Did you vote today?

Did you vote today?

Created by Rick on Jun 8, 2010

6,282 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

Other (explain below)

guest

Blytheville, AR

#21187 Jan 25, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
Since you are not a Republican, IM sure you wont mind me finishing the above story for you.
Even the conservative, pro-Republican Heritage Foundation figures the average family would see its energy bill increase by $1,500 a year, less than half what the GOP claims. A Congressional Budget Office expert recently estimated the cost per household at an average of $1,600 a year, but that figure doesn’t account for energy rebates Obama has proposed giving to consumers. If the government did use revenue from cap and trade "to pay an equal lump-sum rebate to every household," the CBO expert said, "lower-income households could be better off."
So, you don't think that $133 a month on average is bad??? And then we have to HOPE the government gives us money back??
Wow, you really are just a huge sucker this time...

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#21188 Jan 25, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry but exactly how would the construction of a pipeline disturb the land any more than building a road? The original decision should have been a no brainer for Obama. He shouldn't have needed 60 days, he should have needed 5 minutes. 10 if he thought real hard on it. Obama didn't make an obvious decision only because the environmentalist who are money donors to the democratic party were up in arms about the fact that more oil (which they hate) would be running through America giving more pipes an opportunity to fail thus causing spills. It would be different if we had no means of cleaning up spills and just had to deal with the effects but that's not the case. We have the technology to clean spills in a timely fashion where minimal damage to the environment is done. Look at the Gulf Coast. Where is the devestation there? You can't find it. It's back to business as usual. By this logic, we should ban the use of all modes of transportation that carry us faster than we can walk or run because those are far more dangerous to us, and kill many more people than oil spills.
The brief operating history of the Keystone pipeline provides more evidence that our conventional pipeline design regulations are inadequate for pipelines moving corrosive raw tar sands, or diluted bitumen, at high pressure. After all, the company claims that Keystone I was built with “state of the art” design features and was predicted to spill no more than once every seven years. We’re now at twelve leaks in less than a year of operation. Most troubling of all is that fact that after all of these warnings, State Department is still fast tracking the environmental review of Keystone XL – a project that would build the largest raw tar sand pipeline in the world through the Ogallala Aquifer – before our pipeline safety regulators evaluate and address the risks of diluted bitumen pipelines. Given what we already know, blindly rushing the construction of a raw tar sands pipeline through the largest source of ground water in the United States is folly.

The findings of a formal investigation by the North Dakota Public Service Commission (PSC) of the 21,000 gallon Keystone leak provided yet more evidence that safety regulations for conventional pipelines are inadequate for high pressure raw tar sands pipelines. The report found that the pipeline failure was not due to “any material or manufacturing deficiency” and that the “chemical compositions, mechanical properties and microstructure” met minimum design requirements for conventional pipelines. The report went on to state that the work required to prevent similar failures included 1) using stronger, thicker materials and 2) installing engineered pipe supports. In other words, conventional pipeline standards aren’t good enough for this pipeline.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/aswift/the_...
Observer

Jonesboro, AR

#21189 Jan 25, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
The brief operating history of the Keystone pipeline provides more evidence that our conventional pipeline design regulations are inadequate for pipelines moving corrosive raw tar sands, or diluted bitumen, at high pressure. After all, the company claims that Keystone I was built with “state of the art” design features and was predicted to spill no more than once every seven years. We’re now at twelve leaks in less than a year of operation. Most troubling of all is that fact that after all of these warnings, State Department is still fast tracking the environmental review of Keystone XL – a project that would build the largest raw tar sand pipeline in the world through the Ogallala Aquifer – before our pipeline safety regulators evaluate and address the risks of diluted bitumen pipelines. Given what we already know, blindly rushing the construction of a raw tar sands pipeline through the largest source of ground water in the United States is folly.
The findings of a formal investigation by the North Dakota Public Service Commission (PSC) of the 21,000 gallon Keystone leak provided yet more evidence that safety regulations for conventional pipelines are inadequate for high pressure raw tar sands pipelines. The report found that the pipeline failure was not due to “any material or manufacturing deficiency” and that the “chemical compositions, mechanical properties and microstructure” met minimum design requirements for conventional pipelines. The report went on to state that the work required to prevent similar failures included 1) using stronger, thicker materials and 2) installing engineered pipe supports. In other words, conventional pipeline standards aren’t good enough for this pipeline.
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/aswift/the_...
If you could work at the drive thru window as well as you cut and paste, you would get off the grease filtering brigade and become an assistant shift leader
Observer

