KelliJ

Big tough guy beating up on a woman half his size. Pathetic.

Well, the ONLY single individual who had the power to stop it was the president. He chose not to -not surpringly since he proposed the RECORD DEFICIT in the first place. Did even read what you just wrote?? Forget your prejudice over the deficit for one moment, it is blinding you to the facts of how our government runs. Two houses of congress, the House of representatives and the Senate, had the power to stop it before it ever went to the President. He couldn't do anything until they did. Maybe you should take a class in civics to help you understand. Ummm - on the matter of civics class: the House and Senate are NOT single individuals. Please read what I write instead of making it up for me. I am very well aware of that. The House and Senate are bodies made up of individuals, each with a vote. The House and Senate, each as a body, have a say in passage of any bill. They can also override the President. The President is required by law to submit to Congress a budget. He has no choice! Congress, on the other hand, is not required to approve that budget. They have the final say. The question wasn't what single individual, the question was what branch of government. Clear you mind of your hatred and you will see things much more clearly.

Well, the ONLY single individual who had the power to stop it was the president. He chose not to -not surpringly since he proposed the RECORD DEFICIT in the first place. Did even read what you just wrote?? Forget your prejudice over the deficit for one moment, it is blinding you to the facts of how our government runs. Two houses of congress, the House of representatives and the Senate, had the power to stop it before it ever went to the President. He couldn't do anything until they did. Maybe you should take a class in civics to help you understand.

So, by your own admission, it was CONGRESS who arrived at the final version of the budget. If the President had vetoed it then Congress would have the option to override his veto. Since the President cannot sign a bill that Congress has not already approved, yet Congress can override any veto by the President, it is Congress who has the ultimate responsibility of arriving at a budget they can accept. Whether or not the President approves of it, in actuality, makes little difference. Yes, it IS pretty simple. That is, once you stop trying to blame one particular individual.

The fact that the president has veto power gives him a significant role in passing the budget, more so than any individual member of congress. ...and Congress as a whole can override a veto with two-thirds of a vote. But they didn't need to when the (GOP controlled) congress passed record setting deficits a few years ago - Bush didn't veto a single spending bill. He embarked on a very costly war that had to be paid for, however. The President sends a budget proposal to Congress. Congress can approve it or not, no reason needed. Congress has the final say, not the President. So it was your reasoning that was lame, professor.

,...and that is the crux of the problem. The crux of the problem is that I watched "Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader" one time? Sorry...I won't watch it again if that'll help.

I was watching "5th grader' one evening and was shocked that the contestant had much trouble naming the two states that do not border another state. I don't expect everyone to be able to solve differential equations without so much as a pencil and paper, but basic geography isn't too much to ask. Or is it?

Guess which party? Ok, but could you tell us his name? Thank you in advance.

I can't help but think of the hypocrisy of the situation. Those who make the decisions to do away with winner-loser competitions got into the position to make that decision though the natural process of winner-loser competition. They weren't just plucked off the turnip truck and given their job. (Ok, maybe some were, but you get my drift.)

Well, did you? Did you play baseball or softball in a community-funded youth league? Nothing but welfare for the middle class. Wait...so did I. On both counts. Forget my whining.

Congress-Baseball connections. Jim Bunning: Former pitcher for Tigers and Phillies, now a second term senator from Kentucky. George W. Bush: Former second baseman at Yale, former part-owner of the Rangers, now 43rd President of the U.S. That's just a couple, there may be more. Now I know there are three things in life that are certain: 1) Death 2) Taxes 3) Kallend interjecting a remark about the war into a thread regardless of the relevance.

I'm not sure about Obama, but many consider Hillary to still be unelectable because of the high percentage of voters who will not vote for her under any circumstances and will, in fact, take part in the election just to vote against her regardless of who her opponent is. Whether she can overcome this liability will determine her success.

People Ingesting Tasty Animals ?

IS that so unusual? You and you mentor, as well as 99% of posters here, do just that on a regular basis. Just this once I'll give you a straight-up response. But don't expect me to make a habit of it. I'm guessing you are between 22 & 26.

Well, you are at least back to 50/50. Your youth is just too tempting not to bring up. Remember....not all comments made by posters are directly related to the subject addressed. This is SC, after all.

I ride. I wear a lid. I don't try to tell others whether to wear one or not, that is their choice. But I am SO TIRED of all the BS reasons not to wear. "It lowers my peripheral vison." Bullshit! Good quality helmets do not interfer at all with vision. "I can't hear." Again, BULLSHIT! Most who make this argument are running exhaust so loud they can't hear themselves think. And, to keep the post short, the last and stupidest one I ever heard.."If I wreck along a guardrail the helmet can snag and break my neck". Yep, it sure can. But at least you have a better chance of living than if it were your bare head that snagged on that guardrail. If you don't want to wear, and the law doesn't make you, then by all means feel free to ride with the wind blowing through your hair. But stop with the bullshit reasoning.

Mine did. Are you confused? Not a bit, but it's obvious you are. (Isn't it past your beddy-bye time?)

Actually....if I was forced to choose between waterboarding for an hour or being embraced by the professor wearing fuzzy bunny slippers....I'd say I was a bit thirsty and could use a drink of water.

Said the pot to the kettle. Could you point to any occasion that I've attempted to control who can or can't comment on a thread? I think you'll have some difficulty finding anything. My comment had nothing to do with anyone controlling a thread.

Said the pot to the kettle.

Hydrogen production is the key to it's viability as an alternative fuel. There are ways to produce it that don't pollute, but we are in a catch-22 situation of demand and supply. There is limited supply because there is limited demand because there is limited supply..... Hydrogen by itself is not the answer. I doubt any single alternative fuel will be.

Yep, they sure are. I drove one a couple months ago and was pleasantly surprised. Now if the rest of the manufacturers would take note.

You are absolutely correct, the algae does consume CO2. The engine still produces greenhouse gases regardless. The emmisions still include CO, CO2, particulate matter, NOx, etc. the same as most any other IC engine. Never said diesels don't have their place, just that they are stinky, noisy and shaky. Then there is the rare asshat who modifies the diesel engine in his pickup so every time he goes past half throttle a large plume of black smoke is emitted from the exhaust. But, since it is renewable, it is a step in the right direction until H2 fuel cells become more widespread.

I don't know that he would ever be a good crook, but he seems to have a future as a bullet deflector.

www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20070313X00285&key=1 Poor moose