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

'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate

There are 253119 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.

WakeUp

Murfreesboro, TN

#42491 Jun 21, 2012
frank wrote:
<quoted text>
So you say you love freedom, but did you protest when George W. Bush repealed habeas corpus and posse comitatus, rights first guaranteed by the Magna Carta in 1215.
The Tea Party movement started gaining traction under Bush, plenty of people who protested and spoke up against the Patriot Act, funny how the ones on the Left aren't criticizing it, or Obama and his fellow Dems expanding it even farther-you sure it's the Right that's the one being hypocritical?
frank wrote:
<quoted text>
You say you’re in favor of smaller government, but you never protested when Gdub expanded it. Or when G. H.W. Bush expanded it. Or when Ronnie Reagan expanded it. Or when Nixon expanded it. Or when Eisenhower expanded it.
So, two wrongs make a right? Besides, all things in context, still, it's been creeping towards big government a little at a time, Obama's mistake has been throwing the frog into the pot with the water boiling, instead of slowly turning up the temperature. The NDAA, the power grabs of the EPA, all the "quantitative easing", etc topped off with the latest being illegal amnesty with a stroke of the dictatorial pen all while refusing to turn over documents related to the Gun Walker program. The arrogance of Obama and the Dems in power make the expansion of government and the loss of our rights and freedoms to obvious for even the dense to ignore.
frank wrote:
<quoted text>
You say you’re in favor of democracy, but when Gdub was selected by the five members of the Supreme Court (installed by Republican presidents), one of them Dick Cheney’s close personal friend, you never protested.
lol, still harping that "bush stole the election"? On November 12, 2001, the Times reported: "Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff — filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties — Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations … The media consortium included The Times ... "
frank wrote:
<quoted text>
You say you’re in favor of openness in government, but you never protested when Dick Cheney set the nation’s energy policy in secret in collaboration with BP, Exxon/Mobil, Halliburton, and the nation’s wealthiest energy companies, or when Cheney and his friends engineered the energy crisis in California and profited hugely.
I feel like I may see you one day walking around with a tin foil hat on your head.
frank wrote:
<quoted text>
You say you’re patriots, but you never protested when Cheney ordered the “outing” of a covert CIA agent during a time of war — which U.S. law considers treason.
Valeria Plame? Cheney? lol, it was Richard Armitage at State, and it was known since the beginning. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/219836...
frank wrote:
<quoted text>
You never protested when the Bush administration tacitly admitted that Gdub was AWOL during a time of war which U.S. law considers a felony.
Pretty sure Dan Rather lost his job running with that make believe story, perhaps you should read up on it, most of this link cites things from factcheck.org http://old.nationalreview.com/owens/owens2004...
frank wrote:
<quoted text>
You never protested when Dubya let Osama escape, when the WMDs turned out to be nonexistent, when the link between Osama and Saddam turned out to be a lie.
Osama escape? It was Bush's policies that led to Obama's ability to have him assassinated. There was no active WMD program, but a couple of tons of yellow cake uranium, 500+ chemical shells, weaponized strains of bacterial and virus samples and more. There were the multiple UN resolutions as well as Congressional authorization, that cited more than just the threat of WMD's, it also talked of states supporting terrorism, not that Iraq was behind 9/11
American Lady

Danville, KY

#42492 Jun 21, 2012
wtf wrote:
<quoted text>You meant 2008 dumbass.
I "meant" what I said....BIG boy.....
WakeUp

