'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Se...

'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate

There are 229138 comments on the thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com story from Oct 1, 2010, titled 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate. In it, thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com reports that:

"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).

Join the discussion below, or Read more at thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com.

Hypocrite in chief

United States

#93421 Apr 11, 2013
Syl wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a tie..........
Correct...dumb and dumber ...
Anonymous

Elizabethtown, KY

#93422 Apr 11, 2013
HotC_2-point-0 wrote:
<quoted text>
I sneaked Obama in to see if you read it, lol
He's serving now! hehehehehe
Hypocrite in chief

United States

#93423 Apr 11, 2013
HotC_2-point-0 wrote:
<quoted text>
He's serving now! hehehehehe
... Obama is serving his own friends...how did Detroit Auto bailout worked for you?
Anonymous

Elizabethtown, KY

#93424 Apr 11, 2013
Hypocrite in chief wrote:
<quoted text>
... Obama is serving his own friends...how did Detroit Auto bailout worked for you?
it saved the auto industry, didn't affect me directly as far as i can tell, but thanks for asking
Anonymous

Elizabethtown, KY

#93425 Apr 11, 2013
Hypocrite in chief wrote:
<quoted text>
... Obama is serving his own friends...how did Detroit Auto bailout worked for you?
How did letting Detroit go bankrupt work for you?
Justice Dale

United States

#93426 Apr 11, 2013
Jay-Z addresses Cuba critics in new song

April 11, 2013, 11:34 AM EST

Entertainment Tonight

Jay-Z is speaking out against the critics questioning his motives for his anniversary getaway in Cuba with his wife, Beyoncé Knowles, the best way he knows how: through song.

Bing: Beyoncé to perform at Jay-Z's Philly festival

The hip-hop mogul released a new track titled "Open Letter" on Thursday and while the beat is sure to get heads bobbing (the song was produced by Timbaland and Swizz Beatz), the lyrics are pretty cutting. "Obama said,'Chill, you gonna get me impeached'/ You don't need this s--- anyway; chill with me on the beach," Jay-Z, 43, raps. "I done turned Havana to Atlanta / Guayabera shirts and bandanas.... Boy from the hood got White House clearance."

Just another fuchup, from the national embarrassment sitting in the White House!!!
Anonymous

Elizabethtown, KY

#93427 Apr 11, 2013
Anemia Poster Boy, Paul Ryan's filibuster plan thwarted by fellow Republicans
Anonymous

