Did you vote today?

Did you vote today?

Created by Rick on Jun 8, 2010

6,299 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

Other (explain below)

Reality Check

Mountain Pine, AR

#20802 Jan 16, 2013
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

#20803 Jan 16, 2013
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

Oklahoma City, OK

#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

#20805 Jan 17, 2013
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

#20806 Jan 17, 2013
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

#20808 Jan 17, 2013
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

#20809 Jan 17, 2013
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

Greenbrier, AR

#20810 Jan 17, 2013
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

Greenbrier, AR

#20811 Jan 17, 2013
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

#20812 Jan 17, 2013
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

#20813 Jan 17, 2013
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

#20814 Jan 17, 2013
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

#20815 Jan 17, 2013
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

Portland, OR

#20816 Jan 17, 2013
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

#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.
Redd

Little Rock, AR

#20818 Jan 17, 2013
Old Army wrote:
<quoted text>
False assumption.
Could be, but since only 5% of Americans make more the $100,000 a year in individual income, it stands to reason a good deal of them support Republicans....maybe even more than half.

Whatcha think?
dont know nothin

Yakima, WA

#20819 Jan 17, 2013
guess wrote:
<quoted text> Your name fits you, you don't know nothing.Since your brain seems to be on a permanent vacation. I thought i would explain to you something since you only want to listen to obama and believe everything that comes out of his mouth like it's the gospel truth. Since you know nothing about economics i'll explain it terms your kindergarden mind can handle. The debt ceiling is about how much money you can borrow has absolutely nothing to do with paying the bills. The government brings in 5 trillion tax revenues a year. How high do you want the debt 18, 19, or 20 trillion +. One other thing FYI obama said congress have to pay the bills that congress racked up like he had nothing to do with it, Where do think congress got their spending ideas. They are doing obama spending plans like obamacare. And since your brain is still on vacation how's that smaller paycheck working for you, Guess what obama is hallowing he did get enough taxes, so when it gets smaller be sure to thank your best friend obama remember he claims he's looking out for you(really just himself not you). Oh i forgot your letting obama think for you since you don't know nothing.
believe me good sir i know alot more about this country and economics than you will ever begin to understand. what the president said is TRUE.. what your little fox programming and right wing media has said repeatedly is FALSE.. period... the debt ceiling has EVERYTHING with paying the bills genius .. and allows for borrowing of more money IF necessary the following year to pay for bills for the comming year. according to the CBO reports in 2011 we took in around 2T, 2012 around 2.5t, and 2013 is projected at around 2.9 or 3T, so where you get your magical number of 5t is beyond me. and yes i am perfectly fine with borrowing.. we raised the debt ceiling around 5 times when bush was in office with NO problems from republicans wanting to send our children to die overseas and spend money like it was going out of style on bush's yacht cruises with sadi prince's so don't come at me with this whole we cannot raise the debt ceiling because we cannot borrow BS..if we DO NOT pay our bills and raise the debt ceiling for spending projections the following year then republicans in the house will single handily put the economy back into a recession and hopefully will be tried for treason for it... lol GENIUS spending and revenue bills originate in the house and if cannot come to comprise are passed to the senate voted on and revised in the house and all the president does is sign the damn bills... there are hundreds of bills passed every year .. except last year where we had one of the most unproductive congresses since the 1930's thanks to republicans..if you think for one second that the president dictates every single thing that comes through congress then you are poorly misguided and ignorant to boot... and by the way obamacare pays for itself and even republican governors and senators now support the bill in their states and say it has and will do good for them.. and michelle bachman is the only congressional legislature that has proposed a repeal on obamacare this year and has yet to have 1 co-sponsor...lol and what smaller paycheck? mines still the same idiot and so is yours .. do you make over 400k a year? i think not why don't you actually look at what taxes your paying before you start with you fear mongoring BS..and your poorly missguided use of the word hallowing and a poor interpretation of my double negative meaning which means to actually know something, truely signals just how ignorant and missguided you, your family, fox news, and your friends really are. I do and always will know more about economics and this country than you will ever begin to understand, so before you decide to respond with thoughtless comments make sure you have the facts and not lies from fox news supporting your theories.
Redd

