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

'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate

There are 233291 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.

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#143525 Jan 7, 2014
wtf wrote:
<quoted text>
How many terrorist attacks have been accomplished on Obama's watch? Remember you can't count the Ft. Hood terrorist attack because the Obama administration classified it as "workplace violence" and you can't count the Little Rock terrorist attack because this administration classified that as a "drive-by shooting" and you can't count the terrorists involvement in Benghazi because Hitlary and her news media buddies still claim it was the youtube video that sparked outrage or was it a demonstration that just got out of hand or...oh, what the hell does it matter at this point except that it not be classified as what it really is, a terrorist attack on United States soil, so the unimportant details won't hamper Hitlary's run for president. What about Brian Terry's murder? If the drug cartel aren't terrorists then I don't know who would qualify as such! You hypocrites went on and on about Bush not getting up and running out of the room and scaring the hell out of the young children in the classroom he was visiting when he first heard the news about the 9/11 attack. Yet Obama went on to bed after being informed about the real-time terrorist attack on Americans in Benghazi and then flew to Vegas to party with Hollywood's richest 1%er couple and new best friends of the Obama's...Jay Z and Beyonce. Money, money, money, campaign, campaign, campaign!
Why is it that you hypocrites conveniently forget ALL the DETAILS and FACTS when discussing issues? Enjoy your fun facts of the day! You're welcome!
Starting with Reagan in 1983 every President except Bush41 has had MORE non-military Americans killed by Islamic terrorist than Obama. Under Obama there have been 2 more killed than under Bush41. You Repubs are the most hypocritical bastards on the planet. Bush had 3000 dead Americans on American soil but yet you bitch daily about 4 in a terrorist nation that got killed.
1 post removed

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#143527 Jan 7, 2014
Oh, and by the way the reason you have to start with Reagan as the beginning of Islamic Terrorist killing Americans is because before Reagan had them trained by the CIA there were no Islamic Terrorist killing Americans.

Since: May 11

Birmingham, UK

#143528 Jan 7, 2014
Injudgement wrote:
<quoted text>Starting with Reagan in 1983 every President except Bush41 has had MORE non-military Americans killed by Islamic terrorist than Obama. Under Obama there have been 2 more killed than under Bush41. You Repubs are the most hypocritical bastards on the planet. Bush had 3000 dead Americans on American soil but yet you bitch daily about 4 in a terrorist nation that got killed.
13 embassy attacks under Bush...not a peep out of them. Sometimes on the same embassy within months...not a peep out of them.

One word from O'Really, Sean Hilarity or St. Limburger of Viagra and you can just wind them up and watch them go. LOL
Grand Old Tea Party

Fitchburg, MA

#143529 Jan 7, 2014
Grand Old Tea Party wrote:
<quoted text>
God you people are idiots, weather is not climate douche! Events are not indicitive of TRENDS.
Oh WTF am I thinking, you have zero intrest in knowing reality, your noise machine echo chamber tells you to gripe every winter about warming, cause you're f-ing stupid! Here you are on que, predictable, easily lead and stupid!
"Brad Plumer added that temperatures in the United States do not necessarily reflect temperatures on the entire planet. While many Americans had to bundle up in December 2013, preliminary data suggests last month “was tied for the 2nd-hottest December on record since 1979, the beginning of satellite measurements,” and global average temperatures for all of 2013 “are expected to be among the 10 highest since 1850.”
"Every year, much of the world experiences a phenomenon known as “seasons.” For many Americans, this means higher temperatures in the summer and lower temperatures in the winter. What does this have to do with global climate change? Not a whole lot.
But just as one season leads to another, the transition from fall to winter brings out the worst in too many conservatives. Indeed, in seems every winter, like clockwork, far-right yahoos start arguing,“It’s cold in winter, therefore global warming can’t be real.” Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), playing his usual role, insisted yesterday that freezing temperatures in much of the country is obviously proof that climate science itself is “laughable.”
Something in this debate is laughable, but I’m afraid it isn’t the science.
Inhofe is hardly alone. As Chris Mooney noted the other day, plenty of notable figures on the right – Rush Limbaugh, Rep. John Fleming (R-La.), Donald Trump, Drudge, Erick Erickson, et al – pushed the same argument. Fox Business’ Stuart Varney went so far as to say,“[W]e’re looking at global cooling, forget this global warming.”
And so we are forced once more to remind conservatives that cold winter weather in our part of the planet does not disprove global warming. Mooney patiently explained:
1. Statements about climate trends must be based on, er, trends. Not individual events or occurrences. Weather is not climate, and anecdotes are not statistics.
2. Global warming is actually expected to increase “heavy precipitation in winter storms,” and for the Northern Hemisphere, there is evidence that these storms are already more frequent and intense, according to the draft U.S. National Climate Assessment.
3. Antarctica is a very cold place. But global warming is affecting it as predicted: Antarctica is losing ice overall, according to the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. However, sea ice is a different matter than land-based or glacial ice. Antarctic sea ice is increasing, and moreover, the reason for this may be climate change!(For more, read here.)
Brad Plumer added that temperatures in the United States do not necessarily reflect temperatures on the entire planet. While many Americans had to bundle up in December 2013, preliminary data suggests last month “was tied for the 2nd-hottest December on record since 1979, the beginning of satellite measurements,” and global average temperatures for all of 2013 “are expected to be among the 10 highest since 1850.”
You will no doubt receive an all-caps email soon from your wacky uncle who watches Fox News all day, perhaps with a picture of icicles attached, intended to serve as proof that climate change is a hoax. Gently remind him that winter weather in one country in January isn’t evidence of much, and if he’s interested in relying on evidence as part of the debate, there’s voluminous scientific data for him to check out that goes beyond looking out a window."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/...

