'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate

[SYL]

whitehair wrote:

Based on a report in newsmax,it is quite possible when the SCOTUS has finished the Sept-Oct court case ,the VP Biden may be -come President and that would not be any competition for Romney!!

I get news-max through e-mail, but missed that . I guess we can dream.

[Jana]

john wrote:

<quoted text>...some articles are saying, the drug lord caught, is talking a lot. saying, its not about "gun running" as much, rather holder traded guns for information. there are more and more info daily. that the truth is, trading info for guns.

Any ideal what info they wanted. ust pretty important.

[American Lady]

whitehair wrote:

<quoted text>
Frank--It really is very simple.Congress made the laws.The SS# simply follows the rules.Ryan was just a young boy,his father passed away,,his Mother gave him the check the rule and laws gave her,for his up bringing.This is set up for all citizens.No, really it was established for the citizens that paid into it,not so sure any longer this applies.But you ,being a liberal,can find nothig wrong with this!The fact he saved that money and later used it to pay for his education,indicates a young man with greater intelligence and ability,with the foresight,than most.Thre surely can be no reason to question this.
Now the fact is,we are projecting into what Romney and Ryan will do with SS# and medicare.They have only begun to rationalize into this and Congress would have to question and discuss the best they can,as to that outcome.No matter what they come up with,it would be for the people and the best the gov`t could come up with.It would certainly be better than ObamaCare.Obamacare helps a few,hurts many,and certainly is unafordable.We,our Country,can not sustain more debt.
Now one more thing--if the laws and rules are here,made by previous leaders,and are there for the living ones at the time,should they not be used,and should they not be corrected as they find out needed changes.?
You fuss at Romney for using the rules and laws to avoid taxes.Why should these not be used.?We all do.They were put in for that purpose.Now that they have been used for years,is there a problem with changing the laws and rules,since we are learning they do not do the good intended?Should the loopholes we all know about not be used?Or,should thy be reconsidered,and perhaps done away withCongress will find it very hard to eliminate these as they also use them.Lobbysts,and special interests also should be removed,but will and liberal,or conservative do it?Not likely.It is now stated there are 90,000 pages to the tax law.I thought it was 18,000 but what do I know?Anyway,a simple tax code,a flat tax ,would eliminate all the need for personal reporting and seem to be better than now.

A "well said" comment Whitey!

[American Lady]

Jana wrote:

<quoted text>
Any ideal what info they wanted. ust pretty important.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/fast-and-furi...

[American Lady]

Jana wrote:

<quoted text>
Any ideal what info they wanted. ust pretty important.

Disgusting to say the least
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/hillary-clint...

[American Lady]

Benazir Bhutto:
The letter outlined who she believed should be investigated in the event of her assassination. While giving her answer, she listed as one of the suspects a "key figure in security... a former military officer in Pakistan" who had dealings with, among others,...
http://littlecountrylost.blogspot.com/2008/01...

[American Lady]

Wall Street Journal reporter Pearl was abducted in the port city of Karachi on January 23 while trying to contact radical Islamic groups and investigate possible links between alleged shoe bomber Richard Reid and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda Network.

Although his body has never been found, his kidnappers released a graphic video showing Pearl being murdered.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/four-charged-with...

Remember?

[frank]

whitehair wrote:

<quoted text>
Frank--It really is very simple.Congress made the laws.The SS# simply follows the rules.Ryan was just a young boy,his father passed away,,his Mother gave him the check the rule and laws gave her,for his up bringing.This is set up for all citizens.No, really it was established for the citizens that paid into it,not so sure any longer this applies.But you ,being a liberal,can find nothig wrong with this!The fact he saved that money and later used it to pay for his education,indicates a young man with greater intelligence and ability,with the foresight,than most.Thre surely can be no reason to question this.
Now the fact is,we are projecting into what Romney and Ryan will do with SS# and medicare.They have only begun to rationalize into this and Congress would have to question and discuss the best they can,as to that outcome.No matter what they come up with,it would be for the people and the best the gov`t could come up with.It would certainly be better than ObamaCare.Obamacare helps a few,hurts many,and certainly is unafordable.We,our Country,can not sustain more debt.
Now one more thing--if the laws and rules are here,made by previous leaders,and are there for the living ones at the time,should they not be used,and should they not be corrected as they find out needed changes.?
You fuss at Romney for using the rules and laws to avoid taxes.Why should these not be used.?We all do.They were put in for that purpose.Now that they have been used for years,is there a problem with changing the laws and rules,since we are learning they do not do the good intended?Should the loopholes we all know about not be used?Or,should thy be reconsidered,and perhaps done away withCongress will find it very hard to eliminate these as they also use them.Lobbysts,and special interests also should be removed,but will and liberal,or conservative do it?Not likely.It is now stated there are 90,000 pages to the tax law.I thought it was 18,000 but what do I know?Anyway,a simple tax code,a flat tax ,would eliminate all the need for personal reporting and seem to be better than now.

Huh? LOL ... you know, one of those liberals you hate so much could not have said it any better, it shows how faulty and dishonest you wingnuz think!

