“You need to read more about pit bulls. Here is one example: http://www.austinhumanesociety.org/pitbulliq
Stubby the pit bull was a very famous American dog in WWI. He visited three Presidents in the White House.
In the 1980s, it was Dobermans. Now it is pit bulls. People who are afraid of dogs will always find some dog breed to be fearful of.”
“Nonsense. I own a pit bull, a very loving and gentle male. They are athletic, but when I go to the dog park, I meet other breeds of dogs whose jaws are just as strong or even stronger. Other dogs are faster. I have owned boxers, and the large male, a wonderful dog, was stronger and faster than my pit bull in every way. My pit bull is the most affectionate dog I have owned.”
Ralph Boyd on Mar 23, 2014 at 11:10:24
“Yeah, everyone who gets mauled by their pit bull says the same thing. Not that you will a lot of people have pit bulls and never have an incident.”
“They did not impeach their president, that is the problem. If the opposition had used impeachment, the president would have had a trial before a vote. Also, they would not have an INTERIM PRESIDENT selected, there is an order of succession in Ukraine just as in the US. For example, if you impeach President Obama, then Joe Biden would be the next President. How would you feel if political opposition in the US chased out the legally elected US President by force (Ukraine's president chief of staff was shot), and then selected the new President? Most Americans would be outraged.”
“Here is the Russian viewpoint: http://rt.com/op-edge/us-missile-shield-russia-361/
Do a search on "US missiles in Poland first strike capability"
The Russians have deployed Iskander missiles closer to Europe as a response, which means the deployment of US missiles in Poland resulted in less security for Europe.
The US interceptor missiles are definitely designed as an ABM system, not just "short range missiles". Another fear of the Russians is that the US would add nuclear warheads to the missiles at some point.”
“You still do not understand. The US launches a first strike that knocks out most of Russia's nuclear arms. Those interceptors are designed to intercept any Russian missiles that were not destroyed in the first strike. I never said they were nuclear tipped. The purpose of those missiles is to prevent Russia from retaliating if the US launches a first strike.
Whether the US actually launched a first strike, or just used the possibility to pressure Russia, the Russians know what the purpose of those missiles are.
Making deployment of those interceptor missiles even more useless, the Russians have designed missiles that readily evade them.
This has been discussed all over the web, do a few searches and learn.”
DenverRight on Mar 12, 2014 at 19:38:04
That missile defense shield is only capable of launching against SHORT-RANGE missiles that Russia may use along the NATO border. Use of long-range and intercontinental rockets (first-strike or residual) would never be stopped by that missile defense complex.
Fearmongering about a "first-strike capability" is inaccurate, ignores the deterrence factor for ever STARTING a nuclear exchange, and ignores the ability of the negotiable deployment to dissuade the Russian Bear from aggressive land grabs.
“Those missile "defense" systems are to give the US a first strike capability. Those missiles are designed to counter any remaining Russian missiles after a first strike. We need to wind down the cold war not ramp it up. Those missiles are a complete waste of money while we have unemployed Americans; and such a low minimum wage. Where are our priorities?”
DenverRight on Mar 12, 2014 at 14:39:16
“Not true at all, Matt.
The missile defense system for Poland and Czech Republic were interceptors, not nuclear-tipped offensive weapons. Designed to guard against threatened short-range nuclear missiles from Russia along the NATO border, or against future missile threats from Iran.
“The US contribution (large or small, who knows?) to the overthrow of the legally elected president of Ukraine will lead to nothing but trouble. Impeachment or a new election should have been used instead. Crimea is now de facto part of Russia, whether it is recognized as such or not. The right wing nuts and oligarchs of the new regime in Ukraine will not be able to form a stable government. As the new regime imposes austerity, they will be voted, or chased, out of office.”
Angela200 on Mar 13, 2014 at 20:03:47
rickirs on Mar 12, 2014 at 19:55:32
“It's a shame you didn't bother to read the Ukraine constitution that deals with impeachment of the President. The Ukrainian bipartisan parliament impeached the President, chose an INTERIM PRESIDENT, and announced a new election to take place for the permanent President. This follows constutional procedures. But Putin and his oligarchs saw an opportunity when the booted President sought refuge in Russia to leverage the turmoil into a land grab for the GLORY OF THE NEWED SOVIET UNION.”
calderasf on Mar 12, 2014 at 12:54:14
“everyone forgets the estimated 30 billion he stole reason enough to throw him out.”
“Good move by the President. This will help the working poor, and will help grow the economy.”
theocrat on Jan 28, 2014 at 09:29:48
“It's a good start. The minimum wage needs to be $15.60.”
Amanda N Jason Coakley on Jan 28, 2014 at 08:27:28
“Do those who are educated and have decent jobs get raises everytime someone who doesn't have an education and lower level job get's an increase?
Those fighting for a "living wage" need to understand though that some jobs aren't the jobs that will pay them what they want to "live" on.
I do think it should be raised some, but at what point does people start getting paid too much for the job they are doing?”
jbowlick on Jan 28, 2014 at 07:07:40
“How do you figure? By increasing the cost of government projects. Every dollar more that is spent on these contract will come directly from some tax pay. These newly higher paid employees will pay higher payroll taxes which just goes back into the system to pay for the new more costly projects.”
“No, if no changes are made, benefits would still pay out at around 77% in 2033. If we raise the cap, the next generation gets full benefits. Don't let people with bad intentions persuade you that cutting benefits now will allow you to collect your reduced benefits in the future. You earned the full benefit.”
“False. For the first time, many will not get as much as they paid in, taking into account inflation. Due to the massive payroll tax increase, moving the age of full benefits to 67, and starting taxing of benefits, which occurred in 1983. Show us your source for "Boomers will suck out $3 for every $1 they put in". There is no "intergenerational theft". Cutting benefits today, will rob all future retirees, including the young, of benefits they will have paid for. Your savings plan idea has not worked out in the past. Why would it work now?”
Alux on Nov 21, 2013 at 03:54:18
“Those who will not get as much as they pay in are those who are in their 20s today. Not Granddad, who will get $3.00 for every $1.00 he paid in.
What exactly is "my savings plan"?
Oh, and I will show you my links that demonstrate clearly and unambiguously the $3.00 for $1.00 Granddad will get just as soon as you provide that link showing "For the first time, many will not get as much as they paid in." for a reality-based, non-propaganda, real world reliable MSM source. Because I am not wasting time giving you facts until you stop with the lies.”
“Cutting benefits today also cuts them in the future, so how would that benefit younger people. With pensions vanishing young people will need Social Security that pays reasonable, not reduced benefits. The best way to achieve that is to raise the cap.”
sillygames on Nov 20, 2013 at 08:52:24
“And Congress needs to quit putting in IOU's and keep their hands of the taxpayers money.”
Bursting Bubbles on Nov 20, 2013 at 04:07:06
“but by not cutting it the next generation doesn't get anything”
“Republicans have set a precedent. If they retake the Senate and White House, they should expect Democrat Senators to block all Republican court nominations.”
Harlemnite on Nov 13, 2013 at 03:55:52
“They won't get the White House for another 50 years at least. They know this and hope their dumb electorate keeps electing them to the House so they can keep doing this. Vote all Republicans out our democracy depends on it.”
Singha on Nov 13, 2013 at 02:46:15
“Are you kidding??? if ever they are in the majority...again... they will change the rule faster than excepting donations from their corporate masters...”