Elizabethtown, KY

#93428 Apr 11, 2013
Sorry, I meant Rand Paul, as if you didn't know
Freedom

Jamestown, KY

#93429 Apr 11, 2013
spocko wrote:
A guide to NRA talking-points or when perfectly intelligent people turn troglodyte.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Maybe, but people with guns kill many, many more people than they would if they didn't have guns, and guns designed to kill as many people as possible. We don't know if the murderer in Newtown was suffering from a suicidal depression, but many mass shooters in the past were. And guess what? People suffer from suicidal depression everywhere in the world. People get angry and upset everywhere in the world. But there aren't mass shootings every few weeks in England or Costa Rica or Japan, and the reason is that people in those places who have these impulses don't have an easy way to access lethal weapons and unlimited ammunition. But if you want to kill large numbers of people and you happen to be an American, you'll find it easy to do.
Criminals will always find a way to get guns no matter what measures we take, so what's the point?
The question isn't whether we could snap our fingers and make every gun disappear. It's whether we can make it harder for criminals to get guns, and harder for an unbalanced person with murderous intent to kill so many people. The goal is to reduce violence as much as possible. There's no other problem for which we'd say if we can't solve it completely and forever we shouldn't even try.
The Constitution says I have a right to own guns.
Yes it does, but for some infantile reason gun advocates think that the right to bear arms is the only constitutional right that is virtually written in stone and without limit. You have the right to practice your religion, but not if your religion involves human sacrifice. You have the right to free speech, but you can still be prosecuted for incitement or conspiracy, and you can be sued for libel. Every right is subject to limitation when it begins to threaten others, and the Supreme Court has affirmed that even though there is an individual right to gun ownership, the government can put reasonable restrictions on that right.
As we’ve all seen, if a shooter turns out to have a Muslim name, the NRA will be more than happy to give up all kinds of rights in the name of fighting terrorism. Have the government read my email? Have my cell phone company turn over my call records? Check which books I'm taking out of the library? Make me take my shoes off before getting on a plane, just because some idiot tried to blow up his sneakers? Sure, do what you've got to do. But don't make it harder to buy thousands of rounds of ammunition, because if we couldn't do that we'd no longer be free – what a crock!
Widespread gun ownership is a guarantee against tyranny.
If that had anything to do with contemporary life, then mature democracies would be constantly overthrown by despots. But they aren't. We shouldn't write laws based on the fantasies of conspiracy theorists.
Guns are a part of American culture.
Indeed they are, but so are a lot of things, and that tells us nothing about whether they're good or bad and how we want to treat them going forward. Slavery was a part of American culture for a couple of hundred years, but eventually we decided it had to go.
Having movie theaters and schools full of kids periodically shot up seems to be a price the NRA is willing to pay if it means I get to play with guns.
OK, that's not an argument gun advocates are willing to make. But it's the truth that lies beneath all their other arguments. All that we suffer because of the proliferation of guns—these horrifying tragedies, the 30,000 Americans who are killed every year with guns—for gun advocates, it's unfortunate, but it's a price they're willing to pay. If only they'd have the guts to say it
Please answer this question, Do YOU believe its OK for a woman to have an Abortion for any reason? Please post your answer on Topix, If you have the guts to answer it.
spocko

