January 28, 2012
— DrewM Because I'm a giver.
Added [rdbrewer]: Bloody Pingu
Posted by: DrewM at
08:29 AM
| Comments (135)
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 28, 2012 08:33 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: rdbrewer at January 28, 2012 08:35 AM (Iyg03)
Posted by: Truman North at January 28, 2012 08:36 AM (I2LwF)
Posted by: billygoat at January 28, 2012 08:37 AM (GsBJY)
Posted by: Y-not at January 28, 2012 08:38 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: billygoat at January 28, 2012 08:38 AM (GsBJY)
Posted by: Blue Hen at January 28, 2012 12:34 PM (c9Ivb)
"Fabric safari." I will have to remember that one.
Posted by: Grey Fox at January 28, 2012 08:39 AM (qMs8j)
Because I'm a giver.
Posted by: DrewM. at 12:29 PM//STD's don't count.
Posted by: Have Blue at January 28, 2012 08:40 AM (IKTC8)
Flaming skull worthy:
The catÂ’s out of the bag ...
Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, a Romney supporter, went on The Record last night. The Florida Republican told Greta Van Susteren that Mitt wants Romneycare in every state.
She also said she would be on RomneyÂ’s Health Care Advisory Team when heÂ’s president.
http://tinyurl.com/77xh4mj
Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at January 28, 2012 08:41 AM (7+pP9)
Cause my wife, stepdaughter and several others of The Tribe have gone on a fabric safari.<<<
Yeah, my oldest two are with their grandparents and the Empress is at yoga, but I have my twins, Pigpen and The Barnacle, to look after.
Otherwise, I'd be logged on to nipplebandits.com and beating my dick until it gave me the Genesis Device.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 28, 2012 08:42 AM (DiqH3)
Posted by: billygoat at January 28, 2012 08:42 AM (GsBJY)
Posted by: billygoat at January 28, 2012 08:44 AM (GsBJY)
Posted by: Y-not at January 28, 2012 08:44 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: mike at January 28, 2012 08:45 AM (3JpQ0)
I received more than one nasty email from Gov Romney supporters criticizing me for coming to Florida and interviewing Speaker Gingrich in person and not Gov Romney. Perhaps a dose of the facts will tone down those emails: 1/ they must have forgotten that two weeks ago I went to South Carolina and interviewed Gov Romney in person and 2/ we made the same offer – interview with Gov Romney in Florida -and the Romney campaign declined
Posted by: Y-not at January 28, 2012 08:46 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: CoolCzech at January 28, 2012 08:47 AM (niZvt)
She's clearly a Romney supporter but I don't hear where she said Romney wants Romneycare in every state.
Posted by: Tami at January 28, 2012 08:50 AM (X6akg)
Meanwhile, the two younger kids are reveling in the joy that is a PBJ sandwich, which is forbidden unto them by the Brandywine school district.
Fucking peanut butter allergy bullshit. When I was a kid, we never heard of such a thing. If a kid ever died from touching a surface that once had a peanut on it, he must have crawled off and died in private.
LIKE A MAN.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 28, 2012 08:51 AM (DiqH3)
I'm sure she has a nice personality though.
Posted by: GnuBreed at January 28, 2012 08:52 AM (BhuDE)
Posted by: Y-not at January 28, 2012 12:44 PM (5H6zj)
Well, obviously Romney likes Romneycare, and it is not too hard to believe that he thinks that all states ought to adopt similar plans. That doesn't mean that he wants such plans to be federally imposed - the lady in question is pretty clear about wanting this to be done at a state, not a federal level - so I am not sure that this is really some huge revelation.
I was kinda-sorta leaning Romney, just because Gingrich seems like a loose cannon, but could easily be persuaded otherwise. I don't see that what she says tells me anything I hadn't already figured out, though.
Posted by: Grey Fox at January 28, 2012 08:52 AM (qMs8j)
Pam Bondi didn't say that, I watched the interview. She said she wanted states to be free to take care of health care as they see fit.
That used to be a republican plank in the platform. Until this year.
Posted by: robtr at January 28, 2012 08:53 AM (MtwBb)
13 ....In light of yesterday's Aunt Flo thread, perhaps today we need a hot flashes thread. Or a men's back hair thread.