Um, Yes!
Grand Old Tea Party

Fitchburg, MA

#143530 Jan 7, 2014
conservative crapola

“Hicksville Hootenanny”

Since: Sep 13

Kornfield Kounty

#143531 Jan 7, 2014
Injudgement wrote:
<quoted text>Starting with Reagan in 1983 every President except Bush41 has had MORE non-military Americans killed by Islamic terrorist than Obama. Under Obama there have been 2 more killed than under Bush41. You Repubs are the most hypocritical bastards on the planet. Bush had 3000 dead Americans on American soil but yet you bitch daily about 4 in a terrorist nation that got killed.
These hypocrit 'fakeriots' shed no tears for David Foy, but make a martyr out of Stevens. They never mention they voted to cut their security budgets, either.
Grand Old Tea Party

Fitchburg, MA

#143532 Jan 7, 2014
Exactly 50 years ago tomorrow, then-President Lyndon Johnson delivered a State of the Union address in which he declared a “war on poverty.” It quickly proved effective – as Michael Tomasky noted yesterday, LBJ aide Joseph Califano found that “the portion of Americans living below the poverty line dropped from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent, the most dramatic decline over such a brief period in this century.” A concerted government effort reduced poverty rates by 43% in just six years.

But the political winds soon shifted and the “war,” such as it was, became a lower priority with fewer resources. For a generation, Republicans have taken it as a given that efforts to combat poverty were a failure, though they usually neglect to mention that the “war on poverty” faltered when the nation lost interest in fighting it.

Very recently, however, interest in addressing chronic American poverty has worked its way back into the political conversation. Even Republicans whose agenda is hostile towards struggling families at least say they’re concerned. the Washington Post reports today that the GOP in general wants to “move beyond the rhetoric of past campaigns and focus on specific policies showing the party would be effective on behalf of the poor.”

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) will give a speech Wednesday that aides said will lay out changes to federal programs to help people climb out of poverty permanently. In the weeks to come, Rubio also plans to introduce ideas to make it easier for mid-career adults to go back to college or learn new job skills at vocational schools.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the 2012 vice-presidential nominee, has been traveling to impoverished areas and meeting with community organizers. He plans to address poverty in an interview with NBC’s Brian Williams on Thursday.

A third potential GOP presidential candidate, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), is also putting a renewed emphasis on the poor, traveling to Detroit to pitch a plan to revitalize urban centers through “economic freedom zones.” Paul has given his message on income inequality an ideological edge – mixing lofty, empathetic language with anti-government broadsides.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who has been visiting urban schools, will give a speech Wednesday promoting school choice as a way to address poverty. And Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) has proposed increasing the child tax credit as a means of blending social conservatism with anti-poverty policies.

At a certain level, those concerned with the poor may be tempted to feel some satisfaction with the conversation. For Republicans to acknowledge the issue of poverty at all may seem like progress, just so long as one looks past every relevant policy detail.

