created by: Rick | Jun 8, 2010

Arkansas

5,829 votes

Did you vote today?

Click on an option to vote

  • Yes
  • No
  • Other (explain below)
Comments
19,541 - 19,560 of 29,113 Comments Last updated 6 hrs ago

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20796
Jan 16, 2013
 
WARRIOR wrote:
<quoted text>Apperantly I did not as you continue to yap like a little chihuahua! Your boyfrined does not want any part of me. You are on your own!
Your safe,,,,,

I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20797
Jan 16, 2013
 
"I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience"

Better add some quotation marks, best not to get you Saint Ronnie fans in an uproar.

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20798
Jan 16, 2013
 
Redd wrote:
<quoted text>
Apperantly
Apperantly chihuahua boyfrined , is typing for him now.

Its not real good at spelling yet.

Since: Jan 13

Mena, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20799
Jan 16, 2013
 
Vote on what? Are you a retard? Yes!
Old Army

Quitman, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20800
Jan 16, 2013
 
Missed free throws almost cost Arkansas the game. Luckily, Auburn couldn't hit them either.

How can I be a "go getter" (take her to work and go get her), when we can't get up the hill for the damn ice? Cabin fever!!!!

Goodnight, its bedtime for Bonzo.
Reality Check

Mountain Pine, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20802
Jan 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
It appears that the fact that the USA has an unemployment rate of 7.8% is of no consequence in finding a job in your minds.
Let's say you are the most energetic person on earth, would you take less money each week so you could beat your chest and say I HAVE A JOB and I AM saving the U.S..
Hell no you would not.
Get off your High Horse and quit making such catch all accusations.
Especially about shit that did not enter your mind till you sit down in front of your computer and started quoting Republican propaganda.
When you have leaders like Obama you do what you have to do to survive until you get someone more qualified and certainly more pro-American as president. Your post is a perfect example of how out of touch liberals are. The way you see it that if person making $100K per year loses their job they should go on unemployment/welfare until they find another 100K job but under no circumstances should they take a lesser job even if their family is starving to death. If there are not 100K jobs then we should just extend the unemployment benefits out to the point where the 100K jobs return. You completely neglect the fact that every single person has tendencies to become lazy and unmotivated if given enough time. This happens faster in some and slower in others but it's in each of us. The longer you pay someone to do nothing the better the chance they become life long welfare recipients. You just don't want to admit that welfare and unemployment are tools, not programs, the democrats use to gain support and stay in power. They have nothing without that.
Reality Check

Mountain Pine, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20803
Jan 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
And for the first half of the second part, that is just pretty much a no brainer is it not?
Even though they are both an asset to the economy, the other is a temporary debit to the U.S.Treasury.
They are not both assets. Unemployment should be seen as a last resort and not a driver of the economy. Unemployment is a temporary debit to the Treasury that would not have to be used near as much as it is if today's democratic party would stop enacting freedom and prosperity killing policies.
Guest

Bixby, OK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20804
Jan 17, 2013
 
Old Army wrote:
<quoted text>
That's better than what my wife calls me.
I'll just bet she call you worse. Something like wee wittle won.

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20805
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
When you have leaders like Obama you do what you have to do to survive until you get someone more qualified and certainly more pro-American as president. Your post is a perfect example of how out of touch liberals are. The way you see it that if person making $100K per year loses their job they should go on unemployment/welfare until they find another 100K job but under no circumstances should they take a lesser job even if their family is starving to death. If there are not 100K jobs then we should just extend the unemployment benefits out to the point where the 100K jobs return. You completely neglect the fact that every single person has tendencies to become lazy and unmotivated if given enough time. This happens faster in some and slower in others but it's in each of us. The longer you pay someone to do nothing the better the chance they become life long welfare recipients. You just don't want to admit that welfare and unemployment are tools, not programs, the democrats use to gain support and stay in power. They have nothing without that.
No, that is not the way I see it at all.

This is what I see,

folks living in areas of high employment scraping by on UE money, lacking the resources to relocate for employment, and some self righteous idiots calling those people lazy.

So the next you want to quote "what I see", you can start with this.


Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20806
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
They are not both assets. Unemployment should be seen as a last resort and not a driver of the economy. Unemployment is a temporary debit to the Treasury that would not have to be used near as much as it is if today's democratic party would stop enacting freedom and prosperity killing policies.
"Not both assets"..........Really?? ????