Jonesboro, AR

#21191 Jan 25, 2013
guess 2 wrote:
<quoted text>You can critcize me my believes all you want. As far as the guns are concern, if the guns are taken from law abiding citizens, the government will control us. The criminals will take over. Which somebody like you who lacks logic and common sense cannot even remotely comperhend. This is probably want you want since you think all of obama's ideas are right and the rest of us is wrong. He's a socialist-communist. I agree with the people who founded this country. They believe in a government that didn't rule over you with an iron fist. What i'm seeing washington, is nothing what the founding fathers had in mind. I believe in the constitution. I think it wouldn't hurt you at all to get it out and learn something. You can insult me all you want but the one I know for sure, You still know nothing about absolutely nothing. I pretty sure you've gotten even more stupid than usual.
Look, if you are a liberal, spend all your time with liberals, your hold world revolves around liberals, you would realize that liberals really shouldn't be around guns. Some people have to be protected from themselves. Can you imagine a world where a bunch of little Barneys are running around with guns?

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#21192 Jan 25, 2013
guest wrote:
<quoted text>So, you don't think that $133 a month on average is bad??? And then we have to HOPE the government gives us money back??
Wow, you really are just a huge sucker this time...
I did not put forth an opinion, I simply finished the story. If I had posted what OA did you would be screaming,(had you know the truth and that is a big if), I was cherry picking.


So where is the back lash for OA Hypocrite?
guest

Blytheville, AR

#21193 Jan 25, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not put forth an opinion, I simply finished the story. If I had posted what OA did you would be screaming,(had you know the truth and that is a big if), I was cherry picking.
So where is the back lash for OA Hypocrite?
That's right, it's never your opinion when you've walked into a wall. It's always someone elses fault. You're like a 3-year-old caught with their hand in the candy jar. "If the candy jar wasn't here, my hand wouldn't be in it, Daddy!"
You're the one that once again, right on time, that has proven themselves the hypocrite. Thanks again...

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#21194 Jan 25, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's another one:
If a person kills a pregnant woman it is considered a double homicide but if a woman has an abortion it's considered her right.
Weather to file charges as a double or single homicide is at the
discretion of the Prosecuting Atty.

Not all are charged as double.

Just my opinion, but I would say the chances of getting a double hit is greatly increased by having a Republican PA.

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#21195 Jan 25, 2013
guest wrote:
<quoted text>That's right, it's never your opinion when you've walked into a wall. It's always someone elses fault. You're like a 3-year-old caught with their hand in the candy jar. "If the candy jar wasn't here, my hand wouldn't be in it, Daddy!"
You're the one that once again, right on time, that has proven themselves the hypocrite. Thanks again...
Being pointed out as a idiot really burns your ass doesn't it?

ROFLMAO

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#21196 Jan 25, 2013
Observer wrote:
<quoted text>
Look, if you are a liberal, spend all your time with liberals, your hold world revolves around liberals, you would realize that liberals really shouldn't be around guns. Some people have to be protected from themselves. Can you imagine a world where a bunch of little Barneys are running around with guns?
Seems to me that there is several stories floating around about how gun enthusiast dyeing from gun shot wounds and two cases, shot with there own guns.