Little Rock, AR

#20820 Jan 17, 2013
Barneyisaheadstartbaby wrote:
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.
Head Start doesn’t need more money. It needs to be put on the chopping block.
Let's see, a F-22 fighter costs approximately 412 million each.
Children represent 24 percent of the population. Yet, they comprise 34 percent of all people in poverty. Among all children under 18, 44 percent live in low-income families and approximately one in every five (21 percent) live in poor families.
Let's see, a F-22 fighter costs approximately 412 million each.
The Air Force says the F-22 cost $44,259 per flying hour in 2008; the Office of the Secretary of Defense said the figure was $49,808.
Say we average paying a little over four billion a year on Heads-Start in 48 years, so you say we should abolish Head-start and instead buy another 10 F-22's, not counting, fuel, maintenance, and training a year.

Something needs to be put on the chopping block for sure.
dont know nothin

Yakima, WA

#20821 Jan 17, 2013
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.
do you even know how people recieve unemployment benifets? i think you do not. you keep saying that unemployment is something democrats use for their own political advantage and is used as a driver of the economy. that is your ignorant thought and not a fact so quit presenting it as one. unemployment is given to those who lose work through no fault of their own automatically.... any loss of job through voluntary or involuntary (firing), is STRICTLY up to the EMPLOYER to sign off to pay those benifits, since they have to help pay for that ex-employees benifits. if they deem the ex-employee is unfit for benifits then guess what, they do not get those unemployment benifits so quit saying they do. and your whole conspiracy of freedom stripping and prosperity killing policies held only in democrat blood is ignorant and i would like to see one policy passed by congress that hold only democratic votes that have added the so called billions and trillions to our debt that you so proudly shout. you are still poorly missguided and ignorant as you have been in every single one of your prior posts. you still think that obama is gonna raise taxes on you so much that your mom and pop retail store will crumble this year when in fact it is gonna happen due to your ignorant way of thinking. "downtown dan" could run your business better than you and he's homeless. at least he accepts responsibility for his faults and doesn't try to make up some radical conspiracy that somehow the government got him into his situation. quit being mad that you cannot squeeze the last dime out of the 2 employees you have and give them a raise to help boost the economy and do without that family vacation to florida this year. it is ignorant people like you that have precieved the government as this horrible welfare machine that is going to run the economy in the ground take our guns and turn into a dicatorship, and it is that same kind of thoughtless rehtoric that got us into the greatest recession since the great depression. grow up and learn something about our country and government and you might see that things aren't exactly as your right wing media and family say it is; because until you do so the only people that are not going to look at you like your a crazy timothy mcveigh are the very family and friends that believe all the stupid BS you do. every other person with any type of common sense or information on how the government truely works will surely tell you that you are a low life mindless scum that helped create the problems of today instead of looking for ways to solve them.
dont know nothin

Yakima, WA

#20822 Jan 17, 2013
Redd wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's see, a F-22 fighter costs approximately 412 million each.
Children represent 24 percent of the population. Yet, they comprise 34 percent of all people in poverty. Among all children under 18, 44 percent live in low-income families and approximately one in every five (21 percent) live in poor families.
Let's see, a F-22 fighter costs approximately 412 million each.
The Air Force says the F-22 cost $44,259 per flying hour in 2008; the Office of the Secretary of Defense said the figure was $49,808.
Say we average paying a little over four billion a year on Heads-Start in 48 years, so you say we should abolish Head-start and instead buy another 10 F-22's, not counting, fuel, maintenance, and training a year.
Something needs to be put on the chopping block for sure.
i like the way you think good sir.. but head start does need to be revised to be more productive rather than becomming a government paid daycare.

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.

Pocahontas Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Ty Story Thief 2 hr Gues 11
Ashley Madison 3 hr guest 2
why would you believe? 3 hr guest 7
Cody 5 hr I know 10
Best male singer in pocahontas 6 hr Willy 7
When did all the colored people move in? 7 hr Guest 87
Premiere video 8 hr guest 2
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Pocahontas Mortgages