'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate

"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).

Full Story
American Lady

Danville, KY

#52439 Oct 9, 2012
foxynews wrote:
http://youtu.be/fio0OZUiSNw
OMG they were right
Didn't click on your link, but checked out your Republic: TOPIX ;-)

==========
ana
Oklahoma City, OK
Reply »|Report Abuse|Judge it!|#913Saturday Sep 15

BLACK AMERICAN PRINCE wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL the answer to that would be ZERO, I've never seen a black American imitating Dominicans but I HAVE seen it the other way around more times than I can count.
LOL "want to succeed in this country" then why are you the poorest group of Hispanics in this country? Why are you poorer than black Americans? Obviously you are not too bent on succeeding.

What is consider black in America like Obama is not black what is consider white in America like Johnny depp is not white diffiernt cultures America was based on racism so what you see it is not what we foreigners see you understand? your masters from the South made you blind and also it made you hate yourself m if you don't accept who you are than that is self hate .I am not Dominicans but i did met lots of Dominicans in Europe some were ashamed , of their African ancestry and the black ones said they are Indio but majority told me they are mulatos which is mixed race they didn't deny it tha is what they are mixed race and they looked mixed to me in America they are black. Dominicans are Latinos you are where you were born regardless of skin color , i was born in Europe even though i don't look like a white European like my brothers Europeans they treat me like i am one of their own because of the culture they will ask what part of Europe are you from? belive it or not . Americans like to put people in the box you shpould listen to this music because you are black , you should talk like a black person if you have black in you in a box , box you can't be yourself. African Americans are very racist i am treated like shit by them because i am not African American and they hate anything that is African they say Africans are disgusting, they have Aids even though Africa is continent not a country in some parts of Africa have a lower rate of Aids what is going on in South Africa doesn't go on in West Africa you get my point? African Americans hate being black i always hearing say i am part native Americans , part Irish , blah , blah , blah they deny African blood they say "Black" alots of them don't like the word "African Americans" and you know i am right i always thought African Americans were kkk with brown skin bunch of hypocrytes .Excuse my English it is a second language anyway

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/dominican-re...
American Lady

Danville, KY

#52440 Oct 9, 2012
Are You Kidding wrote:
<quoted text>
We are with you brother!!!!
Yes, we are!
Hey

Broken Arrow, OK

#52441 Oct 9, 2012
Jack Juice wrote:
Mitch McConnell has played a big part in f-ing up this country... He's an idiot.
Can we just call you Sperm???
Hey

Broken Arrow, OK

#52442 Oct 9, 2012
West Says Obama Should Have Delivered

Representative Allen West (R-FL) had some choice words for President Obama’s speech to the United Nations Tuesday, saying that rather than justify the attacks on American outposts throughout the Middle East by mentioning a “silly” YouTube video, Obama should have stood unequivocally firm in defending American values.

West specifically begrudged Obama’s comment that the future “must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” or any other religion.

So what would West have said?

Modeling his opening after the president’s line, West says he would have issued a much sterner warning to those who dare attack us. He wrote on his Facebook page:

My statement to the United Nations would have been,“The future does not belong to those who attack our Embassies and Consulates and kill our Ambassadors. The Angel of Death in the form of an American Bald Eagle will visit you and wreak havoc and destruction upon your existence.”[Emphasis added]

West added in his analysis of the president’s speech:

[Obama] continues to offer up apologies instead of defending our hard earned First Amendment right to freedom of speech and expression. There is no message to this silly video trailer, and it is beneath the dignity and esteem of the Office of the President of the United States to mention it at all. When tolerance becomes a one way street it leads to cultural suicide. I shall not be tolerant of the intolerant.

West also put the United Nations on notice, saying he knows about “UN Resolution 1618 which would make any statement deemed by the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC)‘offensive’ to Islam a crime.”