You are so correct-"Some people have to be protected from themselves"

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#21198 Jan 25, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry but exactly how would the construction of a pipeline disturb the land any more than building a road? The original decision should have been a no brainer for Obama. He shouldn't have needed 60 days, he should have needed 5 minutes. 10 if he thought real hard on it. Obama didn't make an obvious decision only because the environmentalist who are money donors to the democratic party were up in arms about the fact that more oil (which they hate) would be running through America giving more pipes an opportunity to fail thus causing spills. It would be different if we had no means of cleaning up spills and just had to deal with the effects but that's not the case. We have the technology to clean spills in a timely fashion where minimal damage to the environment is done. Look at the Gulf Coast. Where is the devestation there? You can't find it. It's back to business as usual. By this logic, we should ban the use of all modes of transportation that carry us faster than we can walk or run because those are far more dangerous to us, and kill many more people than oil spills.
"Look at the Gulf Coast. Where is the devestation there? You can't find it"

If you can't find it your not looking;

By Mark Schleifstein, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune [email protected]
on October 10, 2012 at 9:56 PM, updated October 11, 2012 at 9:16

Samples of oil taken from a sheen above the site of the sunken Deepwater Horizon oil rig and BP's Macondo 252 well matches oil released from the well during the 2010 spill, the U.S. Coast Guard announced late Wednesday. The Coast Guard has informed BP and Transocean, owner of the sunken Deepwater Horizon oil rig, that they may be held financially liable for the new oil.

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index...

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#21199 Jan 25, 2013
guess 2 wrote:
<quoted text>I wasn't getting on to you, that was for Don't know nothin. He/she is a liberal. I myself is not a liberal. I'm for the second admendment a law abiding gun owner. I believe they have wacky ideas and their ideas don't work. It's been proven over and over. Your right, it would be scary with a bunch of barneys and don't know nothins running around with guns. I say we keep ours just in case.
I can virtually guarantee you there are a lot of

"know nothins running around with guns"

And I would bet some of those know how to spell the word nouthing.


dont know nothin

Yakima, WA

#21201 Jan 25, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry but exactly how would the construction of a pipeline disturb the land any more than building a road? The original decision should have been a no brainer for Obama. He shouldn't have needed 60 days, he should have needed 5 minutes. 10 if he thought real hard on it. Obama didn't make an obvious decision only because the environmentalist who are money donors to the democratic party were up in arms about the fact that more oil (which they hate) would be running through America giving more pipes an opportunity to fail thus causing spills. It would be different if we had no means of cleaning up spills and just had to deal with the effects but that's not the case. We have the technology to clean spills in a timely fashion where minimal damage to the environment is done. Look at the Gulf Coast. Where is the devestation there? You can't find it. It's back to business as usual. By this logic, we should ban the use of all modes of transportation that carry us faster than we can walk or run because those are far more dangerous to us, and kill many more people than oil spills.
When a pipeline goes over your aquifer that you use for drinking then maybe you might be singing a different tune. The original decision was discussed by many governors as well not just obama and if you read anything i posted then it was decided at a later date for a better pipeline route and republicans were not willing to accept it. You disregard the effects of oil and pipelines on human life if they leak or fail just like up in michigan and many other states. The oil that this particular pipeline would be moving would be heavier than normal oil and 10 times as hard to clean up. Name one environmentalist organization that donates 10's of millions of dollars as republican corporate greed such as the Koch brothers do with super pacs like priorities USA? Do you think the gulf oil spill was cleaned up in a timely fashion ? With all this technology we should of had that leak stopped and cleaned up within the week instead of dumping MILLIONS of gallons of oil into the ocean and RUINING the beaches and fishing. Why don't you ask the people directly impacted by these disasters if they are cleaned up in a timely fashion and if there is no reprecussion. Ask people in Michigan where their pipeline broke over a major water source for them and took MONTHS to clean up because of the thick tar sands oil, and even then they did not get it all. Who cares about how many people it kills than tobacco smoke or drunk driving? The point is we made it and we can try to control it. It is those who think nothing should be done to help that are really harming those who are directly involved. Poor some 5w 30 in your coffee and tell me how that taste, because i'm sure animals and humans in theh places where these spills happen would tell you that oil is not like sugar and should be kept out of our water.
dont know nothin

