100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
|
NORTH TEXAS (CBSDFW.COM) – Hold on just a little while longer. Tomorrow is the first day of Spring and thanks to a court ruling today, Twinkies could be back on store shelves by Summer and you have the owners of Pabst Blue Ribbon Beer to partially thank! Tuesday a bankruptcy judge approved the sale of Twinkies to the separate investment firms of Apollo Global Management and Metropoulos & Co. Metropoulos owns Pabst and Vlasic pickles. Your other favorite cream filled snacks aren’t lost either. Irving-based Hostess is also selling the companies the rights to Ding Dongs and Ho Ho’s, Sno Balls and Dolly Madison in the $410 million deal. Some of the other formerly owned Hostess brands have also been sold. The judge in the Hostess bankruptcy case also approved the sale of Wonder Bread, Nature’s Pride, Merita, Home Pride and Butternut bread brands to Flower Foods for $360 million. After filing for bankruptcy and a heated labor dispute, Hostess shutdown operations in late November. The company announced it was going out of business, closing its plants, and firing some 18,000 workers. There was no word Tuesday if any of those former employees would be offered jobs with the new companies. Bring on them Big Gulps. 
I Predict that Nanny Bloomburg Will Ban the Twinkie, Leading to a Massive Twinkie Shortage in NYC before Ban is Enforced. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
when you share resources in a home, a community, or a culture there is no absolute freedom,, our actions and inactions affect others, sometimes not in an immediate or obvious way,, but when we are connnected our 'consequences' tend to connect too,, and in a republic, we vote with a majority of what we want those connections and potential 'consequences' to consist of,,, I think some people vote against freedom,, but many others vote against a 'chaos' where everyone does whatever they want that doesnt cause 'immediate' and obvious harm to another individual,, I agree with this. The gov't provisions usually serve to provide the minmums in cases like welfare and the minimum wage. There was not an intention for welfare to become multi generational or a way of life and I agree that somethng must be done about that while still maintaining supoort for families in a true crisis. I do agree totally with the OP about healthcare. Gov't protections traditionally provide the minimum necessary becasue the expense is being paid by others. That is why I have always yelled long and loud that Obamacare is illegal and should not "mandatory" it needs to be flexible enough to allow us to opt out completely or except partial coverage in combination with our private insurer the state is us. those who fail to realize that we are the government simply do not have a grasp on the history of this nation. In my lifetime I have seen many abuses correct by governemnt action that if left to chance the victimization would have continued. 'nuff said. except that, may you never have to learn this the hard way. welfare was addressed years ago and cannot be generational in most places anymore given the five year lifetime maximum for assistance (except food stamps) I think its a socially evolved culture which contributes to make sure everyone is covered, but since it would have been hard to propose a higher tax like in other countries to ensure that healthcare, a mandatory insurance coverage of each persons CHOICE was substituted,,, It usually is hard to seperate things into 'rights'' when they involve taxes,,,,,that is to say, once an individual or corporation asks or excepts perks and benefits from the government, they cant really deny that government the right to make regulations about what conditions they will provide under,,,, we have a healthcare system where people are admitted to emergency regardless of ability to pay, I feel we are fortunate for that, but I realize that those costs have to be covered SOMEHOW< and far too many never are so we have the privilege of a service without truly being required to contribute to it,, that to me is not balanced,,, and we have people who have to loose their homes or watch loved ones die because they cant afford the medical costs that are incurred WITHOUT insurance coverage,,,,and that is not fair and it is balanced and fair IMHO for us all to contribute something in order to ocntinue a system where we can get emergency care when and if the time comes that we need it,,,,and to make the healthcare 'pot' big enough that the high costs will not be justified and fewer people will be in the position to choose between, having food or shelter, or getting the healthcare they need I have a HSA Plan for My Healthcare, which I will Keep as Long as I can; I Think that Everyone should have HSA Insurance; one of the Problems with Healthcare is that there's Too Much 3rd Party Payment for Everything. Because I Spend Cash When I See a Doctor, He Doesn't Have to Front Load the Bill with all kinds of Tests, or File Papers to Wait for Payment; And I Have More Control over the Treatment I Get, Weighing the Risk & Benefit. I Also Help Others, There's a Young Girl Locally Who had Recently Beat Cancer, in Part Due to what I Gave through a Local Chruch; Had theFamily Waited on Government Care, She Might be Dead by Now. Government is the Last Place One Should Look for Charity, as Charity isn't a Funtion of Government; Government is Force, Like Fire, It's a Dangerous Servant & a Fearful Master - George Washington. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
does the perfect man exist?