.
Oh please no, let's not. .....I cringe when I see my sister femaliens going on about the hell we go through with our plumbing, and how they want to kill someone at certain times of the month.
.
Because I know that all that shit will get played back to us, when we try to argue that women are just as good as men are in positions of power.....and a woman would make just as good a POTUS as a man.
Posted by: wheatie at January 28, 2012 08:54 AM (ALwK/)
Posted by: Waterhouse at January 28, 2012 08:54 AM (Wyo40)
Posted by: Barb the Evil Genius at January 28, 2012 08:54 AM (MyByM)
Posted by: Chilling the most for perry at January 28, 2012 08:54 AM (6IV8T)
Posted by: CoolCzech at January 28, 2012 08:56 AM (niZvt)
Posted by: mike at January 28, 2012 08:56 AM (3JpQ0)
Yeesh.
Posted by: Fritz at January 28, 2012 08:57 AM (3raPN)
Posted by: Jose at January 28, 2012 12:56 PM (srIqv)
It's not you, its me.
Posted by: The Blog at January 28, 2012 08:57 AM (/izg2)
Anything to keep from hitting the fitness center and working out I guess.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at January 28, 2012 08:57 AM (UOM48)
She said she wanted states to be free to take care of health care as they see fit.
That used to be a republican plank in the platform. Until this year.
Posted by: robtr at January 28, 2012 12:53 PM (MtwBb
Yeah -- Republicans (snicker). This year conservatives want individuals to take care of health care as they see fit.
Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at January 28, 2012 08:58 AM (7+pP9)
Posted by: stevea28 at January 28, 2012 08:58 AM (EsPiA)
Posted by: Truman North at January 28, 2012 08:59 AM (I2LwF)
true. she doesn't . she is talking about his mass-care plan , obvious because gvs asks her to compare and cotrast "romneycare" to "obamacare", and that is she is talking abt
Posted by: runner at January 28, 2012 08:59 AM (WR5xI)
Posted by: mike at January 28, 2012 12:56 PM (3JpQ0)
The bigger problems are in the lack of doctors to cover the increased load and increased waiting times.
Posted by: really ... at January 28, 2012 09:00 AM (X3lox)
do you mind...what is that individual opt out provision in the law ?
Posted by: runner at January 28, 2012 09:01 AM (WR5xI)
Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at January 28, 2012 12:58 PM (7+pP9)
Duh, then either change the 10th amemdment or vote in people in your state that feel the same way. What do you want to the president to do about it? Do you want the President to run your state? It seems like that is what you are promoting.
Posted by: robtr at January 28, 2012 09:02 AM (MtwBb)
Watch the video and tell me where she says he wants Romneycare in every state.
She says "states rights" and the dingbats at Free Republic took that to read "Romneycare in every state".
Brilliant analysis.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 28, 2012 09:03 AM (phgnV)
Posted by: jeannebodine, Team Meteor-Bot at January 28, 2012 09:04 AM (byR8d)
Progressives all love some of that social engineering. .....Left or right, that is one of the common denominators with progressives.
.
Which is why the progressives on 'our side' went ballistic when Newt said that thing about "right wing engineering".
.
I remember, right after Newt became Speaker, back in the 90's...... He had been cornered in the hallway, somewhere in the House. .....The media was asking him "Are you going to try to make abortion illegal? Are you? Are you, huh?"
.
And Newt said: "We are not here to replace the social engineering of the Left, with the social engineering of the Right".
.
This began the 'big chill' against Newt, from his own party. .....Well, from the progressives in his own party.....the ones who don't even want to admit to themselves that they are, in fact, progressives.
Posted by: wheatie at January 28, 2012 09:04 AM (ALwK/)
Posted by: Penfold at January 28, 2012 09:05 AM (4jMRd)
Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at January 28, 2012 12:58 PM (7+pP9)
True, but if the population of individual states vote to collectivise their healthcare, then that is their right, right? That is the logic of federalism.
Posted by: Grey Fox at January 28, 2012 09:05 AM (qMs8j)
I love the Romneybots:
Obamacare is bad because the federal government forces you to buy insurance. Romneycare is okay because the state forces you to buy insurance
Talk about cognitive dissonance.
Fucking Romneybots are stupider than Paultards.
Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at January 28, 2012 09:06 AM (7+pP9)
^^^
Well no, it's fine if anyone else touts the 10th. Just not when Romney does it apparently.
Jim Hoft is a fucking imbecile.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 28, 2012 09:07 AM (phgnV)
.
This began the 'big chill' against Newt, from his own party. .....Well, from the progressives in his own party.....the ones who don't even want to admit to themselves that they are, in fact, progressives.
Posted by: wheatie at January 28, 2012 01:04 PM (ALwK/)
Funny how protecting individual life = social engineering.
Posted by: Grey Fox at January 28, 2012 09:07 AM (qMs8j)
Posted by: runner at January 28, 2012 01:01 PM (WR5xI)
I couldn't say. I had just heard some statistics about Mass health care the other day that had highlighted those points. They're pretty obvious consequences of adding that many people to the system.
When they stress the system (cap and trade on health care, essentially) almost everyone gets stuck with the problems. The Left loves to spread the misery. Lowest common denominator.
Posted by: really ... at January 28, 2012 09:07 AM (X3lox)
Last week there was a tweet being circulated about the Romney camp sending Newt a cake for the anniversary of his resignation as Speaker.
Was that also a bunch of horsepoop?
Posted by: soothsayer at January 28, 2012 09:08 AM (sqkOB)
......Posted by: Grey Fox
.
It's about Free Will.....and Freedom, Grey Fox. ....Progressives think that 'their' particular infringement upon our free will and our freedoms is the one on the side of 'what is right!'.
.
But it boils down to the same thing. .....Infringement on our freedoms.
Posted by: wheatie at January 28, 2012 09:12 AM (ALwK/)
There are a few self proclaimed "conservatives" running around that don't even know what the word means. These brilliant conservatives want to get rid of Roe V. Wade. They can't grasp that getting rid of Roe V. Wade sends the decision back to the states. Your state could decide to either approve or ban abortion.
The new "conservatives" want to rip up the constitution and have the federal government ban or allow the things they want. I have news for you conservatives, that has never been a conservative position.
Posted by: robtr at January 28, 2012 09:13 AM (MtwBb)
ok, i am jus trying to understand this individual op-out that is part of the plan, thought you were form Massachusetts; if it is in place, then i can't see how it is a "government mandate"
Posted by: runner at January 28, 2012 09:13 AM (WR5xI)
Posted by: irongrampa at January 28, 2012 09:15 AM (SAMxH)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 28, 2012 09:16 AM (wJYSR)
.
Which is why the progressives on 'our side' went ballistic when Newt said that thing about "right wing engineering".
> How is the Medicare plan in the House budget "progressive"? Further, the facts clearly show that we must reform entitlements and cut mandatory spending OR we will go over the cliff.
Posted by: M80B at January 28, 2012 09:17 AM (d6QMz)
The only way to avoid the fine for not having health insurance in MA is by proving you could not afford it.
You must provide proof of health insurance each year on your MA income tax form. If one's AGI is low enough, they will not be fined ($2000, I think) for not having health insurance.
Posted by: soothsayer at January 28, 2012 09:17 AM (sqkOB)
Posted by: runner at January 28, 2012 01:13 PM (WR5xI)
Which "mandate" are you talking about? In Massachusetts, even Romney calls it an "individual mandate". Are you talking about Romney claiming that he would give state opt-outs of ObamaCare? Mittens isn't telling the whole story with just that. He wants each state to adopt, on its own, an individual mandate. He thinks that coercion from the federal government, in the form some honey-money, is not a bad way to get all of the states to make the "right" choice.
Posted by: really ... at January 28, 2012 09:18 AM (X3lox)
OK OWS types, this is the way you do it. Attractive slender Ukranian girls protest topless at Davos:
http://goo.gl/2WZlZ
The naughty bits are blurred out, but possible NWS for uptight Ws.
Bonus points: the Alpha blonde kinda looks like Taylor Swift.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 28, 2012 09:19 AM (3wBRE)
i am jus trying to understand this individual op-out that is part of the plan
I use the opt-out, which is having private insurance. Otherwise, you pay a fine.
MassCare, or whatever, is not cheap. Our premiums have been going up, but it is hard to say if it is because of the mandate, because of the looming ObamaCare, or inflation in general.
