Azalin

I probably should have recognized that.

I can't even imagine the grief. What an incredibly evil thing to do.

I should have followed through with my reply. One example of how I've changed my mind on an issue by reading posted debates here is on the topic of gay marriage. I've never understood anything other than heterosexual attraction, and that inability to relate was causing me to view homosexual relationships as being less genuine than straight ones. I can't remember exactly which thread it was - it was likely over the course of several different threads - but my view on the subject has changed as a direct result of reading and considering all the points that were being made. My stance on the issue of gay marriage is now one of support, not because I see no difference between gay and straight marriages, but because equal rights apply to everyone, and shouldn't be questioned simply on the basis my own personal biases.

Actually, yes. Several times. Usually in a topic with which I'm not as familiar as I'd like to be, like this thread. I have to google a lot, but I come away with a clearer understanding of whatever it is that people are talking about. If you're honest with yourself, you'll learn a lot.

I take it that the helmet in question was protective headgear and not the purple one?

Had you been there, you could have taken it down mercifully with a single swing of your mighty beef wiener.

There's a joke involving beef, pork, and weiners somewhere in this story, but I can't quite find the words.

All anyone running against her needs to do is keep running this clip on prime time television:

Like McDonald's being number one because they're the best.

He's not going to let that stop him.

Of course you do. That's both consistent and predictable. I believe psychologists call that 'projecting'.

You mock Keukasmallies for stating that he's facing a 100% increase in his cost in one year by glibly prattling about 'the good old days when premiums never went up'. A 100% increase in cost in one year due to the implementation of a law purported to decrease cost by $2500.00, and you describe that simply as the cost of premiums going up? Then you compound your grand fail by saying that people who complain are small-minded? Tom is being beyond charitable when he call you an idiot. You're not even entertaining anymore. You don't argue or debate to make a point, you only do so to offend.

Paul Dooley in 'Strange Brew'.

This describes my feelings on the issue perfectly.

I think he asked that because the issue is wealthy people buying into the area and driving up property values, and Brand apparently moved into the area. The interviewer pointed out that it could be said that Brand was contributing to the cause he was protesting. That's what I took from it, anyway.

You can probably expect to see Jeb's son, George Prescott Bush make a run for the presidency a few years from now. He's the first member of his family to win office on his first attempt as Texas Land Commisioner a few weeks ago.

P. Terry's? Whataburger? I take it that you live in or near Austin? If so, ever been to Dan's or Fran's? it's sort of the same thing in south & central Texas with Taco Bell. They're all over the place, and they don't hold a candle to the local stuff like Torchy's.

It's good to know that at least some of the money is being spent for what they say, but I still wonder how much of that came from gasoline tax, the general fund, or stimulus. I imagine I'd have to go to the GAO to learn that.

Are all those projects in NC federally funded as part of the stimulus, or are they funded by NC?

In the OP, Rendell says that 'a higher gas tax could actually save people money' and says 'our roads and bridges are in dangerous condition'. I have no problem at all with a gasoline tax for purposes of addressing that segment of our infrastructure. What I do have a problem with is an increase in gasoline taxes meant to address what a recent and massive stimulus was supposed to address. Perhaps it's an idealistic notion to some, but accountability ought to be a factor when we go billions in debt at the stoke of a pen or when we raise taxes to fix something that has supposedly been addressed only a few years ago. It's the taxpayers' right to expect results for their money - there's nothing partisan about that.

It shouldn't be irrelevant to you, it should irritate the hell out of you because it's just another line of BS used on the American taxpayers. We were told that the stimulus money was going to be used to fix and/or upgrade an aging infrastructure, and by all appearances, it wasn't. That's got nothing to do with PPP or partisanship and it has everything to do with peoples' willingness to roll over for another tax hike on gasoline for the purposes of funding something that was supposedly already funded. You can view that as a partisan issue if you wish, but that won't make it so. It makes it doubly insulting that the stimulus money added another fat layer to the accumulated debt we've been rolling up over the last fourteen years. That should anger partisans and non-partisans alike.

I'm only pointing out that unions have a vested interest in a higher minimum wage. I'm not making a philsophical argument against them.

What many people object to (and I believe they're justified in this) is that all that money from the 'Stimulus' spending was supposed to be used for (quoting the President) 'infrastructure - you know, roads and bridges'. Can everyone now just admit that was a lie?

Raising the minimum wage also furthers the intrest of labor unions, who base their pay scale primarily off of the current minimum wage.