blacktalon606

Bud Light Ice is my favorite. It's 5% alcohol and the cleanest beer I have ever seen. Yum.

Because people are taught from a young age to avoid confrontations. Because men have been imasculated to the point that, when it's time to act, they don't know what to do. Because people are afraid if they do something, even something justified they may get sued. Simply put... people are fucking pussys. With the current crop we have, we would have died out in the great depresion, we would have lost WWI and WWII and probably would have even let Russia win the cold war. The worst part is... it's going to get worse.

Amen to that sir!

I remember the night F&F1 opened. There were hundreds of 16 year old fags in mommy's car trying to drag race when that movie let out. I wouldn't wanna be on a bike that night... but that's just me. The movie will be exactly the same a week later once the hype has died down.

Using the term, "Non bias" and "CNN and AP" in the same sentence is laughable, and truly shows your ignorance. I'm a conservitive... but I can TELL Fox is biased to the right. Why can't you stand back far enough from your liberal leanings to see the blatant leftism shown daily on those news sources? I don't put much coult in any one media source because 3 things in life are certain: Death, Taxes and The media will get it wrong. If you want any kind of a realistic view of the world, you must sift through them all and synthesize a conclusion for yourself rather than just believing what they tell you to. Fortunatly for them... people are lazy and it's much easier to just believe what your told to.

Ok, I misunderstood you. But, I disagree about McCain's keeping him in the spotlight drawing the fire. As I remember it, it was the fact that they tried to burry him that got people talking about him. I know the first time I heard about him on the radio was in response to their use of state resources against him (which is illegal) and if membory serves correctly, they did this almost immediatly after he had the gaul to ask Obama a question he didn't want to hear, while Obama stood on his front law. lol. Had Obama answered the question, and just kept rolling it would have never been an issue and Joe would still be a plumber rather than running for a rep seat.

No shit! That and stats were the worst.

You sir, have never proven shit. You give us platitudes and feelings, but facts are something you always lack. You ask for citations but give only shit yourself. You should really take an economics class.

Citation needed... (that's not your wikipedia article)

Picking up the body- $15 an hour to pay some dude to pick up the body, once. Sterilizing them- $2500, once. Thieves- Shoot them with your .45. $0.50 + $15 an hour = $15.50 Putting them on welfare- $17k per year X 40 years X 8 kids + $5500 per year per kid medical = $7,880,000 per family... but these people multiply exponentially. Yeah... that's a lot cheaper...

But if the irresponsible people all refust to work, and we LET THEM STARVE TO DEATH... there won't be anymore irresponsible people. Then, the money they used to get, could be rolled back into programs with a positive return... which would help economics!!

Excellent link. I was going to mention that lady as well, but I couldn't remember her name. You rock.