Posted by: fluffy, Masshole at January 28, 2012 09:20 AM (Lpgtj)
Posted by: buzzion at January 28, 2012 09:21 AM (GULKT)
Posted by: mike at January 28, 2012 09:21 AM (3JpQ0)
Btw......Newt followed up that remark about "replacing the social engineering of the Left, with the social engineering of the Right", with saying:
.
"I think we should put the question of Abortion on a nationwide ballot. Let the people decide whether they think it should be legal or not".
.
This did not win him any friends with the progressives within the Republican party.
.
Look, I am not pro-abortion. Hardly....I think it is an abomination. ....But we can do a lot by convincing our sons and daughters that a pregnancy is a Life. ....And that being a parent is one of the most fulfilling endeavors that we can ever hope to undertake.
.
I love all those startling, in-your-face billboards that depict abortion as the horrible thing that it is. ....Yes, more of that.
.
But we lose the argument that we, as conservatives are 'all about freedom', when we turn around and say "except for abortion....that's bad, therefore you should not have that personal choice". .....Sorry, but we do.
Posted by: wheatie at January 28, 2012 09:22 AM (ALwK/)
I would like to see a candidate propose a fundamental change in foreign policy.
Right now, the U.S. takes the position that we are friends with the citizens of all nations. When we have disagreements, they are with the ruling entity, not the people. This leaves the citizens of countries like Iraq, Iran and Pakistan unaccountable for their governments and leads to muddled policies like never ending wars.
By changing to a position that holds an entire nation responsible for the actions of their leaders, it clarifies the interests of all parties. In the case of Iran, a U.S. president should make it clear that it is unacceptable to the worldÂ’s interest that they develop nuclear weapons. If the Iranian people allow their present leadership to continue on this course, it will lead to a situation that could result in massive casualties and destruction.
In effect, this policy would give the citizens of an offending country the choice of either standing up and changing their present government or facing the consequences of a superpower raining death on them. Once people realized that the only American boots on the ground will be those stepping over charred bodies to assess the effectiveness of our weapons, the speed of reaching our objectives will increase dramatically.
Of course, we would always welcome as friends the survivors after total capitulation, just as we did with the Japanese and Germans. Seems to have worked before, why not now?
Posted by: jwest at January 28, 2012 09:22 AM (FdndL)
Posted by: CoolCzech at January 28, 2012 09:23 AM (niZvt)
Posted by: chemjeff at January 28, 2012 01:22 PM (7FadD)
Yes. It's total bullshit, but Mittens did express that view.
Posted by: really ... at January 28, 2012 09:23 AM (X3lox)
Posted by: stevea28 at January 28, 2012 09:25 AM (EsPiA)
Posted by: eman at January 28, 2012 09:25 AM (pn8u0)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 28, 2012 09:25 AM (wJYSR)
Posted by: Palerider at January 28, 2012 09:25 AM (cQZV0)
I'm sick of reading the shilling and propaganda for and against both of these jackasses.
After Tuesday, it will be over. And I'm glad.
Posted by: soothsayer at January 28, 2012 09:25 AM (sqkOB)
Posted by: CoolCzech at January 28, 2012 09:26 AM (niZvt)
Posted by: Navycopjoe at January 28, 2012 09:27 AM (yneWI)
Posted by: runner at January 28, 2012 01:13 PM
I live in Mass., and as a recent arrival I was required to sign up for the CommonwealthCare/MassHealth package. Everyone here must be on the list, and be connected to the state-run "health care" system. Your premiums vary based on income, but if you live here, it sign up or pay a fine.
This is one reason I dislike The Mutt so intensely. It's not like car insurance (though some claim so) which is also mandatory. If you don't have a car, you don't have to buy car insurance. But you have to be dead to stay out of The Mutt's little scheme.
If I hear him say, in so many words, "I want that gone, and will refuse to impose it on the rest of the country, and MA should end it" I'll feel a little better about voting for him, even if he's a pandering, unprincipled pretty boy.
Better than four more years of the stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure. Like starvation is worse than a bullet in the head.
Posted by: MrScribbler at January 28, 2012 09:28 AM (tkd/a)
After Tuesday, it will be over. And I'm glad.
