the Law. Only pointed out that it is the Law. By the way there are Laws still today that are over 100 years old.
**********

Now wait a minute Commie. You said:

"A socialist commie President signed a LAW that forces all healthcare providers to treat everyone regardless of anything. i.e. illegal, non-payment.
Who was this commie socialist President that would do such a thing in America?
.
Ronald Reagan signed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act in 1986 forcing all providers to treat everyone. "

**********

You called Reagan a socialist/communist - which of course is not true, but gave me the idea that you did not like him, or his law. That is what I responded to. Now you indicate that you did not say you don't like the law. Make up your mind, or be more clear about your opinion in your posts. You may have gotten a different response.

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
Topix is a site that has Died. 35 min Gator 10
106.3 suck a big one 40 min Truth 4
News Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 1 hr Strel 160,678
Barbourville Ky is another Sodom and Gomorrah. 2 hr The Specialist 8
Nobody could ever change my opinion on Relation... 2 hr The Specialist 1
Not leaving anybody out 3 hr Seriouslystupid 8
Do chat rooms still exist? 4 hr The Specialist 1

Barbourville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Barbourville Mortgages