Oakland, CA

#93430 Apr 11, 2013
American Lady wrote:
Democrats and Republicans:
In Their Own Words
A 124 Year History of Major Civil Rights Efforts
Based on a Side-by-Side Comparison
of the Early Platforms of the
Two Major Political Parties
1852
[Republican Party not yet formed.]
1852 Democrats THAT SAME YEAR!
>>>--->>The Democratic Party will resist all
attempts at ...[i.e., will oppose all efforts to
abolish slavery].
1856 *
As our Republican fathers, when they
had abolished slavery in all our national
territory, ordained that no person shall
be deprived of life, liberty, or property
* This was the first Republican platform, and
it contained only nine planks; however, six of
the nine set forth bold declarations of equality
and civil rights for African-Americans, based
on the principles enshrined in the Declaration
of Independence. This emphasis on racial justice was the primary reason that the Republican Party was formed.
In May 1854, the Democratic-controlled Congress passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, extending slavery into federal territories where it had
previously been forbidden, thus increasing the national area in which slavery would be permitted.
This law led to what was called “bleeding Kansas,” where pro-slavery forces came pouring into
the territory and fought violent battles against
the anti-slavery inhabitants of that territory. Following the passage of this pro-slavery law, a number of the anti-slavery Democrats in Congress –
along with anti-slavery members from other political parties, including the Whigs, Free-Soilers,without due process of law, it becomes
our duty to maintain this provision of
the Constitution against all attempts to
violate it for the purpose of establishing
slavery in the territories of the United
States....[W]e deny the authority of
Congress, of a territorial legislation,[or]
of any individual or association of individuals, to give legal existence to slavery
in any territory of the United States.
~~~~~D~E~M~O~C~R~A~T~S~~~~~~ PLATFORM
* In the years preceding this platform, numerous occasions had arisen in Congress in which pro slavery forces sought to extend slavery and antislavery forces sought to prohibit it. For example,
in 1820, the Democratic Congress passed the Missouri Compromise. That law first repealed the provisions of the original 1789 anti-slavery law forbidding the extension of slavery into any federal
territory, and then authorized the extension of slavery into new federal territories. Founding Fathers
still alive at that time – including John Adams,
Thomas Jefferson, and Rufus King – loudly denounced the Missouri Compromise and the expansion of slavery. Subsequently, John Quincy Adams and Daniel Webster became congressional
leaders in opposing slavery while those such as John
C. Calhoun fought aggressively to strengthen and
expand it. This plank in the Democratic platform
condemned the efforts of abolitionists such as John
Quincy Adams (a member of Congress at that
time, and titled the hell-hound of abolition for his
efforts against slavery), asserting that the end of
slavery would not only reduce the happiness of
America but would also lead to its destruction.
1850:“the act for reclaiming fugitives
from service or labor.”*
...[We support] non-interference by Congress
with slavery in state and territory, or in
the District of Columbia [i.e., we oppose all congressional attempts to abolish slavery in any area of the nation].
1852
The Democratic Party will resist all
attempts at renewing – in Congress or
out of it – the agitation of the slavery
question [i.e., will oppose all efforts to
abolish slavery].
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/misc/Ci...
Hey Lady, give it a try move into the 21st century and join the rest of us ... come on you can do it!
Hypocrite in chief

United States

#93431 Apr 11, 2013
HotC_2-point-0 wrote:
<quoted text>
How did letting Detroit go bankrupt work for you?
Why does liberals, when they don't have the answer, always 'answer' with a question? How did millions of $$$ like Solyndra, wall street, bankers, Hollywood and the rest of CROOKS donated to Obama, got their money back and now take from S.S., Medicare, food stamps etc. etc. etc. poor, old and disabled? Obama cares, the HELL he does !!!!!

Sometimes you need bankruptcy to reorganize and get rid off UNION LAZY COMMUNIST THUGS!
Freedom

Jamestown, KY

#93432 Apr 11, 2013
spocko wrote:
A guide to NRA talking-points or when perfectly intelligent people turn troglodyte.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Maybe, but people with guns kill many, many more people than they would if they didn't have guns, and guns designed to kill as many people as possible. We don't know if the murderer in Newtown was suffering from a suicidal depression, but many mass shooters in the past were. And guess what? People suffer from suicidal depression everywhere in the world. People get angry and upset everywhere in the world. But there aren't mass shootings every few weeks in England or Costa Rica or Japan, and the reason is that people in those places who have these impulses don't have an easy way to access lethal weapons and unlimited ammunition. But if you want to kill large numbers of people and you happen to be an American, you'll find it easy to do.