[frank]

Thirty years of Republican apostasy — a once grand party and it’s grand forward looking ideas, embraced the welfare state, the warfare state and the Wall Street-coddling bailout state — have crippled the engines of capitalism and buried us in debt. Mr. Ryan’s sonorous campaign rhetoric about shrinking Big Government and giving tax cuts to “job creators” (read: the top 2 percent) will do nothing to reverse the nation’s economic decline and arrest its fiscal collapse. Mr. Ryans ideas are strictly reactionary and not about prudent governing. Mr. Ryan professes to be a defense hawk, though the true conservatives of modern times — Calvin Coolidge, Herbert C. Hoover, Robert A. Taft, Dwight D. Eisenhower, even Gerald R. Ford — would have had no use for the neocon-conservative imperialism that the G.O.P. cobbled from policy salons run by Irving Kristol’s ex-Trotskyites three decades ago. These doctrines now saddle our bankrupt nation with a roughly $800 billion “defense” budget in a world where we have no advanced industrial state enemies and have been fired (appropriately so) as the global policeman. America needs a leader who can spell out what he or shy thinks a modern government should do or not do — and then how to pay for it. Knock on wood, the debate will push either Mr. Obama or Mr. Romney to do that. At the moment, neither seems to understand the central domestic challenge of the next presidency.

[Hello]

wtf wrote:

<quoted text>You mean like the treasonous W Days you dipshit?

Do you prefer regular or scented bags??

[wtf]

American Lady wrote:

Benazir Bhutto:
The letter outlined who she believed should be investigated in the event of her assassination. While giving her answer, she listed as one of the suspects a "key figure in security... a former military officer in Pakistan" who had dealings with, among others,...
http://littlecountrylost.blogspot.com/2008/01...

W knew where bin Laden was all along.

[wtf]

Hello wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you prefer regular or scented bags??

Is your diaper disposable?

[Hello]

wtf wrote:

<quoted text> 2017 for you dumbass and Lintball the Druggie.

Wasn't Obama in the infamous(SCHROOM GANG)??

[Hello]

wtf wrote:

<quoted text>W knew where bin Laden was all along.

So Did Clinton..

[wtf]

Hello wrote:

<quoted text>
Wasn't Obama in the infamous(SCHROOM GANG)??

Wasn't Romney hiding in France when he was supposed to be in Viet Nam?

lmfao

[wtf]

Hello wrote:

<quoted text>
So Did Clinton..

At least Clinton did not protect him for 8 years.

[Hello]

frank wrote:

Thirty years of Republican apostasy — a once grand party and it’s grand forward looking ideas, embraced the welfare state, the warfare state and the Wall Street-coddling bailout state — have crippled the engines of capitalism and buried us in debt. Mr. Ryan’s sonorous campaign rhetoric about shrinking Big Government and giving tax cuts to “job creators”(read: the top 2 percent) will do nothing to reverse the nation’s economic decline and arrest its fiscal collapse. Mr. Ryans ideas are strictly reactionary and not about prudent governing. Mr. Ryan professes to be a defense hawk, though the true conservatives of modern times — Calvin Coolidge, Herbert C. Hoover, Robert A. Taft, Dwight D. Eisenhower, even Gerald R. Ford — would have had no use for the neocon-conservative imperialism that the G.O.P. cobbled from policy salons run by Irving Kristol’s ex-Trotskyites three decades ago. These doctrines now saddle our bankrupt nation with a roughly $800 billion “defense” budget in a world where we have no advanced industrial state enemies and have been fired (appropriately so) as the global policeman. America needs a leader who can spell out what he or shy thinks a modern government should do or not do — and then how to pay for it. Knock on wood, the debate will push either Mr. Obama or Mr. Romney to do that. At the moment, neither seems to understand the central domestic challenge of the next presidency.

Who started the welfare state Frank??? Democrat(Roosevelt)around 1935..

[Hello]

The history of welfare in the U.S. started long before the government welfare programs we know were created. In the early days of the United States, the colonies imported the British Poor Laws. These laws made a distinction between those who were unable to work due to their age or physical health and those who were able-bodied but unemployed. The former group was assisted with cash or alternative forms of help from the government. The latter group was given public service employment in workhouses.

Throughout the 1800's welfare history continued when there were attempts to reform how the government dealt with the poor. Some changes tried to help the poor move to work rather than continuing to need assistance. Social casework, consisting of caseworkers visiting the poor and training them in morals and a work ethic was advocated by reformers in the 1880s and 1890s.

Prior to the Great Depression, the United States Congress supported various programs to assist the poor. One of these, a Civil War Pension Program was passed in 1862 and provided aid to Civil War Veterans and their families.

When the Great Depression hit, many families suffered. It is estimated that one-fourth of the labor force was unemployed during the worst part of the depression. With many families suffering financial difficulties, the government stepped in to solve the problem and that is where the history of welfare as we know it really began.

Under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Social Security Act was enacted in 1935. The act, which was amended in 1939, established a number of programs designed to provide aid to various segments of the population. Unemployment compensation and AFDC (originally Aid to Dependent Children) are two of the programs that still exist today.

[frank]

Republicans are outrageously unpopular. A Gallup Poll registered a 10% approval rating, less than pornography, communism, and BP during the oil spill.
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/06-...

[Jay]

American Lady wrote:

<quoted text>
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/fast-and-furi...

**********

Interesting.....

So why didn't the Mexican government know about this as they did when they worked in concert with Operation Wide Receiver? Currently, the Mexican government *claims* to not know anything about this. It appears they are quite angry with the US for not informing them.

So, Mr. Zambada-Niebla believes that the documentation that he requests will confirm that the weapons received by Sinaloa Cartel members and its leaders in Operation ‘Fast & Furious’ were provided under the agreement entered into between the United States government and [a Mexican lawyer]??? My guess is that Mexican lawyer if acting not on behalf of the Mexican government will end up hanging from the gallows.......if this guy is telling the truth.

And so he claims,
"he was working on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, FBI, and U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, court documents show."

But of course Holder and Obama knew nothing about this, right?

Yeah right!!