'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate

"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).

Full Story
frank

Oakland, CA

#42505 Jun 21, 2012
WakeUp wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you advance the position that Chevy volts are ostensibly, out selling the corvette. I point out the fallacy of that, and you think that b/c you drive a volt, that the actual failed economic impact of the Volt and the policies that are subsidizing it to the tune of billions aren't even worth discussing any further b/c pointing out the numbers is just "typical winger-whining" and not worth acknowledgement.
Gotcha.
As for Ally Financial, funny how everyone was so gung-ho about housing values continuing to climb, and when a few analyst pointed out the worthlessness of the mortgages being made...it was poo-pooed as doom and gloom and fear mongering...how well has that worked out for everyone?
The Chevy Volt was designed and built long before the current administration; the attempt by the wingers to connect Obama with the car is not only laughable, it’s ignorant.
The government does not subsidies the design and manufacture of green cars, it offers rebates on hybrid and alternative-fuel cars through the state or local government after the car is purchased. While rebates on hybrid and alternative fuel cars vary by state, the federal government offers tax credits on some hybrid and alternative fuel car purchases. For hybrid cars, you can currently get a tax credit of up to $3,400 (depending on the make and model hybrid you buy). Anyone buying a Chevrolet Volt, your eligible for the $7500 Federal rebate, as well as a potential $5000 California Rebate.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/taxcenter.shtm...
whitehair

Eminence, KY

#42506 Jun 21, 2012
And with what you just said,you think the Gov`t does not subsidise the auto industry for the so called green cars?The chevy volt is expensive,no one wants to buy,and they then have to be re-batteried,which is very expensive.A really good conversation,not a good conservative purchase.And where in the Constitution does the gov`t get the right to take over any private(stock owned)company?Where in the constitution does it say the gov`t may rebate any companies product?Where does it say the gov`t may choose which company will be helped to succeed or fail?
Could the rebates be why Calif.and the Fed.gov `t are going broke?Just can not control themselves from wetting their own pants?Of course this is just my opinion,not worth a cup of coffee.
Darryl Washington

Cincinnati, OH

#42507 Jun 21, 2012
WakeUp wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing in the Constitution allows for the existence of the Departments of Education, Commerce and Energy (to name a few), government-sponsored entities such as Fannie Mae ( FNM - news - people ) and Freddie Mac ( FRE - news - people ), or ineffective bureaucracies such as the SEC and the FDA. Obamacare is just one of the more recent examples.
The Washington Times, documents federal spending that includes $2.6 million for the training of "Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job," $3.9 million for the SEC to rearrange "desks and offices at its Washington headquarters" and nearly $1 million for the shipping of "two 19-cent washers from South Carolina to Texas," along with the improper use of government credit cards for the purchase of goods including "lingerie, iPods, XBoxes, jewelry, Internet dating services and Hawaiian vacations."
So, for the sake of a real discussion that I am apparently not having...want to chime in on your thoughts about these things?
The basic rules of logic can be tricky for the uninitiated and require some discipline and exercise to master. Let me explain as concretely as possible. Failure of the constitution to specify that something is legal does not make it illegal. The constitution does not say that it is legal for there to be Republican and Democratic political parties, that a woman, African American or Mormon may serve as president, that states may adopt official state flowers or slogans, etc.

I could do this until I’m orange in the face, but what would be the point? You’re stuck in the attack mode dedicated to espousing only one irrefutable idea ad infinitum in the form of regurgitating without formal analysis most anything and everything that you believe to demonstrate your belief system.

