Did you vote today?

Did you vote today?

Created by Rick on Jun 8, 2010

6,407 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

Other (explain below)

WARRIOR

Alamogordo, NM

#28033 Nov 22, 2013
WARNING wrote:
<quoted text>
Got it!
Our staff reviews every item of feedback we receive, normally within 3 business days. Submitting multiple reports for the same post will not result in feedback being processed more quickly.
Due to the volume of requests we process daily, you may only hear back from us if we need further information on your particular issue.
Thanks for your feedback!
-- The Topix Team
Typical liberal. Doesn't agree with something so he tries to get it banned. Liberals could care less about the Constitution and this Country..
Rick

Benton, AR

#28034 Nov 22, 2013
WARRIOR wrote:
<quoted text>Typical liberal. Doesn't agree with something so he tries to get it banned. Liberals could care less about the Constitution and this Country..
Barring constant opposition to anything Obama, just what solutions has our Republican House offered as a alternative the ACA, to to create jobs, to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, to pass immigration reform, to pass a budget.

Like them, many of you here only know how to bitch...But then again, that's always been a key element in Republican strategy.
Rick

Benton, AR

#28035 Nov 22, 2013
Rick wrote:
<quoted text>
Barring constant opposition to anything Obama, just what solutions has our Republican House offered as a alternative the ACA, to to create jobs, to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, to pass immigration reform, to pass a budget.
Like them, many of you here only know how to bitch...But then again, that's always been a key element in Republican strategy.
I strongly doubt that many of you could name the Republican Whip of the Senate, let alone understand the legislation being put forward much to your detriment in either Chamber.

Along with drug testing welfare recipients, a national standard should be implemented requiring a minimum understanding of American History and Government.

Rick

Benton, AR

#28036 Nov 22, 2013
In certain cases a oath of allegiance.

America, love it or leave it.
Ricks Keeper

Jonesboro, AR

#28037 Nov 22, 2013
He loses his train of thought, it took three posts to complete on thought. Excuse him but he is trying.
Reality Check

Lonoke, AR

#28038 Nov 22, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
Sean Hannity once supported filibuster reform. Now he is calling it “One of the most lawless power grabs” in U.S. history.
Mitch McConnell, who so opposed the nuclear option, was actually for a simple up-or-down vote on judicial nominees – in 2005, when George W. Bush was president.
“Twelve Republicans Who Broke Their Pledge to Oppose Judicial Filibusters”
1. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
2. John Cornyn (R-TX)
3. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
4. John McCain (R-AZ)
5. Chuck Grassler (R-IA)
6. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
7. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
8. Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
9. James Inhofe (R-OK)
10. Mike Crapo (R-ID)
11. Richard Shelby (R-AL)
12. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
These are the guys, who, when Bush was president, said they’d never, ever filibuster a nominee.
What do you know, you just named all of the progressive establishment GOP members. What have I been saying for months now? That the establishment GOP is the same as the Democratic party. Did you even read my post? I said that both parties would engage in the nuclear option in the future more often and not just on nominations as a result of this anti-American move by Harry Reid.
Reality Check

Lonoke, AR

#28039 Nov 22, 2013
Please moron wrote:
<quoted text>. Read it again Moron, it did not imply that we are. Man you are slow


Maybe it's you that needs to read it again.
WARRIOR

Alamogordo, NM

#28040 Nov 22, 2013
Rick wrote:
<quoted text>
Barring constant opposition to anything Obama, just what solutions has our Republican House offered as a alternative the ACA, to to create jobs, to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, to pass immigration reform, to pass a budget.
Like them, many of you here only know how to bitch...But then again, that's always been a key element in Republican strategy.
No doubt you are a low information voter. You have no idea about the subject at hand. You drink the Obama Kool-Aid right from his hose!
WARRIOR