But to take the debate seriously is to confront and consider those details carefully. The vast majority of federal Republican policymakers, including those preparing speeches on poverty this week, oppose extended unemployment benefits, which we know have helped keep struggling Americans out of poverty. These GOP lawmakers also oppose raising the federal minimum wage, which we also know is incredibly powerful in combating poverty. They also support sharp cuts to food stamps, which would take food from the mouths of low-income families.

And these Republicans oppose Medicaid expansion and the Affordable Care Act, which offer a lifeline for families hovering at the poverty line.

Against this backdrop, prominent GOP policymakers intend to promote tax breaks and privatization schemes as some kind of revamped compassionate conservatism with a Tea Party twist. How is this any different from the agenda these Republicans have pushed for years? It’s not, but it’s being repackaged as concern for the poor, and we’re apparently not supposed to notice the difference.

A renewed debate over poverty is a welcome development, but let’s make sure the discussion is grounded in reality.
republiCONS

Elizabethtown, KY

#143533 Jan 7, 2014
MisterCharrington wrote:
So I heard that the Orange Mormon was being sued in Federal Court for Racketeering....that's new and different LMFAO.
HAHA, me too.

Mitt Romney Slapped With Racketeering Lawsuit

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) closed a loophole which enabled crime bosses to get away with murder by merely ordering, or even suggesting, for crimes to happen. Despite the difficulty in proving a RICO case, those who engage in such acts continue to blame the law for their own criminal actions. RICO has been used to ensure convictions against tobacco giants and Mafia bosses. It is not an easy conviction, requiring an awful lot of paperwork, warrants, informants, etc. As discussed on Law and the Multiverse, a lighthearted look into the legalities of comic book characters, the difficulty in ensuring a RICO conviction is incredibly hard in the real world.

eToys Liquidation Or Con Game? One Man’s Fight To Make Sure Mitt Romney Pays For His Crime.

Stephen “Laser” Haas operates Collateral Logistics Inc.(CLI) a company which was appointed to oversee the liquidation of assets in the bankruptcy of eToys in 2001. He has now filed suit against Mitt Romney along with his company Bain Capital, Goldman Sachs, and several other firms, over actions taken in the eToys bankruptcy which manipulated the sale price, costing the companies shareholders millions. A US Judge confirmed the details of the case back in 2005, but under the Bush administration enforcement of these laws was lackluster at best. Bain Capital has already found itself in hot water over similar price-fixing scandals, but this case comes with paperwork implicating the one time GOP presidential nominee of price manipulation.

Read more:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/01/02/romne...

RIP GOP

DITCH MITCH

Since: May 11

Birmingham, UK

#143534 Jan 7, 2014
Injudgement wrote:
Oh, and by the way the reason you have to start with Reagan as the beginning of Islamic Terrorist killing Americans is because before Reagan had them trained by the CIA there were no Islamic Terrorist killing Americans.
Ahh yes, the bless'ed Mujahideen, the brave goat herders resisting the might of the soviet war machine.

I remember that Palin/Bachman wannabe Christine O'Donnell saying in a televised debate that "we should have stayed behind after the soviets left and finished the job"...so the US arms them, trains them funds them and then cuts them loose, then betrays the northern alliance and she thinks that finally before ending all involvment with the Afghans....the US should have killed them all for insurance so the monster which they created would not be around to bite them in the arse.

This is the same way the US fomented a 'popular uprising' among the marsh Arabs in the south of Iraq during Gulf War I....then cut them loose to be slaughtered by Saddam. I served on the Al Faw Peninsula and let me tell you, none of us were going to be 'greeted as liberators", because most of them had suffered loss after we left them to their fate in 1991. I have no idea who said that, I'm thinking Rumsfeld(sp?), Wolfowitz or Cheney.
1 post removed

“I'm Not TRUMP...”

Since: Apr 13

...I'm just DRAWN that way....

#143536 Jan 7, 2014
Ari son of Anarchy wrote:
<quoted text>
"an appreciation of poetry", spot on! I carry the visible scars of war...and those within (PTSD), I have sympathy to a degree, for others who fight different kinds of wars/battles.
Racism is everyone's battle; discrimination is another, the ADA seems to be a dog with no teeth here in Kentucky. When able bodied people park in handicap spaces and an elderly person has to suffer for an extra 40 or fifty feet just to shop for groceries it pisses me off. When I see a young person obtain pain med's via Medicaid, and they sell/trade/abuse them, it pisses me off. I see elderly who can't afford critical medications and then I wonder why don't we address this injustice?
Back to the poetry...it isn't really such a contradiction for a warrior to also be a poet...there are very analytical/creative minds combined in the warrior and the poet.
Just rambling...time to feed the woodstove and make more coffee.
:b
Call Hallmark, puss

“I'm Not TRUMP...”