Looks like the CBO disagrees with you there, I think I will accept their opinion over yours. No offense


I think it is time to let you folks know that the thriving gun an ammunition industries only make up a very small part of our economy.

So that "prosperity killing policies" thing, not so much!


“Conserve Wildlife Habitat”

Since: Dec 10

SE Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20808
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

guess wrote:
I bet all the criminals out there are just loving the executive actions that the president is trying to pass on all law abiding citizens. This just gives all them criminals more freedom to do what they want too. This in no way makes us safer.
He's not trying to make us safer. He's only pandering to the anti-gunners. It's a feel good moment that does not stop crime.

Here's a thought. What if the doctor is anti-gun? Might he or she decide to report a patient who poses no threat, just to have guns removed from their homes?
Redd

Little Rock, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20809
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
When you have leaders like Obama you do what you have to do to survive until you get someone more qualified and certainly more pro-American as president. Your post is a perfect example of how out of touch liberals are. The way you see it that if person making $100K per year loses their job they should go on unemployment/welfare until they find another 100K job but under no circumstances should they take a lesser job even if their family is starving to death. If there are not 100K jobs then we should just extend the unemployment benefits out to the point where the 100K jobs return. You completely neglect the fact that every single person has tendencies to become lazy and unmotivated if given enough time. This happens faster in some and slower in others but it's in each of us. The longer you pay someone to do nothing the better the chance they become life long welfare recipients. You just don't want to admit that welfare and unemployment are tools, not programs, the democrats use to gain support and stay in power. They have nothing without that.
Most people making 100 grand+ a year are Republicans, excepting a good deal of farmers...you saying Republicans are taking advantage too?
Old Army

Quitman, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20810
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Guest wrote:
<quoted text> I'll just bet she call you worse. Something like wee wittle won.
Thank you for your interest in the size of an old man's dick, but don't you think your interest a little strange, if not perverted?
Old Army

Quitman, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20811
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Redd wrote:
<quoted text>
Most people making 100 grand+ a year are Republicans, excepting a good deal of farmers...you saying Republicans are taking advantage too?
False assumption.
guest

Blytheville, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20812
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that is not the way I see it at all.
This is what I see,
folks living in areas of high employment scraping by on UE money, lacking the resources to relocate for employment, and some self righteous idiots calling those people lazy.
So the next you want to quote "what I see", you can start with this.
You're blind
guest

Blytheville, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20813
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that is not the way I see it at all.
This is what I see,
folks living in areas of high employment scraping by on UE money, lacking the resources to relocate for employment, and some self righteous idiots calling those people lazy.
So the next you want to quote "what I see", you can start with this.
That's because you are either ignorant or a perpetrator of that ignorance. In other words, you're either a sucker or a liar.

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20814
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

guest wrote:
<quoted text>That's because you are either ignorant or a perpetrator of that ignorance. In other words, you're either a sucker or a liar.
Am I ole wise one, let us look at a report that just came out two hours ago;

The number of Americans filing first-time claims for unemployment insurance payments fell more than forecast last week to the lowest level in five years, pointing to further improvement in the labor market.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-17/init...

I guess all those UE drawing scum bags are to not lazy to work after all, and that sorry black ass SOB in the white house, who has been spending all our money, is presideing over an economy that is adding jobs.

Damn , a good Republican can't win for losing these days.

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20815
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Raptor in Michigan wrote:
<quoted text>
He's not trying to make us safer. He's only pandering to the anti-gunners. It's a feel good moment that does not stop crime.
Here's a thought. What if the doctor is anti-gun? Might he or she decide to report a patient who poses no threat, just to have guns removed from their homes?
Can you name any law, traffic, criminal, etc., that has not been broken?

What if the doctor is pro-gun?

Might he or she decides not to report a patient who poses a threat, because he thinks it is the patient's constitutional right to own them.
Barneyisaheadsta rtbaby

Providence, UT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20816
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Head Start is an $8 billion per year federal preschool program, designed to improve the kindergarten readiness of low-income children. Since its inception in 1965, taxpayers have spent more than $180 billion on the program.
But HHS’ latest Head Start Impact Study found taxpayers aren’t getting a good return on this “investment.” According to the congressionally-mandated report, Head Start has little to no impact on cognitive, social-emotional, health, or parenting practices of its participants. In fact, on a few measures, access to the program actually produced negative effects.

Head Start doesn’t need more money. It needs to be put on the chopping block.