Alamogordo, NM

#28041 Nov 22, 2013
Rick wrote:
<quoted text>
I strongly doubt that many of you could name the Republican Whip of the Senate, let alone understand the legislation being put forward much to your detriment in either Chamber.
Along with drug testing welfare recipients, a national standard should be implemented requiring a minimum understanding of American History and Government.
No doubt you never read the Constitution of the United States but then again you are an emotional liberal..
Reality Check

Little Rock, AR

#28042 Nov 23, 2013
Rick wrote:
<quoted text>
I strongly doubt that many of you could name the Republican Whip of the Senate, let alone understand the legislation being put forward much to your detriment in either Chamber.
Along with drug testing welfare recipients, a national standard should be implemented requiring a minimum understanding of American History and Government.
Eric Cantor. I'm not sure what he has to do with the rest of your post but I know that everything this progressive government produces is to our detriment. The drug testing thing sounds great. But when you have the Democratic party simply ignoring the Constitution and common procedures that have been in place for 225 years, do you really think that a failed drug test will prevent any of the party's most coveted citizens from receiving benefits? As for understanding of history, the progressive Democratic Socialist have re-written history at every turn so understanding history as it is currently written is actually damaging to American exceptionalism and freedom.

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#28043 Nov 23, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Eric Cantor. I'm not sure what he has to do with the rest of your post but I know that everything this progressive government produces is to our detriment. The drug testing thing sounds great. But when you have the Democratic party simply ignoring the Constitution and common procedures that have been in place for 225 years, do you really think that a failed drug test will prevent any of the party's most coveted citizens from receiving benefits? As for understanding of history, the progressive Democratic Socialist have re-written history at every turn so understanding history as it is currently written is actually damaging to American exceptionalism and freedom.
OMG,LMFAO, looks like Rick is correct.

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#28044 Nov 23, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Eric Cantor. I'm not sure what he has to do with the rest of your post but I know that everything this progressive government produces is to our detriment. The drug testing thing sounds great. But when you have the Democratic party simply ignoring the Constitution and common procedures that have been in place for 225 years, do you really think that a failed drug test will prevent any of the party's most coveted citizens from receiving benefits? As for understanding of history, the progressive Democratic Socialist have re-written history at every turn so understanding history as it is currently written is actually damaging to American exceptionalism and freedom.
"The drug testing thing sounds great"

Not from a dollar and cents stand point, look at Fla.

Of the 4,086 applicants who scheduled drug tests while the law was enforced, 108 people, or 2.6 percent, failed,

The numbers, confirming previous estimates, show that taxpayers spent $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs, at an average of $35 per screening.

The state’s net loss?$45,780.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/20/2758871...

Since: Jun 12

Detroit City

#28045 Nov 23, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Eric Cantor. I'm not sure what he has to do with the rest of your post but I know that everything this progressive government produces is to our detriment. The drug testing thing sounds great. But when you have the Democratic party simply ignoring the Constitution and common procedures that have been in place for 225 years, do you really think that a failed drug test will prevent any of the party's most coveted citizens from receiving benefits? As for understanding of history, the progressive Democratic Socialist have re-written history at every turn so understanding history as it is currently written is actually damaging to American exceptionalism and freedom.
You don't even know a Representative from a Senator much less who the Senate Whip is. Wow!
Reality Check

Little Rock, AR

#28046 Nov 23, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
"The drug testing thing sounds great"
Not from a dollar and cents stand point, look at Fla.
Of the 4,086 applicants who scheduled drug tests while the law was enforced, 108 people, or 2.6 percent, failed,
The numbers, confirming previous estimates, show that taxpayers spent $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs, at an average of $35 per screening.
The state’s net loss?$45,780.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/20/2758871...
Sorry, reality simply doesn't match that. Ask any employer, who needs to hire people, what the biggest obstacle is. They will tell you that people who can pass a drug test. The lower the pay scale the higher percentage of potential employees, who are on the lowest rung of the economic ladder, that fail the drug test. I guess you are suggesting that, in Florida, an anomaly is occurring or that applicants in Florida are higher up the economic scale. What have I told you about believing an article 100%? So it bites you again. Just look around the country and see all of the people who are trying to legalize marijuana. Gallup found that 58% of Americans are in favor of legalizing marijuana (If you believe in polls).