Yakima, WA

#21204 Jan 25, 2013
guess 2 wrote:
<quoted text>You can critcize me my believes all you want. As far as the guns are concern, if the guns are taken from law abiding citizens, the government will control us. The criminals will take over. Which somebody like you who lacks logic and common sense cannot even remotely comperhend. This is probably want you want since you think all of obama's ideas are right and the rest of us is wrong. He's a socialist-communist. I agree with the people who founded this country. They believe in a government that didn't rule over you with an iron fist. What i'm seeing washington, is nothing what the founding fathers had in mind. I believe in the constitution. I think it wouldn't hurt you at all to get it out and learn something. You can insult me all you want but the one I know for sure, You still know nothing about absolutely nothing. I pretty sure you've gotten even more stupid than usual.
First off i have not criticize anything I am, and have been, simply stating the facts. The government already controls you. The government whether it be state or federal tells you what laws you must obey everyday you wake up. They also dictate to your grand parents or elders what types of help they can recieve under medicare and how much they get paid each month if they draw social security, so don't tell me that controlling gun violence with simple gun control legislation is controlling every single aspect of your life. I am sorry to tell you but I comprehend just fine, it is those who do not understand the true reality of the world and how it works that are not only a threat to this country but to the world. I only agree with common sense legislation and laws that make improvements to our country as a whole. The founding fathers believed in Common Sense, no pun intended lol, and those are still the way we have governed our country for over a century thanks to democrats and what used to be a somewhat level minded GOP until after the cold war.
dont know nothin

Yakima, WA

#21205 Jan 25, 2013
guess 2 wrote:
<quoted text>I wasn't getting on to you, that was for Don't know nothin. He/she is a liberal. I myself is not a liberal. I'm for the second admendment a law abiding gun owner. I believe they have wacky ideas and their ideas don't work. It's been proven over and over. Your right, it would be scary with a bunch of barneys and don't know nothins running around with guns. I say we keep ours just in case.
Name one piece of legislation, law, or idea that has been proven through history not to work ;or does not appeal to common sense, when passed by or proposed by democrats.
Guest

Oklahoma City, OK

#21206 Jan 25, 2013
Did you hear of the CA senator who is after more of our guns and she is being backed by the dumb NY senator? The liberals are working toward a UN agenda and will not stop until they get what they are after. I fear our young ones may let that happen some day. I don't know that they have the dedication that the older ones have to their guns.

Did you hear the remark Bill Clinton made about how they had better watch about taking guns away from us because he knew how Arkansas people was when it came to their guns.

I plan to renew my NRA membership for I think there is strength in numbers. We need them to look out for gun owners.
dont know nothin

Yakima, WA

#21211 Jan 25, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's another one:
If a person kills a pregnant woman it is considered a double homicide but if a woman has an abortion it's considered her right.
That decision is between a woman and her doctor. It may save the womans life. It may be because she was raped. There are many other factors. Before abortion clinics came along women were having abortions on their own and sometimes killing or severaly injuring themselves in the process. Who are you to tell someone what they can or cannot do with their own body before a predetermined time agreed by the general populous and a vast majority of the United States?
dont know nothin

