Good Grief Y'all you need to REALLY look into Senator Rubio's past. After you do that, come back "man-up" and say, "I am sorry" for disputing his motives and his ideas".

Still a little touchy about being a taker?

I'm not a taker TOWG. Also, not touchy.

That's a typical right wing tactic, accusing someone of what you yourself or your people do.

GGY....do you listen to the things you say? Who is "your people?" You belong to a different species? You are so full of venom...and touchy...absolutely...you are the single person on the PATCH that screams to ban others that oppose your stupidity.....boo hooo...wahhh....sound familiar? BTW...Happy Valentines Day!

John B, you and those like you are in the "your people" group and you all seem very proud of it. You know that, you're just pouncing.

I have no venom, even for you. Everyone you and yours disagree with are always labeled as the ones who attack, but it's pretty easy to verify that the opposite is true. You should do a survey, a study of these comments and see which party is doing the bad mouthing to the other, insulting and name calling, just as you just did to me. I have an example for you, but will have to post it later. Stay tuned.

You can keep your insincere wishes.

President Obama repeated the same tired old things over and over again. He is an amateur who is in way over his head! His solution to every problem is a new government program. His solution to solving the debt crisis is to spend more. He is incapable of leading. He is like a child a spoiled child who who wants everything and yet has no concept of how to pay for it!

The Republican response by Senator Rubio was a well reasoned response and pointed out the fallacies of the liberal position.

Its quite obvious that the liberals are acting like the children and the conservatives represent the adults in the room.

Well it’s really a “left wing” thing .

That has been beaten over the heads of so many conservatives, they’re beginning to unconsciously use the same “shill set” that’s been acquired though osmosis.

Besides it’s a scientific fact that “Lefties” are ALWAYS in their RIGHT minds, night and day with no end in sight. That inescapable fact contributes to their whiny crankiness; the unrelenting self loathing takes a toll...

While at the same, a very large percentage of most conservatives have no problem at all using BOTH sides of their brain on a daily basis. The bonus is that conservatives don’t worry at all about the fairness of which side of the brain they use more of - no quotas, no filtering, just FREEDOM!

Agreed, George. I especially like making Election Day a national holiday. It's so important to America to make sure all citizens have equal opportunity, security, ease and convenience in the process.

How about only those that have demonstrated actual responsibility be able to vote? Maybe only those that meet certain criteria such as having a job, owning real estate, or volunteer in the community be eligible to vote. Everyone that's excluded this year can either whine about it or take the necessary steps to qualify to vote next year.
Irresponsible voters do not know what's best for society. Responsible voters may not know either, but at least they have an advantage!

Sammy, that would be unconstitutional to deny US citizens their right to vote. Bet you're a big 2nd Amendment guy, too.

Maybe, but he can't Drive 55...

We have a Junior Senator in the Prime Time now - are you indirectly indicating the US made an error here that SHOULDN’T be repeated?

Not on your life, R+. It's about the man, not the title. Rubio is a child, comparatively speaking.

Based on what exactly?

The child to which you refer apparently voted and spent more time on the people’s business than the current Prime Time player has…

R+, you know that's not so. POTUS never truly gets away from the job. He lives over the store, so to speak. The job and responsibilities follow him on any vacations he takes. Congress members get lots and lots of time off, and when they're in session there's little going on. That's easy to verify.

@Ben
Here are the facts on free cell phones:

An employer can more easily reach you with a job offer if you have a free government cell phone.
You can you stay in touch with your doctor and other emergency medical professionals more easily with a free government cell phone.
A free government cell phone can help you keep in touch with family and other loved ones.
Thanks to the FCC-mandated, government-sponsored program, called LifeLine Assistance, the financially disadvantaged can receive a free government cell phone and up to 250 free minutes every month. An estimated 15 million other Americans already participate, and tens of millions more qualify to enroll. In the 90′s, the federal government set up the Lifeline phone service program via a mandate by the FCC. This program, funded by Universal Service Fund fees on telephone bills, provides qualified consumers with discounted (often free) monthly telephone service. It began as just a landline program and a few years ago made its debut with cell phones. It’s been commonly called the “ObamaPhone" but that’s an urban legend as free cell phones were added under the Bush Administration.
You can qualify for a free government cell phone in some states if your household income is 135% of the federal poverty guideline level. With the diminishing number of pay phones, it would seem that a poor person trying to get a job would need this

Meanwhile back on the ranch as a user who pays for his, I have to cut plans to pay for phones issued that aren't even verified?

