tvc184

  ............. and the next week after the settlement 85,635 people will fall asleep in stadiums across the country. 

  Not according to WebMD and several other sites that I viewed like plannedparenthood.org, www.planbonestep.com (actual manufacturer of the pill), etc.    They all say that it "may" prevent fertilization but can stop implantation of an already fertilized egg and can be taken up to five days later and be effective but it is suggested no more than 72 hours. I am guessing that the egg is usually fertilized before and sometimes way before the five days pass. Therefore the suggesting that it does not stop implantation of the already fertilized egg is nonsense. Again, it could stop fertilization but if doesn't or it is too late, it will still stop implantation and allow a fertilized egg to die which just happens to why Hobby Lobby objected.    Of course, I am just looking at doctor websites and the people that actually make and push the pill so what do they know? They probably did not consult Big girl before publishing their information............. 

    Did you ever try reading the decision or just the headlines? The decision states that it only covers 4 out of 20 birth control possibilities that abort or stop a fertilized egg from attaching. Stopping conception was not an issue. Stopping a life after conception was the problem.    You might be interested (but probably not) in this quote from the opinion....   "This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage man-  dates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it  provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice."

  They get birth control pills or one of the other 15 paid for methods. 

  I have no clue about the BBQ but I liked the looks of almost anything at Florida's. The problem is that their portions are too big. Don't get the large whatever...........   I ordered the catfish dinner. They had large and small and I figured the small was a fillet or at the most, two. Then the large would have three full size fillets. Hmmmm......    The large was five that covered the platter. I asked a friend that lived there and he said all of their meals were like that. The people that I was with had likewise large portions of their various entree's. It is rare that I can sit at a restaurant meal and not finish but Florida's did me in.   

    I don't think Clinton would do quite as bad as Mondale but I agree it won't be pretty. 

  Actually race does matter but not like you are portraying it. In 2008 13% of the vote came from African Americans. Obviously most supported Obama. Going back to Jimmy Carter in 1976 (as far back as I could find stats), they usually voted in the total vote at 8%-10%. That means that Obama go an additional 3% of his votes (5% more than Clinton) from African Americans to support a black president.    The questions seems to me will be whether that same enthusiasm will remain to vote for a white person as it was with Obama. Even going to the most recent election in 2008 where Obama got 51% of the popular vote, can the next candidate for the Dems take a 3-5% hit and still win?    We can somewhat toss all the Tea Party, conservative enough and other stuff aside if Hillary or whoever can't keep up that 13% show up at the polls. 

    I was going to bring up in the other thread that the ruling was in favor of federal law and not a constitutional issue per se but figured it would fall on deaf ears. 

Wait... rich people getting richer and there will be no trickle down.... Go Obama???

    I would like to see who the candidates are on both sides (not sure that Clinton is a lock) but I think that the Republicans are sitting for an easy win and basically in the reverse situation that allowed Obama to win in 2008. Looking at the congressional elections since 2008 have done nothing to change that outlook. I think the "throw the bums out" will hit heavily in 2016 and the Dems will suffer for it. 

You can hardly dispute the truth that for many decades the Golden Triangle area has been run by unions, mostly from chemical plants and therefore voted straight party tickets on the side of the Democrats. For that reason, the only way to get elected in his area was to run on the Democratic ticket. I have known many elected officials and several that are in office now. After talking with some of them it is my belief after hearing their political opinions that they are not very supportive of the Democrats but joined the majority party in the counties in order to be a viable candidate. Now that some demographics have changed, there is way less influence and loss of union jobs and because of politics in general have changed in some areas, some may have switched parties out of political expediency which seems to be okay because that is why they originally chose the opposition party in the first place.... in my opinion. 