You might want to check out http://www.campbellsville.edu/ .
Darryls sister Darrylene

Glasgow, KY

#42508 Jun 21, 2012
Darryl Washington wrote:
<quoted text>
The basic rules of logic can be tricky for the uninitiated and require some discipline and exercise to master. Let me explain as concretely as possible. Failure of the constitution to specify that something is legal does not make it illegal. The constitution does not say that it is legal for there to be Republican and Democratic political parties, that a woman, African American or Mormon may serve as president, that states may adopt official state flowers or slogans, etc.
I could do this until I’m orange in the face, but what would be the point? You’re stuck in the attack mode dedicated to espousing only one irrefutable idea ad infinitum in the form of regurgitating without formal analysis most anything and everything that you believe to demonstrate your belief system.
You might want to check out http://www.campbellsville.edu/ .
Didn't I read those exact words in your post in a newspaper article somewhere? lol Your words? Come on Darryl, you're not fooling anyone. Well, maybe you are fooling your other brother Darryl but the rest of us...not so much boy! LMMFAO!
WakeUp

Campbellsville, KY

#42509 Jun 21, 2012
frank wrote:
<quoted text>
The Chevy Volt was designed and built long before the current administration; the attempt by the wingers to connect Obama with the car is not only laughable, it’s ignorant.
The government does not subsidies the design and manufacture of green cars, it offers rebates on hybrid and alternative-fuel cars through the state or local government after the car is purchased. While rebates on hybrid and alternative fuel cars vary by state, the federal government offers tax credits on some hybrid and alternative fuel car purchases. For hybrid cars, you can currently get a tax credit of up to $3,400 (depending on the make and model hybrid you buy). Anyone buying a Chevrolet Volt, your eligible for the $7500 Federal rebate, as well as a potential $5000 California Rebate.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/taxcenter.shtm...
The Volt only exists thanks to government subsidies. No one wants the thing, and taxpayer money is going much farther than a simple $7,500 a car.

James Hohman at Michigan’s Mackinac Center has added up the numbers at the supply end and found the public subsidy for the Volt amounts to a $3 billion, putting the public subsidy per car at a whopping $250,000 per car. http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/16...

The figure looks at total state and federal assistance offered for the development and production of the Chevy Volt. His analysis included 18 government deals that included loans, rebates, grants and tax credits. For example, the Department of Energy awarded a $105.9 million grant to the GM Brownstown plant that assembles the batteries.
The amount of government assistance does not include the fact that General Motors is currently 26 percent owned by the federal government.
Depending on what state, and which other tax incentives, government "loans" that can be used, the Volt is subsidized at roughly $50,000 to $250,000 per car since they've only "sold" approximately 6,000 vehicles.
Darryl Washington

Cincinnati, OH

#42510 Jun 21, 2012
Darryls sister Darrylene wrote:
<quoted text>
Didn't I read those exact words in your post in a newspaper article somewhere? lol Your words? Come on Darryl, you're not fooling anyone. Well, maybe you are fooling your other brother Darryl but the rest of us...not so much boy! LMMFAO!
Darrylene, my long-lost sister! I thought I’d never hear from you after Mama threw you out of the house for selling yourself for a few hits of crack. It’s such a coincidence that you ended up in the small town of Glasgow. There’s this person there that goes by “Lordy,” who keeps trying to engage me in a discussion but it’s like listening to a broken record.

Please try to be more selective in your choice of friends there. If you ever kick the pipe, you’d be welcome to join us at the compound.
WakeUp

Campbellsville, KY

#42511 Jun 21, 2012
Darryl Washington wrote:
<quoted text>
The basic rules of logic can be tricky for the uninitiated and require some discipline and exercise to master. Let me explain as concretely as possible. Failure of the constitution to specify that something is legal does not make it illegal. The constitution does not say that it is legal for there to be Republican and Democratic political parties, that a woman, African American or Mormon may serve as president, that states may adopt official state flowers or slogans, etc.
I could do this until I’m orange in the face, but what would be the point? You’re stuck in the attack mode dedicated to espousing only one irrefutable idea ad infinitum in the form of regurgitating without formal analysis most anything and everything that you believe to demonstrate your belief system.
You might want to check out http://www.campbellsville.edu/ .
Wow, that was a really long and drawn out way of saying "you're stupid". No matter how you have couched it, you're still letting your elitism and disdain slip through in overwhelming force.