Wow. A progressive in support of more government spending in a program which first took money from productive people. I, for one, am stunned....

George, thank you for explaining the myth of the free cell phone program.

Don't expect them to acknowledge or discontinue the lie because they're enjoying it too much. Facts are immaterial to the ones who prefer the lies that fit their ideology.

So a man who ran on change, claiming he wasn't going to continue the evil Bush policies sails on yet again - because the program was started under Bush/Clinton…

He hasn’t had 4 years to fix or propose any changes…

Meanwhile, because observed foolishness and program abuse occurred under Bush’s watch, somehow that should shut those up who challenge continuation of a program that admits to having no real controls and is chock full of waste?

Gentle readers, please remember that even if you’re "all in" to the government doing everything - the wasted money indeed means you personally keep less and government BUYS you or others less in return.

It’s a real lose/lose for either left or right as it sits.

Oh, that's right. That gun control package that would do nothing to alleviate gun crime. But that's not really what it's all about, is it? The left's attempts to take guns is more about taking guns and exerting control than it is in saving lives. Explains why Castle Doctrine is more prevalent in conservative states than in liberal ones. Even Princess Pelosi said that Castle Doctrine is leading to more shootings. The thought process among the left is just so confused, no wonder Obama gets applauded when he brings it up. And using kids and reading the names of the victims to do nothing more than further his agenda is the worst kind of despicable.

"Karsten", could you tell us one item in President Obama's gun control package that would take guns away from you "law abiding gun owners".

"David," could you tell me one thing in there that would have prevented Sandy Hook? Or the Batman theatre shooting?

It's not a matter of me defending why I think restrictions are bad, it's a matter of the other side defending the ideas of why limiting our rights and freedoms are a good idea. I shouldn't need to convince anybody of why my rights shouldn't be stepped on. Sorry, not the way it goes.....

"Karsten", you conveniently avoided my question "could you tell us one item in President Obama's gun control package that would take guns away from you "law abiding gun owners".

The pretense that ordinary citizens wouldn’t be effective in a future uprising against a tyrannical government would require discounting all the news around the world.

Some would even point to a little US history right here in Tenn. shortly after the end of World War II to dispute that claim cold. It’s not the single man or woman, its him or her with like minded neighbors…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

The government’s desire of national registration of firearms is a door we don’t need to open. Regardless of your beliefs in the current or past presidents, do you really want the OTHER side to have that much authority when THEY are in POWER?

Of course those screaming about doing something about guns are most likely perfectly content with our NATIONAL Drone policy. We won’t expend the effort to get you out of another country’s jail when put there under shady circumstances, but we WILL send a drone anywhere on the planet to take you out if you’re deemed a threat…

I haven't actually seen any sensible or more effective gun laws proposed. Of which ones do you speak that would qualify under either category?

And the answer to your question is - it probably wouldn't get to that point. Again, as a gun owner, I expect my rights to be upheld. That doesn't mean I'm going to go out and buy a bazooka or a fully armed tank. But I don't think the government should be allowed to limit these, either.

Karsten, you know the entire country is not going to do anything according to your set of standards. How silly. I stated already what I think will help. The President's task force proposals are agreeable to me. I don't have to reinvent the wheel.

Your rights will be upheld without your being able to stock up with semi- and automatic assault rifles, military grade weapons of war and over 10 capacity clips. That's what the 2nd says.

Your second paragraph proves my point. "Probably" isn't good enough. "Probably" needs to be avoided. We know gun owners would be perfectly happy with "bazookas and fully armed tanks". That's the issue right there.