Murfreesboro, TN

#42494 Jun 21, 2012
frank wrote:
<quoted text>
You say you believe in human dignity, but you never protested when you found out we were torturing people, some of whom were innocent of any crime.
I think we'll differ on what exactly counts as torture to begin with, water boarding is perfectly ok by me. As for being "innocent", name one person water boarded who was innocent. Perhaps if you're talking about "convicted" of a crime, that may be true, but Obama won't use civil courts or military tribunals, so....keep on turning the other cheek.
frank wrote:
<quoted text>
You say you’re in favor of fiscal restraint, but you never protested when George W. Bush took a budget surplus and a national debt of $5.7 trillion to a gigantic deficit and a national debt of more than $9 trillion.
Plenty of Republicans and Conservatives were raging against Bush pushing through Medicare Part D, the Education Bill and the bailouts being the crowing achievement-of course, Democrats were screaming at Bush the whole time for not spending MORE on those programs and even more to boot. Which considering the majority of the Education bill was written by Democrats who have controlled Congress since the '06 elections, and thus, spending...who are we piling the blame for deficits on again?
frank wrote:
<quoted text>
You say you share the values of the Founders, but you never protested when you found out the Republican government was illegally wiretapping American citizens.
So, our law enforcement agencies were listening in on calls made from the US to KNOWN terrorist, and from KNOWN terrorist to people in the US...and that's illegal? While under Obama he's expanded the program even further internationally as well as purely domestically. <yawn> sorry, you're boring me with your political hypocrisy.
frank wrote:
<quoted text>
None of this made you angry; none of this frightened you. But you finally got angry when your lawfully elected representatives decided that all Americans deserve the right to see a doctor if they’re sick.
Lawfully elected? see the previous post about the whole ginned up "Bush stole the election" farce. Though, it would be interesting to see the Supreme Court resolved the "natural born citizen". Not about Obama's birth certificate, but concerning that Obama's father was not an American citizen.
frank wrote:
<quoted text>
I need to get some of that health care you don’t want me to have – you make me sick!
Frankie boy, Obama's giving us all free health insurance, not health care. We're all going to have coverage, but that doesn't mean you're actually going to receive any kind of treatment lol
Look at how well the government runs the health care of our Veterans, or of that of the Native Americans. Social Security in bankrupt, so too is medicare/medicaid (in 3-8 years depending on what numbers the CBO uses), do you REALLY think you're going to get health care from the same government that is failing at the much simpler government programs?
If it was about providing health insurance and coverage, we would have allowed competition across state lines, ended coverage mandates for things like acupuncture etc that drive up base costs, instituted health saving accounts similar to 401(k)s, and found a solution to the unsustainable costs of illegal immigrants using our hospitals as their family physician-and those are the easiest, simplest fixes.
Darryl Washington

Cincinnati, OH

#42495 Jun 21, 2012
WakeUp wrote:
<quoted text>
Our spending has exceeded some constitutional limits in that we're spending Federal dollars, that have been taken from the taxpayers, and spending them on unconstitutional programs.
The problem with your metaphor of the single radio station that plays the same song, well, it's the only one that will work to turn things around. It's the only one that ever has.
Still with the same old throwing grandma off a cliff. Let me ask you something, there is no money in social security. Obama has taken out 500 Billion from Medicare, not the Republicans. The "security net" programs have to change, those abusing it need to prosecuted or at least have their taxpayer checks ended. It's not sustainable-the austerity you're seeing in Europe is the result of no one wanting to find solutions to the welfare systems-since it would mean doing the un popular thing of means testing and cutting benefits and those who can qualify for them.
Besides, there haven't been any spending CUTS in Europe, only raising taxes. There's a big difference between austerity "pledged" and austerity implemented, as it appears its more about raising taxes than cutting spending.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/europes-phantom...
Obama has decreased wealth inequality. But just like every other socialist and community policy, he has done it by destroying the wealth of others and lowering everyone's wealth. How about implementing growth policies and reforms that will enlarge the economic pie and create wealth to allow those who strive to reap what they sow?
Once again (and finally), saying we are spending money on programs that are unconstitutional does not make it true. I understand that’s the name of the tune playing continuously on your radio station, and that it’s not going to change, so I’ll not keep asking you to pause long enough to think or enter into a real discussion. Waking up, metaphorically speaking, is out of the question for you.
American Lady

