Vagina Smell

Murray, KY

#23 Mar 10, 2013
2Independent wrote:
<quoted text>
You......are merely an offensive odor.
Yea I thought you was gay.
omg

Murray, KY

#24 Mar 10, 2013
what's with obama sending our money in the millions to the muslim brotherhood. I think there is an easy answer, but no one seems to be able to figure it out. too busy following their holy one right up to the dropping off place.
Gimme a Break

Paducah, KY

#25 Mar 11, 2013
Just heard that Ashely Judd has tossed her boobs in the ring for U.S. Senate. What a joke!
Anon

Murray, KY

#26 Mar 18, 2013
There is talk of him running for president. He's one of those people that I really hate but who OCCASIONALLY does something I really respect. Like the recent drone filibuster. Or the fact that he saves as much money as possible in his offices and gives it back to the feds.

But 90% of the time him and McConnel make me ashamed to be from and live here. I REALLY hope he doesn't run; I'm terrified of him running and somehow winning. And even if he loses, he just makes the state look bad while doing it.

I hope he does so that he can lose resoundingly. More trickle down, supply-side Jesus, fetuses are humans/abortion is murder, f ck poor people, give businesses anything they want bull.
just sayin

Murray, KY

#27 Mar 18, 2013
Im proud to be from Kentucky cause last week my girlfriend and i broke up but she agreed that we can still be cousin's
ex-Republican

Henderson, KY

#28 Mar 18, 2013
I was a Republican for over 30 years but I quit the party when it elected Rand Paul to the Senate. He and the rest of the Tea Party crowd are not really Republicans, they are Libertarians who have hijacked the party of Lincoln and will destroy it.

With them in control Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Eisenhower, or Reagan could not win a Republican primary.

Since: Feb 13

Duluth, GA

#29 Mar 18, 2013
ex-Republican wrote:
I was a Republican for over 30 years but I quit the party when it elected Rand Paul to the Senate. He and the rest of the Tea Party crowd are not really Republicans, they are Libertarians who have hijacked the party of Lincoln and will destroy it.
With them in control Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Eisenhower, or Reagan could not win a Republican primary.
Rand Paul is actually more like Reagan than 90% of the RINO's in office today. I disagree that the Tea Party has destroyed the Republican Party. The likes of John McCain, Karl Rove, and Lindsey Graham have done the damage in my opinion. Paul is a constitutionalist. Agree or disagree with him, his conviction over protecting the constitution and admirable and his integrity is proven.

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#30 Mar 18, 2013
Booker Tee wrote:
<quoted text> Rand Paul is actually more like Reagan than 90% of the RINO's in office today. I disagree that the Tea Party has destroyed the Republican Party. The likes of John McCain, Karl Rove, and Lindsey Graham have done the damage in my opinion. Paul is a constitutionalist. Agree or disagree with him, his conviction over protecting the constitution and admirable and his integrity is proven.
What the Republican party needs is to be composed of conservatives and none of the people you listed above qualify, including Reagan. McCain might have been one at one point in the distant past, but no more.

Since: Feb 13

Duluth, GA

#31 Mar 18, 2013
2Independent wrote:
<quoted text>
What the Republican party needs is to be composed of conservatives and none of the people you listed above qualify, including Reagan. McCain might have been one at one point in the distant past, but no more.
I agree but I'm pretty sure Reagan qualifies as a conservative.

Since: Feb 13

Duluth, GA

#32 Mar 18, 2013
I believe all conservatives have a little libertarian in them. Free markets, smaller, less intrusive government, and minimal taxes with little-as-possible government spending are all conservative and libertarian (notice i didnt say necessarily republican)hallmarks. I personally classify myself as a conservative (classic liberal) with a libertarian streak. In my opinion, Ron Paul was a libertarian with a little conservative thrown in whereas Rand Paul is a conservative/libertarian, which in my humble opinion is a well balanced mix.
Yes, I am a fan of Rand. I respect him. Love or hate him, one can't hardly help but respect him for his stance.
I believe there are two kinds of public servants: a statesman and a politician. Rand Paul, to me, fits the bill of a statesman. Ask yourself these questions. Is he in it for the money? No. He returned what, like $600,000 of government money that he didn't spend? Also, what's his motivation? Power or prestige? I don't believe so. I think its his desire to preserve the Constitution of the United States which is fairly evident by the battles he chooses.