> Same here.
Posted by: M80B at January 28, 2012 09:28 AM (d6QMz)
Posted by: Palerider at January 28, 2012 09:29 AM (cQZV0)
Posted by: Mike D. at January 28, 2012 09:29 AM (p8QOg)
Posted by: jeannebodine, Team Meteor-Bot at January 28, 2012 09:30 AM (byR8d)
72.....> How is the Medicare plan in the House budget "progressive"?
Further, the facts clearly show that we must reform entitlements and cut
mandatory spending OR we will go over the cliff.
.
Oh, I agree about the reforms and cutting spending, M80b. .....Which is what I liked about Ryan's plan. .....But in the sense of 'what is progressive', let's face it, all entitlement programs are progressive, aren't they?
Posted by: wheatie at January 28, 2012 09:31 AM (ALwK/)
Florida is turning into a pandering fest for these two shitheads.
Romney, because of that asshole Newt and the media, now has a reputation for being a hardliner on immigration.
So Romney, the idiot, responds by saying his heart goes out to the 11 million illegals.
“I’m very concerned about those who are already here illegally and how we deal with those 11 million or so. My heart goes out to that group of people. ... We’re not going to go around and round people up in buses and ship them home.”
Wonderful.
Posted by: soothsayer at January 28, 2012 09:31 AM (sqkOB)
What constitutional clause mentions "national ballots?" Typical nutty Newtonism. He makes this crap up on the fly, just like Moonbase Nutonia.
Posted by: CoolCzech at January 28, 2012 01:26 PM (niZvt)
There isn't any, not even amending the constitution is done by national referendum. Some states have them and they a bunch of them have already voted on abortion. Some for and some against.
Newt is a populist, he said he was a populist on Greta last night. Obama is also a populist. Our constitution was written to avoid populists.
Posted by: robtr at January 28, 2012 09:32 AM (MtwBb)
Posted by: Palerider at January 28, 2012 09:32 AM (cQZV0)
Posted by: Navycopjoe at January 28, 2012 09:32 AM (yneWI)
Posted by: CoolCzech at January 28, 2012 09:33 AM (niZvt)
Posted by: the guy that moves pianos for a living.... at January 28, 2012 09:34 AM (5Wj1Y)
Me? No. Nakey skirt.
Posted by: rdbrewer at January 28, 2012 09:34 AM (Iyg03)
There is absolutely no way that I will ever pay a fine for not purchasing insurance. Set aside the fact that I understand the reasons for insurance--got no problem up to that point.
First time you (gov't) tells me "we have this right" brings a firm fuck you. Jail me, I'll be the test case here, whatever the outcome, ain't gonna fall in line. And please don't bring up any comparisons, doesn't apply.
Posted by: irongrampa at January 28, 2012 09:35 AM (SAMxH)
Posted by: eman at January 28, 2012 09:36 AM (pn8u0)
Posted by: chemjeff at January 28, 2012 01:25 PM (7FadD)
You know, things get buried in search results pretty quickly, these days. Not doing too much work, here's a little quip from one of Mittens' latest defenses of RomneyCare (a few weeks ago):
Mittens claims that it is personal responsibility that provides the foundation for an individual mandate. He says that that is FUNDAMENTALLY A CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLE. Once more, FUNDAMENTALLY A CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLE for a state to mandate personal responsibility in the form of forcing everyone to buy their recommended health insurance ... And you doubt that he said he would like all the states to adopt this "fundamentally [] conservative principle"? Really?
I don't know. Tough defense, you got there, jeff.
Posted by: really ... at January 28, 2012 09:36 AM (X3lox)
Look again.
Posted by: rdbrewer at January 28, 2012 09:37 AM (Iyg03)
Everything that lady stated about Romneycare was being touted by the dems for Obamacare... It'll cut costs, it won't raise taxes, it won't create a huge new bureaucracy, it'll be portable, it'll get the kinks out of your hair, blah blah blah, etc. and so forth...all of which were lies. If Romney can't explain and contrast the two plans very well and his people can't explain and contrast the two plans very well, then maybe, just maybe, the two plans are so damn alike that nobody can tell the difference. If the election is a showdown between Mitt and Barry then Mitt, in my opinion is gonna lose. Why? Age old question- why choose Barrylite when you can get the real thing. Our guy Mitt is more of the same just not so much, which is what McCain was, which is what Dole was, etc. Mitt is gonna depress turnout of our base. Not my turnout. I will vote early and often for Mitt if he's the nominee
but I fear that many will stay at home and cost our country dearly for the foreseeable future.