Danville, KY

#42496 Jun 21, 2012
WakeUp wrote:
<quoted text>
I think we'll differ on what exactly counts as torture to begin with, water boarding is perfectly ok by me. As for being "innocent", name one person water boarded who was innocent. Perhaps if you're talking about "convicted" of a crime, that may be true, but Obama won't use civil courts or military tribunals, so....keep on turning the other cheek.
<quoted text>
Plenty of Republicans and Conservatives were raging against Bush pushing through Medicare Part D, the Education Bill and the bailouts being the crowing achievement-of course, Democrats were screaming at Bush the whole time for not spending MORE on those programs and even more to boot. Which considering the majority of the Education bill was written by Democrats who have controlled Congress since the '06 elections, and thus, spending...who are we piling the blame for deficits on again?
<quoted text>
So, our law enforcement agencies were listening in on calls made from the US to KNOWN terrorist, and from KNOWN terrorist to people in the US...and that's illegal? While under Obama he's expanded the program even further internationally as well as purely domestically. <yawn> sorry, you're boring me with your political hypocrisy.
<quoted text>
Lawfully elected? see the previous post about the whole ginned up "Bush stole the election" farce. Though, it would be interesting to see the Supreme Court resolved the "natural born citizen". Not about Obama's birth certificate, but concerning that Obama's father was not an American citizen.
<quoted text>
Frankie boy, Obama's giving us all free health insurance, not health care. We're all going to have coverage, but that doesn't mean you're actually going to receive any kind of treatment lol
Look at how well the government runs the health care of our Veterans, or of that of the Native Americans. Social Security in bankrupt, so too is medicare/medicaid (in 3-8 years depending on what numbers the CBO uses), do you REALLY think you're going to get health care from the same government that is failing at the much simpler government programs?
If it was about providing health insurance and coverage, we would have allowed competition across state lines, ended coverage mandates for things like acupuncture etc that drive up base costs, instituted health saving accounts similar to 401(k)s, and found a solution to the unsustainable costs of illegal immigrants using our hospitals as their family physician-and those are the easiest, simplest fixes.
Here's more on the Health coverage.....;-)

Fear the 'Mandate Only' Ruling

..... it is far from the most malignant part.
Separate from the mandate, the rest of the bill is awful. It is unworkable, and it hands over our collective futures with respect to life and death to an army of bureaucrats whom we did not elect, cannot defeat, and will never see.

In fact, it is elsewhere in the bill -- not in the mandate -- where the

Sarah Palin "death panels" reside.

When you think it through to its unavoidable conclusion, the entire bill is signing us all up for a ride on the death panel train eventually, and this has nothing to do with the mandate per se.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/fear_t...
Darryl Washington

Cincinnati, OH

#42497 Jun 21, 2012
WakeUp wrote:
<quoted text>
The Tea Party movement started gaining traction under Bush, plenty of people who protested and spoke up against the Patriot Act, funny how the ones on the Left aren't criticizing it, or Obama and his fellow Dems expanding it even farther-you sure it's the Right that's the one being hypocritical?
<quoted text>
So, two wrongs make a right? Besides, all things in context, still, it's been creeping towards big government a little at a time, Obama's mistake has been throwing the frog into the pot with the water boiling, instead of slowly turning up the temperature. The NDAA, the power grabs of the EPA, all the "quantitative easing", etc topped off with the latest being illegal amnesty with a stroke of the dictatorial pen all while refusing to turn over documents related to the Gun Walker program. The arrogance of Obama and the Dems in power make the expansion of government and the loss of our rights and freedoms to obvious for even the dense to ignore.
<quoted text>
lol, still harping that "bush stole the election"? On November 12, 2001, the Times reported: "Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff — filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties — Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations … The media consortium included The Times ... "
<quoted text>
I feel like I may see you one day walking around with a tin foil hat on your head.
<quoted text>
Valeria Plame? Cheney? lol, it was Richard Armitage at State, and it was known since the beginning. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/219836...
<quoted text>
Pretty sure Dan Rather lost his job running with that make believe story, perhaps you should read up on it, most of this link cites things from factcheck.org http://old.nationalreview.com/owens/owens2004...
<quoted text>
Osama escape? It was Bush's policies that led to Obama's ability to have him assassinated. There was no active WMD program, but a couple of tons of yellow cake uranium, 500+ chemical shells, weaponized strains of bacterial and virus samples and more. There were the multiple UN resolutions as well as Congressional authorization, that cited more than just the threat of WMD's, it also talked of states supporting terrorism, not that Iraq was behind 9/11
You confidently advance questionable assumptions as though they were fact and then build upon them to draw invalid conclusions. You then insult other people’s intelligence by sarcastically implying they are crazy because they don’t do the same thing. It would behove you to recognize this as a problem, and think before you spring into action.
And it’s “aluminum foil,” not “tin foil,” for the crazy stereotype.
American Lady