Thanks for putting that out there. It's what I hoped for from at least one of you all.

You have completely missed the point that I've been talking about for the past couple of weeks. Totally shows that you just don't pay attention, but that's fine. I'll say it again once for the cheap seats:

The second amendment has jack to do with hunting, and really not much to do with personal protection against intruders. It has to do with us being able to protect ourselves from an overbearing and overreaching government, be it an intruder or our own. The founders wrote this after a bloody and difficult war to get out from under the rule of the British. Does anybody really think they'd now say "Oh, well we didn't know weapons were going to get so advanced, we couldn't possibly trust our citizens with them, we'll just leave those in the hands of the government. After all, they would never use them to their advantage and pass laws that would infringe on people's rights." Well, actually, I believe that you would think this is just what they would say, which tells me you were paying no attention in school.

And I'm not sure you got the point of my second paragraph earlier, although what I really meant doesn't really change the meaning. By never getting to that point, I meant that there's not a point I can foresee where 2nd Amendment advocates will say that it's gotten ridiculous and maybe we should give up some rights. Especially with the left in charge. Just sayin....

KT, the fact that I don't come around to your way of thinking doesn't at all mean I don't pay attention. It's okay to admit you're wrong, but you have to keep spinning. You must be very dizzy. I know exactly what you meant - no limits for personal arsenals.

You are not now, nor will you ever be, no matter how much fire power you stock, be any match for the US military. Or LE, though it might take them a little longer.

Dorner did plenty of damage in California. What good did his guns do him in the end? I bet he thought he was right and everyone else was wrong.

Sorry, not spinning. And, actually, not wrong. Though I know it's hard for you to see. That's OK, though.

"You are not now, nor will you ever be, no matter how much fire power you stock, be any match for the US military. Or LE, though it might take them a little longer."

The fact that you're completely OK with this statement just dumbfounds me. But, I guess that's the difference between us. You love government and all things beaurocratic. I tend to think the opposite....

Just to add a little to Karsten's history lesson, North Viet Nam, even when supplied by China was never a match for the US military, however, we lost. Afghanistan, where we have been for 10 years, has never been a match for the US military, however, we are losing.

Karsten, c'mon, really. Who said I was okay with it? It's reality. But, I am not okay with . . . well you know.

You really should stop pigeon-holing people. I don't "love" govt. and bureaucracy - that's ridiculous. However, I do recognize the role govt. should play in working for the taxpayers.

Don't forget, it was our illustrious, infallible Founding Fathers who created the US government.

Vietnam . . . politics, Mr. B. Coulda and shoulda, or shoulda left.

Afghanistan . . . big diversion there with Iraq invasion . . . also due to politics, and greed (big oil had to be protected). Coulda, shoulda, there too long, but getting outta there.

I'm sorry GGY. I really didn't understand anything you typed. Possibly complete sentences would help. Coulda, shoulda??? What?

You get it, Mr. B. About winning those wars.

You're breaking your Lenten discipline yet again.

I'm really asking for clarification. No breaking of my covenant.

Mr. B, I guess I'm thinking of that post you made on the other blog calling me all those vile names - today.

That's provocation for "sparring". Which, by your own words is breaking your covenant.

Cain, I do nothing of the sort. I simply state my opinion as others on the opposite side do. I know your folks don't like facts, which is why you single me and others like me out to slander, insult and write personal attacks. Why don't you write your opinions, instead? Why attack me for mine?

State your stuff and leave me out of it. I doubt I'll respond or even notice.

Actually GGY...you are the only one singled out consistently...go figure....

John B, maybe it's because I consistently have something to say that rattles right wing cages :D Makes me a proud poster!

This applies especially to you:

" Why don't you write your opinions, instead? Why attack me for mine?
State your stuff and leave me out of it. I doubt I'll respond or even notice."

Have you ever noticed that I don't single you out, or others rarely? I don't come on here to go after others. I don't hit first. I'm here to state, not debate. But I will answer when and if I want to.