Mitt Romney got one million more votes than McCain did in 2008 or before the Tea Party movement even started. No matter what else happened and with the Tea Party out there, Romney got more votes with a Tea Party in existence than McCain got before they were even formed. Hmmmmm.......   Obama on the other hand lost almost 5 million of his supporters in his reelection. In fact, you have to go back 70 years to a 3rd and 4th term of FDR before finding any reelected president that did not gain votes.    Since then Eisenhower gained 1.5 million votes in his reelection. Nixon while being beaten up in the press and faced the beginning of the Watergate Scandal and gained more than 10 million votes in his reelection for the largest landslide in history to that point. Reagan gained 10 million in his reelection and surpassed Nixon in the largest landslide in history and Clinton (while he never got 50% of the vote) gained 2 million. G W Bush after being slammed by the left who were particularly still angry after the 2000 election and Florida contested election, gain 12 million votes.    Then along comes Obama who lost almost 5 million in support from his first election and Romney gain 1 million...... and the question was about the Tea Party being thrilled? A better question would be how a sitting president for the first time in almost 4 generations and only the second president in history to lose any votes in a reelection.    The question about the Tea Party has some basis in that Romney was not their main person to support but if we are talking popular vote, Hillary got more votes than Obama in the 2008 Democratic primary and only internal rules of the Democratic party gave him the primary, not popular vote. Let's sit on that for a few moments. Obama did not even win the popular vote in his own party in getting nominated. Meanwhile Romney won by 6 million popular votes over his closest Republican challenger. So it seems that the enlightened person's question is based merely on trolling rather than some historical basis or true political question. With all the claimed non-support of the Tea Party, Romney won his nomination by 6 million votes and Obama when he had a challenger in 2008, lost the popular vote in his own party and as an incumbent president in 2008 won with a bare majority of 51% of the vote and in doing so lost 5 million of his own supporters.    Of course, that is just looking at facts. 

Unsubstantiated rhetoric.

  No, he isn't and why should he be when Eric Holder holds all the cards. 

  You only missed it by several decades. 

Port Arthur went through that a few years ago. Interestingly, I think the then city manager was an assistant city manager in Detroit when PA hired him. He allowed people not to pay the bills and when he was finally pushed out the door, there was over a million dollars in unpaid water bills. The new city manager came in and started shutting off the taps and all of a sudden the bills started being paid. 

Like the other thread, a "favorite" weapon or an all around like you can only have one the rest of your life and it has to be sufficient for all needs?   All around would have to be some kind of semi-auto with a mid performance round with readily accessible ammo that doesn't break the bank. AN AR or other type of platform with any number of calibers might fit that. It can be very accurate out to several hundred yards and can fit almost any role.    A single favorite for a specific purpose and some what all around hunting cartridge, the 22-250 might be the best. It certainly isn't cheap and not always as easy to come by but the performance can be great. The .22 caliber weapons are often overlooked or criticized by many people as too small but with the correct bullet, they are awesome for big game out to long ranges. The longest shot that I killed a whitetail (only 118 yards) with was a 62 grain .223 and he made it about three steps and the .223 is the same bullet with a little less oomph than the 22-250. The Ruger is a quality gun and has its following. I don't like single shot rifles but I am not sure why. I have never had the need for a follow up shot on a single animal but for a pack of pigs.................... 

    When Chevrolet (or anyone else) matches Hyundai's warranty, I will consider one. I have had my last Hyundai for over 8 years and it will probably go out of warranty next month, four and a half years after I paid it off.     I hate to have a five year note on a car and half way through it, the car starts falling apart and in addition to my monthly car note, I have to pay to get it fixed or leave it in the driveway rusting while I continue to pay the notes. 

But your criteria was "one gun". Like I said, for a specialty (hunting, target practice, competition, concealed carry only, etc.), there are plenty of options.    If I was stuck with one gun, it would be one that could fill several functions. 

  Only the president can approve a budget. The Congress cannot sign their own laws.    Try reading up on the Constitution.... again. 

  It is a matter of following the rules or believing that you are not required to comply with the same laws. He could have simply waited until they were truly out of session but like he has done and continues to do, he makes up his own rules as he goes. He got caught this time and when the SCOTUS comes down with a 9-0 ruling, that is a pretty good affirmation that the other side is wrong. 

If there was a single, catch-all handgun, it would have to be something like a Glock 23 or 19.    It is small enough to conceal but not tiny. In the .40S&W (23) it holds 13 rounds in the magazine which is a lot for a compact handgun and in the 9mm (19) holds 15 rounds.    Glock is simply the easiest to shoot and best over the counter combat handgun on the market. There are plenty of guns to choose from for specialties but for an all around, there almost is no comparison. 

Truck: Ford (Because Hyundai isn't an option..... yet)   SUV: Hyundai   Car: Hyundai light (KIA). 

........... in fact he may quit showing up and just start burning earned sick, comp and vacation time.