For those of you who already own and brew your coffee using the K-cup. Kudos. Every cup the same, coffee is fresh and the girls love it because you just put in the K-cup, brew your coffee and then remove the cup and toss it in the trash. Load another cup and away you go again.

Not only that but there are hundreds of choices in which coffee you can chose. Everything from Tea, to Coffee to just about any brand of gourmet coffee you prefer. You can brew one brand for your husband, switch and brew what you want. Heck you can even brew hot water into a cup and mix in some soup or wh**ever.... Very nice. The cost is as low as 50cents per cup and that is a fraction of what you could pay at a coffee shop.

NOW BE WARNED: Keurig has just introduced a new brewer. The Keurig 2.0. You can get it with a carafe and there is a new k-cup which will make four cups for when you have guests...

Here is the problem. The standard k-cup which you find available just about anywhere will not work in the new model 2.0..... Buy the new model and you will be very limited in your se******n and pay much more per cup of coffee.

Now I find that everyone, including Wall Mart and Sams Club are reducing the price because people are returning them as fast as they sell them.

Can you imagine buying the new 2.0 because you are so happy with your existing model, then when you get it home it will not work with your existing k-cups.

This is an example of a corporation playing games and it could well come back and bite them in the arse. It should.

Snoopy, thank you. As a black of Jewish ancestry I deal with white liberals every day who think they know more about what's up than those of us who have lived it. If they just knew how silly they look to anyone with two brain cells. As soon as they find out that I'm a conservative it's like a switch goes off. All of the sudden its twenty questions with these i***ts. You see, I don't fit in the box they've made for us "poor helpless mistreated" b****s. I guess I should just do what they want, "yessa massa eyes be real good from hea own". On second thought they can learn to live with black conservatives. Signed, no box for me