The HHS’ scientifically-rigorous study tracked 5,000 children who were randomly assigned to either a group receiving Head Start services or a group that did not participate in Head Start. It followed their progression from ages three or four through the end of third grade. The third-grade evaluation is a continuation to HHS’ first-grade study, which followed children through the end of first grade.
The first-grade evaluation found that any benefits the children may have accrued while in the Head Start program had dissipated by the time they reached first grade.
The study also revealed that Head Start failed to improve the literacy, math and language skills of the four year-old cohort and had a negative impact on the teacher-assessed math ability of the three-year-old cohort.
Based on this track record, HHS and Head Start devotees should not have been surprised to learn that the results of the third-grade evaluation were even worse. If the impacts of Head Start had all but disappeared by first grade, how could they suddenly reappear by the end of third grade?
Not only were the third-grade evaluation results poor, so was the department’s handling of the study. HHS sat on the results for four years. All that time, taxpayers were kept in the dark while their tax dollars continued to fund a completely ineffective program.
HHS had finished collecting all the data in 2008. Despite persistent prodding by members of Congress, the Department did not make the report (coyly dated October 2012) public until the Friday before Christmas. The timing couldn’t have been better if your goal is to get minimal attention.

The third-grade follow-up study found that access to Head Start had no statistically measurable effects on cognitive ability, including numerous measures of reading, language and math ability.
The evaluation also examined the program’s effect on social-emotional development. It found that children in the 4-year-old group actually reported worse peer relations in third grade than their non-Head Start counterparts.
There was also no statistically significant effect on teacher-reported, social-emotional development of children. Alarmingly, there was a negative effect on the 4-year-old cohort. Teachers reported “strong evidence of an unfavorable impact on the incidence of children’s emotional symptoms.” Moreover, Head Start also failed to improve the parenting outcomes and child-health outcomes of participants.
The bottom line: Washington’s 48-year experiment with federal preschool has failed to deliver long-lasting, positive developments for its participants. Still, many in Congress argue that the way to fix this is to increase funding for Head Start.
And that’s exactly what they did in the Hurricane Sandy relief bill. It contains $100 million in new funding for Head Start – ostensibly to provide funds to Head Start centers in the Northeast affected by the storm. According to the Senate appropriations committee, that $100 million will be divvied up among 265 centers—an average of more than $377,000 per center.
Head Start fails children and costs taxpayers exorbitant amounts of money every year. And it’s just one of 69 federal preschool programs.

“Conserve Wildlife Habitat”

Since: Dec 10

SE Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20817
Jan 17, 2013
 
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you name any law, traffic, criminal, etc., that has not been broken?
What if the doctor is pro-gun?
Might he or she decides not to report a patient who poses a threat, because he thinks it is the patient's constitutional right to own them.
It's not a matter of what a doctor "thinks" someone has a right to own. It absolutely IS their right to own a gun.

With all this talk about criminals and psychos not being able to own guns, I ask you this: IF someone is a psycho, or a criminal, why are they walking the streets and posing a threat to begin with? But........ We can't change what is.

The fact is, they ARE walking the streets. Who determines someone to be one or to what level, and if they are a danger, could be debated. I've seen democrats call republicans psychos and vice versa.

If a criminal, or a psycho, is walking down the street, or even in his home, and he is attacked by some thug, does that individual have a right to defend himself like any other citizen would? Why not? Are they less human than the rest of the population?

Should not we ALL bear arms? Because as long as we ALL are in society, there is the risk of anyone being a victim, whether we are a criminal, ex-criminal, never been a criminal, or a psycho in another humans mind- who may or may not be wrong in their diagnosis.

The fact still remains, if someone wants a gun bad enough, they will get it regardless of what any background check shows.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

24 Users are viewing the El Dorado Forum right now

Search the El Dorado Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Why can't the Chicago police control the blacks... 2 hr racist 4
AR Arkansas Hunting Rights Amendment (Oct '10) 7 hr I am woman 3,835
AR More than 1,000 dead birds fall from sky in Ark (Jan '11) 8 hr cooker 9,800
telishia giles-ainsworth 10 hr greenbean68 1
trash drunk chicken shit 11 hr tryncirath 1
AR Exit polls: Boozman defeats 2-term incumbent Li... (Nov '10) 11 hr midnight oil 829
jobs 11 hr The Real Duck 12
Municipal Auditorium- El Dorado 11 hr The Real Duck 35
Eldorado , Entire city needs to be cleaned up,! 15 hr Grigori 21
•••
•••
•••
El Dorado Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

El Dorado Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

El Dorado People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

El Dorado News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in El Dorado
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••