Danville, KY

#42498 Jun 21, 2012
Death Panels After All?
Posted on June 21, 2012

There’s an explosive story out today in the Daily Mail over in the UK claiming that Britain’s National Health Service

>>>> euthanizes(KILLS) 130,000 elderly patients a year.<<<

This claim doesn’t issue from some loopy former governor of an arctic province;

it comes from professor Patrick Pullicino, a consultant neurologist for East Kent Hospitals and Professor of Clinical Neurosciences at the University of Kent.

He made this claim in a speech to the Royal Society of Medicine in London.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/06...
American Lady

Danville, KY

#42499 Jun 21, 2012
In housing bubble scandal......

Holder prosecutes mom and pop, fat cats walk
Yet another scandal for Obama's embattled attorney general

http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/holder-prosecutes-...

NoCrud

Much of this started with Bill Clintoon and CRA. However, keep in mind that while many financial institutions were reluctant to finance risky potential debtors, the ACORN outfit caused many to do it, anyway. And much of it was because of government intervention in the person of Congressman Fwank, and others like him, saying that everything was A-OK.

I also read that George Bush & Co.*complained as many as 17 times* that all was not rosy in the financial area, namely Fannie May and Freddie Mack,

but were told there was no problem. <<<<----<< <

Then the blame either goes to those who did not continue with the complaints regardless of the Media spotlight or that they did not prosecute Frank and his cohorts.(AMEN)

Looking back, there's plenty of blame to pass around. But, I suspect that Holder looks back at his earlier problems and sees them as much more agreeable compared with what is happening in his house now.

The more one digs with this Washington crowd, the deeper it gets.

----------

Holder needs hung by his "toenails?"
My version of justice....;-)
frank

Oakland, CA

#42500 Jun 21, 2012
WakeUp wrote:
<quoted text>
It's just more smoke and mirrors.
Consider your use of the Chevy Volt as an example. You're absolutely right that there have been more Volts "delivered" to dealers. The dealers are ordering the Volts b/c they have been ordered to do so by GM. Not b/c anyone is actually buying the things. Chevy actually SUSPENDED Volt sales starting this past March b/c there was zero demand for the things.
I wouldn't be so keen at crowing car sales as good news. It seems to be another "bubble" similar to the housing market of '08. Ally Financial (formerly GM Financial) has been making loans along the same guidelines of the "no job, no income, but got a pulse? we can finance you!"
Ally Bank offers 72 month paper at 150% of invoice (to cover deficiencies in the trade) at 3% to credit scores as low as 520. Auto dealers reportedly think Ally is “insane” for underwriting such poor quality auto loans, but they are pleased that volume has increased by 20% as a result of the reformatted auto loan program.
Come on Frank, open your eyes man and take a look around every once in a while.
No wonder Ally Financial is preparing to file for bankruptcy. FYI: Ally Financial Inc. was founded in 1919 as GMAC, a provider of financing to automotive customers across the globe. Since then, the business has expanded to include insurance, direct banking, mortgage operations and commercial finance. At its peak it provided over $1 trillion of financing for 150 million cars and trucks around the world. Clearly that bubble is in your head and not in the real world!
Actually, I’m using the Chevy Volt because wingers, like you, have been falling all over each other to find fault as it receives awards and accolades for innovative engineering – your lame attempt at an argument is typical winger-whining!