“NOT ON MY WATCH FELLAS!” he concluded.
SpeakUp

Harwood Heights, IL

#52443 Oct 9, 2012
Hey wrote:
West Says Obama Should Have Delivered
Representative Allen West (R-FL) had some choice words for President Obama’s speech to the United Nations Tuesday, saying that rather than justify the attacks on American outposts throughout the Middle East by mentioning a “silly” YouTube video, Obama should have stood unequivocally firm in defending American values.
West specifically begrudged Obama’s comment that the future “must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” or any other religion.
So what would West have said?
Modeling his opening after the president’s line, West says he would have issued a much sterner warning to those who dare attack us. He wrote on his Facebook page:
My statement to the United Nations would have been,“The future does not belong to those who attack our Embassies and Consulates and kill our Ambassadors. The Angel of Death in the form of an American Bald Eagle will visit you and wreak havoc and destruction upon your existence.”[Emphasis added]
West added in his analysis of the president’s speech:
[Obama] continues to offer up apologies instead of defending our hard earned First Amendment right to freedom of speech and expression. There is no message to this silly video trailer, and it is beneath the dignity and esteem of the Office of the President of the United States to mention it at all. When tolerance becomes a one way street it leads to cultural suicide. I shall not be tolerant of the intolerant.
West also put the United Nations on notice, saying he knows about “UN Resolution 1618 which would make any statement deemed by the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC)‘offensive’ to Islam a crime.”
“NOT ON MY WATCH FELLAS!” he concluded.
The latest Right Wing propaganda machine at it's finest. People are starting to wear completely out from all the Right Wing lies. Fact Check already found Romney lied 90% of the time during the debate and you expect Americans to fall for this exaggeration. You keep forgetting who is President of this country is what you do. Romney is speaking from the outside looking in. Obama speaks from the inside looking out. Whole different ballgame. Thus, Romney's is all guesswork, same as it was when he got up there and yapped before he even knew the Ambassador was killed. His money reaches high places and that's all this is. The Vegas billionaire and Koch's financed this one well, because Hell, that Vegas one owns casinos in China, the most profitable casinos in the world and he stands to gain BILLIONS if Romney gets in. Koch...he's looking for wages to be driven down in this country so he can pay peanuts in his factories and Romney will keep allowing big oil to use Apalachia and turn the entire area into an oxygen tank. Heck, he might even buy one big central oxygen tank for Apalachia and network it! He'd also prefer women start networking...men get the ipads, iphones and the likes. Women get the I-rons, the two steam buttons are the right and left click, the iron is the mouse and ironing board the mouse pad which could be networked to the I-wash, I-cook, I-clean. And heck, they'd even have time to put that dime between their knees and prevent that rape that Republicans say they can do! Republicans also say if a woman gets pregnant through rape, she can invite all her friends to a baby shower!

Get a life you people and wake your loadstone as-es up.
SpeakUp

Harwood Heights, IL

#52444 Oct 9, 2012
Hey wrote:
West Says Obama Should Have Delivered
Representative Allen West (R-FL) had some choice words for President Obama’s speech to the United Nations Tuesday, saying that rather than justify the attacks on American outposts throughout the Middle East by mentioning a “silly” YouTube video, Obama should have stood unequivocally firm in defending American values.
West specifically begrudged Obama’s comment that the future “must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” or any other religion.
So what would West have said?
Modeling his opening after the president’s line, West says he would have issued a much sterner warning to those who dare attack us. He wrote on his Facebook page:
My statement to the United Nations would have been,“The future does not belong to those who attack our Embassies and Consulates and kill our Ambassadors. The Angel of Death in the form of an American Bald Eagle will visit you and wreak havoc and destruction upon your existence.”[Emphasis added]
West added in his analysis of the president’s speech:
[Obama] continues to offer up apologies instead of defending our hard earned First Amendment right to freedom of speech and expression. There is no message to this silly video trailer, and it is beneath the dignity and esteem of the Office of the President of the United States to mention it at all. When tolerance becomes a one way street it leads to cultural suicide. I shall not be tolerant of the intolerant.
West also put the United Nations on notice, saying he knows about “UN Resolution 1618 which would make any statement deemed by the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC)‘offensive’ to Islam a crime.”
“NOT ON MY WATCH FELLAS!” he concluded.
The only trailor you'd be acquainted with is...the one you live in.
Bonnie Kavoussi

Livingston, TN

#52445 Oct 10, 2012
Republicans force Worker to pay to romney

Facebook,twitter,email to all you know.

Murray Energy's Alleged Pro-Romney Coercion Should Be Investigated: Ohio Democratic Party

The Huffington Post | By Bonnie Kavoussi Posted:\



The Ohio Democratic Party has requested a criminal investigation of the Ohio-based Murray Energy, after the coal company allegedly told employees to donate to Republican politicians including Mitt Romney.

The alleged coercion of political donations from employees may have "involved extortion, money laundering, racketeering, and other violations of Title 18 of the US criminal code," Ohio Democratic Party chairman Chris Redfern wrote in a letter to U.S. Attorney Steven Dettelbach on Monday.