Yakima, WA

#21212 Jan 25, 2013
guess 2 wrote:
<quoted text>Yea but we are free here for now. But now we have a government trying to control us and it's time for americans to say enough. Or we will turn into china where they control every single thing you do. If our government and diane finstein is leading the charge, get their way and remove all the guns, they will completely control us. It's time people stood up and said enough. The one thing all the people that are on welfare and getting food stamps don't understand, when the government gives you stuff they will eventually come and collect, they own you. It's time americans wake up. We are becoming a country in which the government is starting to rule over you. I believe there is still hope because we are not china yet. Remember what the constitution says By the people for the people of the people. May freedom always rang.
Let me ask you something. What kind of damn planet do you live on? Do you realize how ignorant you sound right now? I just pointed out that the government controls you everyday and you still do not get the picture. Do you not agree that the laws you abide by every single day dictate a majority of your life? When you hop in a car and drive down the road do you feel the need to swerve all over the highway or drive 100 mph down the highway? Do you feel it's ok to go out and shoot the person you had a disagreement the night before with? There are laws that control everything we do almost. If not federal then state. If not state then you are abiding by policies and procedures at your work. Where do you get off spouting off a bunch of fear mongoring rehtoric with no factual evidence to support your thesis? Do you enjoy lieing to people to get your way? I am also sure you meant "May freedom always RING" but i will not critique you. I suggest you listen to what I have said and read up on some COMMON SENSE. Alittle Thomas Payne may do you some good.
dont know nothin

Yakima, WA

#21213 Jan 25, 2013
guess 2 wrote:
<quoted text>Any gun control law, just helps out the criminal. Chicago had over 500 gun deaths in 2012 and they have the strictest gun laws in the U S. It ain't working.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/...

you might learn something.
dont know nothin

Yakima, WA

#21214 Jan 25, 2013
#1, Mississippi
Gun deaths per 100,000: 18.3
Permissive gun laws: 4th out of 50
#2, Arizona
Gun deaths per 100,000: 15
Permissive gun laws: 1st out of 50
#3, Alaska
Gun deaths per 100,000: 17.6
Permissive gun laws: 11th out of 50
#4, Arkansas
Gun deaths per 100,000: 15.1
Permissive gun laws: 7th out of 50
#5, Louisiana
Gun deaths per 100,000: 19.9
Permissive gun laws: 23rd out of 50
#6, New Mexico
Gun deaths per 100,000: 15
Permissive gun laws: 6th out of 50
#7, Alabama
Gun deaths per 100,000: 17.6
Permissive gun laws: 27th out of 50
#8, Nevada
Gun deaths per 100,000: 16.2
Permissive gun laws: 22nd out of 50
#9, Montana
Gun deaths per 100,000: 14.5
Permissive gun laws: 10th out of 50
#10, Wyoming
Gun deaths per 100,000: 14.5
Permissive gun laws: 8th out of 50
#11, Kentucky
Gun deaths per 100,000: 14.4
Permissive gun laws: 5th out of 50
#12, West Virginia
Gun deaths per 100,000: 14.8
Permissive gun laws: 25th out of 50
#13, Tennessee
Gun deaths per 100,000: 15
Permissive gun laws: 31st out of 50
#14, Oklahoma
Gun deaths per 100,000: 13.4
Permissive gun laws: 17th out of 50
#15, Idaho
Gun deaths per 100,000: 12.5
Permissive gun laws: 2nd out of 50
#16, Georgia
Gun deaths per 100,000: 13.1
Permissive gun laws: 13th out of 50
#17, Missouri
Gun deaths per 100,000: 12.9
Permissive gun laws: 12th out of 50
#18, South Carolina
Gun deaths per 100,000: 13.4
Permissive gun laws: 20th out of 50
#19, North Carolina
Gun deaths per 100,000: 12.3
Permissive gun laws: 28th out of 50
#20, Florida
Gun deaths per 100,000: 12.5
Permissive gun laws: 41st out of 50
#21, Kansas
Gun deaths per 100,000: 10.5
Permissive gun laws: 14th out of 50
#22, Indiana
Gun deaths per 100,000: 10.6
Permissive gun laws: 21st out of 50
#23, Texas
Gun deaths per 100,000: 10.7
Permissive gun laws: 32nd out of 50
#24, Michigan
Gun deaths per 100,000: 10.9
Permissive gun laws: 39th out of 50
#25, Maryland
Gun deaths per 100,000: 12.1
Permissive gun laws: 44th out of 50
#26, Colorado
Gun deaths per 100,000: 10.4
Permissive gun laws: 24rd out of 50
#27, Pennsylvania
Gun deaths per 100,000: 10.7
Permissive gun laws: 40th out of 50
#28, Virginia
Gun deaths per 100,000: 10.7
Permissive gun laws: 35th out of 50
#29, Utah
Gun deaths per 100,000: 9.5
Permissive gun laws: 18th out of 50
#30, Vermont
Gun deaths per 100,000: 8.4
Permissive gun laws: 3rd out of 50
#31, Oregon
Gun deaths per 100,000: 10.4
Permissive gun laws: 30th out of 50
#32, North Dakota
Gun deaths per 100,000: 8.9
Permissive gun laws: 15th out of 50
#33, Ohio
Gun deaths per 100,000: 9.6
Permissive gun laws: 29th out of 50
#34, Maine
Gun deaths per 100,000: 8.1
Permissive gun laws: 9th out of 50
#35, Delaware
Gun deaths per 100,000: 9.2
Permissive gun laws: 33rd out of 50
#36, Wisconsin
Gun deaths per 100,000: 8.7
Permissive gun laws: 34th out of 50
#37, Nebraska
Gun deaths per 100,000: 8
Permissive gun laws: 19th out of 50
#38, South Dakota
Gun deaths per 100,000: 6.5
Permissive gun laws: 16th out of 50
#39, Washington
Gun deaths per 100,000: 8.5
Permissive gun laws: 37th out of 50
#40, California
Gun deaths per 100,000: 9
Permissive gun laws: 50th out of 50
#41, New Hampshire
Gun deaths per 100,000: 5.9
Permissive gun laws: 26th out of 50
#42, Minnesota
Gun deaths per 100,000: 6.6
Permissive gun laws: 36th out of 50
#43, Illinois
Gun deaths per 100,000: 8
Permissive gun laws: 45th out of 50
#44, Iowa
Gun deaths per 100,000: 5.3
Permissive gun laws: 38th out of 50
#45, New York
Gun deaths per 100,000: 5.1
Permissive gun laws: 43rd out of 50
#46, New Jersey
Gun deaths per 100,000: 5.2
Permissive gun laws: 49th out of 50
#47, Connecticut
Gun deaths per 100,000: 4.3
Permissive gun laws: 46th out of 50
#48, Rhode Island
Gun deaths per 100,000: 3.5
Permissive gun laws: 42nd out of 50
#49, Massachusetts
Gun deaths per 100,000:3.6
Permissive gun laws: 48th out of 50
#50, Hawaii
Gun deaths per 100,000:2.8
Permissive gun laws: 47th out of 50