“Hopping around Topix”

Since: Nov 08

On The Highway To Hell

#42501 Jun 21, 2012
wtf wrote:
<quoted text>Is Romney running in China?
NO but he`ll be running toward China when it`s all said and done! lol
WakeUp

Murfreesboro, TN

#42502 Jun 21, 2012
frank wrote:
<quoted text>
No wonder Ally Financial is preparing to file for bankruptcy. FYI: Ally Financial Inc. was founded in 1919 as GMAC, a provider of financing to automotive customers across the globe. Since then, the business has expanded to include insurance, direct banking, mortgage operations and commercial finance. At its peak it provided over $1 trillion of financing for 150 million cars and trucks around the world. Clearly that bubble is in your head and not in the real world!
Actually, I’m using the Chevy Volt because wingers, like you, have been falling all over each other to find fault as it receives awards and accolades for innovative engineering – your lame attempt at an argument is typical winger-whining!
So, you advance the position that Chevy volts are ostensibly, out selling the corvette. I point out the fallacy of that, and you think that b/c you drive a volt, that the actual failed economic impact of the Volt and the policies that are subsidizing it to the tune of billions aren't even worth discussing any further b/c pointing out the numbers is just "typical winger-whining" and not worth acknowledgement.

Gotcha.

As for Ally Financial, funny how everyone was so gung-ho about housing values continuing to climb, and when a few analyst pointed out the worthlessness of the mortgages being made...it was poo-pooed as doom and gloom and fear mongering...how well has that worked out for everyone?
WakeUp

Murfreesboro, TN

#42503 Jun 21, 2012
Darryl Washington wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again (and finally), saying we are spending money on programs that are unconstitutional does not make it true. I understand that’s the name of the tune playing continuously on your radio station, and that it’s not going to change, so I’ll not keep asking you to pause long enough to think or enter into a real discussion. Waking up, metaphorically speaking, is out of the question for you.
Nothing in the Constitution allows for the existence of the Departments of Education, Commerce and Energy (to name a few), government-sponsored entities such as Fannie Mae ( FNM - news - people ) and Freddie Mac ( FRE - news - people ), or ineffective bureaucracies such as the SEC and the FDA. Obamacare is just one of the more recent examples.

The Washington Times, documents federal spending that includes $2.6 million for the training of "Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job," $3.9 million for the SEC to rearrange "desks and offices at its Washington headquarters" and nearly $1 million for the shipping of "two 19-cent washers from South Carolina to Texas," along with the improper use of government credit cards for the purchase of goods including "lingerie, iPods, XBoxes, jewelry, Internet dating services and Hawaiian vacations."

So, for the sake of a real discussion that I am apparently not having...want to chime in on your thoughts about these things?
frank

Oakland, CA

#42505 Jun 21, 2012
WakeUp wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you advance the position that Chevy volts are ostensibly, out selling the corvette. I point out the fallacy of that, and you think that b/c you drive a volt, that the actual failed economic impact of the Volt and the policies that are subsidizing it to the tune of billions aren't even worth discussing any further b/c pointing out the numbers is just "typical winger-whining" and not worth acknowledgement.
Gotcha.
As for Ally Financial, funny how everyone was so gung-ho about housing values continuing to climb, and when a few analyst pointed out the worthlessness of the mortgages being made...it was poo-pooed as doom and gloom and fear mongering...how well has that worked out for everyone?
The Chevy Volt was designed and built long before the current administration; the attempt by the wingers to connect Obama with the car is not only laughable, it’s ignorant.
The government does not subsidies the design and manufacture of green cars, it offers rebates on hybrid and alternative-fuel cars through the state or local government after the car is purchased. While rebates on hybrid and alternative fuel cars vary by state, the federal government offers tax credits on some hybrid and alternative fuel car purchases. For hybrid cars, you can currently get a tax credit of up to $3,400 (depending on the make and model hybrid you buy). Anyone buying a Chevrolet Volt, your eligible for the $7500 Federal rebate, as well as a potential $5000 California Rebate.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/taxcenter.shtm...
whitehair