You must be so weak in your ability to state your views that instead you can only post negative comments to and about me. Get another life, JB.

and you keep coming back responding to each of my comments...sounds like the cage being rattled is yours...

I didn't see him looking at teleprompters, though they were there for his use, or looking down at notes. He was looking at the people. What he said was in his head and in his heart.

Quite frankly he articulated the conservative point of view quite well. The water bottle moment was awkward but he recovered well the following day. To be honest it made him more human. I know this will shock you, but I fully disagree with your assessment.

The following day is a little late to fix a speech the day before.

Uh, no, I'm not shocked.

Perhaps in fairness we could also list all the gaffe's committed by the President and his side kick Joe Biden!!

On a more serious note, to this day I cannot understand how any sane and rational human being can continue to support the policies and actions of this President.

I'll just settle for revisiting the President's very own “corpse"men remark ... Repeated SEVERAL times.

I'll bet he wished that he had a water bottle the reach for that day himself.

Chris P, don't those gaffes make the President and VP more human? ;)

Well GGy in a more same world the gaffe's committed by both the President and Vice President would indeed make them to be more human. The real problem is those who defend these very gaffes as not important and yet crucify the other side when they commit the same.

I beleive the word I'm looking for is HYPOCRISY!!

Chris P, where have I defended gaffes? Sometimes they're funny and lighten the mood. There's no hypocrisy in this.

Rubio's awkward address would not be in the gaffe category. He didn't make a gaffe in my opinion. He gave a speech of rehashed campaign rhetoric and illustrated it with distracting motions. His actions were first embarrassing, then funny. If he doesn't think so after looking at the clip, he has no sense of humor.

What he had to say was the main problem. His body language and quirkiness actually diverted from his poor message, so maybe they worked for him in that regard.

And Chris P, why so angry? My goodness. Ben wants you to calm down :)

GGY did you watch the same speech I did? None of what you stated makes any sense. Maybe you're just in denial because you know deep down Rubio made sense and your President is just incompetent.

Oh, yeah, Chris. I watched it in its entirety. It was a bit hard to do, but I watched every second. Then, I got to watch the reach on a loop. But, more to the point, I listened to him. I am so thankful he's a Republican.

Wonder if he has lost any of his shiny new rising star status with the party bosses. Time will tell.

It is a matter of one's perspective. Did you really watch the President's SOTU address? All of it? Listen? Objectively? Without hating on him through it?

Our President is oh so competent.

Unfortunately, it’s those very areas of his competency that rightly concerns many.

@ Cain x 2: I rarely use this, but LOL! Once was enough to post.

I don't hate.

Please pay attention - I am a she, a Mrs.

I agree with you Ben. I have strong opinions on things, but I'm thankful that my salvation doesn't ultimately hinge on who is on the throne in Washington, D.C.

You're typing to blind eyes Ben.

Amy, Ben's no innocent, making comments like his earlier one stirs the pot, too:

"Big Joke, he has done nothing to help the working people in the last (4) Years, so why look for him to change, If he would cut off the Welfare, Food Stamps, Free Cell Phones & lot of other items to help the do nothing people in this country, he would not have gotten elected, thats the people that voted for him. In November 2012"

That translates to the 47% divisiveness. But, he's right about the name-calling nonsense. I haven't seen any threats of going to anyone's home to beat up on people. Maybe he's referring to another thread.

May not be 47 percent but it's something better than 25 percent. Everyone is guilty of making it personal including you GGY.....in reference to beating people up...good gravy...I have not heard of any talk like that...Ben please check your medication...when that happens I will sign off....politics bring out spirited discussions that sometimes get personal but any talk of violence is unacceptable.

Sounds like you may have missed the east coast riots of the 60's . Fun had by all.

Another of the 259 reasons why totally depending on the FEDS, State or County is the wrong choice.

Remember that the pen is indeed mightier than the sword, but the sword ALWAYS carries more weight at any given moment...