|
|
I don't think ill be finding my knight in shining armorial anytime soon but hey its worth a try right! Sorry, But Mr. Perfect is Already Taken; and I don't Share. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Are you a CCL?
|
|
I don't even have a clue as to how many cats we have,
 they're all Outdoors around the Barn & Stable and help to keep curtain Critters Under Control. (Snakes, Rodents, Such)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm disappointed that common sense legislation cannot be enacted in order to reduce the instances of military-type assault weapons from getting into the hands of current and future criminals. I find this tragic. Obviously I support the rights of law-abiding gun owners to maintain their fire arms, but restrictions have to be made for such dangerous weaponry. 3.5% Of Gun Deaths are with a Rifle, The AR-15 & AK-47 are Sub-Sets of Rifles; You Are in More Danger of Being Hit by Lighting then being Shot by an "Assualt Rifle" on any Given Day. So I Ask, Why So Much Effort on Banning Such a Small Portion of the Problem? Is Because Blacks & Latins Use Handguns to Kill Each Other Off? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Surmar
on
Tue 03/19/13 05:00 PM
|
|
I would love to see a Assault The Government With Weapons Day wherein everyone who has an assault weapon or even wants one all meet on Capital Hill one fine day and with bandoliers for the MAG's and extra large ammo clips for all the automatic weapons shoot your way into the House and Senate chambers and just hose them all down til no one is left moving. Then have a party. Hell, why not, it's what many really want to do anyway.... 
As Mentally Entertaining as such a thought would be, the Aftermath Would be a Nightmare; likely on the Scale of the French Revolution. Far Better for Every Law Abiding Citizen to Buy Some Guns and Carry, and Encourage Five Other Law Abiding Citizens to Buy and Carry; That Way the Politicos Would Always be in a State of Worry, and a bit More Careful on the Laws that They Pass. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WASHINGTON (TheBlaze/AP) — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has decided that a proposed assault weapons ban won’t be part of a gun control bill the Senate plans to debate next month, the sponsor of the ban said Tuesday, a decision that means the ban stands little chance of survival.
Instead, Sen. Dianne Feinstein said she will be able to offer her ban on the military-style firearms as an amendment. Feinstein is all but certain to need 60 votes from the 100-member Senate to prevail, but she faces solid Republican opposition and likely defections from some moderate Democrats. As The Atlantic puts it, “offering the assault weapons ban as an amendment means it would require its own vote — which would almost certainly fail.” “I very much regret it,” Feinstein, D-Calif., told reporters of Reid’s decision. “I tried my best.” Feinstein, an author of the 1994 assault weapons ban that expired after a decade, said that Reid, D-Nev., told her of the decision on Monday. There are 53 Democrats in the Senate, plus two independents who usually vote with them. And as The Atlantic points out via Gallup, support for a measure such as Feinstein’s has waned: Support for a ban on so-called “assault weapons” has waned. (Gallup via The Atlantic) An assault-type weapon was used in the December massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., that revived gun control as a top issue in Washington. Banning those firearms was among the proposals President Barack Obama made in January in response to those slayings. . The assault weapons ban was the most controversial of the major proposals to restrict guns that have been advanced by Obama and Senate Democrats. Because of that, it had been expected that the assault weapons measure would be left out of the initial package the Senate considers, with Democrats hoping the Senate could therefore amass the strongest possible vote for the overall legislation. Having a separate vote on assault weapons might free moderate Democratic senators facing re-election next year in Republican-leaning states to vote against the assault weapons measure, but then support the remaining overall package of gun curbs. Gun control supporters consider a strong Senate vote important because the Republican-run House has shown little enthusiasm for most of Obama’s proposals. Feinstein said Reid told her there will be two votes. One would be on her assault weapons ban, which also includes a ban on ammunition magazines that carry more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The second would just be on prohibiting the high-capacity magazine clips. Many Democrats think the ban on large-capacity magazines has a better chance of getting 60 votes than the assault weapons ban. The Senate Judiciary Committee has approved four gun control measures this month, including Feinstein’s barring so-called assault weapons and high capacity magazines. The others would expand required federal background checks for firearms buyers, increase federal penalties for illegal gun trafficking and boost school safety money. I Would Encourage Every Law Abiding Citizen to Buy a Gun and get a CCW; IF More People Were to Carry, Criminals Would Run Off and Hide. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Overall, I think a free market is best for the economy. Allow the market to determine prices and keep prices low. However, we need a basic level of social protection so that we have basic human needs met, as well. But Who is to Provde Such Protection? The Government By Taking Throuh Force From the Unwilling? Or Private Charities From Those Who Give With an Open Hand? A Private Charity Would Move Someone into Independent Living; To Be Self Relient. A Government, Which is Always Hungry for Power, Would Enslave the Poor; You Can Check That Out In Any Government Housing of Your Choice, Just Visit One for an Hour a Day for a Month. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
