Jeebus

What a terrible misuse of a phone, talking to friends and relatives. I just don't understand what gets into these poor people sometimes.

I wish I didn't know you so that I could just assume that you were being sincere. It bothers me that you would openly infer that you're apathetic or even okay with someone misusing a tax-payer funded asset - and justifying it because they are "poor". I'm going to try and jump a reply ahead of you and also hope too that you wouldn't use the excuse that because politicians might do it (abuse tax-payer assets), then the poor should be able to, also. Two wrongs do not make a right.

I just don't see how having a cell phone is even necessary when a land-line is available. What about the homeless you ask? Why would they even need a cellphone if securing shelter has not even been accomplished yet? If they want to abuse the free phone to socialize with their friends and families, at least do it from home on the land-line. And if they don't have a home, then perhaps finding a home should be their first priority - and not getting a cellphone.

So you don't see any irony in claiming support for our troops from the safe luxury of your expensive gas guzzler? How about putting a "Greenpeace" sticker on the back of the same gas guzzler?

No, I don't. I don't know about you, or the next guy - but I have a yellow ribbon magnet on my gas guzzling V8 truck because I support the troops. I don't support the war in Iraq, but I do support the efforts in Afghanistan. The yellow ribbon has nothing to do with which military actions I favor, but that I support the troops that volunteer to serve under any administration that would order them to soldier in those military actions - as long as they serve honorably.

The magnet is there not to remind me that I support them, but to remind others that they need our continued support. I NEVER want to experience a world like the one my father returned to after the Vietnam war.

I get the point of your thread. I just disagree with your view on the matter. Are there a select few that are supporting the troops because they want U.S. superiority in a conflict that involves access and control of an asset that benefits them directly? Sure. But is that the purpose of the yellow ribbon magnet? No.

I guess I am dated in principles. I personally feel that if you get the needy a home-phone, then you are giving them access to the outside world FROM their home. The ability to call utilities, city services, doctor's offices, pharmacies, unemployment or employment placement, and 911.

With a cell-phone, as noted in this article (scroll to Leon Simmon's story), its less likely to be used for those purposes, but maybe just to socialize with others in a way that does nothing to improve the financial status of that person.

As for the stimulus, I just hoped that it would find a way to save and/or create more jobs than what it has. Considering all the pork ear-marks for all the politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle, I should have known better. I don't think that's from ignorance though, but rather foolish faith in my elected officials to genuinely care for the employment status of the average American citizen.

^ Said ribbons were attached to a gas guzzler during our occupation of a foreign country to secure it's oil. Both it and the "drill..." sticker have to do with influencing national policy in order to support the advertiser's oil addiction.

You talk about hysteria in another thread, this post this here.

The yellow ribbons are to show support for those in the armed-services. They volunteered to serve - that's it. They don't get to choose their battles. Don't try and look beyond the show of support of a soldier to find some hidden political agenda. Don't be that person.

That reminds me of seeing multiple "Support Our Troops" yellow ribbons attached to the back of a Land Cruiser.

What do you mean?

I'm so pissed off by all these B.S. deals. I've responsibly purchased a home I could afford and got a fixed rate versus an ARM AND purchased and paid off my two post year 2000 model vehicles.

Where in the hell is my reward for being responsible? At least under G.W. I got a check in the mail. Under B.O. I haven't got ANYTHING.

25 years to be exact, which would make it Ronniephone.

I wonder if the original poster is even remotely embarrassed that this program has been around for 25 years and was started during a Republican administration.

I think the embarrassment is that it went from being a home phone (anchored, proves a place of residence) to a cell-phone. Name one reason a poor person needs a cell phone instead of a home phone when it comes to ensuring communication with places like the doctors office or 911?

What about this?

http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/06/news/economy/jobs_october/?postversion=2009110609

I'm no fan of Obama, but I had hoped the stimulus would do better than this.