Since: Apr 13

...I'm just DRAWN that way....

#143537 Jan 7, 2014
Ari son of Anarchy wrote:
<quoted text>
Monica?...
Is that you Monica?
What's that on your dress?
American Spirit!
What's that on yours?
1 post removed

“I'm Not TRUMP...”

Since: Apr 13

...I'm just DRAWN that way....

#143539 Jan 7, 2014
Ari son of Anarchy wrote:
<quoted text>
Cool beans! I'm not political there and I made many friends.
Might see you there sometime.
May the sun shine on your path for the rest of your journey in life.
:)
Jesus Tapdancing Christ

“I'm Not TRUMP...”

Since: Apr 13

...I'm just DRAWN that way....

#143540 Jan 7, 2014
really didn't contain any specific details on a coming strike
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, I noticed all of the leading providers of the canard were left wing loon sites.
leven years after the Sept. 11 attacks, a controversial op-ed piece in The New York Times has rekindled the bitter debate over whether George W. Bush ignored clear warnings that an al Qaeda attack was imminent in 2001. Former Times investigative reporter Kurt Eichenwald, author of the new book 500 Days: Secrets and Lies in the Terror Wars, writes that the most infamous red flag, a now-declassified Aug. 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing with the ominous headline "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." really didn't contain any specific details on a coming strike. Nevertheless, Eichenwald says he has read other daily briefs, still classified, that warned for months that Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist network had "a group presently in the United States" that was preparing a spectacular attack aiming to inflict mass casualties. Did Bush really have a bigger heads-up about 9/11 than previously disclosed? Here, four takeaways from Eichenwald's account:
1. Bush had plenty of reasons to go on alert
For years, we've heard about "then CIA chief George Tenet running around Washington with his hair on fire" trumpeting the looming danger, says Massimo Calabresi at TIME. Then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and others insisted that, despite vague warnings, there was "no actionable intelligence" that could have helped defuse the threat. Eichenwald's reporting shows there was "plenty the administration could have been doing to disrupt the plot without knowing the specifics of time and place." Nobody will argue that the Bush administration "distinguished itself in the summer of 2001," says David Frum at The Daily Beast, but Eichenwald is only telling a sliver of the story. The CIA failed both to cooperate with the FBI in blocking the conspirators from entering the U.S., and to share their watch lists with local police — a Maryland state trooper pulled over hijacking pilot Ziad Jarrah for speeding two days before the attacks, and let him go. The "worst mistakes" occurred before Bush ever got his briefings, "and they occurred within the national security agencies themselves."
2. Bush neocons were more worried about Iraq than al Qaeda
One particular passage in Eichenwald's "jaw-dropping scoop" really "reads like a nightmare," says Adam Clark Estes at The Atlantic. He says that neoconservative leaders at the Pentagon convinced the White House early on that "the C.I.A. had been fooled" into believing that al Qaeda was plotting an attack. The neocons thought bin Laden was trying to distract the Bush administration from Saddam Hussein, "whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat." Intelligence officials said that was "ridiculous," as an Islamist fundamentalist like bin Laden wouldn't cooperate with a secularist dictator like Hussein, and the CIA presented an analysis essentially pleading with the White House to accept that bin Laden posed a real threat, but the neocons kept the spotlight on Iraq.
3. If anything, this op-ed proves we shouldn't blame Bush
The only thing Eichenwald's so-called scoop reveals, says Mark Finkelstein at News Busters, is how far the anti-Bush press will go to "exploit 9-11 for low partisan purposes." If these murky new tidbits are the best that investigative journalists can come up with, the evidence that George W. Bush ignored indications that al Qaeda was close to pulling off an attack on American soil — or that he could have stopped it — is thin gruel indeed. This new account adds nothing to the historical record: It's "cheap political exploitation and finger-pointing at its basest."
"really didn't contain any specific details on a coming strike"
damn, what kind of enemy doesn't tell you exactly what he's going to do, and when?

you suck at this JimBob

“I'm Not TRUMP...”

Since: Apr 13

...I'm just DRAWN that way....