Last Thursday, The New Republic's Alec MacGillis reported that Murray Energy CEO Bob Murray pressured his employees to donate to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, among others, as well as to Murray Energy's pro-Republican political action committee. Some of the firm's 3,000 employees reportedly feared they might lose their jobs if they did not make these political donations.

Before that, in August, Murray reportedly forced coal miners at the Century Mine in Beallsville, Ohio, to give up a day's worth of pay to show up at a rally with Romney, according to the local news radio station WWVA. Then, too, some workers feared not attending could cost them their jobs.

Murray, a climate-change denier, has a history of making questionable claims. In 2010, for one, he wrote a letter to employees in which he said that, if workers did not donate to Murray Energy's PAC, "the coal industry will be eliminated and so will your job."

Murray is not the only pro-Romney CEO pressuring his employees to support Romney. Richard Lacks, CEO of the Michigan-based Lacks Enterprises, a car-part manufacturer, also urged his 2,300 employees to vote for Romney in a recent letter
Cornered Cat

Elkhorn City, KY

#52446 Oct 10, 2012
Bonnie Kavoussi wrote:
Republicans force Worker to pay to romney
Facebook,twitter,email to all you know.
Murray Energy's Alleged Pro-Romney Coercion Should Be Investigated: Ohio Democratic Party
The Huffington Post | By Bonnie Kavoussi Posted:\
The Ohio Democratic Party has requested a criminal investigation of the Ohio-based Murray Energy, after the coal company allegedly told employees to donate to Republican politicians including Mitt Romney.
The alleged coercion of political donations from employees may have "involved extortion, money laundering, racketeering, and other violations of Title 18 of the US criminal code," Ohio Democratic Party chairman Chris Redfern wrote in a letter to U.S. Attorney Steven Dettelbach on Monday.
Last Thursday, The New Republic's Alec MacGillis reported that Murray Energy CEO Bob Murray pressured his employees to donate to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, among others, as well as to Murray Energy's pro-Republican political action committee. Some of the firm's 3,000 employees reportedly feared they might lose their jobs if they did not make these political donations.
Before that, in August, Murray reportedly forced coal miners at the Century Mine in Beallsville, Ohio, to give up a day's worth of pay to show up at a rally with Romney, according to the local news radio station WWVA. Then, too, some workers feared not attending could cost them their jobs.
Murray, a climate-change denier, has a history of making questionable claims. In 2010, for one, he wrote a letter to employees in which he said that, if workers did not donate to Murray Energy's PAC, "the coal industry will be eliminated and so will your job."
Murray is not the only pro-Romney CEO pressuring his employees to support Romney. Richard Lacks, CEO of the Michigan-based Lacks Enterprises, a car-part manufacturer, also urged his 2,300 employees to vote for Romney in a recent letter
childs play conpared to Obama loons liberal tards .

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#52447 Oct 10, 2012
It's time to do something that Democrats just seem to never do, plan for the future.

It is very likely that when Obama loses the election his black base will throw another tantrum and burn their own neighborhoods down. Normally, this just doesn't concern me, and I think it's a little humorous that a culture will object to something by burning down their own home. My preferred answer to that is, let them live in the ashes.
However, Washington, D. C., is 80 percent black, and the tantrum they will throw will obstruct, and possibly prevent the necessary functions of the US government.
What should be done when this happens?
Should the nation's capital be put under Marshal Law and the vandals shot?
Should the government shut down until the spoiled brats cease their tantrum?

Or, should we develop a plan to move the seat of government so the government can continue its normal functions without being impacted by the tantrum the black population of DC will throw.

Every time our government deviates from the Constitution, it creates a calamity for us. There is no such thing as residents of the nation's capital. To allow such to exist causes the problem of a minority of the population having the ability to shut the government down at their whim. This is too much power in a very small portion of the population.

There were plans to move the seat of government during the Cold War in the case of a catastrophic event. It's time to dust those plans off and prepare for the inevitable tantrum the black population will throw when Obama is tossed out on his useless Marxist ass.
repubtards suck

Richmond, IN

#52450 Oct 10, 2012
Jack Juice wrote:
Mitch McConnell has played a big part in f-ing up this country... He's an idiot.
thats what I told them plus he is a closet gay! you can always tell a crook when they sweat like hogs and every time that droopy the dog piece of shit talks to a camera he sweats like some big buba was just burning him up in the back side baaaaaa sheep
Nerd Rage