Of course, I could be wrong, and Mitt wins a hotly contested race due to the fact that independents and moderates have had trouble finding jobs and are finally (what the hell is wrong with your friggin' ears and eyes you bastards!) seeing through the "unbiased" coverage of the MSM.
Door #2 please....door #2 please....please.....please
Posted by: Some guy you don't know in Wisconsin at January 28, 2012 09:38 AM (dx77n)
Posted by: Blue Hen at January 28, 2012 01:29 PM (c9Ivb)
Their aren't any federal laws against punching your spouse in the face or child prostitution unless you cross state lines while committing the crime. There is also no federal law against murder unless you murder a federal employee. Those laws are all handled by the states.
Slavery and civil rights laws have been held up because they were found to be unconstitional. Just like abortion was found to be a constitutional right ( wrongly and a horrific stretch of the 4th amemdment) but that is what happened.
If Roe V. Wade was overturned tomorrow it would be up to the states to decide whether it was legal or not.
Posted by: robtr at January 28, 2012 09:38 AM (MtwBb)
97.....Replace the word abortion with slavery, child prostitution or punching your spouse in the face. Refer to any of the above as a personal choice.
.
You left out murder, rape, robbery....and all the other criminal activities out there that are illegal.....and should be, I agree.
.
Look, I am not defending abortion. It is a horrible thing. ....I just don't see how we win over the hearts and minds of voters by being so insistant that "it should be illegal!".
Posted by: wheatie at January 28, 2012 09:39 AM (ALwK/)
.
Oh, I agree about the reforms and cutting spending, M80b. .....Which is what I liked about Ryan's plan. .....But in the sense of 'what is progressive', let's face it, all entitlement programs are progressive, aren't they?
> In the sense that it is applied to everyone instead of just those who need it*, yes, but fundamentally transforming Medicare into a more free-market program is not "progressive".
*Some would also argue because it is done at the federal and not state level.
Posted by: M80B at January 28, 2012 09:40 AM (d6QMz)
Posted by: booger at January 28, 2012 09:41 AM (29wvc)
Posted by: M80B at January 28, 2012 09:45 AM (d6QMz)
She's clearly a Romney supporter but I don't hear where she said Romney wants Romneycare in every state.
Posted by: Tami at January 28, 2012 12:50 PM (X6akg)
Agree, Tami. She did not say that. Perhaps every state AG will be on his healthcare team? Pam Bondi was, in a dumb blonde fashion, attempting to distinguish the differences in the state vs federal healthcare systems.
The title of the video is misleading and histrionic.
Posted by: ChristyBlinky loves Rubio at January 28, 2012 09:45 AM (baL2B)
Posted by: Palerider at January 28, 2012 09:45 AM (cQZV0)
Posted by: M80B at January 28, 2012 01:45 PM (d6QMz)
Agree.
Posted by: ChristyBlinky loves Rubio at January 28, 2012 09:46 AM (baL2B)
So according to some people, the tenth amendment means you can be a shitty governor who implements liberal policies and we can't call you on it.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 28, 2012 01:16 PM (wJYSR)
You nailed it.
It also means the state can make everybody wear green jeans or nose rings or anything else not specifically prohibited by the Constitution.
Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at January 28, 2012 09:55 AM (7+pP9)
i see, sounds like you have no option of going outside the system, even if you are wealthy enough.
Posted by: runner at January 28, 2012 10:02 AM (WR5xI)
Posted by: CaveJohnson at January 28, 2012 10:03 AM (+kg55)
Posted by: chemjeff at January 28, 2012 01:57 PM (7FadD)
Pssst. Chemjeff. Over here. Shhhhh.
Just between us ... do you really doubt he ever said that about wanting all the states to make the right decision on their own, and wouldn't be opposed to using a little federal money to help the process?
And please tell about other "fundamentally conservative principles" that you think states shouldn't adopt, given a free choice?
