Think about it, is it anything more than adding shock value to words that mean the same thing?  

My Grandmother used to say, “oh fudge”, what she really was saying was, “oh shit”, we didn’t pay any attention because “fudge” is not a “dirty” word.  Now if she had said, “oh shit”, we would have been like, WOW, Grandma just swore and Mom would have done the obligatory covering of our ears.  

My Aunt would say, “numb-er than a pounded thumb”, what she was really saying was “dumbass”.  

Kids nowadays say “freakin”, translated it means fuckin’.  

I scolded my Granddaughter about that and apparently she took it to heart because, in a facebook conversation with one of her friends, she used the “F” word, not freakin’, the other “F” word.  Yes, I was monitoring (a fancy word for spying) her, I was signed into her facebook at the same time as she was unbeknownced to her until I typed a response pretending I was her.  The response went something like this…  I am so sorry I used the “F” word, I know better but I guess I momentarily forgot everything I learned in Church and my Grandma would delete my account if she saw this.  Her friend responded with, “would she really do that”?  I responded with yes, she would, translated to mean, “you can bet your sweet ass she would”.  Now I could have gotten upset (pissed) but I thought it was more fun to do it my way and it was.  

You prissies can claim you aren’t swearing or saying bad words but what you aren’t saying is the same as what you are saying.  Why not just say what you mean and man what you say?  Except kids of course!

How many crimes are committed with assault weapons, most crimes are committed with handguns so this idiots proposals would just penalize responsible gun owners.   You really can fix stupid, change his name from Rep Gilliard to “former” Rep Gilliard. 

Proposed Laws Would Set New Boundaries For Gun Owners

GREENVILLE, S.C. — Two bills in the state House of Representatives could change the laws for South Carolina gun owners in 2012.One proposal, sponsored by Rep. Wendell Gilliard, D-Charleston, would change the charge for carrying a concealed weapon without a permit from a misdemeanor to a felony.

The other bill, also sponsored by Gilliard, would redefine and ban certain assault weapons. The new definition of assault weapons in the bill includes rifles fitted with magazines that can carry more than 21 rounds and shotguns capable of carrying six or more rounds.Gilliard said the bills are designed to cut down on gun crime.

“It’s really out of control. If we don’t send a strong message to the thugs, then we put our communities at risk. We put our law enforcement at risk, and we can’t just stand by idly and not do nothing,” Gilliard said.

Rep. Bruce Bannister, R-Greenville, opposes both bills.

“It would scare folks who want to do the right thing and might make a misstep or have an accident and carry a gun illegally. I do not believe it would have an impact on the thugs out there or the bad guys who would carry a gun no matter what,” Bannister said.Both bills are being debated in the House judiciary committee.

Bannister told Greenville County gun rights activists about the bills at a Second Amendment Rights Forum on Wednesday night.

Several people expressed concern over restrictions that many private employers have against allowing guns to be stored in cars in workplace parking lots.

“I don’t think an employer has any right to tell an employee he can’t keep a gun in his car during work,” said gun owner Bill Shaver.

Bannister said some lawmakers are working on legislation that could allow South Carolinians to carry guns in cars no matter where they park.

Santorum campaign suggests Mitt Romney may have done deal to make Ron Paul his running mate

After tonight’s debate, in which Ron Paul and Mitt Romney repeatedly attacked Rick Santorum over his 16-year record in Congress, the former US Senator for Pennsylvania hinted that something nefarious was going on.

“You have to ask Congressman Paul and Governor Romney what they’ve got going together,” Santorum told reporters in the spin room in Mesa, Arizona. “Their commercials look a lot alike and so do their attacks.”

Santorum’s top strategist John Brabender went even further, charging that the two men had “joined forces” and were coordinating attacks against his man

“Clearly there’s a tag team strategy between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. For all I know, Mitt Romney might be considering Ron Paul as his running mate. Clearly there is now an alliance between those two and you saw that certainly in the debate.”

The was also coordination in their attack ads, he charged. “Ron Paul for all practical purposes has pulled out of Michigan. Correct? Where’s he running negative ads against Rick Santorum? Michigan.

“It was interesting to me that if you watch Ron Paul when he came into the debate, he wrote negative things about Rick Santorum down because when he started to get questions he would immediately pick up his paper and start mentioning Santorum stuff.”

He added: “What is amazing to me this shows a remarkable ability by Romney, who has already proven to be the most negative man in history on TV, now he’s even training his opponents to be negative for his benefit and actually I think that takes remarkable skill.”

The Romney campaign ridiculed the notion there was any coordination. “If ever there was an iconoclast who got up there and said what he believed, it’s Ron Paul,” said Stuart Stevens, Romney’s chief strategist.

“The President of the United States’s political action committee is now running ads that are just like Rick Santorum’s. Is Rick Santorum coordinating with the President of the United States? I don’t think so.

“So I think that’s a sort of whiney silliness. It would not even be a question if he [Santorum] felt that he’d answered these questions better.

“To say, ‘People are ganging up on me’ in a debate where there’s only four people in the debate and they’re raising questions kind of speaks for itself.”

MORNING UPDATE:

As many commenters point out, a much more plausible scenario than a Romney-Paul ticket would be some kind of future role for Senator Rand Paul. Or it could simply be that Ron Paul, knowing he cannot win the nomination, is positioning himself for maximum influence at the Tampa convention – he’s all about furthering the cause of his movement rather than personal advancement.