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/...

Other articles on the Florida study found that the usage rate of drugs among non welfare citizens is about that of those who do get welfare. So 58% of ALL Americans (That means welfare recipients too) believe in marijuana legalization yet only 2.6% use drugs? Uh ok. Since you put so much stock in article and polls, which article is right? They both can't be right. I'm sure it's Bush's or some Republican or Conservative's fault for the discrepancy between the two polls.
WARRIOR

Alamogordo, NM

#28047 Nov 23, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
"The drug testing thing sounds great"
Not from a dollar and cents stand point, look at Fla.
Of the 4,086 applicants who scheduled drug tests while the law was enforced, 108 people, or 2.6 percent, failed,
The numbers, confirming previous estimates, show that taxpayers spent $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs, at an average of $35 per screening.
The state’s net loss?$45,780.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/20/2758871...
Yeah that is not as much as this liberal administration spent on Green Energy with companies like Solyndra or near as much as they spent on the health care website now is it Libtard Barney Boy! What a freaking hypocrite! LMFAO!
Jessica

Jonesboro, AR

#28048 Nov 23, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
"The drug testing thing sounds great"
Not from a dollar and cents stand point, look at Fla.
Of the 4,086 applicants who scheduled drug tests while the law was enforced, 108 people, or 2.6 percent, failed,
The numbers, confirming previous estimates, show that taxpayers spent $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs, at an average of $35 per screening.
The state’s net loss?$45,780.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/20/2758871...
But if the drug testing kept those 108 out of the government wallet, it saved them millions over the year
Guess again

Mountain Home, AR

#28049 Nov 23, 2013
Jessica wrote:
<quoted text>
But if the drug testing kept those 108 out of the government wallet, it saved them millions over the year
Rather short sighted to say those people would be keep out.

What if a portion of these people become guest of the State on a long term bases, collect Medicaid, or any other of several Government programs?
Guess again

Mountain Home, AR

#28050 Nov 23, 2013
WARRIOR wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah that is not as much as this liberal administration spent on Green Energy with companies like Solyndra!
In fact, rather than rushing the loan for Solyndra through, the Obama Administration restructured the original Bush-era deal to further protect the taxpayers’ investment:

July 2005: The Bush Administration signs the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into law, creating the 1703 loan guarantee program.

February 2006 – October 2006: In February, Solyndra raises its first round of venture financing worth $10.6 million from CMEA Capital, Redpoint Ventures, and U.S. Venture Partners. In October, Argonaut Venture Capital, an investment arm of George Kaiser, invests $17 million into Solyndra. Madrone Capital Partners, an investment arm of the Walton family, invests $7 million. Those investments are part of a $78.2 million fund.

December 2006: Solyndra Applies for a Loan Guarantee under the 1703 program.

Late 2007: Loan guarantee program is funded. Solyndra was one of 16 clean-tech companies deemed ready to move forward in the due diligence process. The Bush Administration DOE moves forward to develop a conditional commitment.

October 2008: Then Solyndra CEO Chris Gronet touted reasons for building in Silicon Valley and noted that the “company’s second factory also will be built in Fremont, since a Department of Energy loan guarantee mandates a U.S. location.”

November 2008: Silicon prices remain very high on the spot market, making non-silicon based thin film technologies like Solyndra’s very attractive to investors. Solyndra also benefits from having very low installation costs. The company raises $144 million from ten different venture investors, including the Walton-family run Madrone Capital Partners. This brings total private investment to more than $450 million to date.

What critics fail to mention is that the Solyndra deal is more than three years old, started under the Bush Administration, which tried to conditionally approve the loan right before Obama took office. Rather than “pushing funds out the door too quickly,” the Obama Administration restructured the original loan when it came into office to further protect the taxpayers’ investment.

