Joe Miner

Yeah, that's never happened before. Non-religious people are way better than those religious ones.

It's like you try to make an intelligent point, but unfortunately are hampered by your own stupidity.

That last quoted section about the 20 trillion is what makes me just shake my head. Might as well put on a big show and cut another 30 billion again for as much good as any of this will do us.

Why is she against it? Does it rub her the wrong way?

I'm not sure anyone knows what the hell you're attempting to debate.

If your helmet is green, you might need some penicillin.

A pie in the face? Not only are you !@#$ing retarded, but you're apparently 12 and infatuated with the Looney Toons justice system. What's the ratio and scale of the number and severity of transgressions to the number of pies, and the where those pies hit a person?

Are you !@#$ing retarded?

So you think it's strange that a man's wife slapped someone who had just assaulted and publicly embarrassed her husband? Or you think it's strange that other people agreed with her actions? I don't think "most of us" have an issue with either of those things.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303661904576456072630104778.html Again, what politicians say in public is not what the say when actually making a deal.

No reasonable person would take it seriously.

I believe it has potential. I believe it will turn into crap. "Just show me the baby." I don't think either side should win an award should even a good bill get passed from this outline. And it's way too early to definitively say that one side or the other is to blame if this outline doesn't result in a bill.

Call me when someone's actually giving in on something that's not a 4 page outline. Then call back again, when they (Congress) don't completely !@#$ up this 4 page outline rushing to pass parts of it as a bill. If nothing comes of this 4 page outline only an idiot would jump to conclusions and blame 1 side or the other about some ambiguous bill based on it not passing.

Because it's obviously a roadblock to getting the larger issue taken care of, the debt ceiling. If not raising the debt ceiling will do untold disaster to the US economy, why not fix that instead of playing a dangerous game of chicken with it. Hence, take the high road. Both sides say they agree that spending has to be cut. But they disagree on taxes. So why not pass what you agree on, avert the impending disaster, and work on a better fix after? Doesn't that seem to be what's in the best interest of the American people? Why not take the high-road and stop playing the political game that you chastise the republicans for?

Couldn't the Dems just as easily take the highroad, pass some cuts, get the debt ceiling raised, and then come back later with a bill that adjusts taxes?

He's a troll trying to get a rise from people. I don't believe him at all.

My opinion is still evolving.

Stream Netflix. Rent/Buy from Zune (Xbox), Itunes (Apple TV) or Amazon (Roku) Never need to purchase a disc again.

Heat of the moment is a cliche term that really doesn't do justice to the mental stress that a person goes through when your life is literally on the line. Just pray that you never find out how long the heat of the moment lasts for you. I'm not saying the guy is justified, but it's hard for me to agree with a life sentence in a circumstance like this.

Those are not the Congressional Democrats. It's easy to propose things that you know won't pass.

So do you really think that the Democrats are being reasonable when they say they aren't accepting any deal that touches Medicare or Social Security? Or they President is being reasonable when he says he won't accept a temporary fix? How are you determining which lines in the sand are reasonable? Everyone is playing the same game of chicken with the debt limit. But apparently some people are playing it reasonably, and some aren't?

Nothing like sweeping generalizations from those who claim to be reasonable.

This case has stirred up a lot of people here in OK. Unfortunately for the pharmacist had he been a better shot he wouldn't be in jail. One of the kids that was inside was armed, the other was not. He had been robbed in the past, so was apparently armed this time around. He pulled his gun, and shot the unarmed kid, while the armed kid turned and ran. The pharmacist chased the armed kid out of the store, but didn't catch him. When the pharmacist returned to the store, he walked by the kid he had shot who was lying on the floor, went back behind his counter, grabbed a second gun, and came back and shot the kid on the floor 5 more times. Obviously that kid died, but it wasn't ever determined whether he died from the first round of gunfire or the second. The man also "lied" to police when he was telling his story, stating that both kids were armed and some other things that were clearly not true on the videotape. I'm not surprised he was convicted, because you can't come back inside and grab a second weapon and kill someone that is lying defenseless not currently posing a threat to you. I think his attorneys did a piss poor job of convincing the jury of his mental state at the time of the robbery/shooting. Plus in interviews, the guy didn't seem like he was all there to begin with. I am quite surprised that he received life in prison. I figured he would get a bit more sympathy considering he was robbed with a gun in his face, which is an incredibly stressful situation that can make people react in very unpredictable ways. Had he just killed both kids with his first few shots, he wouldn't be in this mess and it would have been definite self defense.

Does that come in handy when you tell her it lasted way longer than 1 minute?