Posted by: really ... at January 28, 2012 10:03 AM (X3lox)
Lori Watt? I'm a musician. We have a saying: There's no bad music, just bad musicians. Also, there's no accounting for taste.
From the comments:
I'm going to throw away all my Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, and Bob Marley records.
I only ever need to listen to this song from now on. Genius.
Lori Watts joins the pantheon of musicians I will only hear once, unless I have an unfortunate accident. In which case I will run very fast while covering my ears and screaming.
Posted by: Meremortal at January 28, 2012 10:09 AM (nmNNk)
One of the problems Mitt has and will continue to have ( and we will all have if Mitt is the nominee) is that almost all democrats and many many "moderates" and "independents" don't understand states rights issues and therefore see no difference at all in one state implimenting Obamacare-oops-Romneycare
and Obama giving it but good to the citizens of all 50 states. I understand the concept ( and I'm sure most morons do too) that the states would be experimental labs for policies and that the federal government would follow their Constitutionally enumerated powers.
But, honestly, the majority of Congresscritters think almost anything is allowed under the commerce clause and have acted accordingly. And the SCOTUS and the vast majority of the voters have let things go so far down this path it will be almost impossible to turn around.
Most people don't have any interest in, or knowledge of, the basic Constitutional issues being brought up to try and defeat Obamacare. Most dems and many mods just see it as more "free" stuff Obama wants to "give" them and the republicans are trying to "take" away. And that's how the media has been and will continue to paint the issue.
It's actually starting to amaze me that many of the polls show Romney or Newt in a competetive race. Obama has made things so much worse that reality just might bite a bunch of those "moderates" in the ass. I hope it's a big nasty bite right on their keister too! Does that make me a bad person?
Posted by: Some guy you don't know in Wisconsin at January 28, 2012 10:30 AM (dx77n)
Your entire post is disconcerting because it speaks to my thoughts that maybe the republicans really don't want to win in 2012 or that they've agreed somehow to let BO have his second term and that they just will focus on the Senate and the House to try and keep a tight reign on BO. I know odd thoughts but to watch all those people come out so strongly against Gingrich suggests that the republican team players, the ones that follow the rule or lead of the alleged republican party elite, causes a person to wonder about why they would be willing to destroy a candidate.
Posted by: ambrosia at January 28, 2012 10:43 AM (oZfic)
Pingu: 346.4, the first one was bloody.
Other than that, Sierra Nevada Ruthless Rye IPA is awesome.
Also, going to see Poncho Sanchez with Terrence Blanchard tonight.
Posted by: sTevo at January 28, 2012 11:01 AM (VMcEw)
Posted by: Leigh T at January 28, 2012 11:20 AM (pJHs9)
Genetics are changing? Any researches with theories out there regarding this? Mine are that maybe they were right, pot changes chromosomes. And that it seems like the kids I hear about that have tons of allergies are kids of people I know that are vegetarians and diet fanatics. Of course, I am not a researcher. I just know that anchors are cool.
Posted by: i like anchors 2012 at January 28, 2012 12:20 PM (LCZ3l)
MMA is fun. Glad something replaced boxing. The judging got corrupt in just about every fight. MMA usually produces an obvious winner. And no one has died yet, no standing eight counts for more and more and more brain injury. Hope it stays that way. I don't watch to see people get killed. I do enjoy watching a solid beat down, to a point. Wish they'd go back to the basic rules of just no eye gouging and no biting though. Allowing kidney kicks from the guard would change the game a bit. Funny how a lot of them end up kck boxing nowadays, mainly boxing at that.
Always wonder why they have trouble wailing on the ribs and solar plexus when they are ground and pounding. Hammer strike to the floating ribs or solar plexus would end a fight just as well as an elbow or fist to the face.
And Joe Rogan is an excellent commenter. Wonder if he reads this blog.
Posted by: i like anchors 2012 at January 28, 2012 12:30 PM (LCZ3l)
Posted by: Grant S at January 28, 2012 03:08 PM (dsCnE)
Posted by: Rusty Nail at January 28, 2012 04:34 PM (QxGmu)
Posted by: Tex Lovera at January 30, 2012 07:25 AM (wtvvX)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2462 seconds, 263 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 28, 2012 08:33 AM (DiqH3)