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#33 Mar 19, 2013
Booker Tee wrote:
I believe all conservatives have a little libertarian in them. Free markets, smaller, less intrusive government, and minimal taxes with little-as-possible government spending are all conservative and libertarian (notice i didnt say necessarily republican)hallmarks. I personally classify myself as a conservative (classic liberal) with a libertarian streak. In my opinion, Ron Paul was a libertarian with a little conservative thrown in whereas Rand Paul is a conservative/libertarian, which in my humble opinion is a well balanced mix.
Yes, I am a fan of Rand. I respect him. Love or hate him, one can't hardly help but respect him for his stance.
I believe there are two kinds of public servants: a statesman and a politician. Rand Paul, to me, fits the bill of a statesman. Ask yourself these questions. Is he in it for the money? No. He returned what, like $600,000 of government money that he didn't spend? Also, what's his motivation? Power or prestige? I don't believe so. I think its his desire to preserve the Constitution of the United States which is fairly evident by the battles he chooses.
Not being in it for the money does not make a person right or moral. I don't think a person like Paul has the ability to adjust his actions to circumstances. He is an demagog and does not stop to consider what harm his ideas may cause, because in his mind, his ideas are right. History is full of tragic figures who thought similarly.

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#34 Mar 19, 2013
Booker Tee wrote:
<quoted text> I agree but I'm pretty sure Reagan qualifies as a conservative.
Just look at the stats after he took office. Spending went wildly out of control and the pigs at the trough ate as much as they could hold. The Reagan administration started the policy of spending us into huge deficits with the idea that we would eventually have to stop funding social programs because we couldn't afford it. It was clearly the most radical change in policy our country had ever witnessed. Hardly conservative.

Since: Feb 13

Duluth, GA

#35 Mar 19, 2013
2Independent wrote:
<quoted text>
Not being in it for the money does not make a person right or moral. I don't think a person like Paul has the ability to adjust his actions to circumstances. He is an demagog and does not stop to consider what harm his ideas may cause, because in his mind, his ideas are right. History is full of tragic figures who thought similarly.
True, but it certainly doesn't make them wrong or immoral either. It does at least show they aren't crooked which is more than you can say about far too many politicians these days. In my mind my ideas are right. In your mind your ideas are right. Kentucky elected him because of his ideas, therefore agree or disagree, he is doing what he is supposed to do.

Since: Feb 13

Duluth, GA

#36 Mar 19, 2013
Booker Tee wrote:
<quoted text> True, but it certainly doesn't make them wrong or immoral either. It does at least show they aren't crooked which is more than you can say about far too many politicians these days. In my mind my ideas are right. In your mind your ideas are right. Kentucky elected him because of his ideas, therefore agree or disagree, he is doing what he is supposed to do.
Reagan made a deal with the devil in the name of Tip O'neal, democratic speaker of the house at the time. Reagan wanted spending cuts, the democratic house wanted tax hikes. The "deal" was a trade off. Reagan would raise taxes and the dems would cut spending. Guess who broke the deal?

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#37 Mar 19, 2013
Booker Tee wrote:
<quoted text> Reagan made a deal with the devil in the name of Tip O'neal, democratic speaker of the house at the time. Reagan wanted spending cuts, the democratic house wanted tax hikes. The "deal" was a trade off. Reagan would raise taxes and the dems would cut spending. Guess who broke the deal?
Who broke the deal is the wrong question. The word was out that the cuffs were off and spending was in. The Reagan administration not only didn't discourage it, they facilitated it. All the big companies that profited from the war machine profited and have been profiting since. The pork barrel was kicked over and the contents spread around the states. Bush Sr. slowed it down a bit, and the Clinton administration kept the brakes gently applied. Then W happened and we started all over again with the spending splurge.