when you share resources in a home, a community, or a culture there is no absolute freedom,, our actions and inactions affect others, sometimes not in an immediate or obvious way,, but when we are connnected our 'consequences' tend to connect too,, and in a republic, we vote with a majority of what we want those connections and potential 'consequences' to consist of,,, I think some people vote against freedom,, but many others vote against a 'chaos' where everyone does whatever they want that doesnt cause 'immediate' and obvious harm to another individual,, Adam Smith, who Published the Book "Wealth of Nations" (Published 1776) That in a Free Economy, Though People are Working Purely Out of Self Interests, They are in Fact Providing for the Common Good as the Market Sets the Prices on Goods, Services, and Labor. Smith Compared the Economies Across Europe, and Throughout the Colonies of the Britsh Empire Across the Various Industries that were Employed at the Time; He Found that the People Who had the Greatest Freedoms to Pursue Their Own Interests, had the Stronger Economies With Greater Real Wealth and the Communities had Lower Poverty Rates with Greater Charities. I Could List a Number of Examples of Economic Freedom, Where the Market Sets the Price of Goods, Services, and Labor leads to Greater Wealth, Redused Poverty, and More Charity as People are Free to Pursue Their Own Interests; but for Space & Time, I'll Leave that for Later Posting. certainly its major generalizing to say people work just for self interest,,what about all the volunteer work people do? what about the jobs people take for less than what they can live on? There is plenty of reason beyond 'self interest' that people go to work we may have had a 'stronger' economy during slavery,, that doesnt mean that was the best way to run a country though things were different in 1776 and I dont know what standards smith used to compare economies but now, plenty of countries with strong economies, also have laws and reguations which guide their 'free economy' because its not all about economy or freedom or 'wealth', there is a thing called quality of life that the humane wish to continue having those strong economies with freedom and wealth, be tempered with,,, Based on What do you Claim that America's Economy was Stronger During Slavery? It Wasn't Until the 1870's Started to Take Off like a Rocket, areas that had Jim Crow remained Flat Line Up Until Those Laws Were Done Away With. Frederick Douglass, Talking of His Days as a Slave, Would Talk of How He and Others Would Slow Work During the Day; Look as if Busy When Master or Overseer Was Near, Rest When Master or Overseer Was Away. When He Started to Work for Himself, He'd Do More Work in a Day, Then He Did as a Slave in Three. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A child has the right to an education that will make him competent to function in the society in which he lives. This is a fundamental right. The parents (as his/her trustees) have a DUTY to the child to provide that education. Since parents are the trustees, NO GOVERMENT has a lawful right to intervene unless it can show lawful cause as to why the parents are operating in breach of trust. To say that parents don't necessarily have the right to home school their children, while true, is an asinine and deceptive statement...They DO have that right, unless they are PROVABLY derelict in their duty to educate the child. Parents have Absolute Rights Over Their Children Short of Abuse, and to Raise Their Children as They See Fit Until the Child is Able to Tend to His Own Affairs. Parents Are Not Trustees Over Their Children, They Are Lord & Masters Over Their Children; Their Word Is Law. My Children Will Confess That They Had Been Worked Like Slaves; to the Point that when they were Old Enough to get a Job, They'd get Two During Summer Vacation just to Relax, and were Highly Praised for how hard they worked. Working his Way Through Higher Education, My Eldest Son finds that Many of his Classmates are Unable to Work Even the Simpalist of Jobs; He Actually Thanked Us for Working Him Hard as he was Growing Up. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