It’s called Pandora’s Box.
And the Supreme Court just opened it.
Did you actually think the debate over “gay marriage” was about marriage? Have you really come to believe that this cultural kerfuffle has anything to do with “civil rights” or “e******y”? Have you bought into the popular premise that this is a legitimate discussion on federalism – that it’s a reasonable disagreement over whether the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause requires that newfangled “gay marriage,” something rooted in same-sex sodomy, a d*****t and disease-prone behavior our Constitution’s framers officially declared “the infamous crime against nature,” be made law of the land?
A lot of people have, so don’t feel bad. A lot of reasonable, well-meaning and even, at times, intelligent people have taken the bait.
But that’s all window dressing. It’s superficial. It’s collateral. It’s chaff, a diversion, a squirrel. Don’t chase it.
At its core, this increasingly heated fight over “gay marriage” is about two diametrically opposed and profoundly incompatible views of reality (or lack thereof). It’s the modern manifestation of a millennia-old clash between worldviews. This ugly cultural conflict is, in reality, neither legal nor political in nature, but, rather, is fundamentally a philosophical debate. Ultimately, it derives from, and is illustrative of, deep-seated spiritual warfare. Quite simply, the clash over “gay marriage” is emblematic of the larger, and much older, clash between good and evil.
And it’s reaching critical mass.
On the one hand, on the natural marriage side, we have a worldview that recognizes absolute t***h – that acknowledges the fixed moral and natural law, authored and enforced from time immemorial by the sovereign and loving Creator of the universe. This same Creator, incidentally, just happened to design and define the very institution over which we quarrel. Those with this worldview concede that every man, woman and child is accountable to this sovereign Creator and will, one day, stand before Him to face final judgment for what they did or did not do during their infinitesimally short-lived stint here on earth.
This, though not a comprehensive representation, is the biblical worldview.
On the other hand, on the unnatural marriage side (or the “marriage e******y” side as these self-styled “progressives” euphemistically prefer), we have a worldview that denies absolute t***h. It imagines there are no fixed lines of demarcation between right and wrong – that morality, that reality, is entirely relative and, therefore, the very notion of good and evil, right and wrong, sin and repentance are but false and limiting constructs concocted in the narrow minds of a dull bevy of sheepherders some thousands of years ago.
Since those with this worldview either deny God’s very existence altogether or, alternatively, believe that some version of god, like marriage, can be defined, or redefined, in the mind of the beholder, they claim accountability to no one (except goddess political correctness) and, thus, declare reality to be that which they, the secular-”progressive” intelligentsia, proclaim it to be (e.g., that manmade, credulity-straining, reality-warping and oxymoronic counterfeit called “same-sex marriage”).
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who happens to be both a big fan of unnatural marriage and one of the aforementioned intelligentsia, summarized this worldview neatly when he wrote the following in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. He did so while attempting to rationalize government-sanctioned child sacrifice, the evil twin to “gay marriage”: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life,” he pontificated.
Right. Lay off the ‘shrooms, dude.
In other words, man is the measure of all things. Man is god, and there is no god but man. According to Kennedy, and as was first suggested by a garden snake a very long time ago, t***h is defined by man’s “individual concept of existence.”
This, of course, is empirically and manifestly stupid.
And so both of these worldviews cannot be right. It’s impossible. The law of non-contradiction precludes it.
So who is right?
It’s simple. Those who acknowledge objective reality, natural morality and absolute t***h are right. Those who recognize that there are fixed biological, moral and natural laws – that despite the rebellious machinations of fallen man, can be neither altered nor ignored – won the debate before the debate even began.
There is no debate.
Yet the debate goes on.
As for the continuing kangaroo courtrooms overseeing and facilitating the destruction of marriage via judicial fiat, I fully expect that additional reality-denying judges will call up down, black white and evil good. They’ll declare a “constitutional right” to sodomy-based marriage.
It’s all the rage right now.
Still, there is no legitimate legal argument to be made in favor of this absurdity. The common law, natural law and reality itself preclude any man, any court, any government, even state governments, from presuming to redefine the institution of marriage to exclude the necessary element of binary male-female complementarity.
Mankind can no more redefine marriage to include same-sex parings than can he suspend the laws of gravity.
Yet these arrogant, godless, black-robed autocrats presume to do just that.
The courts are tossing around spiritual nitroglycerin here. It’s the stuff that brings down entire civilizations. Here’s the bad news: The aforementioned Justice Kennedy is the swing v**e in favor of imposing fuax marriage on everyone.
Here’s the good news: God will not be mocked.

Read more at http://eaglerising.com/9747/gay-marriage-debate-really/#EodAUyhuRqPUZpQi.99

And we need to nullify those i***ts and there ruling. I think it is time we impeached a couple of those judges and let the rest know that if they cannot rule by law, then they will go too.

"1. “Judicial Power” refers to a court’s power to hear and decide cases. Art. III §2, U.S. Constitution, lists the cases which federal courts are permitted to hear. They may hear only cases:

a) Arising under the Constitution, or the Laws of the United States, or Treaties made under the Authority of the United States [1] [“federal question” jurisdiction];

b) Affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers & Consuls; cases of admiralty & maritime Jurisdiction; or cases in which the U.S. is a Party [“status of the parties” jurisdiction];

c) Between two or more States; between a State & Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States;[2] or between a State (or Citizens thereof) & foreign States, Citizens or Subjects[3] [“diversity” jurisdiction].

These are the ONLY cases which federal courts have constitutional authority to hear! Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 83, 8th para:"

"…the judicial authority of the federal judicatures is declared by the Constitution to comprehend certain cases particularly specified. The expression of those cases marks the precise limits beyond which the federal courts cannot extend their jurisdiction, because the objects of their cognizance being enumerated, the specification would be nugatory if it did not exclude all ideas of more extensive authority."

" Finally, a word about our Rights: The Constitution is about the Powers which We the People delegated to the 3 Branches of the Federal Government. It is NOT about Our Rights, which come from God, are unalienable, & predate the Constitution! We created the Constitution & the federal government! Why would the Creator (that’s us) grant to our “creature” (the federal courts), the power to determine & define OUR Rights?"

All quotes taken from here; http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/enumerated-powers-of-federal-courts/