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#28051 Nov 23, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, reality simply doesn't match that. Ask any employer, who needs to hire people, what the biggest obstacle is. They will tell you that people who can pass a drug test. The lower the pay scale the higher percentage of potential employees, who are on the lowest rung of the economic ladder, that fail the drug test. I guess you are suggesting that, in Florida, an anomaly is occurring or that applicants in Florida are higher up the economic scale. What have I told you about believing an article 100%? So it bites you again. Just look around the country and see all of the people who are trying to legalize marijuana. Gallup found that 58% of Americans are in favor of legalizing marijuana (If you believe in polls).
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/...
Other articles on the Florida study found that the usage rate of drugs among non welfare citizens is about that of those who do get welfare. So 58% of ALL Americans (That means welfare recipients too) believe in marijuana legalization yet only 2.6% use drugs? Uh ok. Since you put so much stock in article and polls, which article is right? They both can't be right. I'm sure it's Bush's or some Republican or Conservative's fault for the discrepancy between the two polls.
Im not "suggesting" any thing, the article was pretty straight forward. In the state of Fla. it cost them more to drug test for food stamps than they gained, just that simple.

WTF your rant had to do with that, I have no idea.

BTW, have you figured out who the Senate Whip is yet?(JC)
Reality Check

Lonoke, AR

#28052 Nov 23, 2013
Guess again wrote:
<quoted text>
In fact, rather than rushing the loan for Solyndra through, the Obama Administration restructured the original Bush-era deal to further protect the taxpayers’ investment:
July 2005: The Bush Administration signs the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into law, creating the 1703 loan guarantee program.
February 2006 – October 2006: In February, Solyndra raises its first round of venture financing worth $10.6 million from CMEA Capital, Redpoint Ventures, and U.S. Venture Partners. In October, Argonaut Venture Capital, an investment arm of George Kaiser, invests $17 million into Solyndra. Madrone Capital Partners, an investment arm of the Walton family, invests $7 million. Those investments are part of a $78.2 million fund.
December 2006: Solyndra Applies for a Loan Guarantee under the 1703 program.
Late 2007: Loan guarantee program is funded. Solyndra was one of 16 clean-tech companies deemed ready to move forward in the due diligence process. The Bush Administration DOE moves forward to develop a conditional commitment.
October 2008: Then Solyndra CEO Chris Gronet touted reasons for building in Silicon Valley and noted that the “company’s second factory also will be built in Fremont, since a Department of Energy loan guarantee mandates a U.S. location.”
November 2008: Silicon prices remain very high on the spot market, making non-silicon based thin film technologies like Solyndra’s very attractive to investors. Solyndra also benefits from having very low installation costs. The company raises $144 million from ten different venture investors, including the Walton-family run Madrone Capital Partners. This brings total private investment to more than $450 million to date.
What critics fail to mention is that the Solyndra deal is more than three years old, started under the Bush Administration, which tried to conditionally approve the loan right before Obama took office. Rather than “pushing funds out the door too quickly,” the Obama Administration restructured the original loan when it came into office to further protect the taxpayers’ investment.
And now the rest of the story. A Congressional probe into Solyndra less than two weeks before President Bush left office,caused the Energy Department's credit committee to vote against offering a loan commitment to Solyndra. Even after Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, analysts in the Energy Department and in the Office of Management and Budget were repeatedly questioning the wisdom of the loan. In one exchange, an Energy official wrote of "a major outstanding issue" -- namely, that Solyndra's numbers showed it would run out of cash in September 2011.

Kinda puts the story back in perspective when the rest of it is told doesn't it? Well, the blame is back on Obama and only Obama. He now owns that failure 100%.

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.

El Dorado Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Daniel Watson 20 min FYI 2
Debt Collector 7 hr cmarie 5
80-room Marriott hotel behind McDonald's northside 7 hr martie chandler 39
News Ex-deputy held on child porn charges 7 hr post 58
friendly Arkansas? 7 hr Truth 7
Westside funds 7 hr IMO 4
Suddenlink phone outage? 11 hr Big Money 7

El Dorado Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

El Dorado Mortgages