Fort Thomas, KY

#42506 Jun 21, 2012
And with what you just said,you think the Gov`t does not subsidise the auto industry for the so called green cars?The chevy volt is expensive,no one wants to buy,and they then have to be re-batteried,which is very expensive.A really good conversation,not a good conservative purchase.And where in the Constitution does the gov`t get the right to take over any private(stock owned)company?Where in the constitution does it say the gov`t may rebate any companies product?Where does it say the gov`t may choose which company will be helped to succeed or fail?
Could the rebates be why Calif.and the Fed.gov `t are going broke?Just can not control themselves from wetting their own pants?Of course this is just my opinion,not worth a cup of coffee.
Darryl Washington

Cincinnati, OH

#42507 Jun 21, 2012
WakeUp wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing in the Constitution allows for the existence of the Departments of Education, Commerce and Energy (to name a few), government-sponsored entities such as Fannie Mae ( FNM - news - people ) and Freddie Mac ( FRE - news - people ), or ineffective bureaucracies such as the SEC and the FDA. Obamacare is just one of the more recent examples.
The Washington Times, documents federal spending that includes $2.6 million for the training of "Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job," $3.9 million for the SEC to rearrange "desks and offices at its Washington headquarters" and nearly $1 million for the shipping of "two 19-cent washers from South Carolina to Texas," along with the improper use of government credit cards for the purchase of goods including "lingerie, iPods, XBoxes, jewelry, Internet dating services and Hawaiian vacations."
So, for the sake of a real discussion that I am apparently not having...want to chime in on your thoughts about these things?
The basic rules of logic can be tricky for the uninitiated and require some discipline and exercise to master. Let me explain as concretely as possible. Failure of the constitution to specify that something is legal does not make it illegal. The constitution does not say that it is legal for there to be Republican and Democratic political parties, that a woman, African American or Mormon may serve as president, that states may adopt official state flowers or slogans, etc.

I could do this until I’m orange in the face, but what would be the point? You’re stuck in the attack mode dedicated to espousing only one irrefutable idea ad infinitum in the form of regurgitating without formal analysis most anything and everything that you believe to demonstrate your belief system.

You might want to check out http://www.campbellsville.edu/ .
Darryls sister Darrylene

Glasgow, KY

#42508 Jun 21, 2012
Darryl Washington wrote:
<quoted text>
The basic rules of logic can be tricky for the uninitiated and require some discipline and exercise to master. Let me explain as concretely as possible. Failure of the constitution to specify that something is legal does not make it illegal. The constitution does not say that it is legal for there to be Republican and Democratic political parties, that a woman, African American or Mormon may serve as president, that states may adopt official state flowers or slogans, etc.
I could do this until I’m orange in the face, but what would be the point? You’re stuck in the attack mode dedicated to espousing only one irrefutable idea ad infinitum in the form of regurgitating without formal analysis most anything and everything that you believe to demonstrate your belief system.
You might want to check out http://www.campbellsville.edu/ .
Didn't I read those exact words in your post in a newspaper article somewhere? lol Your words? Come on Darryl, you're not fooling anyone. Well, maybe you are fooling your other brother Darryl but the rest of us...not so much boy! LMMFAO!
WakeUp

Murfreesboro, TN

#42509 Jun 21, 2012
frank wrote:
<quoted text>
The Chevy Volt was designed and built long before the current administration; the attempt by the wingers to connect Obama with the car is not only laughable, it’s ignorant.
The government does not subsidies the design and manufacture of green cars, it offers rebates on hybrid and alternative-fuel cars through the state or local government after the car is purchased. While rebates on hybrid and alternative fuel cars vary by state, the federal government offers tax credits on some hybrid and alternative fuel car purchases. For hybrid cars, you can currently get a tax credit of up to $3,400 (depending on the make and model hybrid you buy). Anyone buying a Chevrolet Volt, your eligible for the $7500 Federal rebate, as well as a potential $5000 California Rebate.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/taxcenter.shtm...
The Volt only exists thanks to government subsidies. No one wants the thing, and taxpayer money is going much farther than a simple $7,500 a car.