I was on the Scott Hennen Show this morning talking about this and Scott drew my attention to Ron Paul’s apearance on the show on February 7th in which he addressed this issue on the back of a Washington Post story about a “strategic alliance” between the two candidates.

Paul’s denial was not exactly definitive. “Not exactly, I mean I never sat down with Mitt and said ‘Well let’s do this or that’,” he said. “There’s no doubt that he’s been more of a gentleman when I talk to him. It’s never been in my interest to go after him. Everyone else was doing that.

“Matter of fact, I don’t even like that part of politics. But then on the other side of this, we did some ads where we called him a flip flopper, and things like that. There’s nothing strategic. There’s been no decision. The staffs have talked to each other on some of the things like debates – and which debates we should go to – I don’t know how many things we have a strong agreement on.

“Our foreign policies are different – he certainly is not attacking the Federal Reserve – and his record up in Massachusetts wasn’t anything I could get too enthusiastic about, but I would say that the most important thing is that he’s someone I could talk to. I sort of like that approach in everything I do.”

Here’s the audio:

http://harndenblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/02/santorum-campaign-suggests-romney-may-have-done-deal-to-make-ron-paul-his-running-mate.html

I think it’s a toss up between Newt and Paul.  Santorum and Romney were at each other right out of the gate with Paul joining in on Santorum, Gingrich pretty much stayed out of the fray.

I know I probably sound like a broken record where Santorum is concerned but he got his ass handed to him tonight by Romney and Paul and the crowd, he was booed loudly several times.  Santorum also backtracked on everything he has previously said and done.  He was not well received by the audience, the vote will tell.

Paul did great, his debate skills have improved immensely, the only boo he got was on Iran but that changed once he explained himself and talked about the economic aspect of going to war with Iran.

————————————————————————————–

Highlight

[Paul:  Morning after pill is nothing more than a birth control pill so you can't seperate them.  If you voted for planned parenthood like Santorum has you voted for abortion.  Planned parenthood should get nothing.

Santorum:  I opposed title 10 funding.  justifies this by saying he pushed title 20 to advocate abstinence.

Paul:  this demonstrates the problem I'm talking about.  Title 20 is not a govt program that should be.

Santorum:  I didn't support it but voted for bills that included it.  boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
This whole issue is alive because of Romneycare
boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo]

——————————————————————————————-

Highlight

Paul was asked about his comments that Santorum is a fake.

Paul:  Santorum is a fake!  I’ve never voted to increase the national debt, the only appropriations bill I ever voted on was for veterans.  We lose credibility when we vote for something then retract it later.  I disapprove of foreign aide to help our enemies.

Santorum:  I was considered the most conservative fiscally.  Paul ranked 45th as the least conservative.

Paul:  That’s a copout when you compare yourself to members of congress, people are sick of them, they’re at 9%.
Santorum: (earmarks) Romney asked for 300-400 million dollar earmarks as gov.  Good earmarks and bad earmarks.  Congress has a role in earmarks when administration has it wrong.  As president would impose earmarks.

Romney:  will stop earmarks.  Earmark process is broken.  Santorum voted for the bridge to nowhere.

Santorum:  the process you just describe on how to spend money, is exactly how the process worked.  Y0u Mitt, don’t know what you’re talking about.   I supported a line item veto, the supreme court struck it down.
LOTS OF BOOS

——————————————————————————————————–

Describe yourself in one word
Paul:  consistant
Santorum:  courage
Romney:  resolute
Gingrich:  cheerful

——————————————————————————————–

Other than that, same ole, same ole, same questions on the economy, same questions on immigration, same questions on Iran.  There were actually very few questions, most of it was the candidates, particularly Romney and Santorum going after each other with Santorum being the first attacker.

If it says you need a plug in, chances are you don’t, just wait a minute and the actual video should come up.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/tab/live#/video/cvplive/cvpstream1

February 22, 20128pm ET on CNN (Originally Dec 1, then Nov 30)
Location: Mesa Arts Center in Mesa, Arizona
Sponsor: CNN and the Republican Party of Arizona
Participants: Romney, Santorum, Paul, Gingrich

A retired Massachusetts judge is defending her decision to order a mentally ill woman to have an abortion and be sterilized against her wishes.

Christina Harms is also criticizing Boston University for withdrawing a job offer after her ruling sparked controversy and was overturned by the state Appeals Court.

Harms, 58, who retired last month, defended her ruling in a letter she sent Monday to other Massachusetts family court judges, saying she believed the schizophrenic woman would have chosen to have an abortion if she had been mentally competent. The letter was first reported by The Boston Globe.

“I believed then, as I do now, that she would elect to abort the pregnancy to protect her own well-being,” Harms said, according to the newspaper. “She would want to be healthy.”

The 31-year-old woman, who suffered from delusions, had reportedly described herself as “very Catholic.” The woman had expressed opposition to terminating her pregnancy, according to the newspaper, while her parents sought consent for the abortion.

Harms claims that Boston University’s law school withdrew a job offer soon after her ruling became public.

The school said Harms was not the appropriate candidate for a job that required interaction with students, alumni and the judiciary.

“It was the reaction to the decision that gave us pause,” BU spokesman Stephen Burgay told the newspaper. “The more we learned about Judge Harms, the clearer it became that it was the wrong job fit.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/21/ex-judge-in-massachusetts-defends-forced-abortion-ruling/?test=latestnews#ixzz1n2u0MKGF