when you share resources in a home, a community, or a culture there is no absolute freedom,, our actions and inactions affect others, sometimes not in an immediate or obvious way,, but when we are connnected our 'consequences' tend to connect too,, and in a republic, we vote with a majority of what we want those connections and potential 'consequences' to consist of,,, I think some people vote against freedom,, but many others vote against a 'chaos' where everyone does whatever they want that doesnt cause 'immediate' and obvious harm to another individual,, Adam Smith, who Published the Book "Wealth of Nations" (Published 1776) That in a Free Economy, Though People are Working Purely Out of Self Interests, They are in Fact Providing for the Common Good as the Market Sets the Prices on Goods, Services, and Labor. Smith Compared the Economies Across Europe, and Throughout the Colonies of the Britsh Empire Across the Various Industries that were Employed at the Time; He Found that the People Who had the Greatest Freedoms to Pursue Their Own Interests, had the Stronger Economies With Greater Real Wealth and the Communities had Lower Poverty Rates with Greater Charities. I Could List a Number of Examples of Economic Freedom, Where the Market Sets the Price of Goods, Services, and Labor leads to Greater Wealth, Redused Poverty, and More Charity as People are Free to Pursue Their Own Interests; but for Space & Time, I'll Leave that for Later Posting. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we dont have a 'right' to homeschooling we have a right to be educated, there is a difference,, http://www.right-to-education.org/node/226 We have a Right to be Educated? Was it a Violation of My Rights when My Parents pulled me Out of School when I was 15 and sent me to live with Reletives in Mexico without knowing a word of Spanish? The Teachers at the Local School were just as able to Educate Me as Fly by flapping Their Arms. As Good as it Sounds that Education is a Right, the Truth of the Matter, Education is Not a Right. The Duty to Educate comes from Contract; I Compensate You for the Education of My Child, Myself, My Employee, Other. A Community Comes Together to Fund an Education System in the Form of Public Schools; The Schools have a Duty to Educate the Children of the Community Because they Receive Funds from the Community. I'd say that Many School Systems Should sued for Breach of Contract; That would Wake Up Many Failing Schools and the Corrupt Teacher's Unions if they were Held to Account. If I were to Say that People Have the Right to Food, Shelter, Clothing, Other; Then You Would Have the Duty to Provide Said Food, Shelter, Clothing, Other by Taking from Your Family to Provide for Someone Else. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When it comes to Politics, I always start from the Principle of Freedom; I have the Right to Life.
I have the Right to Live as I see fit, and Receive the Rewards or Suffer the Consiquences of my Choices. I have the Right to My Property, to Enter Contracts, To Exchange Goods and/or Services for Other Goods and/or Services. A Good Number of People will as a matter of Practice, Vote against These Rights, Limit My Choices for what they Think is Best. They will Vote for People to Pass Laws to make me Conform to What they think is good for me. I Never Got a License to Marry the Father of my Children, I Still Call Him My Husband, and he Calls me His Wife; Some would say that because we Never got a Piece of Paper from the State, we're not Married; Well, Who is the State to Decide for Us What Our Relationship is? There are Those Who Say that I Must Provide for the Poor Through Taxes in a System that keeps the Poor in Poverty in a Form of Slavery Called Welfare So They Vote to Take Money that I Earn to Keep the Poor Enslaved to the State for Their Daily Needs. Just as Frederick Douglass Observed that Many Slaves were so Brainwashed into Believing that it was Only Master Who Could Provide, Many Who are Trapped into Welfare Believe that Only the State Can Provide. There are Those Who Say That I Have to Contract With the Government for My Healthcare, though the Government has a History of Sub-Standard Care; But they Vote for it. There are Those who Vote for a Mandated Minimum Wage, for what People Can Eat, Drink, Drive, Enjoy, and a Great Many other things. Can I not Decide for Myself the Terms of a Contract between Myself and Another? Can I Not Decide How to Tend to My Own Well Being & Enjoyment? Are We Free Citizens or Subjects to the State? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I enjoy shooting my .38 Special, my Main Gun for Personal Defense.
I also enjoy my Saiga 12 Semi-Auto Shotgun with 20Rd Drum & Low Recoil Stock; it's great for removing most unwanted critters from Property, and if needed, used of Home Defense. I also enjoy shooting my AR-15 as it's Fun & Easy to Shoot and would be ideal for Property Defense if Civil Order is somehow disrupted; like a Tornado passes through town. However, I just saw a Gun on youtube that I just have to add to my colection; A Pump Action Orio Gun. http://youtu.be/vZj5rMECi7A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
TSA is a farce (article)
|
|
Having family who is TSA, I just think its like any other job,, it has no way to totally eliminate poor workers but I do feel safer for all the ones who arent poor workers,,, A Private Company can get rid of Poor Workers, it's called Getting Fired; something that the Government should learn. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A couple that are really Politically Incorrect.