The 10th Amendment states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So actually, yes the Constitution DOES say that the Republican party and Democrat party are legal. The First Amendment includes the freedom of association. Americans are free to associate with and without whom we wish, for whatever reason we like.(Or at least we should be) Only the government must treat us with “equal justice under law". In Roberts (1984), the Court recognized that the power to determine its own membership is central to the free speech rights of expressive organizations, and what is more expressive of our values and beliefs than the political parties we choose to support financially and with our vote.

The point being, the Constitution sets limits to the powers available to the government, especially the Federal government. There should be SOMETHING that the Federal Government can point to for the laws and regulations it sets forth. Otherwise, there really is no law.
Feel free to make the Constitutional argument concerning the legality of Obamacare, or any of the other departments and spending that I previously mentioned. Unless your whole constitutional argument is that b/c the Constitution doesn't explicitly state we can't have "x", then we can.(of course, that means ignoring the 10th amendment...)

You appear to be what many refer to as "an over educated idiot".
Darryl Washington

Cincinnati, OH

#42512 Jun 21, 2012
Don’t you mean “overly educated idiot?” Our words define us. Q.E.D.
WakeUp

Campbellsville, KY

#42513 Jun 21, 2012
Darryl Washington wrote:
Don’t you mean “overly educated idiot?” Our words define us. Q.E.D.
ah's so'ry ah did not use right grammar

ah hope yo' will on over look this hyar terrible transgresshun in an effo't t'unnerstan' th' larger points of mah postin'

Still waiting for your words to contain anything of substance (or anything at all at this point) in expanding upon your original Constitutional argument showing the apparent fallacy of statements most often associated with the Tea Party movement.
Darryl Washington

Cincinnati, OH

#42514 Jun 21, 2012
WakeUp wrote:
<quoted text>
ah's so'ry ah did not use right grammar
ah hope yo' will on over look this hyar terrible transgresshun in an effo't t'unnerstan' th' larger points of mah postin'
Still waiting for your words to contain anything of substance (or anything at all at this point) in expanding upon your original Constitutional argument showing the apparent fallacy of statements most often associated with the Tea Party movement.
That was an embarrassing presentation, certainly not the best way to define your demeanor. I’ve showered you with meaningful substance and you consistently failed to recognize it. Your agenda is to fail thusly and only react reflexively in direct opposition with an apparently endless stream of ridiculous challenges.

If you want meaningful content, you will need to open your mind to new ideas and think for yourself rather than just being oppositional to those who can and do. Seriously, seek a college education. It will make you more capable. formal education does not tend to people stupid, which is only a myth espoused by people who feel inferior to those who are better educated and equipped to solve problems.

It would be futile to expend further effort for you, WakeUp, but I do wish you well and hope you will choose to elevate yourself.
Gary Johnson 2012

Fontana, CA

#42515 Jun 21, 2012
Recall that sell out traitor right now!: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/recall-ran...
Hello

Morehead, KY

#42516 Jun 21, 2012
Darryl Washington wrote:
Don’t you mean “overly educated idiot?” Our words define us. Q.E.D.
Actually it's just (Educated Idiot)

And I think he hit the nail right on the head...
Justthefacts

Russellville, KY

#42517 Jun 22, 2012
WakeUp wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing in the Constitution allows for the existence of the Departments of Education, Commerce and Energy (to name a few), government-sponsored entities such as Fannie Mae ( FNM - news - people ) and Freddie Mac ( FRE - news - people ), or ineffective bureaucracies such as the SEC and the FDA. Obamacare is just one of the more recent examples.
The Washington Times, documents federal spending that includes $2.6 million for the training of "Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job," $3.9 million for the SEC to rearrange "desks and offices at its Washington headquarters" and nearly $1 million for the shipping of "two 19-cent washers from South Carolina to Texas," along with the improper use of government credit cards for the purchase of goods including "lingerie, iPods, XBoxes, jewelry, Internet dating services and Hawaiian vacations."
So, for the sake of a real discussion that I am apparently not having...want to chime in on your thoughts about these things?
You left out there is nothing in the Constitution about having Medicare, Social Security, building interstate highways, dams to control flooding and provide power or laws to protect us from companies dumping waste into rivers. I'm glad you and Ron Paul aren't running the nation. People would be working for .30 cents an hour just like in China. Nothing in the Constitution against that either.
Darryl Washington