Criminals will always find a way to get guns no matter what measures we take, so what's the point?
The question isn't whether we could snap our fingers and make every gun disappear. It's whether we can make it harder for criminals to get guns, and harder for an unbalanced person with murderous intent to kill so many people. The goal is to reduce violence as much as possible. There's no other problem for which we'd say if we can't solve it completely and forever we shouldn't even try.
The Constitution says I have a right to own guns.
Yes it does, but for some infantile reason gun advocates think that the right to bear arms is the only constitutional right that is virtually written in stone and without limit. You have the right to practice your religion, but not if your religion involves human sacrifice. You have the right to free speech, but you can still be prosecuted for incitement or conspiracy, and you can be sued for libel. Every right is subject to limitation when it begins to threaten others, and the Supreme Court has affirmed that even though there is an individual right to gun ownership, the government can put reasonable restrictions on that right.
As we’ve all seen, if a shooter turns out to have a Muslim name, the NRA will be more than happy to give up all kinds of rights in the name of fighting terrorism. Have the government read my email? Have my cell phone company turn over my call records? Check which books I'm taking out of the library? Make me take my shoes off before getting on a plane, just because some idiot tried to blow up his sneakers? Sure, do what you've got to do. But don't make it harder to buy thousands of rounds of ammunition, because if we couldn't do that we'd no longer be free – what a crock!
Widespread gun ownership is a guarantee against tyranny.
If that had anything to do with contemporary life, then mature democracies would be constantly overthrown by despots. But they aren't. We shouldn't write laws based on the fantasies of conspiracy theorists.
Guns are a part of American culture.
Indeed they are, but so are a lot of things, and that tells us nothing about whether they're good or bad and how we want to treat them going forward. Slavery was a part of American culture for a couple of hundred years, but eventually we decided it had to go.
Having movie theaters and schools full of kids periodically shot up seems to be a price the NRA is willing to pay if it means I get to play with guns.
OK, that's not an argument gun advocates are willing to make. But it's the truth that lies beneath all their other arguments. All that we suffer because of the proliferation of guns—these horrifying tragedies, the 30,000 Americans who are killed every year with guns—for gun advocates, it's unfortunate, but it's a price they're willing to pay. If only they'd have the guts to say it
Please answer this question, Do YOU believe its OK for a woman to have an Abortion for any reason? Please post your answer on Topix. If you have the guts to answer it.
Jay

Springville, TN

#93433 Apr 11, 2013
Freedom wrote:
<quoted text>
Please answer this question, Do YOU believe its OK for a woman to have an Abortion for any reason? Please post your answer on Topix, If you have the guts to answer it.
**********

For any reason?

No.
wtf

Edmonton, KY

#93434 Apr 11, 2013
Spocko's (aka Whacko) opinion is just that...his opinion. Doesn't make a word of what he says true. Just because something can be done and you have the numbers to support it doesn't actually mean it is the right thing to do and it doesn't mean it should be done. Hitler had much support. Does that mean what he did should have been done?

Somebody beam Spockie boy up and adjust his brain cell. lol
Anonymous

Elizabethtown, KY

#93435 Apr 11, 2013
Freedom wrote:
<quoted text>
Please answer this question, Do YOU believe its OK for a woman to have an Abortion for any reason? Please post your answer on Topix. If you have the guts to answer it.
YES, in the case or RAPE or INCEST, Severe physical or mental deformity, to the extent that the baby will have no quality of life, mother so young that she and/ or the baby's life is in jeopardy, mother bought a really cool expensive two piece in Feb and got pregnant in March

Please answer this question: Do YOU believe it's OK for God to put a baby in the belly of a woman who he knows will abort it (He's Omniscient)
American Lady

Danville, KY

#93436 Apr 11, 2013
HotC_2-point-0 wrote:
<quoted text>
Is nearly 2/3 a landslide?
that's how many electoral votes he got
332 to 206...62%
Nearly 2/3 Two Thirds ...
doesn't QUITE make a LANDSLIDE ...
does it?:)

WHY should voting for the president of the United States ...
BE any less important than passing a bill in Congress ...