deadliest gun states in order

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#21215 Jan 26, 2013
guess 2 wrote:
<quoted text>Any gun control law, just helps out the criminal. Chicago had over 500 gun deaths in 2012 and they have the strictest gun laws in the U S. It ain't working.
500 Murders yes, 500 by gun in 2012, absolute lye.
..........

Chicago experienced its 500th murder of the year on Thursday night, when a 40-year-old man was shot to death in the Austin neighborhood. It was only the second time in the last ten years the city has reached that mark. In 2008, 513 people were murdered.

Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Wha ...

By Edward McClelland

Friday, Dec 28, 2012 | Updated 7:15 a.m. CST

I bet you would like us to think those 500 murders were by gun too , don't you.

How about76% were by fire arms.

That would be 380 murders caused by firearms in a city with a population of over 2.7 million people in 2012.

That means that only 0.00014074074% of the population of Chicago were victims of gun violence.

And you say gun laws don't work, the numbers say they do.

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
Chubby chaser's? Who are they? 9 hr Weather 7
blue haired girl 11 hr Friend 5
bored 18 hr girl 1
how to contact heather butler 19 hr 100 percent real 4
Starla Fisher (Nov '09) 19 hr 100 percent real 71
Police Chase 20 hr Ray 5
When did all the colored people move in? 21 hr fact 54
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Pocahontas Mortgages