#143541 Jan 7, 2014
wtf wrote:
<quoted text>
How many terrorist attacks have been accomplished on Obama's watch? Remember you can't count the Ft. Hood terrorist attack because the Obama administration classified it as "workplace violence" and you can't count the Little Rock terrorist attack because this administration classified that as a "drive-by shooting" and you can't count the terrorists involvement in Benghazi because Hitlary and her news media buddies still claim it was the youtube video that sparked outrage or was it a demonstration that just got out of hand or...oh, what the hell does it matter at this point except that it not be classified as what it really is, a terrorist attack on United States soil, so the unimportant details won't hamper Hitlary's run for president. What about Brian Terry's murder? If the drug cartel aren't terrorists then I don't know who would qualify as such! You hypocrites went on and on about Bush not getting up and running out of the room and scaring the hell out of the young children in the classroom he was visiting when he first heard the news about the 9/11 attack. Yet Obama went on to bed after being informed about the real-time terrorist attack on Americans in Benghazi and then flew to Vegas to party with Hollywood's richest 1%er couple and new best friends of the Obama's...Jay Z and Beyonce. Money, money, money, campaign, campaign, campaign!
Why is it that you hypocrites conveniently forget ALL the DETAILS and FACTS when discussing issues? Enjoy your fun facts of the day! You're welcome!
Zero

Since: Oct 09

.

#143542 Jan 7, 2014
Injudgement wrote:
Oh, and by the way the reason you have to start with Reagan as the beginning of Islamic Terrorist killing Americans is because before Reagan had them trained by the CIA there were no Islamic Terrorist killing Americans.
Liberal mythology again, BULLSHIT (the stinky flag is thrown).

Actually anyone old enough to remember Jimmy Carter's hostage screw up should also know the terrorists were also called “college student/protestors”…you would find that almost nonexistent in current history books. No American victims before Reagan? President Carter called the hostages "victims of terrorism and anarchy". So you might want to argue your point with him.
Eight Americans died (Delta Force members) in a failed rescue attempt…on Carters watch! This is why Reagan won the Presidency from Carter, well that and Carters other failure Energy Crisis/Fuel rationing. Try to find those in today’s History books in a public school.
http://www.history.com/topics/iran-hostage-cr...
Islamic Revolution of Iran or the 1979 Revolution
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/islamic_re...

Since: Oct 09

.

#143543 Jan 7, 2014
Calvin_Coolish wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus Tapdancing Christ
Morgan Freeman does soft shoe?

Since: Oct 09

.

#143544 Jan 7, 2014
Calvin_Coolish wrote:
<quoted text>
American Spirit!
What's that on yours?
You SUCK...
me not at all.

;)
3 posts removed

“I'm Not TRUMP...”

Since: Apr 13

...I'm just DRAWN that way....

#143548 Jan 7, 2014
Ari son of Anarchy wrote:
<quoted text>
You SUCK...
me not at all.
;)
I know, you like it in the butt, i remember
republiCONS

Elizabethtown, KY

#143549 Jan 7, 2014
Awww, lQQkie, arisock couldn't even get Calvin to play for long. Looks like he had the last word leaving the sock freak in his own bullshit. haha

SENATE SHOWS HEART FOR JOBLESS

Unemployment Benefits Extension Advances In Senate

"For many American families, these benefits were the difference between making ends meet and going hungry or becoming homeless,"

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Tuesday. "In 2012 alone, unemployment insurance helped 2.5 million people, including 600,000 children, stay out of poverty. These families live in red states and blue states. They are Republicans, Democrats and Independents. And we can’t turn our backs on them now."

The Senate bill was co-authored by Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) and Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), both of whom hail from states with 9 percent unemployment, the highest in the nation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/07/unem...

haha, wait til you see what the repukes have planned to deal. haaha

They never learn.

RIP GOP

DITCH MITCH

“I'm Not TRUMP...”

Since: Apr 13

...I'm just DRAWN that way....

#143550 Jan 7, 2014
Ari son of Anarchy wrote:
<quoted text>
Morgan Freeman does soft shoe?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =bjAM2J_D4UYXX
He's omnipotent, isn't he?

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.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 2 min positronium 5,517
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min sonicfilter 1,404,939
News After week of brutal GOP bashing. Clinton aims ... 3 min Best Convention EVER 3
News Trump bounces into the lead 4 min positronium 207
News Wabash Valley DNC delegates feeling 'energy' 4 min Sid 4
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 4 min Dr Guru 219,560
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 5 min mdbuilder 391,381
News Hacked emails show Democratic party hostility t... 10 min NotSoDivineMsM 282
More from around the web