Cincinnati, OH

#42518 Jun 22, 2012
Campbellsville and Morehead both have colleges, excellent resources that are eager to attract for those who want to learn. Education is a very good thing.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#42521 Jun 22, 2012
Assad stays in power in Syria. If you read the body language when Putin sat with Obama, Putin had just whupped theshit out of Obama and didn't have another word to say. Obama was sulking and wanted to continue the discussion, but didn't have anything to say that hadn't already been shoved back into his face.
Putin is in control. Obama is powerless. It was obvious Obama wasn't even in the same class as Putin. Putin plays in the NFL, and Obama is a high school football player.
In the arms limitation negotiations, Russia kicked the everloving shitout of the US.
In the Syria discussion, Russia kicked the everloving shitout of the US.
As long as Obama is the president, Russia the world will kick the everloving shitout of the US.
In reality, the rest of the G20 nations just pretended Obama didn't exist. He's that insignificant.
Contributor

Elkhorn City, KY

#42522 Jun 22, 2012
DBWriter wrote:
Assad stays in power in Syria. If you read the body language when Putin sat with Obama, Putin had just whupped theshit out of Obama and didn't have another word to say. Obama was sulking and wanted to continue the discussion, but didn't have anything to say that hadn't already been shoved back into his face.
Putin is in control. Obama is powerless. It was obvious Obama wasn't even in the same class as Putin. Putin plays in the NFL, and Obama is a high school football player.
In the arms limitation negotiations, Russia kicked the everloving shitout of the US.
In the Syria discussion, Russia kicked the everloving shitout of the US.
As long as Obama is the president, Russia the world will kick the everloving shitout of the US.
In reality, the rest of the G20 nations just pretended Obama didn't exist. He's that insignificant.
Obama is Putin punk we all seem it ? Obama a nothing but a backward arse makes me ashamed to be a democrat.

Since: Oct 08

Stanford

#42523 Jun 22, 2012
WakeUp wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing in the Constitution allows for the existence of the Departments of Education, Commerce and Energy (to name a few), government-sponsored entities such as Fannie Mae ( FNM - news - people ) and Freddie Mac ( FRE - news - people ), or ineffective bureaucracies such as the SEC and the FDA. Obamacare is just one of the more recent examples.
The Washington Times, documents federal spending that includes $2.6 million for the training of "Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job," $3.9 million for the SEC to rearrange "desks and offices at its Washington headquarters" and nearly $1 million for the shipping of "two 19-cent washers from South Carolina to Texas," along with the improper use of government credit cards for the purchase of goods including "lingerie, iPods, XBoxes, jewelry, Internet dating services and Hawaiian vacations."
So, for the sake of a real discussion that I am apparently not having...want to chime in on your thoughts about these things?
I'll be more than happy to chime in. If you are getting your info from the "washington times" you may as well be promoting the lies of the "moonies". How can you wingnuts are so damn stupid as to believe the tripe from outfits like that? May as well quote from the other bastions of bullshit, like the world nut daily, drudge, faux, rupert lies inc., and hate radio. And hey, don't miss the next springer show. That's right up your alley.

Prosecute the bush cartel/crime family!

TIR
WakeUp

Campbellsville, KY

#42524 Jun 22, 2012
Justthefacts wrote:
<quoted text>You left out there is nothing in the Constitution about having Medicare, Social Security, building interstate highways, dams to control flooding and provide power or laws to protect us from companies dumping waste into rivers. I'm glad you and Ron Paul aren't running the nation. People would be working for .30 cents an hour just like in China. Nothing in the Constitution against that either.
There is no FEDERAL authority for medicare, social security-though any state could implement those programs if they so chose. The Constitution allows the states to do that which the Federal gov't can not. California is an example of a lefties dream...of course it's bankrupt, but hey, there's plenty of government provided goodies out that way.

Interstate highways could actually fall under the authority to create post roads, which is in the Constitution.