Someone should take a power drill to the bumper where the bumper sticker is covering it. If you get caught, just say "hey, it's said to drill there and drill now, so I did!"

Who cares where his car is from? He just wants cheaper fuel, which he thinks can be found by drilling more domestically. That's the point of that sticker.

Perhaps if his sticker said: "Buy ONLY Domestic Fuel", then it could be considered hypocritical.

Ha - today I saw a mega-F350395683853-truck with a bumper sticker that read, "This truck runs on fuel not hope and change."

I think that sticker refers to the black woman on youtube that said Obama was going to pay all her bills.

Or if you've owned your first home for only 4 years as of this month you're S.O.L. too?

Agree, but..

I'm only advising to drop the word marriage from any government sanctioned form of union because there are those who are religious that first associate marriage with the church, and not state. Those are the ones protesting all the time. But if gays want to call it civil marriage and continue to climb the mountain, be my guest. Like I said, I don't really care either way - it doesn't affect me. I just know that term Civil Union is far more disarming and in a perfect secular world, my government would only issue those to any two consenting adults.

We should not have to change the name of anything to please people who are protesting. They aren't the ones being harmed.

But they're the ones getting it voted down again and again. Gays are going to have to find a compromise before the Christians will. Its the nature of the beast. You'd think it would be 50/50 seeing as Christianity is supposedly based on living a life of tolerance and acceptance of all - but human will always seems to counter that.

Honestly, I hope all this gay marriage stuff happens just so we can finally move on. Gays deserve it, it won't hurt anyone, lets just pass it and move forward.

All that is needed is a simple update to a marriage certificate. Line 1: husband/wife/spouse. Line 2: husband/wife/spouse. That's it. Those who want "tradition" circle husband and wife. Those who don't circle spouse. Now hard is that?

Agree, but..

I'm only advising to drop the word marriage from any government sanctioned form of union because there are those who are religious that first associate marriage with the church, and not state. Those are the ones protesting all the time. But if gays want to call it civil marriage and continue to climb the mountain, be my guest. Like I said, I don't really care either way - it doesn't affect me. I just know that term Civil Union is far more disarming and in a perfect secular world, my government would only issue those to any two consenting adults.

States in the northeast have experimented with disavowing civil marriage in favor of civil unions, for only gay and lesbian people. That experiment failed.

There is no practical alternative to civil marriage.

Call it what you want, but I'm for it. However, most people I know who are apathetic to the issue consider the solution to be called "civil union" versus the more traditional word "marriage" - no matter what the meaning may actually be for the former. The word marriage evokes religion, and anything concerning religion and government turns my stomach.

Get rid of the word "marriage" in all forms of government and go to "civil union". That way all religious aspects are removed. Then if someone wants to get "married" they can go to their church (whatever religion that might be) and get "married".

Sorry for all the quotations, but they seemed needed.

Obama is doing his best to destroy the middle class. He wants to give it all the illegal mexicans.

Just more liberal entitlement crap. Welfare is good. Work is bad. Go see ACORN.

Disclaimer: The above poster does NOT represent the other intelligent conservatives who frequent the forum.

The more laws that pass via the legislature (the "voice of the people") and not the courts, and the more marriages opponents and the apathetic see that the sky doesn't fall, the easier it will be on the rest of the states to pass.

If someone is apathetic, then why would they think the sky is gonna fall in if gay marriage is allowed? I'm apathetic towards the issue because it doesn't affect me. With that being said, I do agree with the following:

All so-called marriage rights should be allowed to be conferred contractually between any 2 partners, gay, straight or otherwise, without state-sanctioned 'marriage' entering into it.

I'm for government sanctioned Civil Unions for any two consenting adults. Let the churches worry about who gets marriage certificates.

Our friends at MediaMatters.org... have put together an excellent short little video that summaries exactly how fox misbehaves.

How "opinion" becomes intertwined in their "news" segments.

It is time we bring back the Fairness Doctrine, and apply it to television.