James Hohman at Michigan’s Mackinac Center has added up the numbers at the supply end and found the public subsidy for the Volt amounts to a $3 billion, putting the public subsidy per car at a whopping $250,000 per car. http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/16...

The figure looks at total state and federal assistance offered for the development and production of the Chevy Volt. His analysis included 18 government deals that included loans, rebates, grants and tax credits. For example, the Department of Energy awarded a $105.9 million grant to the GM Brownstown plant that assembles the batteries.
The amount of government assistance does not include the fact that General Motors is currently 26 percent owned by the federal government.
Depending on what state, and which other tax incentives, government "loans" that can be used, the Volt is subsidized at roughly $50,000 to $250,000 per car since they've only "sold" approximately 6,000 vehicles.
Darryl Washington

Cincinnati, OH

#42510 Jun 21, 2012
Darryls sister Darrylene wrote:
<quoted text>
Didn't I read those exact words in your post in a newspaper article somewhere? lol Your words? Come on Darryl, you're not fooling anyone. Well, maybe you are fooling your other brother Darryl but the rest of us...not so much boy! LMMFAO!
Darrylene, my long-lost sister! I thought I’d never hear from you after Mama threw you out of the house for selling yourself for a few hits of crack. It’s such a coincidence that you ended up in the small town of Glasgow. There’s this person there that goes by “Lordy,” who keeps trying to engage me in a discussion but it’s like listening to a broken record.

Please try to be more selective in your choice of friends there. If you ever kick the pipe, you’d be welcome to join us at the compound.
WakeUp

Murfreesboro, TN

#42511 Jun 21, 2012
Darryl Washington wrote:
<quoted text>
The basic rules of logic can be tricky for the uninitiated and require some discipline and exercise to master. Let me explain as concretely as possible. Failure of the constitution to specify that something is legal does not make it illegal. The constitution does not say that it is legal for there to be Republican and Democratic political parties, that a woman, African American or Mormon may serve as president, that states may adopt official state flowers or slogans, etc.
I could do this until I’m orange in the face, but what would be the point? You’re stuck in the attack mode dedicated to espousing only one irrefutable idea ad infinitum in the form of regurgitating without formal analysis most anything and everything that you believe to demonstrate your belief system.
You might want to check out http://www.campbellsville.edu/ .
Wow, that was a really long and drawn out way of saying "you're stupid". No matter how you have couched it, you're still letting your elitism and disdain slip through in overwhelming force.

The 10th Amendment states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So actually, yes the Constitution DOES say that the Republican party and Democrat party are legal. The First Amendment includes the freedom of association. Americans are free to associate with and without whom we wish, for whatever reason we like.(Or at least we should be) Only the government must treat us with “equal justice under law". In Roberts (1984), the Court recognized that the power to determine its own membership is central to the free speech rights of expressive organizations, and what is more expressive of our values and beliefs than the political parties we choose to support financially and with our vote.

The point being, the Constitution sets limits to the powers available to the government, especially the Federal government. There should be SOMETHING that the Federal Government can point to for the laws and regulations it sets forth. Otherwise, there really is no law.
Feel free to make the Constitutional argument concerning the legality of Obamacare, or any of the other departments and spending that I previously mentioned. Unless your whole constitutional argument is that b/c the Constitution doesn't explicitly state we can't have "x", then we can.(of course, that means ignoring the 10th amendment...)

You appear to be what many refer to as "an over educated idiot".
Darryl Washington

Cincinnati, OH

#42512 Jun 21, 2012
Don’t you mean “overly educated idiot?” Our words define us. Q.E.D.

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.

Bowling Green Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Kevin Roberts 2 min Kelly 20
Christy willoughby 15 min Christy 6
Jess Perkin or Taylor 18 min Kev 1
Missing you! Bad! 20 min Used you 15
Kevin Wallace is better than Brohm Petrino or H... 1 hr Beaver 5
Meghan Cardwell 1 hr Timmy turner 12
Jason estlack and Dakota ferrill 2 hr haha 4

Bowling Green Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Bowling Green Mortgages