Chambersburg, PA

#52451 Oct 10, 2012
Shadowlands wrote:
<quoted text>
Not surprisingly, both you and Cato are wrong.
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/12/let-the-dist...
The new health care panel, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates would save $28 billion from 2015 to 2019, is designed to slow the growth of Medicare spending. The board must come up with "detailed proposals to reduce per capita Medicare spending in years when spending is expected to exceed targeted levels," beginning in 2015, writes Washington and Lee University School of Law Professor Timothy S. Jost in a May article for the New England Journal of Medicine.
But the board cannot propose any " ‘death panel’-like rationing," as falsely claimed by Palin.(Yes, it was Palin who popularized the term "death panel" during the health care debate last year. At that time, she used the phrase in reference to another health care proposal — although she was wrong then, too, as we wrote.)
The fact is, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act specifically states on page 490 that the advisory board "shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums."
Now, read that last sentence slowly.
Yes, and that is what the Cato Institute was referring to because of this statement below.
Even if they could ration health care, advisory panel members are not to be the "ultimate arbiters." It’s true that the Health and Human Services secretary must implement those recommendations and Congress cannot change them unless it can come up with other ways to save an equivalent amount of money. As we have written before, the intent is to make it difficult for Congress to change the recommendations. Still, members of Congress can make changes, so they are the "ultimate arbiters." (Congress can even waive the requirement that it come up with equal savings by a vote of members in both houses, although that would require a three-fifths vote in the Senate, as the Congressional Research Service explained in a recent report.)

This essentially changes the wording in to be able to “Ration” care by calling it something else.
Don't think for one second that I didn't fact check it before I posted it. I had already read that articles in fact check but the source for fact check came from the CBO which is notoriously wrong on many issues! This is why I cited the Cato Institute which has a long history of non-biased reports and statistics. Perhaps you should use them as well.
repubtards suck

Richmond, IN

#52452 Oct 10, 2012
wrong way Romney and lyin Ryan
repubtards suck

Richmond, IN

#52453 Oct 10, 2012
Nerd Rage wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and that is what the Cato Institute was referring to because of this statement below.
Even if they could ration health care, advisory panel members are not to be the "ultimate arbiters." It’s true that the Health and Human Services secretary must implement those recommendations and Congress cannot change them unless it can come up with other ways to save an equivalent amount of money. As we have written before, the intent is to make it difficult for Congress to change the recommendations. Still, members of Congress can make changes, so they are the "ultimate arbiters." (Congress can even waive the requirement that it come up with equal savings by a vote of members in both houses, although that would require a three-fifths vote in the Senate, as the Congressional Research Service explained in a recent report.)
This essentially changes the wording in to be able to “Ration” care by calling it something else.
Don't think for one second that I didn't fact check it before I posted it. I had already read that articles in fact check but the source for fact check came from the CBO which is notoriously wrong on many issues! This is why I cited the Cato Institute which has a long history of non-biased reports and statistics. Perhaps you should use them as well.
butt surely the pubtards will save us from destructiom cause they are the save yours of the world! and America can't wipe her ass without them ( oh excuse me for a moment I just threw up some ohhh I wont even joke about that anymore) baaaaaa sheep
Grace M

Ashland, KY

#52455 Oct 10, 2012
Justthefacts wrote:
<quoted text>Obama took their security away??? Dam you need to let the news know. They haven't talked about.
I saw that too. It was on some of the news {don't remember which} The state department denied more security, while taking away some, leaving the three and Mr Stevens to fend for their self.[Don't know if it's true or not] Also other consulate's in the country was denied more security.
wtf

Winchester, KY

#52456 Oct 10, 2012
Nerd Rage wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and that is what the Cato Institute was referring to because of this statement below.
Even if they could ration health care, advisory panel members are not to be the "ultimate arbiters." It’s true that the Health and Human Services secretary must implement those recommendations and Congress cannot change them unless it can come up with other ways to save an equivalent amount of money. As we have written before, the intent is to make it difficult for Congress to change the recommendations. Still, members of Congress can make changes, so they are the "ultimate arbiters." (Congress can even waive the requirement that it come up with equal savings by a vote of members in both houses, although that would require a three-fifths vote in the Senate, as the Congressional Research Service explained in a recent report.)
This essentially changes the wording in to be able to “Ration” care by calling it something else.
Don't think for one second that I didn't fact check it before I posted it. I had already read that articles in fact check but the source for fact check came from the CBO which is notoriously wrong on many issues! This is why I cited the Cato Institute which has a long history of non-biased reports and statistics. Perhaps you should use them as well.
You are one stupid SOB.
whitehair

Eminence, KY

#52457 Oct 10, 2012
SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>
Republicans also say if a woman gets pregnant through rape, she can invite all her friends to a baby shower!
Get a life you people and wake your loadstone as-es up.
I have read much dumb stuff on here but this is one that really stands out as being the most untruthful!