There is one word for such behavior: RADICAL
ex-Republican

Kuttawa, KY

#38 Mar 19, 2013
Rand Paul beat Trey Grayson in the primary and then won the general election for one reason. He was smart enough to hide his whacko libertarian ideas and say the right things about the "moral" issues, mainly abortion, that the bunch of damned preachers who are the new Boss Hogs at the grass roots level in Kentucky wanted to hear and thus got them to tell their congregations to vote for him.

Since: Feb 13

United States

#39 Mar 19, 2013
2Independent wrote:
<quoted text>
Who broke the deal is the wrong question. The word was out that the cuffs were off and spending was in. The Reagan administration not only didn't discourage it, they facilitated it. All the big companies that profited from the war machine profited and have been profiting since. The pork barrel was kicked over and the contents spread around the states. Bush Sr. slowed it down a bit, and the Clinton administration kept the brakes gently applied. Then W happened and we started all over again with the spending splurge.
There is one word for such behavior: RADICAL
Are you implying that Reagan facilitated all the spending? That's just not true. Reagan facilitated the closing of tax loopholes as part of a pending deal but rarely ever proposed spending increases himself outside of crucial defense spending. The big spenders have always been the democrats until the modern RINO republicans have taken over. Cue Rand Paul to begin to challenge that.

Since: Feb 13

United States

#40 Mar 19, 2013
ex-Republican wrote:
Rand Paul beat Trey Grayson in the primary and then won the general election for one reason. He was smart enough to hide his whacko libertarian ideas and say the right things about the "moral" issues, mainly abortion, that the bunch of damned preachers who are the new Boss Hogs at the grass roots level in Kentucky wanted to hear and thus got them to tell their congregations to vote for him.
LOL Whacko libertarian ideas huh? I guess a constitutional conservative is considered a whacko these days? Throw me in the looney house now I guess. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for leaving the GOP. Please take Karl Rove with you.

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#41 Mar 19, 2013
Booker Tee wrote:
<quoted text> Are you implying that Reagan facilitated all the spending? That's just not true. Reagan facilitated the closing of tax loopholes as part of a pending deal but rarely ever proposed spending increases himself outside of crucial defense spending. The big spenders have always been the democrats until the modern RINO republicans have taken over. Cue Rand Paul to begin to challenge that.
You should check out David Stockman's book, "The Triumph of Politics." He wrote his account of what happened to spending while serving as Reagan's budget director. No, I'm not implying anything. I'm telling you. Stockman will say it a lot better than I can.
If The Shoe Fits

Hardin, KY

#42 Mar 19, 2013
2Independent wrote:
<quoted text>
Not being in it for the money does not make a person right or moral. I don't think a person like Paul has the ability to adjust his actions to circumstances. He is an demagog and does not stop to consider what harm his ideas may cause, because in his mind, his ideas are right. History is full of tragic figures who thought similarly.
If I had seen this post only by itself, not knowing who you were describing, I would've thought you were talking about Obama. You have very accurately depicted the current president, other than the not being in it for the money part.

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.

Hazel Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Danielle rich 20 min Truth 9
Red Maserati 41 min Penelope 1
Flash of News (Aug '13) 42 min Mina 6,164
Greedy dealers at the angel attic. 2 hr dealer ran granny... 3
Briggs medical clinic 2 hr who me 6
Kyle Harper what happened to him ? 3 hr b dowdy 21
Problems at the Hospital 4 hr new resident 50
Hazel Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Hazel People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 12:31 pm PST

NBC Sports12:31PM
Source: Browns interview former Rams coach Mike Martz
NBC Sports 3:14 AM
Rams won't get chance to interview Rob Chudzinski or Alex Van Pelt
Bleacher Report 6:15 PM
Why the St. Louis Rams Must Draft Dorial Green-Beckham
NBC Sports 8:37 AM
Nathaniel Hackett interviewing for Rams offensive coordinator on Thursday
Yahoo! Sports 8:12 AM
The lure of LA for the NFL - mirage or 'must do'?