That will be the only way to ensure "Fair and Balanced" reporting on Fox.

If this is the evidence, then I gotta say that as a "non-cable news viewer" I'm not convinced.

As for the Fairness Doctrine, who would enforce it? How could you guarantee that one party holding office would not be able to later pass legislation to control the "fairness" all in one direction - their direction?

Better to just leave it to the ratings system. If no one watches or listens to it, it holds no market shares, no advertisers will pay for time, and thus free-market natural selection will occur. Air America pay-to-listen radio proved this.

Its amazing all the good that has come from cancer, in this town.

Much better, thank you.

It could mean that Houstonians brag 25% more than other cities. I mean, come on, TheNiche bragged that all his girlfriends are hotter than Mia Gradney! What's to keep him from logging onto a condom site and stating that he knocks it off twice a week?

Sounds like someone is personally falling below the city's purported average. Time to see the doc for a script, old man?

They're not there anymore.

Found this artical in today's Chronicle very interesting , but wonder if it would truly help the obese.--Taxing luxuries isn't exactly new, though, and it could generate needed money?

"Fund reform and fight obesity with tax on sodas"

By ARTHUR B. MARKMAN

HOUSTON CHRONICLE

Between Coke Zero, Pepsi Max, and Diet Dr. Pepper there really is no more need for the old sodas.

Is anything going to change with North MacGregor Way/South MacGregor Drive from Almeda to Cambridge?

Recommend that you ride the bus sometimes, other than the cozy park and ride coaches. Or the train. You will encounter all sorts of people, including homeless.

Those are called the ones who are not honoring the honor system. METRO won't arrest them because it jams up officers. They tell them to get off, but they just get right back on.

Wow, such compassion on this board.

Maybe there'd be less piss-smell if we had MORE housing options for the poor. Downtown also makes perfect sense because it is the transportation hub of the city and also provides easy access to most governmental services.

Additionally, housing like the one proposed generally tend to be VERY strict. This wouldn't be a crazy drug-filled magnet but rather a place for transition for people who are down on their luck. Most would be very surprised to learn how many people are one paycheck away from the street.

I'd be more curious in to this solution, but it seems that a want to be better is the first requirement to getting homeless off the streets, into jobs, and into stable housing. I find that a hard concept to swallow when I see homeless people who would rather panhandle in the pouring rain. It makes me think that they are very committed to that lifestyle.

There is a lot missing from the article. The project was predominantly a supportive housing facility. The proposed development was made up almost exclusively of 350 square foot apartments. The proposed market rate rent would have been approximately $700 per month for those who were not receiving some type of assistance. Furthermore, the project did not include any parking for the residents. The only office space was for the developer's personal offices. The only proposed retail was an "internet cafe" to serve the residents. As for the "market rate" portion of the tenants, the developer thought that police officers, fireman, and teachers would be the likely demographic to live in 350 square foot apartments, without cars, while paying $700 per month rent, and sharing the building with those "who were formerly homeless."

Don't these issues in bold seem to be the ones that careful downtown development would want to avoid?

Oh man.. I just watched the Houston episode. I'm not sure which made me more sick, the whiter than white guy talking about grilling his carne asada, or the ditz yammering on about the 1920's.

The third house was nice, but how as a young couple expecting to host parties you could pass on a backyard is just crazy! They should have chose the second house.

I think I read somewhere (Television without Pity, maybe?) that most of the House Hunters episodes are filmed when the buyers are already closing on a property. So the realtor is pretending to show them around, and they are pretending to be interested. I'm not sure if that's true, but if it is, it explains quite a bit.

That would make so much more sense than actually expecting HGTV to have me believe that they could find suckers that would pick from one of three crappy choices in each episode.

I watched the debate recast on Sunday. Parker seemed entirely too nervous and Brown just seemed a little crazy. I liked what Locke had to say, he seemed the most grounded, least petty (in terms of mud slinging) and most in touch with reality.

Morales is just too conservative for me.