““How about having everybody paying their fair share of taxes for a change?” Sounds good to me as long as “everybody” includes the around 47% that pay no income tax. While they’re at it they can stop using the IRS to pass out welfare by giving more in refunds than is paid in taxes.”
eddieshack on Mar 14, 2013 at 10:03:39
“Totally agree with you on that point.”
goofette on Mar 14, 2013 at 10:01:08
“I agree, since part of the 47% are multimillion $ corporations and the wealthiest who keep their money in other countries.”
“Of the most likely bidders for the Hostess brands, one is a bread company who wants into the Midwest market and another is a snack company that has no bread or cake plants. Of the 36 that Hostess has 9 were to be closed under the currant restructuring plan. Most of the remaining 25 will need updating and many would not be wanted by a new brand owner. The bakeries in locations that the new owner doesn't have a bakery near by would most likely still be used. Bottom line is allot of us won't get our jobs back but, allot of us would lose our jobs when they closed the 9 bakeries they had planed.”
“As a Hostess employee who lost my job last Friday and who didn't join the union when I hired on, I think the union did the only thing they could. The company has unsustainable debt and unlike the Feds they can't just print money. The current restructuring plan called for closing 9 more bakeries, add that to the 50% cut in jobs the union has taken since the last bankruptcy, the best hope for keeping jobs was to have Hostess liquidated. Several companies have shown interest in buying it and would have Hostess up and running in 6-12 months.”
eundrh on Nov 20, 2012 at 19:00:04
“Keeping my fingers crossed for you but it is likely that only the brand rights will be bought and production farmed out on a contract basis or with existing capacity.”
Marc Kivel on Nov 20, 2012 at 12:07:31
“I sincerely hope things turn around for you, Don. Thanks for your honesty and integrity...may God bless you and yours!”
“If this mentally ill person had not had access to firearms he would have used a fire bomb or homemade explosives and the death toll could have been even higher.”
TheGlovner on Jul 22, 2012 at 12:04:53
“Or he would have used a stick or a sword and the death toll would have been lower.
See how unfounded assumptions can work both ways?
There is a lot more that cones into it than just what he had access to though. People that go die the sort of explosives that go off when they are their are pretty much willing to end their own life as well. And it doesn't seem like this kid wanted to go that far. So I'm not as inclined as you to jump straight into the assumption that he would have went with explosives if he couldn't get a gun.
That being said in not completely against the idea of owning guns. Although I think it should be little tougher to get one in order to ensure you are of sound mind to be able to own one. However, I can't see any argument for the general public to have access to military grade equipment.”
Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--Asking for an ID isn't prohibited.
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators. ID's would fall under manner.”
“That came from the TexasAttorney General. Facts that don't support the views of certain newspapers don't get reported and this happens on both sides.”
anitaportrichey on Jul 11, 2012 at 20:23:17
“"Also, it's awesome that when asked on national television to produce actual evidence of voter fraud in Texas in 2012, Gohmert recycles a decades-old fable (which may or may not be true) from one of Lyndon Johnson's Congressional campaigns in the '30s or '40s"...on Fox
7/8/2012 "Abbott also said he has prosecuted about 50 cases of voter fraud and has seen incidents involving votes cast by dead people, double voters and foreign nationals who are illegally registered to vote.
“I know for a fact that voter fraud is real, that it must be stopped, and that voter id is one way to prevent cheating at the ballot box and ensure integrity in the electoral system,” Abbott said.
“Some people will claim, well golly gee, maybe the attorney general’s prosecuted 50 cases of voter fraud. Two things about that. There’s far more evidence of voter fraud than there is of voter suppression,” the attorney general said. “But more importantly, in the United States Supreme Court cases issued just a few years ago, the court found that there were no cases of voter fraud in Indiana that could have been prevented…with photo ID. But the court found concerns about electoral fraud were sufficient to allow Indiana to enforce its voter id law.”.
“"he was elected" The Attorney General is appointed not elected.”
goodmarina on Jul 10, 2012 at 23:24:41
“it takes me about 5 minutes to type something like this ... because i type as it comes to my head. though i know that that the USAG is a cabinet appointee - appointed by the President - i used the wrong word. it's already been pointed out. but - what do you think about the context of what i'm saying? why is so much legislative time & money wasted on something that's not a problem... ?”
“Texas will issue an ID free of charge to the poor so there is no cost. Over 200 votes where cast using the registration of dead people in our May primaries. When votes are cast illegally it diminishes the votes of legal voters.”
anitaportrichey on Jul 10, 2012 at 23:25:07
“WOW! And where was that? That should have made the front page all over the country....
It is great if Texas offers a free ID. Florida does NOT...I confirmed that today. The cost is $25 for 8 years, and the required documentation if quite extensive for women because of name changes....
Jul 10, 2012 at 22:25:19
“Rude remarks aren't necessarily suggestive. Overtly sexual remarks might justify such actions but, in the end unless the person they feared obviously was a bad guy "reasonable expectation" will be decided by a jury and you never know how they will see it. While I have no problem resorting to violence including deadly force when necessary if feel too many people these days resort to it for any perceived insult.”
Jul 10, 2012 at 15:57:41
“In the first case unless the "rude remarks" include at threat she would be guilty of assault. In the second case you can't assault someone for merely violating your personal space.”
AnotherAndy on Jul 10, 2012 at 17:13:35
“Violating someone's personal space is very threatening when they are alone, and both the violator and the violated know this.
Trayvon Martin was America's child!”
happylonersarah on Jul 10, 2012 at 16:51:29
“Nope wrong. Those are both incidents that I dealt with as an Officer. Both people were in the right.
It falls under, "what would a reasonable person in similar circumstances do".
In the first incident, if the woman had been on a crowded beach, she would not expect the man to hurt her. Since she was alone, and the man was making suggestive remarks, it was reasonable for her to prevent an attack that she reasonably felt was about to occur.
In the second incident, the man came nose to nose with a stranger. Is it reasonable to think that he's about to ask for directions? Or that he's about to rob or assault you?
When an individual has reasonable expectation that they are about to be harmed, they do have the right to prevent that harm. They are allowed to use reasonable force to prevent harm to themselves and give themselves the chance to get away.”
Jul 8, 2012 at 17:40:54
“"Prosecutors say Harrison had been watching for an anticipated drug deal."
You try not to ID yourself while on a stakeout. To use the "He didn't ID himself defense" he would have had to do more than sit at the curb in his car.”