Why do people repeat an obvious untruth?
wtf

Winchester, KY

#52458 Oct 10, 2012
whitehair wrote:
<quoted text>
I have read much dumb stuff on here but this is one that really stands out as being the most untruthful!
Why do people repeat an obvious untruth?
Why do you lie all of the Time you damn Liar SOB?
Senior Citizen

Savannah, GA

#52459 Oct 10, 2012
Nerd Rage wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and that is what the Cato Institute was referring to because of this statement below.
Even if they could ration health care, advisory panel members are not to be the "ultimate arbiters." It’s true that the Health and Human Services secretary must implement those recommendations and Congress cannot change them unless it can come up with other ways to save an equivalent amount of money. As we have written before, the intent is to make it difficult for Congress to change the recommendations. Still, members of Congress can make changes, so they are the "ultimate arbiters." (Congress can even waive the requirement that it come up with equal savings by a vote of members in both houses, although that would require a three-fifths vote in the Senate, as the Congressional Research Service explained in a recent report.)
This essentially changes the wording in to be able to “Ration” care by calling it something else.
Don't think for one second that I didn't fact check it before I posted it. I had already read that articles in fact check but the source for fact check came from the CBO which is notoriously wrong on many issues! This is why I cited the Cato Institute which has a long history of non-biased reports and statistics. Perhaps you should use them as well.
The Cato Institute, The Washington Post

Support for Social Security Privatization

The Cato Institute has been a long-time advocate of Social Security privatization. A chief early architect of Cato's thinking on private accounts was Peter J. Ferrara. The Washington Post's Thomas Edsall wrote in February 2005: "The emergence of the center-right phalanx backing the Social Security proposal is a major victory for the Cato Institute, a prominent libertarian group. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Cato was almost alone in its willingness to challenge the legitimacy of the existing Social Security system, a politically sacrosanct retirement program. Recognizing the wariness of other conservatives to tackle Social Security, Cato in 1983 published an article calling for privatization of the system. The article argued that companies that stand to profit from privatization --'the banks, insurance companies and other institutions that will gain'-- had to be brought into alliance. Second, the article called for initiation of 'guerrilla warfare against both the current Social Security system and the coalition that supports it.'"[16]

By early 2005, business groups such as the Business Roundtable and the National Association of Manufacturers and political groups like Progress for America were devoting millions of dollars to the campaign to get rid of the existing Social Security program. It is worth noting that the website SocialSecurity.org is run by the Cato Institute, under the heading Project on Social Security Choice.
__________
The Cato Institute is devising a plan to use the Privatization of Social Security as a step toward the abolition of Social Security. This tactic avoids the inevitable nasty confrontation that a Frontal Attack on Social Security would produce.

Guess who is, and has been, donating more than half of the operating money to the Cato Institute?
Guess who serves on the Board of the Cato Institute?

Answer: The Multi-Billionaire Koch Brothers who want Social Security Abolished.

Always follow the money$. No big surprise here.
Agree

Booneville, KY

#52460 Oct 10, 2012
I agree whitehair!
whitehair

Eminence, KY

#52461 Oct 10, 2012
Grace M wrote:
<quoted text>
I saw that too. It was on some of the news {don't remember which} The state department denied more security, while taking away some, leaving the three and Mr Stevens to fend for their self.[Don't know if it's true or not] Also other consulate's in the country was denied more security.
This is all over the news.There is a hearing today and the State Dept.will have some answers for the whole mess that caused 4 lives.

There is no excuse for this gov`t to have not only denied security,but to have removed security when requested.Actuall,this is just another failure of this Obama Administration.

Go ahead,you jerks ,vote for him again!!!

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.

Elkton Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Who do you support for U.S. House in Kentucky (... (Oct '10) 1 hr hmmm 501
People are nuts! 12 hr concerned citizens 1
amish on bicycles 16 hr ah amish 6
jeffrey hurd Thu Brenda from Florida 2
Dino, who knows this guy? Wed lum peabody 3
who the triple h is floyd kay????? Wed porkchop 1
Teen jobs Tue Need job 1
Elkton Dating
Find my Match

Elkton Jobs

Elkton People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Elkton News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Elkton

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]