Hunger is a good thing, it teaches the Lazy to work. & Like a door on its hinges, so is the Lazy on his bed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Would you?
|
|
Its late in the evening, your leaving the grocery store. You come across a someone who has obviously been homeless for a couple of days. Would you open your home to them for a night? No, I wouldn't, there are other options which are far safer; my First Duty is to my Family and bringing in someone who may have mental issues or a drug problem is not a wise move. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The mother of my kids
|
|
We've been separated for over a year now. I still love her. We were together for 3 years. What I'm wondering is, have I not given it enough time? Or is it because of the bond we share since we had kids together? I feel the same way about her as I did when we were together. She'll say she just wants to be friends one day, then say she wants to keep our lives separated so we'll stop talking. Then she'll pull the whole I miss you thing but go back to saying she just wants to be friends. Maybe I'm just taking it all the wrong way. But I kinda feel like she just enjoys throwing curve balls at me if that makes sense. I fall for it everytime  but I put up with it because I wanna have a family with her. I dont know if I should play her "games" or just not talk to her unless its about our kids.
My advice; stop playing the game by her rules, make her decide one way or the other. http://youtu.be/AaTQAaJWW54 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can we Clone some of the Kansas Political Class into Illinois? How about Transplanting a Few Brain Cells into our Brain Dead Political Class? (Hope that I didn't offend the Brain Dead with that last comment.)
The State House of Kansas passed three measures to Expand Gun Rights. The bill also would expand the number of public buildings where people with a state permit could bring concealed weapons, including the Statehouse. Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/03/14/4119887/kan-house-to-take-final-vote-on.html#storylink=cpy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Surmar
on
Thu 03/14/13 11:32 PM
|
|
its dumb to do nothing except grieve after preventable deaths happen.
Why do people think they can solve every problem with more legislation and more laws that take away our rights? We are not experiencing more deaths because of guns. These incidents are just getting more press. Far more people die on the highway in cars than of guns from some crazy person. These incidents just make good news and sell more papers. Car accidents happen all the time. They barely make the local news. Nobody knows who is or is not stable enough to have a gun. Laws trying to figure that out will only infringe on people's rights. These over paid politicians are just trying to justify their jobs. We have a right to bear arms. Period. No legislation can take away our rights legally without being guilty of TREASON. there are professionals who study mental health and can absolutely observe whether someone is a harm to themself or others,,,, we have the right to a well 'REGULATED' militia in which militia members can bare arms,,,, militia are trained and , believed to be sane,,,, I can only shoot one gun at a time,, why on earth would I require the 'right' to own an arsenal,,,,? owning a gun for protection or guns for hunting are one thing,, owning an arsenal is a different extreme I Own a .38 for Personal Protection when I'm out of the House, I have a Saiga 12 (Low Recoil Stock, 20Rd Drum Loaded With Turket Shot) For Home Defense if Someone Breaks into my House; I have an AR-15 for Property Defense, along with a 30-06 for Hunting and a few other guns (Some are just fun to shoot) for this or that. Each Gun has its Stregnth & Weakness and there is no All Purpose Gun for Everything; the Reason to have Multiple Guns is to have the Right Gun for One's Need. People would Freak Out if I Carried a Saiga 12 or an AR-15 in Public, so I carry a .38; and it's easier to Conceal. The Aveg Home Invasion involves Multiple Person (Usually 3) so the 6 Shooter is out and a .223 will travel through walls and may hit someone I don't want to Shoot, so I have a Saiga Shotgun. The AR-15 is a Good Weapon to Defend One's Own Property (Outside the House) if there is Trouble. Understand why one would own Multiple Guns? no, do the bullets work differently based upon the gun? hunting, home protection, and everyday strolling I count three needs,,,, three guns?,,,I dont consider that an arsenal,,,,, That would be 4 Guns. 1) .38 2) Saiga 12 Semi-Auto Shotgun w/20rd Drum & Low Recoil Stock. 3) AR-15 4) 30-06 for Hunting. Plus several other Guns for various other uses; like Pure Fun. A .38 is a good Gun for a One on One or a Two on One on the Open Streets as you pull it out from Concealment to Defend Yourself. In the Confined Space of One's Home, as a Home Invasion Usually Involves More Than One (3 - 4 on Avg) a Shotgun is the Better Choice (Semi-Auto with Low Recoil Stock for a Small Woman like myself)as the Barrings wouldn't Penetrat the Walls like a Rifle. If the Perp is Still Breaking Down the Door, or Crawling Thrugh the Window, or He & His Buddies are Acting in a Threating Manner Outside; A Good Semi-Auto Rifle with 30Rd Mag(Like the AR or AK)is the Rifle You'd Want. Every Gun has its Good Points and Drawbacks, the Trick is to use each Gun as Efectively as Possible. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