If you have a job, your subject to random drug tests.... but if you sit on your ass and collect a check you can smoke all the crack you want. It's about time someone did something about that! "Poverty and civil liberties advocates fear the strategy could backfire, discouraging some people from seeking financial aid and making already desperate situations worse." We will have a rash of stoners starving to death. Now that would be funny right there... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090326/ap_on_bi_ge/states_welfare_with_strings States consider drug tests for welfare recipients CHARLESTON, W.Va. – Want government assistance? Just say no to drugs. Lawmakers in at least eight states want recipients of food stamps, unemployment benefits or welfare to submit to random drug testing. The effort comes as more Americans turn to these safety nets to ride out the recession. Poverty and civil liberties advocates fear the strategy could backfire, discouraging some people from seeking financial aid and making already desperate situations worse. Those in favor of the drug tests say they are motivated out of a concern for their constituents' health and ability to put themselves on more solid financial footing once the economy rebounds. But proponents concede they also want to send a message: you don't get something for nothing. "Nobody's being forced into these assistance programs," said Craig Blair, a Republican in the West Viginia Legislature who has created a Web site — notwithmytaxdollars.com — that bears a bobble-headed likeness of himself advocating this position. "If so many jobs require random drug tests these days, why not these benefits?" Blair is proposing the most comprehensive measure in the country, as it would apply to anyone applying for food stamps, unemployment compensation or the federal programs usually known as "welfare": Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Women, Infants and Children. Lawmakers in other states are offering similar, but more modest proposals. On Wednesday, the Kansas House of Representatives approved a measure mandating drug testing for the 14,000 or so people getting cash assistance from the state, which now goes before the state senate. In February, the Oklahoma Senate unanimously passed a measure that would require drug testing as a condition of receiving TANF benefits, and similar bills have been introduced in Missouri and Hawaii. A Florida senator has proposed a bill linking unemployment compensation to drug testing, and a member of Minnesota's House of Representatives has a bill requiring drug tests of people who get public assistance under a state program there. A January attempt in the Arizona Senate to establish such a law failed. In the past, such efforts have been stymied by legal and cost concerns, said Christine Nelson, a program manager with the National Conference of State Legislatures. But states' bigger fiscal crises, and the surging demand for public assistance, could change that. "It's an example of where you could cut costs at the expense of a segment of society that's least able to defend themselves," said Frank Crabtree, executive director of the West Virginia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. Drug testing is not the only restriction envisioned for people receiving public assistance: a bill in the Tennessee Legislature would cap lottery winnings for recipients at $600. There seems to be no coordinated move around the country to push these bills, and similar proposals have arisen periodically since federal welfare reform in the 1990s. But the appearance of a cluster of such proposals in the midst of the recession shows lawmakers are newly engaged about who is getting public assistance. Particularly troubling to some policy analysts is the drive to drug test people collecting unemployment insurance, whose numbers nationwide now exceed 5.4 million, the highest total on records dating back to 1967. "It doesn't seem like the kind of thing to bring up during a recession," said Ron Haskins, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "People who are unemployed, who have lost their job, that's a sympathetic group. Americans are tuned into that, because they're worried they'll be next." Indeed, these proposals are coming at a time when more Americans find themselves in need of public assistance. Although the number of TANF recipients has stayed relatively stable at 3.8 million in the last year, claims for unemployment benefits and food stamps have soared. In December, more than 31.7 million Americans were receiving food stamp benefits, compared with 27.5 million the year before. The link between public assistance and drug testing stems from the Congressional overhaul of welfare in the 1990s, which allowed states to implement drug testing as a condition of receiving help. But a federal court struck down a Michigan law that would have allowed for "random, suspicionless" testing, saying it violated the 4th Amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure, said Liz Schott, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. At least six states — Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Virginia — tie eligibility for some public assistance to drug testing for convicted felons or parolees, according to the NCSL. Nelson said programs that screen welfare applicants by assigning them to case workers for interviews have shown some success without the need for drug tests. These alternative measures offer treatment, but can also threaten future benefits if drug problems persist, she said. They also cost less than the $400 or so needed for tests that can catch a sufficient range of illegal drugs, and rule out false positive results with a follow-up test, she said.

Actually, it's illegal for any person who doesn't have specific business with your taxes to look them up. A couple years ago, an IRS agent was fired and then arrested for simply LOOKING at the tax numbers of the celebrities without authorization. Prez may be commander and chief, but he is not above the law, and he has no business looking at my taxes. Ever. You can know anything you want about your opponent, that is legally obtainable. Tax info isn't unless they release it. Hahaha... you think McCain tried to ruin Joe the Plumber? HAHAHAHAHAHA that's rich. Well, a member of Obama's election campain was arrested for it... but I guess it was actually a McCain supporter in descise embedded within the enemy camp. Nice conspiricy theory. I like it! It makes me smile. Nope, no impeachment is necessary yet. It's all in good fun.

When you start using citations, I'll consider using citations. Until that point, blow your citations out your ass. Oh, and PS: Wikipedia doesn't count for a citation. Ever.

Derka Derka Allah.

Which they found out by ILLEGALLY using State resources. (What ever happened to that criminal case?) An Election campain attacked a private citizen and did their best to destroy him.

Joe the plumber asked Obama a question he didn't like, and they tried to "kill" his business. Just imagine what will happen now that he has been elected and controls the goons in black masks.

The title has great relevence to that reporter.

Ed Henry of CNN asked the President why he didn't spew outrage as soon as he learned about the AIG bonuses. Why, Mr. Henry asked, did the president wait several days before speaking out? The president, with an icy stare, responded that he "likes to know what he's talking about" before he speaks. It was a pretty testy exchange that brought about nervous laughter from the other reporters and snarky responses from Twitterers. Boom! Next question. You don't ask Obama questions he doesn't want to hear dumb ass! Hope it was worth it...

Why take a freaking class? Just practice. Find yourself a large parking lot and practice doing U turns within the lines of two parking spaces. Get good at that and you will be fine.

A computer backpack of course.

why would anyone do this? http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/460946/

Lol. That is only taking into acount Right Wing Conservitive nutjobs. What about the muslims? What about the ELF and ALF weirdos who kill people to save the animals? Come on... there are lots more terrorists out there than that... lets be fair.