``````````

The President might not sign the bill, however. If he specifically rejects the bill, called a veto, the bill returns to Congress. There it is voted on again, and if both houses of Congress pass the bill again, but this time by

a two-thirds majority, then the bill becomes law without the President's signature.

This is called "overriding a veto," and

is difficult to do because of the two-thirds majority requirement.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_law.ht...

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 7

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it.

If after such Reconsideration

>>--->> two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent,

together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered,

and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.

But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec7.h...
Repukes

Campbellsville, KY

#93437 Apr 11, 2013
While you repukes from across the country camp out in a Kentucky thread still rehashing both elections and continuing the denial, denial, denial, lets look at some KENTUCKY news.

Hot C, country girl, injudgement, wtf (the real one), and several others have been having fun with the resident A Lunatic and her crazy cousin the baaaa goat girl. Along with the numerous socks. Great job guys.

As Hot C said, ole grandrand and his filibuster idea for more facetime didn't quite work out. Looks like the Grand OLD Party smacked that idea. Nice try though. The MAJORITY wants gun control, not law abiding citizens guns. Too bad repuke idiots can't figure that out.

So why they line up to make their vile comments I will post some recent 2013 articles. Today's even, while they continue to rehash two elections and how they are not racist. They protest too much eh?

Why Rand Paul flopped at Howard
Rand Paul hit the wall this week in trying to explain himself at Howard University.
He did so in trying to reach out to an African-American audience, and he should have learned the lesson at his first TV interview with Rachel Maddow. Paul defaulted back to a small-church libertarian explanation of states’ rights and federal dominance that would be perhaps useful in a legal history course and is unfortunately standard in certain libertarian circles.
After the Maddow interview, he backed away. This Tea Party shibboleth is a failed attempt to re-baptize, to rethink America in irony and confusion: Lincoln, the Great Emancipator, was a Republican, don’t ya know, and most blacks from 1865 to the 1950s voted Republican because of that. In fact, most blacks between 1865 and the 1950s did not vote.
Paul’s strategic mistake is in trying to go from Tea Party to Republican Party and run for president in 2016 as a mainstream Republican. Newt Gingrich has already done that with some success, Dick Armey with less success. Both commandeered what might have been a fresh approach, and now Paul leaves behind the fresh approach to join in with the mainstream (i.e.“the establishment”).
And that the South, people white and black might have emerged whole under different economic situations. But these are the benchmarks of our era from which there is no return and that made us to what we are and what we are to become. Turning back to culturally “re-baptize” is the conservative’s deconstructionism, nihilist in intent as is the other. Nixon and Reagan did it as well, but it will not work for Republicans and will not work for libertarians.
Paul should speak to the future of states’ rights, sound money and constitutional government. But he should understand the past and history’s burdens first.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/lawmake...

Grandrand once said he thought businesses should be able to say blacks could not enter and then there's those KKK ties revealed when Trey Greyson dug up all his dirt from Bowling Green and TEXAS. Some people won't forget, ever. Nice try though. haha

DITCH MITCH
Repukes

Campbellsville, KY

#93438 Apr 11, 2013
Rand Paul speech awkwardly reminds us of 'Accidental Racist'

MSNBC Host Chris Hayes put it perfectly: as attempted racial outreaches, they were both admirable and cringe-worthy. Paul Rand is getting some flack over his Wednesday appearance at the historically black Howard University. Despite spending all his time Randsplaining the Civil Rights movement to an audience of some of America's brightest young students, Paul really stirred up the heat when he claimed: "I've never wavered in my support for civil rights or the Civil Rights Act," which would sound really nice if it were even the littlest bit true. Paul infamously attacked provisions of the bill banning discrimination by private businesses to Rachel Maddow in 2010. So, if you're looking to feel uncomfortable today, we'd recommend "Accidental Racist." It's a much shorter video.[Source]

http://now.msn.com/rand-pauls-speech-at-howar...

Yep, ole grandrand is on tape making his ignorant racist remarks. I posted them all early on in the thread 2010 with websitees.

DITCH MITCH
Anonymous

Elizabethtown, KY

#93439 Apr 11, 2013
Justice Dale wrote:
Jay-Z addresses Cuba critics in new song
April 11, 2013, 11:34 AM EST
Entertainment Tonight
Jay-Z is speaking out against the critics questioning his motives for his anniversary getaway in Cuba with his wife, Beyoncé Knowles, the best way he knows how: through song.
Bing: Beyoncé to perform at Jay-Z's Philly festival
The hip-hop mogul released a new track titled "Open Letter" on Thursday and while the beat is sure to get heads bobbing (the song was produced by Timbaland and Swizz Beatz), the lyrics are pretty cutting. "Obama said,'Chill, you gonna get me impeached'/ You don't need this s--- anyway; chill with me on the beach," Jay-Z, 43, raps. "I done turned Havana to Atlanta / Guayabera shirts and bandanas.... Boy from the hood got White House clearance."
Just another fuchup, from the national embarrassment sitting in the White House!!!
Jay Z.....Hot C say yea ya
What, you don't like Beyonce, weirdo?
spocko

Oakland, CA

#93440 Apr 11, 2013
Freedom wrote:
<quoted text>
Please answer this question, Do YOU believe its OK for a woman to have an Abortion for any reason? Please post your answer on Topix. If you have the guts to answer it.
I don't believe women have abortions for "any reason," I also believe it's in the constitution - aren't you the one that's really, really big on constitutional rights -- oh I see, only when it suits you ...

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.

Rineyville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Susan Daniel 50 min Trucker Bob 25
dtf!!!! (Jan '15) 1 hr Anonymous 43
Trailer Sales place across from Aldi's Grocery 1 hr please 4
Adam martinez 3 hr Anna 27
Derek's In Jail and Soon Amber Will Be Too 4 hr LUKE 24
Etown easiest lady's 5 hr Momma 14
shannon parnell (Aug '15) 7 hr Danny ray 30

Rineyville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Rineyville Mortgages