Dams to control flooding, would fall under "public use" and the 5th amendment. Though the eminent domain power has been abused more than most-the term public use has been stretched to justify taking private property from on individual and giving it to another private individual. Such as private homes being taken through eminent domain and given to a private developer, b/c the new mall would generate more tax revenue "for the public good". b/s

Companies that dump pollution into rivers are violating your private property rights since their pollution affects your health, the value of your land, etc, etc. If it crosses state lines, then the Feds have the ability to enforce the laws, if within a single state, then it's the states responsibility to regulate it.

$0.30 an hour wage. Bull, the market would set the wage and benefits based on what the going rate for labor is. There's enough studies out that show that minimum wage laws actually hurt those it's intended to help. Every time minimum wage rises, those who work for minimum wage often find their hours cuts, lost jobs or a reduction in other forms of compensation.
WakeUp

Campbellsville, KY

#42525 Jun 22, 2012
Darryl Washington wrote:
<quoted text>
That was an embarrassing presentation, certainly not the best way to define your demeanor. I’ve showered you with meaningful substance and you consistently failed to recognize it. Your agenda is to fail thusly and only react reflexively in direct opposition with an apparently endless stream of ridiculous challenges.
If you want meaningful content, you will need to open your mind to new ideas and think for yourself rather than just being oppositional to those who can and do. Seriously, seek a college education. It will make you more capable. formal education does not tend to people stupid, which is only a myth espoused by people who feel inferior to those who are better educated and equipped to solve problems.
It would be futile to expend further effort for you, WakeUp, but I do wish you well and hope you will choose to elevate yourself.
Darryl, you have have said nothing of substance. Just like your quote above. You make assertions about the powers and authority of the government based on the Constitution, and then when asked to actually submit any sort of argument in defense of that position, you revert to an argument along the lines of: "think for yourself" "go to college to be educated" and "open your mind to new ideas".

In a nutshell, you've said I, and those with similar positions, are wrong. When asked to "educate" us on how we're wrong, you hide behind your "education" as that somehow being proof of the superiority of your position w/out having to actually make any argument at all.

Perhaps you should see if they'll give you a refund on your degree? Or maybe take a couple of supplemental summer classes, something that has "critical thinking" in the class title would be a start.
WakeUp

Campbellsville, KY

#42526 Jun 22, 2012
The Irate Republican wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll be more than happy to chime in. If you are getting your info from the "washington times" you may as well be promoting the lies of the "moonies". How can you wingnuts are so damn stupid as to believe the tripe from outfits like that? May as well quote from the other bastions of bullshit, like the world nut daily, drudge, faux, rupert lies inc., and hate radio. And hey, don't miss the next springer show. That's right up your alley.
Prosecute the bush cartel/crime family!
TIR
So, attacking the messenger b/c you can't actually defend against what the Washington Times is reporting.

"$2.6 million for the training of "Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job," $3.9 million for the SEC to rearrange "desks and offices at its Washington headquarters" and nearly $1 million for the shipping of "two 19-cent washers from South Carolina to Texas," along with the improper use of government credit cards for the purchase of goods including "lingerie, iPods, XBoxes, jewelry, Internet dating services and Hawaiian vacations."

It should be pretty easy to show that this spending never took place, but since they've got the documents...what are you going to do? So that it was all made up? Fabricated? Now you're starting to sound like a birther....

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.

Citizen Sound-Off Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Who's got your vote in the Kentucky Senate race? 3 min I need to know 5
OK Health Care Freedom Amendment, State Questio... (Oct '10) 4 min Tex 77,206
Who do you support for Governor in Ohio in 2010? (Oct '10) 5 min Half Mutt Super S... 32,435
Who do you support for U.S. Senate in West Virg... (Oct '10) 10 min bacon hater 60,559
Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Georgia i... (Oct '10) 13 min Aggie23 58,143
Who's got your vote in the Massachusetts Attorn... 28 min joetaxpayer 1
Who are you voting for in the Texas Governor race? 41 min La Raza Unidad 32

People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE