OT: does obama bring change?

[SharkyT]

Gotta love apologists...

5th from the BOTTOM of his academy class. Granted, someone has to be in those slots...but rarely do they get prized positions like McCain did. Given having his father and grandfather as admirals and graduates of the academy and all that goes with those ties... influence is pretty likely.

Pilot error in the first crash...some would learn from that. I mean, you are not even out of training and you wreck an expensive plane... But if you are John McCain, you learn nothing from that. You blame it on the plane and then you go off and lose another recklessly ...even by his own admission...hot dogging it.

Sorry, context does NOT help in those two crashes. The one on the Forrestal...that is something that could happen to any naval person.... but you still have poor showing in the Academy...unless you count the reputation he developed as a partier...and then the AVOIDABLE loss of two planes before he ever got to actual combat duty.

Sorry...his record on that does not wash.

You are right, his record does not wash. The only thing about John McCain that is even close to maverick, is that he watched the TV series starring James Gardener.
Here is real John McCain:
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain

[GLW]

Well, comparing one son of privilege to another, GW definitely comes out on the bottom. But, growing up in a multi-generational Navy family, McCain should have known how to maintain discipline and the impact of superiors.

But, in all honesty, they BOTH probably suffer from the "Ill show you , DAD.." syndrome so common among such families where the son is basically a throw back who could never really measure up to the quality of ability of the father.

[GLW]

As for Custer and McLellan...of course the exceptions prove that rank in class doesn't matter....

Custer - well, we all know what great judgment he showed at the Little Bighorn. His battles in the Civil War were reckless and he was lucky.... Ever hear about "I'd rather be lucky than good..."

The recklessness actually got him killed...he ignored all sorts of signs to not split his forces the way he did.

Now, if you truly believe that rank in class doesn't matter....go and find a doctor who graduated 5th from the bottom of his med school class....and do it when ou have something like an anuerism needing brain surgery :)

[BoulderDawg]

Note from Kevin Annett:


Hi everyone.

I just found out today that the National Film Board of Canada was allowed in to film the pope's so-called "private audience" with government Indians like Phil Fontaine, as part of the "apology" to Canadian residential school survivors. (An apology is a defense of one's actions, in the dictionary, by the way).

It turns out that the National Film Board is planning a big movie showing how "progressive" the pope is and how this whole thing is "settled" now. It wants to interview rez school survivors about their story and use them as part of this latest propaganda film.

The film starts full shooting in the fall, and will probably be released in the new year of 2010.

This is the kind of big publicity spin that the government and church need to do, now that the story of genocide in Canada is getting out to the world - and the pope is personally implicated in ordering the cover up of these crimes.

We need to get the real story out even more now, reject these "apologies", and bring the criminals to justice ourselves.

And ... warn residential school survivors and their families NOT to agree to any interview by anyone representing the National Film Board of Canada.

Spread the word.

Kevin Annett

Yes! I hope all the survivors give both the government and the pope an upraised middle finger when approached about this insulting movie.

[1bad65]

And who knew that was the cutoff prior to the events that transpired after the Tet Offensive? It's still an excuse. We have one-legged jumpmasters, for crying out loud.

I understand your disdain for draft dodgers. But I have to ask, would you rather fight alongside volunteers or conscrips?

[1bad65]

As for Custer and McLellan...of course the exceptions prove that rank in class doesn't matter....

I still think it's pretty low to attack McCain's service. The guy had major injuries (which he still suffers the effects of to this day), and yet he turned down an early ticket home offered him because of his name. To me, that is honor.

Attack his politics and his personal life all you want, but I feel attacking his decorated military service is a low blow.

[BoulderDawg]

Just heard from our Former VP today! He's telling all of the Neos out there to stand firm and don't move an inch when it comes changing the GOP!!!!!

Hell yeah guys! Don't compromise, don't associate with anyone not neo and continue to personally attack anyone that dares to suggest that you change.

Can't wait to see the new moderate politcal party that would form because of the inflexibility of the neo hardliners!:p

[BoulderDawg]

Attack his politics and his personal life all you want, but I feel attacking his decorated military service is a low blow.

But yet you feel it's fair game for John Kerry!:eek:

Me personally I think both are idiot for going over there.

[Drake]

I understand your disdain for draft dodgers. But I have to ask, would you rather fight alongside volunteers or conscrips?

I'm a huge fan of the AvA, but it doesn't matter. Limbaugh's country called on him to serve, and before his number could even come up, he had concocted a way out of it. Think of it this way... if we had kept on fighting after the Tet Offensive (which was technically a NV defeat), someone else would have had to fight in his place. Is that right?

At any rate... the draft was a disaster. At least the soldiers we have now want to be here. And with the .01% that make CNN aside, they are a tremendous asset. But let's not get off topic. If your country needs you, then serve. If you don't, then you really don't deserve to live under the umbrella of freedom provided. It's something taken for granted these days, and most people are completely ignorant of the real threats out there.

[David Jamieson]

But yet you feel it's fair game for John Kerry!:eek:

Me personally I think both are idiot for going over there.

Once you're enlisted, it's not like you have a choice. lol

[BoulderDawg]

Once you're enlisted, it's not like you have a choice. lol

Really? I guess you could track me down if you could find me but after that it would be fun to see you trying to force me in the military.

[GLW]

Well now that is a problem here isn't it... You see, there ARE different times of a person's life

McCain was the son of privilege. He got into the Naval Academy NOT based upon his merit but primarily based upon who his father and grandfather were.

He managed to party his way through it and graduate 5th from the bottom. Translated, that means that he was between 1 and 2 standard deviations from the mean if a normal bell curve distribution was there.... No matter how you slice it, that is getting in by connections and getting out by the skin of your teeth.

He got into flight training - again, in all probability by some connections being called upon. And again, he sank to the occasion losing a couple of planes in questionable circumstances.

Basically, until he went to Vietnam, he was on track for a totally lackluster career and definitely NOT an admiral in the making like his father and grandfather.

So, does doing one noble thing mean that you discount everything else in a person's life? Not in my book....

No one has said anything at all about what happened to him in the POW camps. However, McCain has made big political capital based upon being a returned POW.

Taking the full picture, at best you can say that when captured, he FINALLY rose to the occasion and exhibited the traits that he should have been displaying earlier in his life.

But, looking at his actions since then, it is at best a mixed bag and one can easily argue that he has not kept himself at that level.

[1bad65]

Think of it this way... if we had kept on fighting after the Tet Offensive (which was technically a NV defeat), someone else would have had to fight in his place. Is that right?

I still say with a draft number of 175, he would not have been drafted. If the number got up to 175, that's almost half of all men of draft age being drafted (minus deferments, of course). I just don't think the military would have needed that many men, nor do I think the American public would have stood for a draft percentage that high.


If your country needs you, then serve. If you don't, then you really don't deserve to live under the umbrella of freedom provided. It's something taken for granted these days, and most people are completely ignorant of the real threats out there.

We normally agree on military issues, but not on this one. I am 100% anti-draft, especially in an undeclared war. Even the Founding Fathers never resorted to drafting or conscripting men. And even during the War of 1812, where the White House was burned, we never resorted to it either.

[1bad65]

McCain was the son of privilege. He got into the Naval Academy NOT based upon his merit but primarily based upon who his father and grandfather were.

This is not true.


He managed to party his way through it and graduate 5th from the bottom. Translated, that means that he was between 1 and 2 standard deviations from the mean if a normal bell curve distribution was there.... No matter how you slice it, that is getting in by connections and getting out by the skin of your teeth.

Again, not true. No one gets by on connections when they are sub-par. And the military especialy does not let a guy become a combat pilot who can't even pass school, but get by with 'connections'. And NO ONE parties through a service academy and graduates, it's just not possible. Graduating a service academy school is a herculean task, even finishing dead last is not easy. I'm not sure of the exact number, but I'm guessing the washout rate is quite high. Maybe Drake knows that statistic.


He got into flight training - again, in all probability by some connections being called upon. And again, he sank to the occasion losing a couple of planes in questionable circumstances.

Just stop. These are all allegations. You have no proof, leave the man's service alone unless you have proof. Drake explained his airplane crashes. I believe he said only one was shown to be pilot error. There were NO questions on any of them, there was a resolution, and in all but one, McCain was cleared.


Basically, until he went to Vietnam, he was on track for a totally lackluster career and definitely NOT an admiral in the making like his father and grandfather.

War does help many officers advance their careers alot faster than those who serve and see no combat. That's completely normal. Look at Custer, at 23 he was a Brigadier General. He did that through combat performance. If not for his combat service, he could never have gotten that rank that quickly.


No one has said anything at all about what happened to him in the POW camps. However, McCain has made big political capital based upon being a returned POW.

Actually several of the men imprisoned with him have said plenty about his captivity. And it was not McCain himself who used his POW time to get 'political capitol', he was quite well known during his captivity and his release was a huge event. McCain himself had nothing to do with the press coverage.


Taking the full picture, at best you can say that when captured, he FINALLY rose to the occasion and exhibited the traits that he should have been displaying earlier in his life.

But, looking at his actions since then, it is at best a mixed bag and one can easily argue that he has not kept himself at that level.

Show some class. He was nearly killed over there, denied medical care, tortured, and yet when offered a free ticket home, he declined. Give the man credit. Would you have turned down the ticket? He was faced with a life of pain and torture, or a ticket home. According to you this spoiled guy who got everything he had by 'connections', chose the pain and torture. Get real. you may not like him, but that is a brave, honorable man. I dare say few (if any) of us would have not taken the ticket home.

His other actions are not the issue. We are only discussing his military service. I've stated repeatedly his politics, and even family life, are fair game, but show some class and don't smear his honorable, distinguished military service to our country.

[BoulderDawg]

http://www.forandagainst.com/articles/McCain_s_Military_Record_Shows_He_Is_Unfit_To_Be_P resident


It’s appropriate to ask whether McCain’s shoot-down was caused by bad luck or simple incompetence on his part. Of course, there is no way to answer definitively. But we can form an assessment based on the rest of McCain’s military record. At the Naval Academy, McCain graduated almost bottom of his class. He was 790th out of 795. McCain lost many aircraft over the course of his military career – five in total. He admitted himself that he had a "reputation for mayhem". One of these incidents, on board the USS Forrestal, involved the death of 144 sailors and was the most serious "accident" the navy had experienced since the Second World War. It appears that McCain's incompetence played a significant part in increasing the severity of the incident when, in a frightened scramble to get out of the aircraft, he pressed the bomb release button by mistake, dropping a bomb from his aircraft onto the burning fire. It detonated one minute later, killing many people. After escaping from the aircraft, McCain shamefully left the deck and hid below, then, within hours, flew to Saigon for some "R n' R" while funeral services were still being arranged for his shipmates. Most pilots who lost aircraft in the way and at the rate McCain did would have been kicked out of the service. But McCain had protection from up on high. His father was an admiral. He was an untouchable. So McCain blundered his way through his military career until he was finally shot down.

Despite constantly harping on about his military experience, McCain has refused to release his military records. All he has released is a list of medals.

nuff said

[Drake]

I still say with a draft number of 175, he would not have been drafted. If the number got up to 175, that's almost half of all men of draft age being drafted (minus deferments, of course). I just don't think the military would have needed that many men, nor do I think the American public would have stood for a draft percentage that high.



We normally agree on military issues, but not on this one. I am 100% anti-draft, especially in an undeclared war. Even the Founding Fathers never resorted to drafting or conscripting men. And even during the War of 1812, where the White House was burned, we never resorted to it either.

So am I, and I don't think the need will ever arise again. HOWEVER, there have been large-scale conflicts where a draft is unavoidable. We won't ever need one for Afghanistan or any other recent conflicts (Iraq and Afghanistan are much smaller than past wars), but if a few of our enemies realize it'd be smarter to fight as a team, I'm sure BD would be on the first plane to Canada.

[GLW]

Allegations...true...BECAUSE when you have connections and pull those kind of strings, if you are any good at it, there are no real smoking gun traces.

George W. was admitted into the "Champagne" unit of the National Guard in Texas. There were also in all likelihood strings pulled. There have been people who have come forward and stated HOW the strings were pulled because they KNEW and were involved. But this was also unofficial so there as well ALLEGED and ALLEGATIONS. Don't make it not so though.

You CAN be a partier if you are well connected. You CAN get demerits right and left and still not wash out if you are connected. All you have to be is minimally competent. THAT is a far cry from being GOOD or EXCELLENT. 790 out of 795 means that 99.3% of his class did better than he did. That doesn't speak well at all.

You take a person's record in entirety... and there are pluses and minuses on the scale.

Let's see, he was shot down and captured. Exactly what part of that did he control? ZERO. He was injured and tortured. What did he control on that? ZERO. Denied care...ZERO. In fact, he had one choice only. According to the story, he was offered release and turned it down. Now, was that because he truly wanted his fellow prisoners released as well...or treated better as well...MAYBE. Was it because he figured that if he took the release, his career and political chances would be over AND his family would just about disown him for such and act... That IS conceivable. Could he have turned it down because he figured that the NVA was messing with him and that they didn't really mean it...? That is also possible.

So, out of that whole thing, he had ONE actual decision in his control....and no one but McCain will ever know the WHY of that decision for sure...if he even does.

He got back....his behavior was anything be exemplary with his first wife... And he definitely picked a second one who had the connections to further his career. But of course, the reports of him calling her a c*nt around certain reporters would NEVER count.

Sorry, but one bad experience and one brave choice does not nor shoud it dissolve a multitude of bad choices, irresponsible behavior, and reliance on privilege.

I decried Edwards on BAD CHOICES and JUDGMENT...same here.

Is McCain more respectable that say George W. Bush...well d@mn skippy...but did he EARN what he has and where he is? doubt it. Anyone who was NOT connected to daddy and granddaddy admiral or rich father-in-law/wife would have been running a McDonalds by now. And we haven't even touched on his inability to control his emotions and anger.

I have family members who were maimed in service to this country. They NEVER made any mention of it...except for the absolute screw over they got seeking benefits at the VA....and they sure would have never glossed over any error made by them that cost anything worth even 1/10 of the value of a plane.

[BoulderDawg]

Let's see, he was shot down and captured. Exactly what part of that did he control? ZERO.

Not true. He was such a pis poor pilot that it was just a matter of time before he went down.

[Drake]

Allegations...true...BECAUSE when you have connections and pull those kind of strings, if you are any good at it, there are no real smoking gun traces.

George W. was admitted into the "Champagne" unit of the National Guard in Texas. There were also in all likelihood strings pulled. There have been people who have come forward and stated HOW the strings were pulled because they KNEW and were involved. But this was also unofficial so there as well ALLEGED and ALLEGATIONS. Don't make it not so though.

You CAN be a partier if you are well connected. You CAN get demerits right and left and still not wash out if you are connected. All you have to be is minimally competent. THAT is a far cry from being GOOD or EXCELLENT. 790 out of 795 means that 99.3% of his class did better than he did. That doesn't speak well at all.

You take a person's record in entirety... and there are pluses and minuses on the scale.

Let's see, he was shot down and captured. Exactly what part of that did he control? ZERO. He was injured and tortured. What did he control on that? ZERO. Denied care...ZERO. In fact, he had one choice only. According to the story, he was offered release and turned it down. Now, was that because he truly wanted his fellow prisoners released as well...or treated better as well...MAYBE. Was it because he figured that if he took the release, his career and political chances would be over AND his family would just about disown him for such and act... That IS conceivable. Could he have turned it down because he figured that the NVA was messing with him and that they didn't really mean it...? That is also possible.

So, out of that whole thing, he had ONE actual decision in his control....and no one but McCain will ever know the WHY of that decision for sure...if he even does.

He got back....his behavior was anything be exemplary with his first wife... And he definitely picked a second one who had the connections to further his career. But of course, the reports of him calling her a c*nt around certain reporters would NEVER count.

Sorry, but one bad experience and one brave choice does not nor shoud it dissolve a multitude of bad choices, irresponsible behavior, and reliance on privilege.

I decried Edwards on BAD CHOICES and JUDGMENT...same here.

Is McCain more respectable that say George W. Bush...well d@mn skippy...but did he EARN what he has and where he is? doubt it. Anyone who was NOT connected to daddy and granddaddy admiral or rich father-in-law/wife would have been running a McDonalds by now. And we haven't even touched on his inability to control his emotions and anger.

I have family members who were maimed in service to this country. They NEVER made any mention of it...except for the absolute screw over they got seeking benefits at the VA....and they sure would have never glossed over any error made by them that cost anything worth even 1/10 of the value of a plane.

Again... McCain is on the higher end of the spectrum when considering these folks. And pilots are pilots... and they have an unsavory reputation in my line of work for exactly the things McCain was mentioned for.

FYI... SAMs don't care if you are a good pilot or bad one. Not sure what brought down McCain, but the NV were very VERY good at taking out our planes.

[BoulderDawg]

A US soldier in Iraq goes on a rampage and kills 5 fellow soldiers......

and neos hit the roof when there are memos issued warning of the violent nature of returning US troops...:rolleyes:

[1bad65]

Allegations...true...BECAUSE when you have connections and pull those kind of strings, if you are any good at it, there are no real smoking gun traces.

Get off it.

You generally show more class than this. Look at Bill Clinton, the guy couldn't hide his semen, and he was the President!

George W Bush admitted he had been an alcoholic, yet douchebags on the left turned that into 'We know he was a cokehead too, but we have no proof'. They even brought up his wife's car accident that happened decades ago and claimed some sort of cover-up there!

Nixon couldn't hide Watergate either. And I dare say he was "connected".

[1bad65]

"Comedian Wanda Sykes pulled no punches as she skewered conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh at the White House Correspondents' Dinner -- but her morbid cracks set some guests' cringe-meters off the charts.

Sykes accused Limbaugh of treason, compared him to Usama bin Laden and wished for his physical collapse as she roasted the favorite target of liberals Saturday night at the Washington Hilton.

"Rush Limbaugh said he hopes this administration fails, so you're saying, 'I hope America fails,' you're like, 'I don't care about people losing their homes, their jobs, our soldiers in Iraq.' He just wants the country to fail. To me, that's treason," Sykes said.

The crowd groaned, Obama smiled and Sykes may have noticed a little discomfort in the room.

"Rush Limbaugh, 'I hope the country fails' -- I hope his kidneys fail, how about that? ... He needs a good waterboarding, that's what he needs."

Obama joined the crowd in laughing at the crack about Limbaugh's "kidneys."

An editor with Britain's Daily Telegraph who was at the dinner wrote that liberals will give Sykes a pass, since her target was a right-wing talk show host. And he marveled at Obama's response.

"That's way, way beyond reasoned debate or comedy and Obama's reaction to it was astonishing," wrote Toby Harnden. "Imagine if a comedian 'joked' that Obama was a terrorist who was guilty of treason and should be tortured and allowed to die. There would justifiably be an outcry.""

Utter classlessness.

Keep in mind, these same people whined and cried when some on the opposite fringes suggested Comrade Obama was a Muslim and brought up his ties to REAL terrorists like Bill Ayres.

Rush did tell a good joke on that subject: What do Osama Bin Laden and Barack Obama have in common? They both have friends who bombed the Pentagon. ;)

[BoulderDawg]

Limpy again....:D

His kidneys fail? How about his heart? I'll give him about 5 more years (if that long) before he eats himself to death.

By the way who was that sports announcer who suggested that returning soldiers would want to assasinate Nancy Pelosi?

[1bad65]

Looks like Nancy Pelosi got caught lying, again:

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was briefed in September 2002 on the use of enhanced interrogation techniques, according to a report prepared by the Director of National Intelligence's office and obtained by FOX News.

The report seems to contradict a statement by Pelosi last month that she was never told that waterboarding or other enhanced interrogation techniques were being used on terrorism suspects.

Republicans have already accused Pelosi and other Democrats of having selective and politically motivated amnesia when it comes to who knew what, and when, about the Bush-era interrogation programs. Those accusations were leveled in light of a Washington Post story published in 2007 that quoted two officials saying the California Democrat and three other lawmakers had received an hour-long secret briefing on the interrogation tactics, including waterboarding, and that they raised no objections at the time."

Wouldn't that mean she is a 'war criminal' too? ;) I mean the leftists here said Bush and Cheney were, and it looks like she approved of exactly what was going on.

Gotta love this part of the story:

"Pelosi is among Democratic lawmakers who want an independent commission established to investigate officials and lawyers involved in the drafting the of interrogation methods."

So, the one lying about her knowledge of the issue is the one calling for the others like her to be prosecuted??? :confused:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/07/report-pelosi-briefed-enhanced-interrogation-methods/

[BoulderDawg]

Yes, of course, Nancy Pelosi was wrong here. What she should have done upon being briefed was to call a press conference and announce to the world that the US was involved in torture and she would have no part of it. She would have probably paid the price with her seat in congress but so what?

What I find interesting here is the people who committed the war crimes are now complaining that someone with knowledge of the atrocities did not blow the whistle on them . If you tell me that you have just killed 3 people and I don't inform the police that doesn't make you any less guilty. This would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

[GLW]

“Look at Bill Clinton, the guy couldn't hide his semen, and he was the President”

Say what? And this has to do with nepotism getting you into a military academy and then, when you do worse than 99% of your classmates, you get an appointment out of the academy that many would have killed for? Or the use of nepotism to get into a cushy National Guard unit. – in what way?

Clinton could not keep it in his pants, granted. So what? Seems to me that we went through that all before…even with an impeachment trial.

Address the issue.

“George W Bush admitted he had been an alcoholic, yet douchebags on the left turned that into 'We know he was a cokehead too, but we have no proof'. They even brought up his wife's car accident that happened decades ago and claimed some sort of cover-up there!”

Now you are showing your ignorance of what has been said. Bush WAS an alcoholic well into his adult years. However, there WERE people who maintained that Bush also used other substances, including cocaine. Very few people who were “friends” of Bush, had they actually known for sure of these allegations, would have come forward….Admit to their own cocaine use – not likely. So that leaves the only sources of the allegations being the suppliers of the cocaine. And guess what… drug dealers are NOT reputable, honest, or respectable sources of good information….I mean, WHO KNEW. So, those allegations never had legs. But, had they been made of someone on the other side of the aisle, the media would have been all over it.

Allegations can only become falsehoods or substantiated. In order to do either, someone has to look into them in an earnest manner following where the story leads. Most allegations like the ones on Bush and cocaine were never seriously put through that process for whatever reason.

“Nixon couldn't hide Watergate either. And I dare say he was "connected".”

Nixon and connected…well, there are books on what Nixon did to actually bring about his downfall. Connected was NOT what Nixon was. His fall was well orchestrated once he made the fatal Watergate mistake. It even included a very quick and decisive move to take out Spiro Agnew, since he would have become POTUS and was only slightly more popular than Cheney.

As to Pelosi (and for that matter, Harry Reid), I would not be surprised if she knew about the torture being used. I would not be horribly upset if she were to suddenly be struck with pangs of remorse and resign. If it turned out that she knew of the things being done, I would not be upset if she also was removed from office, tried, convicted, and served time for it…as long as folks higher up the food chain like Cheney, Rice, etc… were tried and convicted first. Justice is a royal b!tch…it CAN and does often cut both ways….

[BoulderDawg]

I have no problem with Pelosi serving 5 years for knowing about the war crimes and not acting upon it if Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and others serve much more time for actually committing the crimes.

I'm ready to start the tribunal today....How about you Bad?

If nothing else at least by condemning Pelosi the Neos, are in an offhanded way, are making an admission of guilt here.

[1bad65]

GLW,

You're really embarrassing yourself here.

There are already people claiming to have a video of Biden's daughter doing coke. We saw that pic of Michael Phelps. Yet you fools maintain Bush had to have been a coke user, yet you have NOTHING. Just stop.

As for McCain, ask anyone with military experience if 'connected' people are pushed through the service academies despite failing grades, and then given assignments in top-level areas like pilot training. It doesn't happen.

I'm fairly certain Drake will agree with me on this.

[1bad65]

And one more thing on McCain: If it's like you allege and McCain's actions were covered up, how come NOTHING has came out? Nothing. Ever. And we have had 2 recent Democrat Presidents. They could easily arrange to have his 'real' records 'accidentally' released.

Keep in mind, you libs actually FAKED Bush's military records, so you know if McCain really had those skeltons, they would have come out long ago.

[BoulderDawg]

I have no idea if Bush did coke or not.

However the truth is, given the mess he made out of running the country, that if he didn't use maybe he should have!:D

[GLW]

No one said McCain did not pass...but he WAS fifth from the bottom of his class as in 99% of his classmates did better than he did.

Now, the apologist on this one have already said that because McCain had a problem with following the rules and authority, he had demerits that made him place so low.

So, if that is so, how did he manage to get through he screening process to get a much coveted slot in flight training. For a graduating cadet, the things that would count are : Placement in class (GPA, record, etc), recommendations from instructors, recommendations from others, personal interview.

So, the GPA and placement would be a ding on him. It can be pretty safely assumed that a non-stellar student with a lot of issues with authority and discipline would NOT get instructor recommendations (unless there were some incentive to them), recommendations from others...well, having a well placed family with friends who have known you since birth CAN help there...(and that is a form of privilege)... and the personal interview...

All told, it is doubtful that he would have gotten through that process on his own merit given his history and grades.

So, having a father who is an admiral...and family ties probably counted for a lot.

Yes...he DID make it out of Annapolis and graduate...5th from the bottom...but he DID get a diploma.

So, he destroyed one plane in training school. His account was engine failure and flame out. The official Navy report stated most likely pilot error.

His plane destroyed in Spain, well, I have read an interview with him where he admitted to being the cause of that one....so two down...

Now, how does a person from Annapolis - 5th form the bottom of his class, destroy a plane, not get buried in podunk Iowa, and get a second chance, destroy another plane...and get another and another chance until he gets shot down in Vietnam....but of course, his father was over naval operations there....

So, it would be alleged since no one would likely admit to making a phone call or acting on one. However, it is not uncommon to not even go there. Exactly how many officers are going to put their position on the line to write up the son of the admiral?

So, allegations...again either proven false o unsubstantiated (as in simply not proven but not disproven either)... still exist there...and if this were a CRIMINAL case, I would have to find McCain NOT GUILTY because of the old "Beyond a reasonable doubt" thing. But if it were a CIVIL case, the PREPONDERANCE of evidence points to McCain getting a pass based upon his family ties.

As for Bush, there WERE stories floating around about him and drugs other than the alcohol BEFORE he entered politics. Those allegations have never really be examined and most of them have been discredited because the "witness" against him was a dealer or other unsavory person.... But if you do drugs, you have to associate at some level with unsavories.

Now, I don't know about Bush....but I would not doubt it.... But, even if he were not a drug user, he IS a dry drunk...an alcoholic who never got treatment but did manage - at least according to accounts - to quit drinking. Dry drunks may not drink, but they are far from being recovered alcoholics.

What does Michael Phelps or Biden's daughter have to do with McCain (public figure, senator, candidate for president more than once - as opposed to a daughter of a public figure) or Bush (ex governor, president, etc...) have to do with each other?

McCain's records...not so easy to get and McCain has NEVER released his military records...nor will he.

So...your apologies for such children of privilege don't hold up.

Seems that if you truly want things to be raised a level, you would demand that your side live to a higher standard...since you obviously DO demand that of the others.

Seems like I have already suggested that one on the more liberal side of the fence in a position of power - as in Pelosi - would be a good one to step down... seems one of us is holding a fairly equal yardstick to both sides....while the other is not.

[Drake]

I say AGAIN... why in the world would anyone want to be a pilot during Vietnam? That was almost a death sentence. Don't confuse the glamour of Top Gun with the irrationally long hours, constant risk of being shot down, and contradictory missions the pilots had to deal with, among other countless issues.

I'd say quartermaster would be the preferred job back then.

[GLW]

Your history is a bit off...to say the least.

McCain graduated from Annapolis in 1958 and began flight school that same year. He became a navy pilot in 1960. The Vietnam war did not really start to escalate until 1964-1965. McCain ended up there in 1967. True, he DID request it… One would ask why he requested it.
Only he knows for sure…but many military people requested such duty to “get in on the action”…especially if they had a desire to rise quickly in rank – especially if their record meant that promotions would NOT be quick. Others did so looking ahead toward politics or business opportunities as a person with combat experience.
However, his original assignment to flight training occurred when the likelihood of a combat assignment was low…but it WAS an assignment that carried a lot of prestige….
According to many naval historians, “The most accomplished midshipmen compete furiously for the few carrier pilot openings.” Such posts are not usually handed out to the person 5th from the bottom of his class.

[BoulderDawg]

Miss California......

Today Donald Trump decided that Miss California Carrie Prejean could keep her title.............

To be honest it would probably have been better for her had he stripped her of the title. In any case she's cashing in big time with her 15 minutes of fame that might turn into 20-30 according to how she uses it.

As far as the matter of nude pictures go I think it would hard to do a complete background search on every contestant to assure they tell the truth when they sign that morals agreement. In any case I think it's safe to say that without the controversy that arose none of this would have came up.

She was wrong and violated the agreement no doubt. However after she became Miss California they should have ran a complete background check if they were going to strickly enforce the rules before she competed further.

In my opinion they are stuck with her and it's as it should be. The moral here is don't ask a politically charged question unless you are prepared for an answer that you don't like.

In any case, I think we're past the era of beauty pageants. My guess is that 95% of those women are just using it to get a modeling or acting career anyway.

[1bad65]

We have 'hate crimes' on the books. So, how about 'stupid crimes'?

"The 24-year-old Boston trolley driver who allegedly was texting his girlfriend when he slammed into another trolley last week was hired as a minority because of his transgender status, according to a state transportation official.

The driver, originally known as Georgia Quinn, underwent a female-to-male sex change and switched the sexual designation on his driver's license, FOX News has confirmed.

Quinn may face criminal charges and has already been suspended from work for his role in the crash that injured 50 people Friday night, when his car ran a red light. Quinn suffered a broken wrist, and some passengers had to be evacuated from the scene of the accident on stretchers, MyFOXBoston reported.

Quinn could be fired as early as Tuesday for allegedly violating the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority's rules against using cell phones while operating a trolley, the Boston Herald reported.

He admitted to police that he was sending text messages to his girlfriend from his cell phone when the accident occurred, MBTA general manager Daniel A. Grabauskas told the paper.

Damages from the accident are expected to top $9 million dollars, according to the MBTA."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,519940,00.html

Look at this example. This shim knowingly violated the rules and through it's stupidity injured 50 people. And it may face charges?

[GLW]

The transgender part of this is a total red herring. The hiring due to transgender status only matters IF the person was unqualified for the job. If there are equally unqualified non-minority people driving trolleys, the problem is NOT the affirmative action but the fact that the Boston transit system hires unqualified people.

Where minority status comes in as an injustice is IF a person is hired for a job over a MORE qualified applicant simply on the grounds of minority status. Obviously, Faux News did not say this because it would be an opening for a lawsuit unless they had proof. However, they IMPLIED a lot without any information to back it up…instead relying on their core audience’s prejudices. Totally shoddy reporting on Faux News part.

Now, if the driver is the worst one on the payroll and provably only there because of his minority status, then you may have something. But, THAT is not what the story states or has information to prove.

What do we know for SURE….

He was texting a girlfriend while driving his trolley. This activity then led to an accident. Now, such activities can occur with ANY driver. I have seen bus drivers eating, drinking, using cell phones, etc… and that is from outside the bus over in my car. The ones I have seen have been of all stripes….so stupidity is NOT a transgender quality.

I have had SUV driving soccer mom’s on their cell phones texting come close to killing me on the road. Does this mean that all SUV driving soccer mom’s are dangerous on the road and should not be allowed to drive…..?

Wait a moment…you may have something there….

[Drake]

In the military.... "stupid" offenses normally fall under the "negligence" category, which pretty much means the same thing.

I agree... a sex change moron is no different from a soccer mom moron.

mmmm.... soccer moms... mmmm

[1bad65]

The transgender part of this is a total red herring. He was texting a girlfriend while driving his trolley. This activity then led to an accident. Now, such activities can occur with ANY driver. I have seen bus drivers eating, drinking, using cell phones, etc… and that is from outside the bus over in my car. The ones I have seen have been of all stripes….so stupidity is NOT a transgender quality.

I have had SUV driving soccer mom’s on their cell phones texting come close to killing me on the road. Does this mean that all SUV driving soccer mom’s are dangerous on the road and should not be allowed to drive…..?

Wait a moment…you may have something there….

The transgendered part, or whatever you call it, really has no bearing on 'stupid crimes'. Anyone being stupid should be charged. It's honestly just a coincedence that the best example of a 'stupid crime' just happens to be a shim.

[1bad65]

Yup, Rush called it years ago.

"The Senate Finance Committee today is hearing proposals on how to pay for President Obama's proposed universal health care plan, which is expected to cost more than $1 trillion. Among the proposals, as Consumer Affairs reports: A three-cent tax on sodas as well as other sugary drinks, including energy and sports drinks like Gatorade. Diet sodas would be exempt.

"While many factors promote weight gain, soft drinks are the only food or beverage that has been shown to increase the risk of overweight and obesity, which, in turn, increase the risk of diabetes, stroke, and many other health problems," Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which is pushing the idea, said in his testimony. "Soft drinks are nutritionally worthless…[and] are directly related to weight gain, partly because beverages are more conducive to weight gain than solid foods.""

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/12/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5009316.shtml

You guys called the smokers and people like Rush nutbars when they called this one.

Remember:
First they came after the alcohol drinkers...
Then they came after the smokers...
Then they came after fast food eaters...
Then they came for the soda drinkers...

Whose next? :eek:

[1bad65]

Don't forget to flush the Constitution after you wipe your ass with it...

"WASHINGTON - The Obama administration has begun serious talks about how it can change compensation practices across the financial-services industry, including at companies that did not receive federal bailout money, according to people familiar with the matter."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/05/13/obama-eyes-overhaul-bank-pay-practices/

Can anyone show me where the Constitution grants the Executive Branch (or any other Branch) the power to regulate what PRIVATE companies pay their employees?

[Drake]

Soda is borderline criminal in terms of the fact that people are allowed to sell this crap to us. Do you have any idea of the costs factored in with diabetes and health issues that these drinks have caused us? How can we sanely look at this stuff as harmless? It's pure, unadulterated, body-destroying crap. They might as well be selling us antifreeze to drink.

I say tax it. America is becoming a nation of horrendously obese people, and we can't seem to figure out why. Sure, you can claim you have the right to drink what you want... and I can claim that I shouldn't have to bear the burden of your health care costs and detriment to society when this stuff comes back to haunt you. Even if I didn't have to cover your health care, I'll still be left with the impact of a 75% obesity rate in my country, and the drag it will cause on the economy.

[BoulderDawg]

Don't forget to flush the Constitution after you wipe your ass with it...

"WASHINGTON - The Obama administration has begun serious talks about how it can change compensation practices across the financial-services industry, including at companies that did not receive federal bailout money, according to people familiar with the matter."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/05/13/obama-eyes-overhaul-bank-pay-practices/

Can anyone show me where the Constitution grants the Executive Branch (or any other Branch) the power to regulate what PRIVATE companies pay their employees?

Can you show me where it doesn't?

The Constitution is a vague flexible document. The founding fathers structured it this way on purpose.

Anything that might lead to fraud or high risk has to be dealt with. If a man's pay is based on how many people he can sucker into buying junk bonds then we should look at that.

[BoulderDawg]

Yup, Rush called it years ago.

"The Senate Finance Committee today is hearing proposals on how to pay for President Obama's proposed universal health care plan, which is expected to cost more than $1 trillion. Among the proposals, as Consumer Affairs reports: A three-cent tax on sodas as well as other sugary drinks, including energy and sports drinks like Gatorade. Diet sodas would be exempt.

"While many factors promote weight gain, soft drinks are the only food or beverage that has been shown to increase the risk of overweight and obesity, which, in turn, increase the risk of diabetes, stroke, and many other health problems," Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which is pushing the idea, said in his testimony. "Soft drinks are nutritionally worthless…[and] are directly related to weight gain, partly because beverages are more conducive to weight gain than solid foods.""

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/12/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5009316.shtml

You guys called the smokers and people like Rush nutbars when they called this one.

Remember:
First they came after the alcohol drinkers...
Then they came after the smokers...
Then they came after fast food eaters...
Then they came for the soda drinkers...

Whose next? :eek:


I don't know about anyone else but I'm willing to spend 3 cents for every soda I drink to have a health care system.

In any case I'm sure if we taxed the additional junk food that Limby eats we could probably pay for the health care system and have some money left over!:D

[Yao Sing]

Can you show me where it doesn't?

The Constitution is a vague flexible document. The founding fathers structured it this way on purpose.

Anything that might lead to fraud or high risk has to be dealt with. If a man's pay is based on how many people he can sucker into buying junk bonds then we should look at that.

Boy do you have it wrong. The Constitution created government and gave it specific duties. Anything NOT listed it doesn't have. Saying something like "show me where it doesn't" is a clear indication you don't understand the document at all. Have you ever read it?

If a company is paying employee to defraud people then we have laws against that so no need for new ones. We also have to right to unlimited contracts and if we make bad decisions then oh well we just learned a lesson.

Maybe if we actually educated the population instead of producing idiots from our schools fraudsters wouldn't be able to con anyone and they would go out of business.

[BoulderDawg]

Flexibility is one of the cornerstones of the Contitution. With every generation things and times change. The founding fathers left room to interpet the Constitution to apply it to situations they could not even imagine.

Using your argument can you show me where it prohibits making laws to protect the American people.

Using your argument we could say that the USDA and the strict controls they have on processing our food is unconstitutional.

[1bad65]

Soda is borderline criminal in terms of the fact that people are allowed to sell this crap to us. Do you have any idea of the costs factored in with diabetes and health issues that these drinks have caused us? How can we sanely look at this stuff as harmless? It's pure, unadulterated, body-destroying crap. They might as well be selling us antifreeze to drink.

But it's an idividuals RIGHT to eat and drink what they choose. It's not Comrade Obama's job to tell us what is ok and what is not and use taxes to enforce HIS beliefs.

Here is something people tend to forget; No matter how we live our lives, no matter what we eat, no matter how fit or fat we are, we are ALL going to die. So, should we just tax everything we put in our bodies?

And I could just as easily argue that people who do take care of themselves and live longer are a bigger strain on our health care system than a smoker or alcoholic or fat slob who dies young.

[BoulderDawg]

And I could just as easily argue that people who do take care of themselves and live longer are a bigger strain on our health care system than a smoker or alcoholic or fat slob who dies young.

Really? That's a new one on me.

I would like to see you back that one up with some facts and figures.

[1bad65]

Boy do you have it wrong. The Constitution created government and gave it specific duties. Anything NOT listed it doesn't have. Saying something like "show me where it doesn't" is a clear indication you don't understand the document at all. Have you ever read it?

Maybe if we actually educated the population instead of producing idiots from our schools fraudsters wouldn't be able to con anyone and they would go out of business.

100% correct. Whoever educated that idiot failed big time. Just read the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. And throw in the Federalist Papers as well. And then show me who the Founding Fathers gave more power to, the Government or the people.

The Constitution is not flexible. It repeatedly says "shall not" in reference to Government. It NEVER says it in relation to the people.

[1bad65]

Even if I didn't have to cover your health care, I'll still be left with the impact of a 75% obesity rate in my country, and the drag it will cause on the economy.

Well first off, no one should have to cover anyone else's health care costs. Why is it my duty to take care of others?

Actually, I could argue it's good for the economy. Fat people eat and drink more, increasing the food and drink makers profits. And trucking companies have to move the food and drinks to stores, thus they move more so they make bigger profits. And everytime they get sick, they increase the hospital and/or doctor's profits as well. And if all the smokers just stopped buying tobacco, it would be catostrophic to our economy, wouldn't it?

I always love how those most against tobacco are the first ones to spend the billions it brings in.

[BoulderDawg]

100% correct. Whoever educated that idiot failed big time. Just read the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. And throw in the Federalist Papers as well. And then show me who the Founding Fathers gave more power to, the Government or the people.

The Constitution is not flexible. It repeatedly says "shall not" in reference to Government. It NEVER says it in relation to the people.

I'm not even going to try and explain. You don't even understand 5th grade economics much less this concept which is covered in your freshman year in college.

[GLW]

"Why is it my duty to take care of others?"

Spoken like a true follower of Ayn Rand.

I sincerely hope that you do NOT profess to be a Christian in any way. Otherwise, your hypocrisy slip is showing.

To semi-quote ****ens, "If they would rather die, then let them do it and decrease the surplus population..."

What a perverse and self-centered world view that is. I don't really mind you reaping what you sow...but in all likelihood, you will take those of us who have compassion along with you to the harvest of the dead.

[GLW]

Unbelievable. They censor D*I*C*K*E*N*S as in Charles and A Christmas Carol.

[BoulderDawg]

I sincerely hope that you do NOT profess to be a Christian in any way. Otherwise, your hypocrisy slip is showing.

I'd say that, given the track record of christians around the world for the last 2,000 years, these neos fit right in.

[1bad65]

"Why is it my duty to take care of others?"

Spoken like a true follower of Ayn Rand.

I sincerely hope that you do NOT profess to be a Christian in any way. Otherwise, your hypocrisy slip is showing.

I mean it's not the Government's duty to force me to take care of others. I'm actually a pretty generous person, but I believe that should be my choice.

I don't use heroin, but I still don't think it's the Government's job to ban it.

I've actually never read any of Rand's books.

[GLW]

So, if you don't want to be forced, exactly how much of your personal income and actions would you be willing to dedicate to it?

Christianity and Judaism both have guidelines (actually, they are more than suggestions - but why quibble over societal expectations) wherein people are supposed to give a percentage of their livelihood to the poor.

Funny thing is, for Christians, the words were "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's" in reference to paying taxes. So, by that quote, Christians are supposed to pay their taxes.

But then you get the fun one, they are also supposed to tithe something like 10% of their income to the church/poor.

Know anyone who makes $100K who donates $10K to their church.... :)

So for Christians, it was mandated that you should take care of the poor and sick. That mandate came from the earlier Jewish laws as well.

So, that means that by those two religions, to NOT take care of others is against their religion.

Most people, if not forced to do the right thing when it comes to money, will NOT do the right thing. If this were not true, human interest stories and stories about people helping others would be so commonplace that they would never make the news. Sure doesn't work out that way.

Why should your ability to obtain health care be tied to your job? Why should access to that which will allow you to have the pursuit of life and liberty be available only for those who can afford it?

Why do we in the US have a system with insurance companies that have a close to 30% overhead and have the highest costs in the developed world...but have some of the poorest health care overall and the worst health of most of the developed nations?

Seems like national pride would kick in here and we would want to be the beacon on the hill and have the BEST health care with the most covered...because we are AMERICA.... hmmm...how our opinion of ourselves has changed since 1950.

[Yao Sing]

Flexibility is one of the cornerstones of the Contitution. With every generation things and times change. The founding fathers left room to interpet the Constitution to apply it to situations they could not even imagine.

Using your argument can you show me where it prohibits making laws to protect the American people.

Using your argument we could say that the USDA and the strict controls they have on processing our food is unconstitutional.

These are typical arguments from those wanting to diminish/destroy the Constitution. And once again you fail to understand that the Constitution specifies the duties of government, it does not specify what it can't do. That's why asking to be shown where it says government can't do something is a faulty argument. It's implied.

If the sign on the store says 'Open from 7am to 11pm" will they be closed at 1am? Show me where is says they'll be closed at 1am.

That's partially how we got to the mess we have today. The idea that if the Constitution doesn't explicitly deny the government a power then it has that power is wrong. If a power is not explicitly listed then it's implied that it's reserved to the States and to the People (10th Amendment, which was needed because the less educated might not understand that government is limited in powers).

Another typical argument is pointing out something good, like "show me where it prohibits making laws to protect the American people", as if it's ok to violate the law as long as it's for a good cause. Wrong again. The government is not in the business of protecting the American people EXCEPT from foreign invasion.

"Those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither" -- Thomas Jefferson

And the Constitution means what it says. It was written to be understood by the average person and does not need a specialist to interpret. Offering different interpretations for the times is another way to erode the rule of law as defined by the Constitution.

Let's flip this around and you show me where the Constitution authorizes the USDA. I'm not going to argue whether the USDA is a good thing or not, it's irrelevant. It's a matter of what is specified by law, not whether it's a good idea.

[BoulderDawg]

I'm not going to argue whether the USDA is a good thing or not, it's irrelevant.

Really? Personally I like to be fairly confident that the food that I eat and the water that I drink is not going to kill me.:D Without controls enforced by the federal government this would not be so.

Maybe your Constitution says the Federal government should not pass laws to protect people but mine doesn't.

In any case, this is why we have the supreme court. If the neos feel regulation concerning financial compensation is unconstitutional have them bring it to the supreme court....it's as simple as that.

[1bad65]

These are typical arguments from those wanting to diminish/destroy the Constitution. And once again you fail to understand that the Constitution specifies the duties of government, it does not specify what it can't do. That's why asking to be shown where it says government can't do something is a faulty argument. It's implied.

If the sign on the store says 'Open from 7am to 11pm" will they be closed at 1am? Show me where is says they'll be closed at 1am.
And the Constitution means what it says. It was written to be understood by the average person and does not need a specialist to interpret. Offering different interpretations for the times is another way to erode the rule of law as defined by the Constitution.

Let's flip this around and you show me where the Constitution authorizes the USDA. I'm not going to argue whether the USDA is a good thing or not, it's irrelevant. It's a matter of what is specified by law, not whether it's a good idea.

Excellent example.

I'll go out on a limb here and predict the liberals here won't even touch that argument.

[BoulderDawg]

Then let's argue the case

Exactly what articles or amendants of the Constitution does the Obama Adminstration violate when it come to compensation.?

[1bad65]

So, if you don't want to be forced, exactly how much of your personal income and actions would you be willing to dedicate to it?

That's my choice. It's my business. It's none of the Federal Governments business.

As it sits now, they get ~40% of the average American's wages in taxes. That's ridiculous.

And about charity and religion; Isn't it a truly selfless thing to give to someone less fortunate on your own valition than be FORCED to do it?

Let's say everyday I give $20 to the first beggar I see. That's a pretty genrous, kind thing to do. Correct? But if the law states every working person must give $20 to a beggar each day, it's not really a selfless, kind act now. Is it?

[1bad65]

Then let's argue the case

Exactly what articles or amendants of the Constitution does the Obama Adminstration violate when it come to compensation.?

Right off the top of my head, I'd say the 10th Amendment. Just as Yao Sing said.

Again, nowhere in the Constitution does it give the Federal Government the power to set the salaries of people employed by PRIVATE companies, does it?

[BoulderDawg]

That's my choice. It's my business. It's none of the Federal Governments business.

As it sits now, they get ~40% of the average American's wages in taxes. That's ridiculous.

Total BS statement

The Federal government gets no where near 40% of the average American wages.

[1bad65]

That's partially how we got to the mess we have today. The idea that if the Constitution doesn't explicitly deny the government a power then it has that power is wrong. If a power is not explicitly listed then it's implied that it's reserved to the States and to the People (10th Amendment, which was needed because the less educated might not understand that government is limited in powers).

I gotta quote this one for truth as well.

[1bad65]

Total BS statement

The Federal government gets no where near 40% of the average American wages.

Prove me wrong. I've repeatedly posted sources which says that is 100% true. And that 40% is in TOTAL taxes, not just Federal taxes. When I said "they", I was referring to the Government as a whole, not just the Federal Government.

Provide ONE source backing up your assertions....... ;)

[BoulderDawg]

Right off the top of my head, I'd say the 10th Amendment. Just as Yao Sing said.

Again, nowhere in the Constitution does it give the Federal Government the power to set the salaries of people employed by PRIVATE companies, does it?

Wrong again...the tenth amendmant has to do with states rights. The conservatives tried to argue the tenth to squash civil right legislation...it didn't work and won't on this case. Especially considering the US is not trying to control compenstation..instead it's trying to control the way compensation is structured to protect the people.

[BoulderDawg]

Prove me wrong. I've repeatedly posted sources which says that is 100% true. And that 40% is in TOTAL taxes, not just Federal taxes. When I said "they", I was referring to the Government as a whole, not just the Federal Government.

Provide ONE source backing up your assertions....... ;)


That's not what your statement said. You referenced the federal government in the paragraph above then in the next sentence referred to them as "they".

Another attempt at twisting the meaning to make it look good for your argument.

[Drake]

But it's an idividuals RIGHT to eat and drink what they choose. It's not Comrade Obama's job to tell us what is ok and what is not and use taxes to enforce HIS beliefs.

Here is something people tend to forget; No matter how we live our lives, no matter what we eat, no matter how fit or fat we are, we are ALL going to die. So, should we just tax everything we put in our bodies?

And I could just as easily argue that people who do take care of themselves and live longer are a bigger strain on our health care system than a smoker or alcoholic or fat slob who dies young.

When it begins to affect the lives of others, on the scale it is right now, it certainly is. You can profess all you want that what you do doesn't affect others. However, it's a fact that it does. Unless you think those who cannot afford insulin should just be left to die a horrible death.

And let's not exaggerate. We're talking taxes in order to cover what this mess is already costing us. Nobody said banning, except me.

You cannot seriously entertain the notion that nationwide obesity will have absolutely no effect on the lives of those around them, even if healthcare remains private. To assume so is naive.

[BoulderDawg]

After reading a little more about this, I find out it's just another smoke screen by the neos.

The truth is nothing has been done or proposed by Obama or anyone in his adminstration. In fact they have just started to look at the problem.

No matter though, this is typical of the neo philosophy. They don't even know what Obama might propose (Hell, at this point Obama doesn't know either) but that doesn't stop them from yelling that it's unconstitutional!:D

[Drake]

Right off the top of my head, I'd say the 10th Amendment. Just as Yao Sing said.

Again, nowhere in the Constitution does it give the Federal Government the power to set the salaries of people employed by PRIVATE companies, does it?

Nobody ever forced a company to accept bailout money. And they did so with a clear understanding of what is expected of them. If they didn't want those rules, all they would have had to do was tell Congress "no thanks, we'll figure this out on our own". Stop sympathizing with inept businessmen who are now complaining about upholding their end of an agreement THEY accepted. Hell.. they even pleaded for the money, as they flew in on private jets.

If we offer them taxpayer dollars to fix themselves, I feel we are entitled to have a degree of control over how that money is spent. The mistake was offering these failures an option of a bailout in the first place, that way they could do whatever they like and fail without anyone else to blame except their own corrupt selves.

[sanjuro_ronin]

The mistake was offering these failures an option of a bailout in the first place, that way they could do whatever they like and fail without anyone else to blame except their own corrupt selves.

You sir, have chain punched the correct right in the prostate !

[GLW]

Bad, again you are picking and choosing what you wish to believe.

The taxes you pay out do NOT go solely to the poor. Lets see, are the ROADS POOR...the Military...hmm...maybe that is poor. The Courts...Surely they are the poor and needy. The prison system - well, they can't be poor, they STOLE...

Social Security - well, you pay in..and the theory is you get out as well. You can argue about its solvency but it is more of a mutual benefit society by design.

So, your tax dollars go for ALL of the government you live in and under.

However, the tithing that Christianity has been so fond for close to 2000 years was based upon the money you had AFTER you rendered unto Caesar his due...as in AFTER you paid your taxes. Also, in that approach listing tithing, there was never and is still not a dispensation for "I gave to the government" What the part you rendered to Caesar was and how it was spent never negated the standard Christian obligation to tithe for the support of the poor...and it was STILL 10%.

Judaism has a similar setup. In fact, there were traditionally fields that were planted and harvested but their yield went always to the poor - regardless of what taxes anyone paid.

So, if you profess to be of either of those religions, there IS an obligation to help the poor....

And we see how many good Christians do that.

While it may be more praiseworthy for a person to give freely, most will not. If they did, such stories like Oliver Twist, A Christmas Carol, Les Miserables, The Grapes of Wrath, and so on would never have been written.

People do NOT do the right thing unless there is coercion involved....in general.

Doubt it, just drive down any major freeway today at 5:30 PM and witness how polite they are to each other...while safe and anonymous in their tinted window car.

But, you said YOU had no obligation to help another. I gave you a historical and philosophical perspective. So, do you subscribe to one of those religions....or are you athiestic, agnostic, a secular humanist, a wiccan...

???

[sanjuro_ronin]

Government should never be allowed to use taxpayer's money, money that is NOT theirs, to baiout any business UNLESS it is able to offer the same to all other business in need.

EX:
The federal and provincial government here gave 250 million + to GM in the Oshawa, it did nothing.
They COULD have given out 250k to 1000 small business on the condition that they hire at least one employee and keep them there for at least a year, THAT would have made a difference.
Did they?
NO.
They give the money to those that contribute to their compaigns, they give OUR money to their buddies, that is what it boils down to.

[Yao Sing]

Really? Personally I like to be fairly confident that the food that I eat and the water that I drink is not going to kill me.:D Without controls enforced by the federal government this would not be so.

Maybe your Constitution says the Federal government should not pass laws to protect people but mine doesn't.

In any case, this is why we have the supreme court. If the neos feel regulation concerning financial compensation is unconstitutional have them bring it to the supreme court....it's as simple as that.

Again, you're arguing the usefulnes of the agency while I was arguing the lawfulness of it's existence. Seems you missed my comment that whether it's good or not is not the issue. But since you can't offer evidence of it's lawfulness per the Constitution you revert to arguing that the ends justify the means regardless of the law.

I suppose you don't see how you're missing the point completely do you?


After reading a little more about this, I find out it's just another smoke screen by the neos.

The truth is nothing has been done or proposed by Obama or anyone in his adminstration. In fact they have just started to look at the problem.

No matter though, this is typical of the neo philosophy. They don't even know what Obama might propose (Hell, at this point Obama doesn't know either) but that doesn't stop them from yelling that it's unconstitutional!:D

Ok, for starters ANYTHING he does is un-Constitutional since he has failed to prove that he meets the requirements mandated in the Constitution to hold the office of President. That means anything he does has no legal standing. This is NOT a democracy where the majority can decide someone is President while ignoring the law that created and governs the office.


Nobody ever forced a company to accept bailout money.

Very true but then it shouldn't have been offered in the first place. Bailing out failed companies is a waste of our money and there are many other places it could be used that would make a difference instead of supporting cronyism.

Obama should, and hopefully will be, charged with fraud for spending taxpayer money.

[1bad65]

That's not what your statement said. You referenced the federal government in the paragraph above then in the next sentence referred to them as "they".

Another attempt at twisting the meaning to make it look good for your argument.

And I clarified what I meant by "they".

The fact remains, ~40% of the average American's income is taken from them in taxes.

[BoulderDawg]

Ok, for starters ANYTHING he does is un-Constitutional since he has failed to prove that he meets the requirements mandated in the Constitution to hold the office of President. That means anything he does has no legal standing. This is NOT a democracy where the majority can decide someone is President while ignoring the law that created and governs the office.

Love it.:D Anytime the crazies come out with something like this the Neos lose a couple of thousand more votes!

[1bad65]

When it begins to affect the lives of others, on the scale it is right now, it certainly is. You can profess all you want that what you do doesn't affect others. However, it's a fact that it does. Unless you think those who cannot afford insulin should just be left to die a horrible death.

And let's not exaggerate. We're talking taxes in order to cover what this mess is already costing us. Nobody said banning, except me.

You cannot seriously entertain the notion that nationwide obesity will have absolutely no effect on the lives of those around them, even if healthcare remains private. To assume so is naive.

How does the fact that too many Americans are overweight affect those of us who are not lardballs? Other than when we have to pay for their healthcare, of course.

I'm Libertarian. If some moron wants to eat his way up to weighing 500lbs, thats his business. As long as he uses his own money to buy his food and drinks, and he pays for his own healthcare costs when it has adverse affects on his health.


Nobody ever forced a company to accept bailout money. And they did so with a clear understanding of what is expected of them. If they didn't want those rules, all they would have had to do was tell Congress "no thanks, we'll figure this out on our own". Stop sympathizing with inept businessmen who are now complaining about upholding their end of an agreement THEY accepted. Hell.. they even pleaded for the money, as they flew in on private jets.

If we offer them taxpayer dollars to fix themselves, I feel we are entitled to have a degree of control over how that money is spent. The mistake was offering these failures an option of a bailout in the first place, that way they could do whatever they like and fail without anyone else to blame except their own corrupt selves.

My link clearly said that Comrade Obama is considering doing this to companies who did not receive Federal assistance.

Read the link, don't be like BD. ;)

[1bad65]

Bad, again you are picking and choosing what you wish to believe.

The taxes you pay out do NOT go solely to the poor. Lets see, are the ROADS POOR...the Military...hmm...maybe that is poor. The Courts...Surely they are the poor and needy. The prison system - well, they can't be poor, they STOLE...


I'm not picking and choosing anything.

When ~40% of the average Americans wages are taken in taxes, we shouldn't see a single homeless person, the streets should be paved with gold, and we could even pay for every kid's college education who wanted to go.

It's not my fault that they mismanage and flatly steal for their own personal gain (like Nancy Pelosi's husband getting all these Gov't earmarks) billions and keep raising my taxes more and more.

[sanjuro_ronin]

When ~40% of the average Americans wages are taken in taxes, we shouldn't see a single homeless person, the streets should be paved with gold, and we could even pay for every kid's college education who wanted to go.

If we take ourselves as an example, and see how much of our money goes to taxes, we realize that there is a very valid point in what is said here.

In simple math:
if there are only 10 million people employed and they average 35k and pay 14k in total taxes, that is 140,000,000,000.00
Now, there are FAR more than 10 million employed people in the US...

[BoulderDawg]

How does the fact that too many Americans are overweight affect those of us who are not lardballs? Other than when we have to pay for their healthcare, of course.

So many Americans are now overweight it leads to an acceptance of the situation. Kids growing up see that as the norm rather than the exception.

I've often said that if a parent allows their child to become more than 50 pounds over a normal weight for age, sex and height then that child should be removed from the house. It's a form of child abuse.

Also, why should I have to sat next to someone in an airplane such as Rush Limbaugh? Hopefully he's gotten fat enough now that he has to buy two seats to travel however in most cases they just try to shoehorn these people in.

[1bad65]

Again, you're arguing the usefulnes of the agency while I was arguing the lawfulness of it's existence. Seems you missed my comment that whether it's good or not is not the issue. But since you can't offer evidence of it's lawfulness per the Constitution you revert to arguing that the ends justify the means regardless of the law.

I suppose you don't see how you're missing the point completely do you?

Does he ever see that misses just about everything?

Of course he ducked your questions. Gee, who called that one? ;)


Obama should, and hopefully will be, charged with fraud for spending taxpayer money.

He will likely be heralded as this great, caring guy who TRIED. Just like Carter is. Never mind that Carter was the worst President (in fiscal policy for sure) in the last 50 years, he gets points for TRYING. Results don't matter to liberals, it's all about whether you cared and tried. Success or failure don't matter to them. It's absolutely crazy.

[BoulderDawg]

It's not my fault that they mismanage and flatly steal for their own personal gain (like Nancy Pelosi's husband getting all these Gov't earmarks) billions and keep raising my taxes more and more.

Peanuts when we compare it to the 12 billion a month we are still dumping in Iraq.

By the way Pelosi's husband is getting billions? News to me!:D

[1bad65]

Chrysler = failure
GM = failure
AIG = failure

And now he wants to fix healthcare.... :eek:

Isn't the definition of insanity trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result? ;)

[1bad65]

Peanuts when we compare it to the 12 billion a month we are still dumping in Iraq.

By the Pelosi's husband is getting billions? News to me!:D

Jesus, not that line again. :rolleyes:

Iraq is a drop in the bucket when you take entire Federal budget.

And learn to read written English. I never said he got billions.

[1bad65]

If we take ourselves as an example, and see how much of our money goes to taxes, we realize that there is a very valid point in what is said here.

In simple math:
if there are only 10 million people employed and they average 35k and pay 14k in total taxes, that is 140,000,000,000.00
Now, there are FAR more than 10 million employed people in the US...

Thank you.

Sadly, as obvious as it is, most people are completely blind to it.

[Yao Sing]

Love it.:D Anytime the crazies come out with something like this the Neos lose a couple of thousand more votes!

Allright, way to support your position with facts and evidence. Do you really think that just calling me a nutcase or Neo (I wasn't even in the movie The Matrix, that was Keanu Reeves and we don't even look alike) will support your argument or prove me wrong?

When all else fails attack the messenger. Why, you've got the debating skills of a college graduate (unfortunately).

Ok, here's the part where you provide evidence that Obama meets the Constitutional requirements for POTUS. How about just proving he's a US citizen, that should be easy.

BTW, you think when I go to get a drivers license I can just point to a birth certificate graphic on a website and it will be accepted?

[1bad65]

Allright, way to support your position with facts and evidence. Do you really think that just calling me a nutcase or Neo (I wasn't even in the movie The Matrix, that was Keanu Reeves and we don't even look alike) will support your argument or prove me wrong?

When all else fails attack the messenger. Why, you've got the debating skills of a college graduate (unfortunately).

Thats his MO.

Keep in mind, he has typed the word "Neo" probably a hundred thousand times, yet NOT ONCE has he ever provided a source to back up ANY of his assertions.

[GLW]

"It's not my fault that they mismanage and flatly steal for their own personal gain (like Nancy Pelosi's husband getting all these Gov't earmarks) billions and keep raising my taxes more and more."

Actually, they were raising taxes on you since Bush got in - if you were not super rich.

The actual tax rate for the uber-rich is less percentage-wise than it was under Reagan...and Reagan lowered it from what it was before he got in...at least he lowered it for the uber-rich...not everyone else.

They also made it easier for the large corporations and uber-rich to offshore their money and the jobs.

But, if YOU voted for them, YOU ARE at fault.

In the national scene, you have 2 senators, 1 congressman, 1 VP, 1 POTUS you can vote for.

I have voted against each of the Bozos that ended up in office who have been shown to have had a major hand in deregulating the financial sector....so I am not at fault there. I voted against Bush/Cheney twice..... his 8 years are not my fault either.

You are obscuring the waters with the "ooh Nancy Pelosi's husband...oooh..." which is another Faux News talking point that has been proven to be less than accurate...but even if it were....this is only tangentially related to your original point.

AND...

you still have not addressed whether you buy into Judeo-Christian dogma...and if so, how you resolve the fact that you are admitting to not caring about your fellow man...at least not in the manner and to the extent that your dogma proscribes.

[Drake]

You know... something to think about. They blabber on and on about how much is spent per month in Iraq. Have they bothered to factor in sustainment of the force even if it were back in garrison? The extra NTC rotations they'd be doing if there was no war? I'm not saying the price would be the same, but I don't think the ACTUAL cost is as astronomical when compared to what we spend on normal ops anyway.

And another great plus is that we are FINALLY updating our equipment with stuff that didn't work, and getting rid of cold war era crap that is utterly useless today. And it killed the future systems program, which would have been a bloated dollar eater, had reality of a new war not made everyone realize how pointless it was.

And 1Bad, I already answered everything you brought up in earlier posts.

[1bad65]

Actually, they were raising taxes on you since Bush got in - if you were not super rich.

The actual tax rate for the uber-rich is less percentage-wise than it was under Reagan...and Reagan lowered it from what it was before he got in...at least he lowered it for the uber-rich...not everyone else.

Better check your facts on that.


They also made it easier for the large corporations and uber-rich to offshore their money and the jobs.

What made it "easier" for them to offshore wasn't new laws, it was new taxes here at home. Taxes are just too high. It's a sad fact when companies find it cheaper to manufacture goods in Communist China than in the US.

Can you perhaps cite some of these laws that made it easier to offshore money and jobs?


You are obscuring the waters with the "ooh Nancy Pelosi's husband...oooh..." which is another Faux News talking point that has been proven to be less than accurate...but even if it were....this is only tangentially related to your original point.

No, I'm showing the waste. We were promised NO EARMARKS. Comrade Obama promised that. And now we see hundreds of thousands of Federal dollars being funneled to JUST ONE of his political allies. Trust me, there are more. Hell, the Exalted Cyclops Robert Byrd is known as the "King of Pork" for his decades of funneling tons of money to West Virginia in earmarks and Federal projects.

[1bad65]

you still have not addressed whether you buy into Judeo-Christian dogma...and if so, how you resolve the fact that you are admitting to not caring about your fellow man...at least not in the manner and to the extent that your dogma proscribes.

I have, but I'll do it again.

I've said I do give to charity, and I actually have given to beggars a time or two.

But the Bible does say something about 'helping those who help themselves'. It doesn't say to work your butt off so someone else can mooch off you.

Honestly, I flat-out think the majority of homeless bums CHOOSE that life. I live in Austin. We have alot of illegals, as we are near Mexico. And we have alot of beggars, as every other large Texas city has panhandling laws on the books while Austin refuses to. So they flock here.

Just about every beggar person I see is white. And when they ask you for money, they usually speak good English. Their signs are written in English. And they are not holding down a job or taking one ounce of personal responisbility.

Contrast that to the illegal alien. He gets here with little to no possessions, is not a US citizen, has no ID or SS number, doesn't speak the language, and usually has a family in Mexico he is supporting. And guess what, they work! Despite all the handicaps I just mentioned, you see illegals working. You don't see them begging.

So how is it the white guy who is a citizen, had the opportunity for a free high school education, has lived here all his life, and speaks English somehow can't get a job, but yet a Mexican national, here illegally, with no documentation can find one?

Ask yourself that, and then tell me why I'm cold-hearted by being upset that they keep demanding more and more of my hard-earned money for these lazy bums.

[sanjuro_ronin]

So, its official, as of today, the GM plant in the city of Oshawa is closed:
http://money.canoe.ca/News/Sectors/Industrials/2009/05/14/9455211-sun.html

And what has been learned?
Not much as we can see from this BS from the Union head:


CAW Local 222 president Chris Buckley agrees: "We need to remind our workers that this has come about through no fault of their own but because of bad decisions by General Motors and years of government neglect to deal with the realities of trade imbalances."

Its a truly sad day, in many ways.
Sad that the money give to them (over 250 million) was wasted and could have gotten to local business to create jobs.
Sad that the Union and the people working there don't take THEIR SHARE of the blame.
Sad that we have to admit that, the execs of these companies (GM, Chrysler, Aig and so forth) have NO CLUE to to fix their problems and neither does anyone around them.

I used to think that there was probably something deeper going on when huge companies collapsed, but it true what my economics prof at University used to say,"the vast majority of companies are profitable IN SPITE of their execs, not BECAUSE of them".

[Drake]

There's a lot of homeless these days due to the economic crisis. I'm pretty thankful that my job will never go away.

[GLW]

Military official budget by year :

2000 – $311.7 Billion
2001 – $307.8 Billion
2002 – $328.7 Billion
2003 – $404.9 Billion
2004 – $455.9 Billion
2005 – $495.3 Billion
2006 – $535.9 Billion
2007 – $527.4 Billion
2008 – $494.4 Billion
2009 – $494.3 Billion

The numbers since the beginning of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars do NOT include the cost of those wars. Also, the numbers in the budget shown do not represent the actual spending for 2005 onward. The funding for the wars has been done with accounting sleight of hand. They are off the regular books and handled with extra appropriations funding measures. This was how the Bush Admin started out to make the cost for the war appear to be less significant than it really is.

Those with a more recent memory can recall Obama talking about making the military spending go through the on the books budget process and doing away with this off the books special appropriations on funding the wars.

The spending for the war – that which has NOT gone through the normal budget – and for those who have trouble keeping up, the budgeted money for the defense department is what the military would be costing us if the soldiers were NOT deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan – the spending for the war went from approximately 1 billion dollars per week (as in 4.3 billion per month in 2003/2004 to approximately 12 billion dollars per month in 2008.

Total estimated cost for this war…and this is on top of the normal military budget – currently $800 Billion. This is up through this quarter. It is projected to be higher when all is said and done.

Again, this is money on top of what we would be spending if the troops were garrisoned, the National Guards were not activated, and the Stop Loss programs were not in effect.

Cost of deploying one U.S. soldier for one year in Iraq - $390,000

Lost & Unaccounted for in Iraq - $9 billion of US taxpayers' money and $549.7 milion in spare parts shipped in 2004 to US contractors. Also, per ABC news 190,000 guns, including 110,000 AK-47 rifles.

Missing - $1 billion in tractor trailers, tank recovery vehicles, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and other equipment and services provided to the Iraqi security forces. (Per CBS News)

Mismanaged & Wasted in Iraq - $10 billion, per Feb 2007 Congressional hearings
Halliburton Overcharges Classified by the Pentagon as Unreasonable and Unsupported - $1.4 billion

Amount paid to KBR, a former Halliburton division, to supply U.S. military in Iraq with food, fuel, housing and other items - $20 billion

Portion of the $20 billion paid to KBR that Pentagon auditors deem "questionable or supportable" - $3.2 billion (or 16% of their charges are questionable)

Reports are that by the end of the year, US spending on this war will exceed what was spent on Vietnam.

As a comparison, with this money one analyst estimates that one could have built 8 million houses, paid 15 million teachers, paid for the child care of 530 million kids, paid for the scholarship of 43 million students, offered a social safety net for 50 years to Americans.

By comparison, our humanitarian aid to Africa was $5 billion – or roughly 10 days of the war.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Military official budget by year :

2000 – $311.7 Billion
2001 – $307.8 Billion
2002 – $328.7 Billion
2003 – $404.9 Billion
2004 – $455.9 Billion
2005 – $495.3 Billion
2006 – $535.9 Billion
2007 – $527.4 Billion
2008 – $494.4 Billion
2009 – $494.3 Billion

The numbers since the beginning of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars do NOT include the cost of those wars. Also, the numbers in the budget shown do not represent the actual spending for 2005 onward. The funding for the wars has been done with accounting sleight of hand. They are off the regular books and handled with extra appropriations funding measures. This was how the Bush Admin started out to make the cost for the war appear to be less significant than it really is.

Those with a more recent memory can recall Obama talking about making the military spending go through the on the books budget process and doing away with this off the books special appropriations on funding the wars.

The spending for the war – that which has NOT gone through the normal budget – and for those who have trouble keeping up, the budgeted money for the defense department is what the military would be costing us if the soldiers were NOT deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan – the spending for the war went from approximately 1 billion dollars per week (as in 4.3 billion per month in 2003/2004 to approximately 12 billion dollars per month in 2008.

Total estimated cost for this war…and this is on top of the normal military budget – currently $800 Billion. This is up through this quarter. It is projected to be higher when all is said and done.

Again, this is money on top of what we would be spending if the troops were garrisoned, the National Guards were not activated, and the Stop Loss programs were not in effect.

Cost of deploying one U.S. soldier for one year in Iraq - $390,000

Lost & Unaccounted for in Iraq - $9 billion of US taxpayers' money and $549.7 milion in spare parts shipped in 2004 to US contractors. Also, per ABC news 190,000 guns, including 110,000 AK-47 rifles.

Missing - $1 billion in tractor trailers, tank recovery vehicles, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and other equipment and services provided to the Iraqi security forces. (Per CBS News)

Mismanaged & Wasted in Iraq - $10 billion, per Feb 2007 Congressional hearings
Halliburton Overcharges Classified by the Pentagon as Unreasonable and Unsupported - $1.4 billion

Amount paid to KBR, a former Halliburton division, to supply U.S. military in Iraq with food, fuel, housing and other items - $20 billion

Portion of the $20 billion paid to KBR that Pentagon auditors deem "questionable or supportable" - $3.2 billion (or 16% of their charges are questionable)

Reports are that by the end of the year, US spending on this war will exceed what was spent on Vietnam.

As a comparison, with this money one analyst estimates that one could have built 8 million houses, paid 15 million teachers, paid for the child care of 530 million kids, paid for the scholarship of 43 million students, offered a social safety net for 50 years to Americans.

By comparison, our humanitarian aid to Africa was $5 billion – or roughly 10 days of the war.

How much of that money stays in the US?

[Drake]

Don't forget to flush the Constitution after you wipe your ass with it...

"WASHINGTON - The Obama administration has begun serious talks about how it can change compensation practices across the financial-services industry, including at companies that did not receive federal bailout money, according to people familiar with the matter."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/05/13/obama-eyes-overhaul-bank-pay-practices/

Can anyone show me where the Constitution grants the Executive Branch (or any other Branch) the power to regulate what PRIVATE companies pay their employees?

Private companies and banks are two different matters entirely. I hadn't time to get a better source, but this is a good read... especially if you are having trouble sleeping... :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banking_in_the_United_States

I knew we exterted a great deal of governmental influence on Fed banks, but apparently, and for some time now, we have had influence on private banks as well. This goes waaaaaaaay back.

[GLW]

“What made it "easier" for them to offshore wasn't new laws, it was new taxes here at home. Taxes are just too high. It's a sad fact when companies find it cheaper to manufacture goods in Communist China than in the US.”

And if THAT is true can you explain how the New York Times could report accurately that two out of every three United States corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1998 through 2005 (August 12, 2008) The numbers since 2005 were not tallied…but not much changed.

So, if they are tax sheltering and 2 out of 3 are not paying taxes anyway, taxes being too high is NOT the reason for outsourcing jobs overseas.
China has a lower standard of living…so surprise, people work for less. US companies did the same thing with India and the tech sector. That is quickly becoming a bad thing because wages and costs in India are rising. Reports are that they are looking for the next place to outsource to.

From the Times article:
“In 2005, one in four large United States corporations paid no taxes on revenue of $1.1 trillion, compared with 66 percent in the overall pool. Large corporations are those with at least $250 million in assets or annual sales of at least $50 million.”

Other nations add import fees to OUR goods making US goods cost more and be non-competitive. We, on the other hand, do not typically do that. US military procurement is a really good example, at one time, something like 80% were domestically produced. That is now down to something like 35% or less. We should start with requiring items to support the US being required to be made in the US….

“Honestly, I flat-out think the majority of homeless bums CHOOSE that life.”

Sorry, you are only speaking about the obvious bums you see begging on the street. They are not even the tip of the iceberg. Have you EVER worked in a volunteer shelter? Dealt with homeless kids, women, those who lost their home because they were evicted because they lost their job?

Right…good Christian values. Now you bring up the bad US citizen who can’t get a job but a Mexican national can… Does the US Citizen know how to do the job? Well, if you are a sales rep, lose your job, can you just slide into doing drywall work? Not really…it IS a skill.

You equate people in need with lazy bums. You, as a professed Christian, display an inordinate amount of anger and hatred. And it all comes down to “Leave my piece of the pie alone…let them get a job and others do it.” Hardly in line with the old “What would Jesus Do?”

So, you give to beggars and bums at times. How close does your giving come to the 10% that is to be tithed by a Christian?

I suggest you get down in the trenches and actually do something with people in need. Rule number 1 of social work – “People lead the best lives they can” You would not last 1 week with the attitude you display in your writing.
People try to make ends meet each day – and MOST who are in need truly do want to work and be self-sufficient. I know this because I HAVE worked as a social worker.

Earmarks...well, if you look back, you would see I have no great love for Pelosi...but theitem you are citing has been shown to be a misrepresentation...but in true Faux fashion, Faux News keeps repeating it...and those who listen to them keep believing it without checking.

Check into how the actual process of a bill getting though works....THAT needs reform...

[GLW]

well...if Halliburton is any indicator...they use non-US workers on the cheap and then they offshore the income. Halliburton is one of the large corporations that pay little to no taxes.

So, I would say that a large amount of that money is out the door and out of the US.

[sanjuro_ronin]

well...if Halliburton is any indicator...they use non-US workers on the cheap and then they offshore the income. Halliburton is one of the large corporations that pay little to no taxes.

So, I would say that a large amount of that money is out the door and out of the US.

I know that the industrial-military complex is HUGE and that cutting the military budget would create a loss of 1000's of jobs, perhaps 10,000's.
That said, I would think that military spending should be done at HOME unless it impossible.
I mean, tax dollars should stay in the economy of the taxpayers.
Common sense really.

[1bad65]

By comparison, our humanitarian aid to Africa was $5 billion – or roughly 10 days of the war.

Check your facts on that one too.

"President Bush's legacy is sure to be defined by his wielding of U.S. military power in Afghanistan and Iraq, but there is another, much softer and less-noticed effort by his administration in foreign affairs: a dramatic increase in U.S. aid to Africa.

The president has tripled direct humanitarian and development aid to the world's most impoverished continent since taking office and recently vowed to double that increased amount by 2010 -- to nearly $9 billion.

"I think the Bush administration deserves pretty high marks in terms of increasing aid to Africa," said Steve Radelet, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development.

Bush has increased direct development and humanitarian aid to Africa to more than $4 billion a year from $1.4 billion in 2001, according to the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. And four African nations -- Sudan, Ethiopia, Egypt and Uganda -- rank among the world's top 10 recipients in aid from the United States."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/30/AR2006123000941.html

[sanjuro_ronin]

Check your facts on that one too.

"President Bush's legacy is sure to be defined by his wielding of U.S. military power in Afghanistan and Iraq, but there is another, much softer and less-noticed effort by his administration in foreign affairs: a dramatic increase in U.S. aid to Africa.

The president has tripled direct humanitarian and development aid to the world's most impoverished continent since taking office and recently vowed to double that increased amount by 2010 -- to nearly $9 billion.

"I think the Bush administration deserves pretty high marks in terms of increasing aid to Africa," said Steve Radelet, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development.

Bush has increased direct development and humanitarian aid to Africa to more than $4 billion a year from $1.4 billion in 2001, according to the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. And four African nations -- Sudan, Ethiopia, Egypt and Uganda -- rank among the world's top 10 recipients in aid from the United States."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/30/AR2006123000941.html

While it is "better", it certaily is nothing to be proud of.
How much was the bailout for wall street again??

[BoulderDawg]

Bad doesn't understand the lax accounting laws that have came about by a decade of conservative rule in Washington.

Truth is the laws and GAAP rules are so flexible I could run a big corporation for years, never show a profit and never pay taxes and it is 100% legal but I could also pay myself a salary of 50 million and take advantage of the massive tax cuts that Bush has given the rich.

[1bad65]

First off, I'm still waiting for you to cite these laws that made it easier to offshore. You made that assertion, now back it up with facts.


You equate people in need with lazy bums. You, as a professed Christian, display an inordinate amount of anger and hatred. And it all comes down to “Leave my piece of the pie alone…let them get a job and others do it.” Hardly in line with the old “What would Jesus Do?”

So, you give to beggars and bums at times. How close does your giving come to the 10% that is to be tithed by a Christian?

Show where I did that. Please do.

I distinctly said the beggars on the street. Hell, I typed it a few times.

And you have no idea what I give. So stop attacking me for not giving enough.

You keep trying to use religion to attack me. Ok, fine. But are YOU a Christian? Do YOU tithe? Do you realize that not all Biblical scholars agree tithing equals 10%? And I give alot more than 10% in taxes, I'm 'rich', so I give a ton. And I'll guarantee more than 10% of my total income goes to social programs.


I suggest you get down in the trenches and actually do something with people in need. Rule number 1 of social work – “People lead the best lives they can” You would not last 1 week with the attitude you display in your writing.

People try to make ends meet each day – and MOST who are in need truly do want to work and be self-sufficient. I know this because I HAVE worked as a social worker.

Why would I feel the need to do more? I'm forced to give tens of thousands of dollars a year. That's enough. Actually, it's too **** much.

And I also have to make my ends meet. I'll say this, it would be alot easier if I didn't have to give close to half of it to the Government.


[Earmarks...well, if you look back, you would see I have no great love for Pelosi...but theitem you are citing has been shown to be a misrepresentation...but in true Faux fashion, Faux News keeps repeating it...and those who listen to them keep believing it without checking.

Again, show where your assertions are correct. I notice FoxNews has not retracted the story. Please show me YOUR SOURCES that say FoxNews made up or slanted the facts. Don't just allege it, prove it.

[1bad65]

While it is "better", it certaily is nothing to be proud of.
How much was the bailout for wall street again??

It's more money than ANY OTHER President in our history. Yes, that includes Clinton too.

I'm against the bailouts, but I'm against most social programs and foreign aid as well.

That quote you posted earlier from the union guy was priceless.

[1bad65]

Bad doesn't understand the lax accounting laws that have came about by a decade of conservative rule in Washington.

Truth is the laws and GAAP rules are so flexible I could run a big corporation for years, never show a profit and never pay taxes and it is 100% legal but I could also pay myself a salary of 50 million and take advantage of the massive tax cuts that Bush has given the rich.

Get off it. What 10 year stretch of conservative rule are you citing? :confused: That's certainly news to me.

You could also buy a nice house offshore, rent it out, and then not claim that income to try and avoid paying taxes on it. And then you can be put in charge of writing tax laws. Just ask Democrat Charles Rangel.

[sanjuro_ronin]

It's more money than ANY OTHER President in our history. Yes, that includes Clinton too.

I'm against the bailouts, but I'm against most social programs and foreign aid as well.

That quote you posted earlier from the union guy was priceless.

Bush may have given more, but its still peanuts.
Its good business to help your neighbours, stability and economic growth is good for everyone, as we have found out recently.
I have no issues with social programs and foreign aid, I just have issues with how thei are abused and, typically, how they are applied.

[1bad65]

Bush may have given more, but its still peanuts.
Its good business to help your neighbours, stability and economic growth is good for everyone, as we have found out recently.
I have no issues with social programs and foreign aid, I just have issues with how thei are abused and, typically, how they are applied.

But when you yourself are borrowing money, it's ridiculous to be GIVING it to others.

I know when I've gotten behind in bills, I wasn't running around giving money to those "less fortunate" than me. I actually cut back and caught up.

Sadly, our government's solution is to borrow from our children and grandchildren and spend/give more! It's insanity.

[sanjuro_ronin]

But when you yourself are borrowing money, it's ridiculous to be GIVING it to others.

I know when I've gotten behind in bills, I wasn't running around giving money to those "less fortunate" than me. I actually cut back and caught up.

Sadly, our government's solution is to borrow from our children and grandchildren and spend/give more! It's insanity.

Foreign debt is a load of crap, do you know ANY country that has no foreign debt?
If the US was to call in all THEIR debtors, what would happen?
Foreign debt is the "cost" of doing business.
Fact is, we owe money to the US, the US owes Us, they owe GB, GB owes them, and blah, blah, blah...
The US may have 10 trillion in debt, but how much is owed to it? and by who?
How much of the money we sent to A is used by A to buy stuff from us?
And vice-versa?
Its a a big pile of crap used by governments to justify tax increases. foreign spending and other things.

[GLW]

Me...not a Christian.. a born again agnostic...

But, Christians make a big deal out of being Christians. Yet so few truly understand what they are signing on to. If you claim to be one, Jesus did NOT give dispensation to people and say "Well, you paid your taxes...and some of that goes to the poor - so subtract that from what you should do to help the poor..."

Nope, he said render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's. He was talking not only about spiritual things but also about your duty to your fellow man.

Obviously you missed that one.

You use derogatory phrases that divide and say you didn't mean it that way. Well, then I suggest you figure out how to communicate it such that it IS the way you mean it.

You did not address the obvious ANGER and resentment in your posts. An image of a mouth frothing person is not far behind.

Are you aware of the lawsuit that Faux News recently won. The plaintiff PROVED that Faux News had misrepresented the truth...but they maintained they had no obligation to report the truth (that is what the assertion boiled down to in English) and won... Seems the court agreed that a NEWS organization does not have to be factual. Faux news is not.

I posted a full page of where they have been less than honest. I am NOT going to follow that up for your amusement...especially since, having been shown how poor of a source Faux News is, you STILL use them as your primary source.

Now you also go into the "let me quibble the details" part... Well they don't all agree about the 10% thing. Well, so what is it? That is the number quoted to me for my daughter;s baptism many moons ago. That is the number based in Christian history borrowed from Jewish tradition.

But, if that is not the number you want...give me one.

And as to WHY you should get in the trenches, well, you have a lot of misconceptions about homeless and poor people. You need to get down and dirty and find out that they are not true and that the people you SEE are only a very small sample of those out there in dire straits.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Ok, now, this is stupid:
Free Lipitor, Viagra for jobless
http://money.canoe.ca/News/Sectors/BiotechnologyHealth/2009/05/14/9457391-ap.html

[BoulderDawg]

I had to laugh when I saw this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEph33-_nQw

:D

It's not my style but the lady the telling the honest to God truth!

[1bad65]

Me...not a Christian.. a born again agnostic...

But yet you're this expert Biblical scholar. :rolleyes: And you feel you can tell true Believers how they should conduct themselves.


But, Christians make a big deal out of being Christians. Yet so few truly understand what they are signing on to. If you claim to be one, Jesus did NOT give dispensation to people and say "Well, you paid your taxes...and some of that goes to the poor - so subtract that from what you should do to help the poor..."

Nope, he said render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's. He was talking not only about spiritual things but also about your duty to your fellow man.

Obviously you missed that one.

Again, it's all how you interpret it. While it says what you posted, it also speaks of 'helping those who help themselves'. Keep in mind, I do draw a distinction between "people in need" and lazy bums. And I honestly believe that the bums are the higher percentage than those in need. I mean how often do you see a guy begging on the street that says something like 'Former technician. Job outsourced to India. Need some help.' You don't.

And I do believe taxes are too high. Keep in mind, during Jesus's time, the government wasn't taking 40%. Face it, after bills and taxes, average Americans don't have alot left to give.


You did not address the obvious ANGER and resentment in your posts. An image of a mouth frothing person is not far behind.

Get real. I'm no madman. But yes, I do resent lazy people who choose to just live off the Government and the generosity of others. It's pathetic.


But, if that is not the number you want...give me one.

In case you missed it, I pointed out that Biblical scholars can't agree on a number. So, obviously I doubt 1bad65 knows the real number. I just give some when I can. That's just me. But like I keep saying, if I got to keep more of MY money, I'd have more to give. Am I wrong?

As to FoxNews; For the THIRD TIME now, I'm asking you to show some proof that they lied/slanted/twisted the Pelosi story about the earmarks her husband got.

[GLW]

“And I honestly believe that the bums are the higher percentage than those in need.”

Well, your beliefs are just plain WRONG. The people that need help are NOT the ones begging on the streets. For every person you see doing that, there are at least 10 who are not. Of course, those figures are from the days I was a social worker. The numbers have gotten much worse.

You CHOOSE to lump all homeless and poor people together. They are not the guy begging. There will ALWAYS be a group of people who are burned out drugged out, boozed out, whatever. Their percentage has not changed much…and they do NOT figure into the unemployment numbers. They have been out of the workforce so long that they are no longer counted as ever being in it. The unemployment numbers that form the basis for the poor people with no health coverage…and then the ones employed without health benefits…and those where the coverage is too expensive so they have a choice of food or health insurance – those are real and increasing. The people who have been unable to find work after a certain time are removed from the stats…it is really an inaccurate number built to make the unemployment numbers look better than they are. This little game has been going on for at least 30 years so none of this “well,,,Obama or Well, Bush’s folks” are lying BS. The SYSTEM is lying to make things look better. They also do not include the UNDERemployed..

Americans are NOT taxed exorbitantly compared to other countries. But they do get a worse deal for their money.

I never claimed to be a biblical scholar but I must have hit a VERY raw nerve to point out how your beliefs are not in step with your actions. You label all in need as bums and say they are not helping themselves so why should you. Ever been a junkie? An alcoholic? How about a single mother whose husband up and left her with 2 kids…and NO insurance? Ever done anything for such a person to make a difference? Ever spoken to a person on welfare who WANTS desperately to work…but has kids (in Texas, if you do not have kids, you DON’T get Welfare – it is called Aid to Families with Dependent Children)…she needs daycare…but can’t get it…and so by the time she pays for it, the transportation to her job, and such, she is making $75 less per month WORKING than if she stayed home with the kids. And NO, not all of them just have kids they can’t support. That too is a tale told to make heartless people feel better.

I gave you ample proof of Faux News doctoring stories. I WILL NOT WASTE MY TIME DISPROVING YOUR FAUX NEWS BELIEFS when you have proven that you will simply ignore the information and post another Faux News story and talking point.

Start using another source and I MIGHT just take it seriously.

As for what you give…yes you ARE wrong since you profess one belief and cannot point to any – even low estimate – of how you meet the ideas of your faith.

So, you BELIEVE taxes are too high…well start with the corporations who pay nothing yet do business here. Start with the uber-rich who pay less now than they did back when they were kings of the world in the US. I am not bothered by taxes as long as there is service for it…like education, health care, infrastructure. But what I have gotten for mine is a war I didn’t want, a financial collapse that was avoidable and ALL based on greed…

[1bad65]

You CHOOSE to lump all homeless and poor people together.

Not to de a ****, but can you read?

I've posted several times making a clear distinction.


Americans are NOT taxed exorbitantly compared to other countries. But they do get a worse deal for their money.

I feel we are overtaxed. But I agree with your second sentence.


Ever been a junkie? An alcoholic? How about a single mother whose husband up and left her with 2 kids…and NO insurance?

Nope. And those are CHOICES. I've chosen to not use hard drugs like heroin, coke, meth, etc. Thus I'll never be junkie. It's common sense. And it's a CHOICE to use drugs or alcohol.

We have laws for that wife example. Spousal support, child support, etc. It's not always the Governemnt's or other's problem to solve.


I gave you ample proof of Faux News doctoring stories. I WILL NOT WASTE MY TIME DISPROVING YOUR FAUX NEWS BELIEFS when you have proven that you will simply ignore the information and post another Faux News story and talking point.

Start using another source and I MIGHT just take it seriously.

You said that particular story was twisted/manipulated. You said it. Do I need to pull your quote? Prove it.\, and stop making excuses. Or retract your allegations.

And I do use others. I do use FoxNews alot though, but by no means are they my source 100% of the time.


So, you BELIEVE taxes are too high…well start with the corporations who pay nothing yet do business here. Start with the uber-rich who pay less now than they did back when they were kings of the world in the US. I am not bothered by taxes as long as there is service for it…like education, health care, infrastructure. But what I have gotten for mine is a war I didn’t want, a financial collapse that was avoidable and ALL based on greed…

Show us ONE company who made money here (ie posted a net profit, not a net loss) and who paid "nothing". Just one example.

Do you realize that the top 25% of income earners pay 86% of all Federal taxes?
Do you realize that the top 50% of income earners pay 97% of all income taxes?
Do you realize that the top 1% of income earners pay 39% of all Federal taxes? And that is UP 2% since Bush took office.
And those are IRS numbers.

And try this FACT on for size:

"Notably, however, the share of taxes paid by the top 1% has kept climbing this decade -- to 39.4% in 2005, from 37.4% in 2000. The share paid by the top 5% has increased even more rapidly. In other words, despite the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003, the rich saw their share of taxes paid rise at a faster rate than their share of income. How could this be?

One explanation is that the Bush tax cuts reduced the income tax liability of middle and lower income households by more proportionately than the rich. The average family of four with an income of $40,000 saw its income tax liability fall by about $2,052 a year from the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119786208643933077.html

And notice it's not a FoxNews source. ;)

[1bad65]

Even more waste:

"The federal government is spending $2.6 million to make sure prostitutes in China drink less on the job.

That's the goal of a five-year study, bankrolled by the National Institutes of Health, designed to help lower HIV infections among China's "female sex workers," who are referred to in the study as "FSWs."

Researchers will visit 100 houses of ill repute -- a whole hamlet of harlots -- to collect data on 700 prostitutes and 150 pimps and madams, referred to as "gatekeepers" in the study's sterile abstract.

Phase one of the study is intended to research "alcohol use/abuse and related sexual risk among FSWs in China," according to the abstract -- a cold hard look at why prostitutes engage in dangerous sex while drunk."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/14/government-funds-million-program-make-chinese-prostitutes-drink/

So, how in the world are Chinese prostitutes drinking habits a problem for the AMERICAN taxpayer?????

[BoulderDawg]

Has anyone here noticed how Bad just shut up about Nancy Pelosi and the torture issue when it was suggested that Pelosi should be thrown in the hoose gow with Cheney, Bush and the rest of them........:D

Notice how all of a sudden he just quit talking!:eek: When justice across the board is suggested he doesn't say a word!

[1bad65]

Has anyone here noticed how Bad just shut up about Nancy Pelosi and the torture issue when it was suggested that Pelosi should be thrown in the hoose gow with Cheney, Bush and the rest of them........:D

Notice how all of a sudden he just quit talking!:eek: When justice across the board is suggested he doesn't say a word!

Actually it's a dead issue it seems.

Funny enough she is telling yet ANOTHER story now. :rolleyes:

I think charging any of our elected leaders is ridiculous. Even Nancy Pelosi. ;)

[sanjuro_ronin]

Not sure why people rip on corporations that don't pay much tax but employ 100's perhaps 1000's of people.
See, sometimes we need to motivate business to come here, and because we have high taxes, we have to give them a break every so often, sometimes for years.
For that, they employee people, pay their salaries and benefits and in turn, we get taxes from there.
See, I run a corporation, I pay:
Business tax, health tax, property tax AND I pay my employees and their benefits.
I should be one of the biggest voices against those huge corporations that make millions or billions and pay so much less than I do ( % wise), but I am not, know why?
Because without them, all those people they employ would be doing what?
Now, if you take into account how much it costs to run a business and to keep all those people employed AND to make payroll and payroll taxes every month, I think you will agree that, the vast majority of business probably deserve all the breaks they can get.

[BoulderDawg]

Actually it's a dead issue it seems.

It's very much alive and there is a chance that people like Cheney could end up going to jail.

Why to do you think Cheney is out right now trying to defend himself. It has nothing to do with his "legacy". He just doesn't want to spend the rest of his old age in prison.

See, unlike neos, I honestly believe that the President, Vice President and members of congress are subject to the same laws as everyone else.

[1bad65]

It's very much alive and there is a chance that people like Cheney could end up going to jail.

Why to do you think Cheney is out right now trying to defend himself. It has nothing to do with his "legacy". He just doesn't want to spend the rest of his old age in prison.

See, unlike neos, I honestly believe that the President, Vice President and members of congress are subject to the same laws as everyone else.

We've been over this before. I don't believe they comitted any crimes. While Bush was President, Speaker Pelosi felt they didn't either. The UN doesn't believe we did.

Only space cadets like you believe that.

And Cheney isn't defending himself from any type of prosecution. The first thing ANY lawyer will tell someone being investigated is to shut up. They darn sure don't tell them to make the press rounds and give a ton of interviews. What he is doing is trying to get the truth out, because the current Administration is lying their asses off.

[1bad65]

Not sure why people rip on corporations that don't pay much tax but employ 100's perhaps 1000's of people.
See, sometimes we need to motivate business to come here, and because we have high taxes, we have to give them a break every so often, sometimes for years.
For that, they employee people, pay their salaries and benefits and in turn, we get taxes from there.
See, I run a corporation, I pay:
Business tax, health tax, property tax AND I pay my employees and their benefits.
I should be one of the biggest voices against those huge corporations that make millions or billions and pay so much less than I do ( % wise), but I am not, know why?
Because without them, all those people they employ would be doing what?
Now, if you take into account how much it costs to run a business and to keep all those people employed AND to make payroll and payroll taxes every month, I think you will agree that, the vast majority of business probably deserve all the breaks they can get.

Very well said.

What people also miss is that public companies are owned by investors. And when the investors make a profit, that is taxed as well under capital gains. And of course every employee, from the 'evil, rich CEO' on down pay income on their salaries.

What alot of liberals are too stupid to understand is that when people are paid huge salaries, the government gets more tax revenue off those people's income taxes than they would get if the company used that money in non-taxable ways and skimped on salaries.

These 'evil rich corporations' liberals assail aren't even real enteties at all. Thats just the legal term used (corporation) to define a company owned by investors.

[BoulderDawg]

I don't believe they comitted any crimes.

Neither did the Nazis. When you're in charge you can create any law you want and decree any action you take as "Legal".

If I was sitting on a grand jury or a jury I would have no problem in convicting Cheney or Bush.........And guess what? Their lawyer could stand there all day and claim what he did was legal..........Wouldn't effect me......legal or not I know the difference between right and wrong.

Jesse Ventura had the right idea.......first of all he said, give me an hour to waterboard Cheney I would have him confessing to the Sharon Tate murder.:D He also said if he was president he would do everything in his power to prosecute these war criminals.

[1bad65]

Neither did the Nazis. When you're in charge you can create any law you want and decree any action you take as "Legal".

I notice you failed to address the part where I pointed out that Speaker Pelosi and the UN don't feel any crimes were committed.

So, using the Nazi's was a stupid comparison.

And actually they did know they committed crimes. Why do you think many like Hitler, Goebbels, and Goering committed suicide? And Hitler and Goebbels did it before any charges were filed.

[BoulderDawg]

You think I really care who or who doesn't believe that what they did was legal? Let a court hear the evidence and decide that.

Hitler committed suicide because they had lost the war and knew what would happen when the Russians got their hands on him. What do you think would have happened to Truman had the Japanese developed some sort of super weapon after the atomic bomb and started closing in on the White House?

[1bad65]

You think I really care who or who doesn't believe that what they did was legal? Let a court hear the evidence and decide that.

What part of "The UN does not feel they committed a crime in the first place" are you failing to grasp?

You're a nutjob.

[GLW]

Just to keep you honest about Faux news...which is where your "Promised to do away with earmarks.." came from...

First, it was Obama making the statements...not Pelosi..but THAT would be to quibble.

Second and more importantly :

Faux News misleads (OMFG) ----

On the March 6 edition of his Fox News program, Sean Hannity falsely claimed that President Obama made a "campaign promise" to allow "no earmarks."

They then showed a partial clips

In three clips, Obama was referring to reforming the earmark process. ( a different thing than doing away with them...if doing away with them, the process of how funding bills happen would grind to a halt until the new rules were set. - but I would agree that I would personally like to see earmarks banned....put your funding up front and honest...but BOTH sides of the aisle do it - it should change but not bloody likely).

In another clip, Obama was referring to an opponent’s hypocrisy for taking earmarks and then advocating against them.

In another, Obama’s statement was "We are gonna ban all earmarks -- the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review." but he was referring to his desire to "ban all earmarks" from his "recovery and reinvestment plan," Obama specifically distinguished from "the overall budget process."

So...was the earmark you are enraged about in the budget or in the recovery bill...or do you know.

In any event, once again, your source is at best misleading people and at worst, lying. take your pick.

[GLW]

Now, there MAY be some semantics there too...earmarks are a process and if a funding addition does not go through that process, technically it is not an earmark.

Now, you can call it pork..that is a different item....

and there is probably enough pork in all of this grunge to go around on both sides....only proving that the process is broken.

[1bad65]

In another, Obama’s statement was "We are gonna ban all earmarks -- the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review." but he was referring to his desire to "ban all earmarks" from his "recovery and reinvestment plan," Obama specifically distinguished from "the overall budget process."

Well then, he lied about that too!

"President Barack Obama's ban on earmarks in the $825 billion economic stimulus bill doesn't mean interest groups, lobbyists and lawmakers won't be able to funnel money to pet projects.

Democratic Rep. Ed Pastor of Arizona suggested it's not entirely accurate to say there will be no earmarks in the measure. "There are and there aren't," Pastor said. "A lot of it depends on what the formula looks like."

The United States Conference of Mayors released a 300-plus-page list of some $150 billion in "ready-to-go" projects that quickly became fodder for criticism. It included money for the Miami water park, which McConnell has ridiculed publicly, and a skate park in Portland, Maine."

http://cbs13.com/national/president.barack.obama.2.917287.html

And as for Pelosi, my point wasn't to attack Comrade Obama on earmarks, it was to show examples of government waste. And it also showed how some of OUR money ends up in the pockets of rich Congressmen. Remember, Pelosi is the 9th richest member of Congress with a net worth of nearly $19 million as of 2007, primarily from investments. In addition to their large portfolio of jointly owned San Francisco Bay Area real estate, the couple also owns a vineyard in St. Helena, California, valued at $5 million to $25 million. Pelosi's husband also owns stock, including $5 million in Apple Computer.

All that money, and yet she still takes from average Americans to enrich HERSELF. That's my point.

[1bad65]

Just to keep you honest about Faux news...which is where your "Promised to do away with earmarks.." came from...

Faux News misleads (OMFG) ----

On the March 6 edition of his Fox News program, Sean Hannity falsely claimed that President Obama made a "campaign promise" to allow "no earmarks."

They then showed a partial clips

That's nothing compared to what the mainstream press did to Newt Gingrich.

They repeatedly played clips of Newt saying 'We want Medicare to wither on the vine". Remember that whopper? Even Democrats running for office used it. The only problem was, he never said it!

Here is his exact quote: “You know, we tell Boris Yeltsin — Get rid of centralized command bureaucracies. Go to the marketplace. Okay, what do you think the Health Care Financing Administration is? It’s a centralized command bureaucracy. It is everything we’re telling Boris Yeltsin to get rid of. No, we don’t get rid of it in round one because we don’t think it’s politically smart. We don’t think that’s the right way to go through a transition. But we believe it’s going to wither on the vine because we think [SENIORS]are voluntarily going to leave it, voluntarily.”

Can you show me where Newt said he wanted 'Medicare to wither on the vine'? Notice the word 'Medicare' isn't even his actual quote!

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/oct/07/gingrich-misquoted-medicare-funding/?partner=RSS

[MightyB]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/opinion/12sun1.html :eek:

Many Americans are under the delusion that we have “the best health care system in the world,” as President Bush sees it, or provide the “best medical care in the world,” as Rudolph Giuliani declared last week. That may be true at many top medical centers. But the disturbing truth is that this country lags well behind other advanced nations in delivering timely and effective care.
---
Insurance coverage. All other major industrialized nations provide universal health coverage, and most of them have comprehensive benefit packages with no cost-sharing by the patients. The United States, to its shame, has some 45 million people without health insurance and many more millions who have poor coverage. Although the president has blithely said that these people can always get treatment in an emergency room, many studies have shown that people without insurance postpone treatment until a minor illness becomes worse, harming their own health and imposing greater costs.
---
Fairness. The United States ranks dead last on almost all measures of equity because we have the greatest disparity in the quality of care given to richer and poorer citizens. Americans with below-average incomes are much less likely than their counterparts in other industrialized nations to see a doctor when sick, to fill prescriptions or to get needed tests and follow-up care.

[MightyB]

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0765165020080108

They called such deaths an important way to gauge the performance of a country's health care system.

Nolte said the large number of Americans who lack any type of health insurance -- about 47 million people in a country of about 300 million, according to U.S. government estimates -- probably was a key factor in the poor showing of the United States compared to other industrialized nations in the study.

[MightyB]

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Program-Areas/High-Performance-Health-System/Program-on-the-Future-of-Health-Insurance.aspx

[GLW]

The thing about "earmarks" is definitely semantics...but you are neglecting how bills wind their way through Congress and especially how that particular bill went....short term memory on the fritz or something?

First, I do NOT like the semantics game and I do not like some ot the things happening with this administration...but it is definitely a more competent one than the previous and on the whole, I am in the camp or more in agreement than disagreement. However, I do not agree with the return of things like military tribunals for "select" detainees. THAT IS a breaking of a promise.

But, for the bill... The President can suggest legislation and work on crafting it...but in the end, Congress writes it and votes on it. When it passes both houses, the President has only 3 choices : sign it, veto it, ignore it and let it end with a pocket veto.

The addition of signing statements has been used by a number of presidents...but that does not make it right or legal.

Now, if the President vetoes the bill (pocket or explicit), Congress can then do an override...2/3 majority and all that.

But regardless, if there are things in the bill that the President does not like but he gets most of what he wants, he WILL sign it.

Now as to this one, short term memory challenged folks might want to attempt to recall that there was a lot of back and forth to get the required votes to make it through. The final product was stated to be "flawed" but also acknowledged to be as good as he was going to get at this time.

So...blame Congress for those things...but do so explicitly - as in who put what in.

Pelosi is not my idea of a great bastion of ethics...or leadership for that matter. But be sure that is who is responsible first.

Dragging out poor Newt when he was not mentioned is nonsequitor. The point was that you continue to single source from Faux news instead of digging a bit deeper - especially when it has been pointed out with concrete examples and recent lawsuits that Faux news has no commitment to the truth.

Unfortunately, the media is self feeding in violation of all sorts of journalism rules. It is not uncommon for one media source to slant a story and then have the others single source a story based upon the slanted story. Sort of like 3rd person news. I have seen it done more from Faux news...but I have seen CSPAN, MSNBC and CNN do it as well.

Not sure if that is intentional or just plain lazy. Either way, the consumers of that news are being fed BS.

[BoulderDawg]

Fairness. The United States ranks dead last on almost all measures of equity because we have the greatest disparity in the quality of care given to richer and poorer citizens. Americans with below-average incomes are much less likely than their counterparts in other industrialized nations to see a doctor when sick, to fill prescriptions or to get needed tests and follow-up care.[/I]

Crazy...completely crazy. As a country we need to demand free healthcare for all. Now if the rich people want to pay $1,000 a month for coverage and go to their country club doctors then that's fine by me. They wouldn't want to go to a doctor that treated the poor and middle class anyway. However, that shouldn't effect people who can't pay for it in getting the care they need.

The end of Michael Moore's Sicko is classic......Some Neo out there runs a anti-Michael Moore website which is full of vicious personal attacks using four letter words. Anyway this guy's wife got sick and he found himself owning 10K in medical bills. He announced he was going to have to close down his site because he could not afford to keep it open. Moore saw this and sent the guy a check to pay for his wife's care. This allowed the guy to keep his website and keep attacking Michael Moore........Funny this guy would accept help from some fat pinko commie!:eek: I guess the healthcare system screws neos too!:D

[BoulderDawg]

Newt has become an interesting study.

Look where the GOP is..........they are totally leaderless. McCain...used up old fool, Mayor Rudy....shady mafia type, Palin......you have to be kidding, Romney....of course they will never support a Mormon, Mr. "Earthquake detection is pork" Jindal..........and finally Cheney....:D

Newt knows the score here. He's finally going to get the chance to run for president......That should be fun to watch!

[1bad65]

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0765165020080108

They called such deaths an important way to gauge the performance of a country's health care system.

Nolte said the large number of Americans who lack any type of health insurance -- about 47 million people in a country of about 300 million, according to U.S. government estimates -- probably was a key factor in the poor showing of the United States compared to other industrialized nations in the study.

Keep in mind, things like being fat and dying young of heart disease falls into the category of "preventable deaths".

Remember too, we have laws on the books that an ER cannot refuse to treat someone with a medical emergency, no matter what their financial situation.

[1bad65]

But, for the bill... The President can suggest legislation and work on crafting it...but in the end, Congress writes it and votes on it. When it passes both houses, the President has only 3 choices : sign it, veto it, ignore it and let it end with a pocket veto.

So...blame Congress for those things...but do so explicitly - as in who put what in.

Dude, he signed it. Thus he lied. Period, end of sentence.


Dragging out poor Newt when he was not mentioned is nonsequitor. The point was that you continue to single source from Faux news instead of digging a bit deeper - especially when it has been pointed out with concrete examples and recent lawsuits that Faux news has no commitment to the truth.

Unfortunately, the media is self feeding in violation of all sorts of journalism rules. It is not uncommon for one media source to slant a story and then have the others single source a story based upon the slanted story. Sort of like 3rd person news. I have seen it done more from Faux news...but I have seen CSPAN, MSNBC and CNN do it as well.

Not sure if that is intentional or just plain lazy. Either way, the consumers of that news are being fed BS.

I used Newt to show that if you call FoxNews Faux News, you better start making up alot of other nicknames for all the other news outlets who MANUFACTURED that clip of Newt.

And what of CBS? Do they get a pass from you? After all, they didn't just slant a story like you say Fox did, they actually accepted a fake document faxed from Kinko's as legit!

[1bad65]

As a country we need to demand free healthcare for all.

Nothing is free! You liberals fail to understand that ANYTHING the government 'gives away free' is paid by ALL of us who pay taxes. Are you this stupid?


Now if the rich people want to pay $1,000 a month for coverage and go to their country club doctors then that's fine by me. They wouldn't want to go to a doctor that treated the poor and middle class anyway. However, that shouldn't effect people who can't pay for it in getting the care they need.

Just like the "People's Leader" Castro flew in a doctor from Spain to do surgery on him. Is he a "rich person"? Why doesn't he have to use the same doctors the "poor and middle class" do? Hmmmm.....

It's sad that people like you can't see that you're just useful idiot to them in their quest for power. You're so blind you can't see there will ALWAYS be cllasses of people. Would you rather those who worked for it get the perks, or just those with political power? Because I'll GUARANTEE you right now, if socialized medicine passes, the very people who voted it in will not have to use it when they get sick. I'll guarantee they won't be waiting in line to see specialists and surgeons like us peons will have to.

[MightyB]

Remember too, we have laws on the books that an ER cannot refuse to treat someone with a medical emergency, no matter what their financial situation.

But that in itself becomes a problem since ERs have become clogged with people who should be seeing a primary care physician thereby denying timely access to people who really need "emergency" care.

[1bad65]

But that in itself becomes a problem since ERs have become clogged with people who should be seeing a primary care physician thereby denying timely access to people who really need "emergency" care.

And yet giving everyone 'free' access to primary care physicians, surgeons, and specialists won't clog them up? :confused:

I can't believe you libs don't see it's a recipe for disaster. Well for us it is, for the very people who vote for it, it won't be. They will exempt themselves from it. Just watch....

[BoulderDawg]

Remember too, we have laws on the books that an ER cannot refuse to treat someone with a medical emergency, no matter what their financial situation.


So? Just because you're not bleeding out on the floor does not mean you don't need medical attention.


I can't believe you libs don't see it's a recipe for disaster. Well for us it is, for the very people who vote for it, it won't be. They will exempt themselves from it. Just watch....

Who says you have the right to vote to decide whether or not I get medical care? You don't.

[1bad65]

Who says you have the right to vote to decide whether or not I get medical care? You don't.

Do what?!

It's your right to get what you can pay for. It's not my duty to pay for your problems and wants. I'd like a new Shelby GT500, but it's not other people's job to buy it for me.

And remember, those voting for it will exempt themselves. If it's such a great deal, why do they want no part of it for themselves? ;)

[1bad65]

Who says you have the right to vote to decide whether or not I get medical care? You don't.

Who says you have the right to vote to take from producers and give it to those who only consume? ;)

[1bad65]

"NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- General Motors notified 1,100 of its 6,000 dealerships Friday that it is terminating their contracts with the struggling automaker, the first step in cutting up to 40% of its retail network.

GM spokeswoman Susan Garontakos said that the dealers receiving notice Friday are being told that their contracts will not be renewed in October 2010. Many of them are expected to close shop this year.

All told, the planned dealership cuts at Chrysler and GM will eventually cost 140,000 jobs, NADA estimates."

http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/15/news/companies/gm_dealers/index.htm?postversion=2009051509

Boy that bailout and stimulus package really fixed the problem. :rolleyes:

Up next, health care! :eek:

[MightyB]

And yet giving everyone 'free' access to primary care physicians, surgeons, and specialists won't clog them up? :confused:

I can't believe you libs don't see it's a recipe for disaster. Well for us it is, for the very people who vote for it, it won't be. They will exempt themselves from it. Just watch....

again: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Program-Areas/High-Performance-Health-System/Program-on-the-Future-of-Health-Insurance.aspx

The fact is - the American Health Care system sucks - it's only going to get worse if changes aren't made - and --- we're looking at the next economic "bubble" that's going to burst if changes aren't made.

We have one... count it... One area promising future economic growth - The Health Business--- what happens when you have an national economic model where in the only wealth that's being created is in treating the sick? What happens when the sick can no longer afford support that business model?

[MightyB]

"NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- General Motors notified 1,100 of its 6,000 dealerships Friday that it is terminating their contracts with the struggling automaker, the first step in cutting up to 40% of its retail network.

GM spokeswoman Susan Garontakos said that the dealers receiving notice Friday are being told that their contracts will not be renewed in October 2010. Many of them are expected to close shop this year.

All told, the planned dealership cuts at Chrysler and GM will eventually cost 140,000 jobs, NADA estimates."

http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/15/news/companies/gm_dealers/index.htm?postversion=2009051509

Boy that bailout and stimulus package really fixed the problem. :rolleyes:

Up next, health care! :eek:

Yeah - the banking industry severely fuked it up for the Auto industry who could've used the money and actually had a plan. Too bad a$$wipays like you decided that the auto industry wasn't important enough to help even when they had an accountable business plan and strategy for what they were going to do with the money... unlike the billions that we're freely given to the banking bandits who had no accountability by your buddy Bush.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Yeah - the banking industry severely fuked it up for the Auto industry who could've used the money and actually had a plan. Too bad a$$wipays like you decided that the auto industry wasn't important enough to help even when they had an accountable business plan and strategy for what they were going to do with the money... unlike the billions that we're freely given to the banking bandits who had no accountability by your buddy Bush.

I know this wasn't directed at me, but what "business plan and strategy" are you referring to??

[MightyB]

Now I agree - the Obama stimulus package was crap - money given to the worst types of red tape turds that have a history of waste and that already have jobs. The money should've been used to create jobs by creating jobs. Small business loans and grants would've been a better strategy. Investing in startups would've been a strategy - given it to state governments, non-profits, and the other nonsensical waste organizations like it was, was a stupid idea.

[MightyB]

I know this wasn't directed at me, but what "business plan and strategy" are you referring to??

They were under heavy scrutiny by the press, congress, and the general public to have a plan for the money, which they presented to congress. I don't know the details - but at least it was a plan... unlike the financial industry who got a couple hundred billion for...???? well- they're financial experts- so they'll know what to do with the money... right.

[MightyB]

Nothing is free! You liberals fail to understand that ANYTHING the government 'gives away free' is paid by ALL of us who pay taxes. Are you this stupid?


When I had good health insurance - I had to pay over $300 a month for that insurance - I still had copays and deductibles. I was young and healthy- and I guarantee you that I did not use $3600 worth of medical in a year. It kept going up, and up, and up---

Then I got bad insurance (new job) - which was basically catastrophic with an HSA. so - for the day to day stuff - I was self insured. My employer still paid several hundred a month for that crap.

Now I don't even have that...

Soooo - good insurance nowadays is around 6k to an employee at a place that offers it... I'd shudder to think what the employer pays.

Point is - the crap still costs money kind'a like a tax already - the debate is in who gets it - Insurance companies, or the Gov. The gov's a player now and a threat to the insurance industries monopoly. Prices will start to fall in line as long as the threat of socialism is there... that's why I like it.

[sanjuro_ronin]

They were under heavy scrutiny by the press, congress, and the general public to have a plan for the money, which they presented to congress. I don't know the details - but at least it was a plan... unlike the financial industry who got a couple hundred billion for...???? well- they're financial experts- so they'll know what to do with the money... right.

I can't go into too much detail and can only speak for what I saw up here, but all that was presented was cost cutting and streamlining, which was the obvious first step, the biggest issue that was not adressed was how they were going to increase Sales, fact is, the domestic automotive companies actually CUT the sales options, in a time of lower sales they eliminated sales options ( leases) and cut sales to rentals and fleet companies because they were "low profit" sales.
It seems NOT selling is better than low profit selling.
Yeah, if this was the best that these people could came up with then they don't deserve any of our money.

[1bad65]

Yeah - the banking industry severely fuked it up for the Auto industry who could've used the money and actually had a plan. Too bad a$$wipays like you decided that the auto industry wasn't important enough to help even when they had an accountable business plan and strategy for what they were going to do with the money... unlike the billions that we're freely given to the banking bandits who had no accountability by your buddy Bush.

Nice bit of revisionist history there.

Like Sanjuro asked, what plan are referring to? :confused:

[1bad65]

The money should've been used to create jobs by creating jobs. Small business loans and grants would've been a better strategy. Investing in startups would've been a strategy - given it to state governments, non-profits, and the other nonsensical waste organizations like it was, was a stupid idea.

You're starting to sound like a greedy Neo. ;)

We actually called for tax cuts in place of loans and grants. That's worked EVERYTIME it's tried, while government intervention rarely works.

[BoulderDawg]

nvesting in startups would've been a strategy

Don't agree....To throw government money at people looking to start a business who can't get funding elsewhere would be worst than Genral Motors. At least a 95% failure rate....worse than that in a bad economy. Also, the research needed to correctly determine the feasibility of the loan would take so long the wait would be years.

Also, at least with GM, there is a little slavage value when the company goes under.

[1bad65]

Point is - the crap still costs money kind'a like a tax already - the debate is in who gets it - Insurance companies, or the Gov. The gov's a player now and a threat to the insurance industries monopoly. Prices will start to fall in line as long as the threat of socialism is there... that's why I like it.

I can't think of ONE instance where the government competes with private industry and does a better job. Can you?

And you want them in charge of your health care? :eek:

[Drake]

I know free health care in Germany had some pretty severe consequences for their economy, and you'll never find a shortage of Germans complaining about how much they pay in taxes.

And with that being said... their hospitals are awful, and that is coming from people who have actually been to them, not news reports.

[BoulderDawg]

We actually called for tax cuts in place of loans and grants. That's worked EVERYTIME it's tried, while government intervention rarely works.

You've been told this so many times......I guess you just don't understand.

If your company is losing money how does it help to cut taxes. Let's see....50% of zero is still ZERO!:D

[1bad65]

... unlike the billions that we're freely given to the banking bandits who had no accountability by your buddy Bush.

And Comrade Obama freely giving Chrysler to the unions is a good idea?

And you know GM is next.

[1bad65]

I know free health care in Germany had some pretty severe consequences for their economy, and you'll never find a shortage of Germans complaining about how much they pay in taxes.

And with that being said... their hospitals are awful, and that is coming from people who have actually been to them, not news reports.

Some people are just ignorant.

Like I've typed before, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

[1bad65]

And with that being said... their hospitals are awful, and that is coming from people who have actually been to them, not news reports.

Whatever.

We all know people like Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Michael Moore, and Comrade Obama are alot more honest and knowledgable on healthcare than someone like you. ;)

[Drake]

I have issues with MM, but please do not insult my Commander in Chief, regardless of your opinions. You can more easily make a point in disagreement without insulting anyone.

[GLW]

“Dude, he signed it. Thus he lied. Period, end of sentence.”

What a totally black and white world you live in. Such a statement concerning a president you obviously do NOT like shows a lack of flexibility of thought….so allow me to use your same black and white world.

Clinton is off the table. No sense in beating a dead horse…

But… Bush said he was looking for Osama Bin Laden and it was number one priority. About a year later when asked, he said the Osama was not that important and he didn’t think about him. Well HE LIED.

America does not torture. HE LIED.

It is becoming quite plain that he knew the intel was cooked about Iraq and WMD’s. HE LIED

About Iraq and Al Qaeda – HE LIED

Etc…

If you want to be totally black and white, there is not a single person in the US government who is NOT a Liar.

It just depends on what they are lying about.

Obama made a statement about earmarks and the stimulus bill. It was a statement that he had absolutely no way of making true. He KNEW going in that he could say no earmarks all he wanted but that he had to sign or veto whatever bill came to him. He KNEW that if even one person in the House or Senate added an earmark, it would make that statement a lie…and it was out of his power to do anything to prevent it.

So, was it a lie with malicious intent or wishful thinking made a lie by the reality of the world?

But a lie is a lie…so EVERYONE in the world is a LIAR and worthy of derision.

As for the other news media, I do NOT give them a pass. I WATCH very little of them. When they get to the SPIN part – right or left – or to something I KNOW to be garbage journalism or misleading, lying, etc… The channel is changed.

I get my news from a number of internet news sources and several radio stations – including NPR and the BBC. I check out Faux News because they are the most vocal of the liars. THEY are the ones claiming to be Fair and Balanced and then get engaged in lawsuits where they pull out with a justification that they do NOT have to tell the truth.

Usually, when I listen to and read the sources I use, I have the unblemished story about a day before the mainstream junk media. You can actually get most of your news pretty quickly if you throw out all of the fluff – like Madonna’s failed adoption or Britney’s latest lunacy. If I want that mind numbing junk, I will tune into E!.

“And yet giving everyone 'free' access to primary care physicians, surgeons, and specialists won't clog them up?

I can't believe you libs don't see it's a recipe for disaster. “

Can you ever once post something without labeling and categorizing people. How about eschewing the us vs. them and then the THEY don’t get it and are totally misguided gunk?

So, with your mind set…all of those people right now who do not have access to health care are just waiting until it is covered. Then, they are going to rush the doctors frivolously.

Now, if there is a run on health care, if it is for a hang nail, ok…you got me. But, if people are seeing a doctor for a legitimate need…and it is someone who did not do so before…wonder what would have happened to them without the healthcare? Better to die and decrease the surplus population.

[1bad65]

What a totally black and white world you live in. Such a statement concerning a president you obviously do NOT like shows a lack of flexibility of thought….so allow me to use your same black and white world.

If you want to be totally black and white, there is not a single person in the US government who is NOT a Liar.

Obama made a statement about earmarks and the stimulus bill. It was a statement that he had absolutely no way of making true. He KNEW going in that he could say no earmarks all he wanted but that he had to sign or veto whatever bill came to him. He KNEW that if even one person in the House or Senate added an earmark, it would make that statement a lie…and it was out of his power to do anything to prevent it.

Then don't make that promise! It's not rocket science here. Or he could have promised to just cut the number and dollar total of earmarks. I don't promise my boss or wife things I can't possibly do, and then expect a pass by saying I tried or got close.

And I think Ron Paul is quite honest. He has NEVER voted for a single tax increase, which is something he promised when he ran.


I get my news from a number of internet news sources and several radio stations – including NPR and the BBC. I check out Faux News because they are the most vocal of the liars. THEY are the ones claiming to be Fair and Balanced and then get engaged in lawsuits where they pull out with a justification that they do NOT have to tell the truth.

Can you site this case you keep bringing up? As in, the party(s) who sued Fox, what court, when it was, etc.


Can you ever once post something without labeling and categorizing people. How about eschewing the us vs. them and then the THEY don’t get it and are totally misguided gunk?

So, with your mind set…all of those people right now who do not have access to health care are just waiting until it is covered. Then, they are going to rush the doctors frivolously.

I'm not categorizing people, I'm stating who wants it. Do you see conservatives calling for it? Libertarians? You see liberals calling for it. It is what it is.

I'm only saying there will be waiting lists. EVERY country that has socialized medicine has waiting lists. Some even refuse certain procedures once you hit a certain age! ie, they RATION it.

Of course our politicians who vote for it won't have to wait, nor will they be denied care for the same reasons us peons are. You know I'm right.

[1bad65]

I have issues with MM, but please do not insult my Commander in Chief, regardless of your opinions. You can more easily make a point in disagreement without insulting anyone.

That's a tough call.

I respect you, and your service. But it's not so much an insult, it's a case of 'if the shoe fits'. He himself did say he wants to "spread the wealth around", and that is socialism. And he has socialized Chrysler too. He literally took it from the rightful owners (the stock holders) and GAVE it to the workers. That's exactly what socialists call for and carry out.

Now I've stated my reasons. If you still want me to not refer to him as "Comrade Obama", I will not. Just tell me so. However, I will refer to his policies as socialist (when they are), and I will call him a socialist if the argument calls for labels (as in the case of arguing socialist theory/policies vs capitalist theory/policies).

And I do apologize for upsetting you.

[1bad65]

Who said this:

"'We can't keep on just borrowing from China. We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt."

Holders of U.S. debt will eventually “get tired” of buying it, causing interest rates on everything from auto loans to home mortgages to increase, ______ said. “It will have a dampening effect on our economy.”

Who knows the correct answer?

[BoulderDawg]

Holders of U.S. debt will eventually “get tired” of buying it, causing interest rates on everything from auto loans to home mortgages to increase, ______ said. “It will have a dampening effect on our economy.”


Dam.........Open a couple of text books for Econ 101 and Finance 101. Still, head and shoulders, the safest investment in the world......I guess people will just get tired of buying it.......:D

[BoulderDawg]

That's a tough call.
.......
Now I've stated my reasons. If you still want me to not refer to him as "Comrade Obama", I will not. Just tell me so. However, I will refer to his policies as socialist (when they are), and I will call him a socialist if the argument calls for labels (as in the case of arguing socialist theory/policies vs capitalist theory/policies).



Not for me it isn't. I expect neos like you to insult and imply things with various names. I say whatever. If it makes you feel good continue with Comrade Obama...or better yet go back to his middle name....I had no problem with that either!:D

[Drake]

That's a tough call.

I respect you, and your service. But it's not so much an insult, it's a case of 'if the shoe fits'. He himself did say he wants to "spread the wealth around", and that is socialism. And he has socialized Chrysler too. He literally took it from the rightful owners (the stock holders) and GAVE it to the workers. That's exactly what socialists call for and carry out.

Now I've stated my reasons. If you still want me to not refer to him as "Comrade Obama", I will not. Just tell me so. However, I will refer to his policies as socialist (when they are), and I will call him a socialist if the argument calls for labels (as in the case of arguing socialist theory/policies vs capitalist theory/policies).

And I do apologize for upsetting you.


I'd rather you didn't. It'd be like me calling Fmr. Pres. Bush "Waterboard Bush" or " Special Interests Bush". It's disrespectful and paints a general color on a complicated matter. I respect them both, regardless of how I feel about their policies. I actually disagree with them both on a number of issues, but I never felt they were decimating our nation. It's just not how I would've done things.

[Shaolin Wookie]

I think Obama could beat President Bush in a steel cage match. But he'd have to do it quick. With that smoking habit, I don't think he'd get out of the second round.

But then again....Bush took such a beating for four years, he might just have the infamous Iron Shirt technique secreted away somwhere in his back pocket (but it's probably his shirt-pocket...it wouldn't make any kind of sense to put your iron shirt in your pants pockets...but who has a back shirt pocket? Well, he's got so many secrets, I'm sure he needed a little more room. Oh....I get it. It's probably a fanny pack (sic back pocket). It makes sense. He pulled so many disasters and mishaps out of his ass, I'm sure he had to stuff some back in to maintain a sense of balance. I heard he has "Hapatitis" now.

Bush believed in waterboarding. We all know this. And we're okay with it. See, he sent our emergency response teams overseas and then allowed this chick at Guantanamo...I think her name was KAtrina.... to waterboard, like, an entire city.....an entire city, and nobody thought that was enough to accuse him of torturing people.

Vote Republican. All of your wildest dreams will come true. We'll stop abortion. We'll put a chicken in every pot. We'll kick everyone's ass who dares to ba an eye at us. In short: we'll uphold every political ideal created by that great political philosopher J.C. J.C. was into kicking Iraqi ass. Why aren't you guys? And J.C. didn't have a problem with waterboarding. He created it.

See, J.C. is God. And God created waterboarding. God couldn't create something he didn't believe in, could he?

I think I've made my point.

Represent, 1bad65. The fate of the world is riding on you.

[Drake]

Obama did bring change. Thread over. Lock it. LOCK IT.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Obama did bring change. Thread over. Lock it. LOCK IT.

Too bad. This is the conservative REVOLUTION. We've "changed" the locks.

Thread over, for realisies. Bar the porcullis. BAR THE PORTCULLIS.

[1bad65]

Dam.........Open a couple of text books for Econ 101 and Finance 101. Still, head and shoulders, the safest investment in the world......I guess people will just get tired of buying it.......:D

Actually moron, Obama said it.

Yes, the very guy who is borrowing more money than any other Presidient in history is condemning exactly what he preaches. And it was Obama, not some whackjob, who said inflation is due to happen if we don't stop borrowing. Yet he continues on a completley opposite path from what he preaches....

[1bad65]

"New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd has admitted to using a paragraph virtually word-for-word from a prominent liberal blogger without attribution.

The error appeared in Dowd's Sunday column, in which she criticized the Bush administration's use of interrogation methods in the run-up to the Iraq war.

In the original column, Dowd wrote: "More and more the timeline is raising the question of why, if the torture was to prevent terrorist attacks, it seemed to happen mainly during the period when the Bush crowd was looking for what was essentially political information to justify the invasion of Iraq."

Marshall last week wrote virtually the same sentence. But where Dowd's column used the phrase "the Bush crowd was," Marshall used "we were."

Dowd, who won a Pulitzer Prize for commentary in 1990, told The Huffington Post that the mistake was unintentional. She claims she never read Marshall's post last week and had heard the line from a friend who did not mention reading it in Marshall's blog."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520467,00.html

So you may say FoxNews is biased, and we can argue about it. But they NEVER have taken anything straight off a biased source and copied it word for word. How can you deny liberal bias, when she chose an admitted liberal to parrot?

You don't see Sean Hannity taking pieces of Rush Limbaugh's site and stealing it word for word and calling it honest, unbiased journalism.

[BoulderDawg]

Actually moron, Obama said it.

Yes, the very guy who is borrowing more money than any other Presidient in history is condemning exactly what he preaches. And it was Obama, not some whackjob, who said inflation is due to happen if we don't stop borrowing. Yet he continues on a completley opposite path from what he preaches....

I'm assuming you have the link to that entire speech.

[BoulderDawg]

How can you deny liberal bias, when she chose an admitted liberal to parrot?

I don't.

I just let you neos blather on about how life is so unfair.:D

[1bad65]

I'm assuming you have the link to that entire speech.

Here is a link to the story:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aJsSb4qtILhg&refer=home

He said it May 14th in Rio Rancho, NM at a town-hall meeting.

You're not actually hinting he didn't say it, are you?

[GLW]

Dowd always was and always will be a hack. I have never read much more than a paragraph of anything she has written. She is proof that sh!t floats...and that Pullitzers are maybe not all they are cracked up to be.

[GLW]

As for Fox - to argue that it is OK to bast@rdize news and claim to be "Fair and balanced" because there is "A liberal bias" in the media is BS ...and I would daresay that were you to think about it for a brief moment, you would admit it.

That is like saying "Well, those people are p!ssing in the stream...don't be upset because I am too..."

I have not yet stooped to quoting from a single source.... why do you?

[1bad65]

I have not yet stooped to quoting from a single source.... why do you?

The last source I quoted wasn't Fox. You need to pay closer attention. I quote cnn.com quite a bit as well.

And I'm still waiting for you to provide some info on this alleged court case you keep referencing. The one where you claim Fox News said it could lie as their defense to a lawsuit.

[1bad65]

Dowd always was and always will be a hack. I have never read much more than a paragraph of anything she has written. She is proof that sh!t floats...and that Pullitzers are maybe not all they are cracked up to be.

Once again I ask why you slam Fox News when they aren't the ones employing biased plagiarists like Dowd.

[BoulderDawg]

Here is a link to the story:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aJsSb4qtILhg&refer=home

He said it May 14th in Rio Rancho, NM at a town-hall meeting.

You're not actually hinting he didn't say it, are you?

I am. Your story is total BS.

Notice that "get tired" and “It will have a dampening effect on our economy.” are the only words in quotes...especially "get tired"....that's only two words......I have no idea what he actually said around these words but I highly, highly doubt he was saying investors are simply getting tired of buying bonds.

As I said, show me the entire speech or, if this was an answer to a question, show me the question and the entire answer......

Bad strikes out again.

[BoulderDawg]

Once again I ask why you slam Fox News when they aren't the ones employing biased plagiarists like Dowd.

Who cares........the actrocities are finally being uncovered. I could care less if Dowd copied the other article word for word and then put her name on it!:D

Just an attempt to discredit people who are openly talking about crimes the Bush admin would rather not see the light of day.

[1bad65]

Just an attempt to discredit people who are openly talking about crimes the Bush admin would rather not see the light of day.

Like Nancy Pelosi? :D

Dude, her story changes by the minute. :rolleyes: She may have went to far this time. See, it's a crime to lie to Congress. So in effect, she has accused the CIA of serious crimes. She is being told now to either put up or apologize. And removal from Congress is a possibilty for her (although remote).

[1bad65]

As I said, show me the entire speech or, if this was an answer to a question, show me the question and the entire answer......

Here ya go: ;)

http://www.koat.com/money/19463436/detail.html
And yes, this is the COMPLETE transcript as released by the White House Office of the Press Secretary.

In case you're too lazy to read it, here's the quote in question:

"But the long-term deficit and debt that we have accumulated is unsustainable. We can't keep on just borrowing from China, or borrowing from other countries -- (applause) -- because part of it is, we have to pay for -- we have to pay interest on that debt. And that means that we're mortgaging our children's future with more and more debt, but what's also true is that at some point they're just going to get tired of buying our debt. And when that happens, we will really have to raise interest rates to be able to borrow, and that will raise interest rates for everybody -- on your auto loan, on your mortgage, on -- so it will have a dampening effect on the economy."


Bad backs up his assertions with sources again.

Fixed that for ya. ;)


I am. Your story is total BS.

Ready to apologize now? Or will you continue to be classless when you're shown up?

[BoulderDawg]

Like Nancy Pelosi? :D

Dude, her story changes by the minute. :rolleyes: She may have went to far this time. See, it's a crime to lie to Congress. So in effect, she has accused the CIA of serious crimes. She is being told now to either put up or apologize. And removal from Congress is a possibilty for her (although remote).


I've been saying all along "Let's party"! Call for a special prosecutor right now and let's dig and dig and dig until we actually get to the bottom of all the crimes that were committed. I have absolutely no problem with that.

As I have said before I would love to see Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Gonzales and even Pelosi in ajoining jail cells!

Do you have any problem with that?

[BoulderDawg]

Obama is just showing his lack of experience in financial investments. Of course if the interest rates on the US bonds are too low to meet market demand then people will stop buying them and they will have to raise the rates.

The President can't hit on all cylinders all the time but he's got a far better track record than Bush.

[1bad65]

Do you have any problem with that?

You apparently have a problem with your memory, or reading comprehension, or both.

I've answered that question dozens of times for you. Look it up this time. I'm dead tired of having to type things out over and over and over for your stupid self.

[1bad65]

Obama is just showing his lack of experience in financial investments. Of course if the interest rates on the US bonds are too low to meet market demand then people will stop buying them and they will have to raise the rates.

The President can't hit on all cylinders all the time but he's got a far better track record than Bush.

Whatever! Dude, it's not been 6 months yet and he's failed on Chrysler, GM, and AIG. And he has set records on the national debt, yes he even went higher than Reagan did. ;) And last I checked, unemployment is still going up every month. And he has over 3 1/2 years of failure left. :eek:

He's actually showing that socialists have no idea how a capitalist system works. But people like me knew this would happen. It's idiots like you that are just now figuring it out.

[GLW]

There was a story about 2 Fox news reporters who had done a story on BGH and milk. It was pretty damaging to folks like Monsanto.


"Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to report Fox's actions to the FCC, they were both fired.(Project Censored #12 1997)"

"
Akre and Wilson sued the Fox station and on August 18, 2000, a Florida jury unanimously decided that Akre was wrongfully fired by Fox Television when she refused to broadcast (in the jury's words) “a false, distorted or slanted story” about the widespread use of BGH in dairy cows."

Fox appelaed and won with the following statement out of the trial :

"The Court held that Akre’s threat to report the station’s actions to the FCC did not deserve protection under Florida’s whistle blower statute, because Florida’s whistle blower law states that an employer must violate an adopted “law, rule, or regulation." In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a "law, rule, or regulation," it was simply a "policy." Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly."

So, they WON the right to report lies.

The original report on BGH DID have information from Monsanto - but Fox went from being excited about the story to making changes - sponsors can be so testy about honest reports.

This is ONE instance of such actions and Fox has a number of lawsuits...and a number of actions that are never contested. Know anyone who works for Fox - I do...she is not too thrilled with them but has been unable to find a job with another station.

[GLW]

Of course BAD wants the impact of any program to be immediate. Spend a dollar....and immediately someone goes back to work....

Sorry...but BEFORE even one dollar was approved, it was stated that putting money into the economy via stimulus would have a 12 to 18 month lag with unemployment.

Virtually every economist I have read since last October has stated this. Where have YOU been?

[BoulderDawg]

Of course BAD wants the impact of any program to be immediate. Spend a dollar....and immediately someone goes back to work....

Sorry...but BEFORE even one dollar was approved, it was stated that putting money into the economy via stimulus would have a 12 to 18 month lag with unemployment.

Virtually every economist I have read since last October has stated this. Where have YOU been?


It took FDR the better part of a decade to get the economy rolling again. These neo idiots have made as bigger mess of things as Hoover, Coolidge and Harden. It's not going to be a quick fix and the plan will be constantly changing....some things might works.....others may not so you have to abandon them and try something new.

The problem with the Bush Admin was that he refused to change policy on anything even if it was obvious that he screwed up.

Personally I just laugh at the instant results thing. It's like asking some 400 pound guy who's been on a diet for a week why he hasn't lost the weight yet!:p

[Xiao3 Meng4]

It took FDR the better part of a decade to get the economy rolling again.

I'm not saying that today's economy will or should react instantly to any kind of corrective stimulus, but I suspect that it will react more quickly than in FDR's time, if for no other reason than the speed of communications. FDR had snail mail, telegraphs, phones, and the radio, and his public addresses were only as informed as White House Staff, who had access to information via the above mentioned lines.
Today, global and mass communication is so accessible by both messengers and consumers, and allows for events to be communicated instantly, live or near live, across the world. Mass reactions to content are also instant, and not confined to simply a single or a few news broadcasts, Newspapers or radio addresses (or AIR TV) - these days, you can get life-influencing information and collaboration via instant text messaging. That's another thing: collaboration. It's much easier to collaborate today than it was in FDR's time. We can plan, develop and implement a global project in less than a year (in the private sector.) All that's needed is a steady flow of resources. Steady does not mean unlimited or top-limited; rather, I'm using it to refer to a lower limit of resources. If the government can figure out a way to provide this steady flow to companies that demonstrate high environmental, social/personal, and technological economic returns, and just let them run in the private sector, then I think things would fix themselves even more quickly.

And that's just talking about the advances in communication - the advances in production, distribution and innovation will also help to dampen and shorten the effects of the recession, imo.




Personally I just laugh at the instant results thing. It's like asking some 400 pound guy who's been on a diet for a week why he hasn't lost the weight yet!

Depends on what kind of diet he's on, I guess... a week of fasting should have a noticeable result, particularly if he exercises. :)

[1bad65]

So, they WON the right to report lies.

Not 100% true.

Like your link posted, it was "narrow interpretation" of the laws.

The press is still responsible in a civil capacity. They can't say someone is a convicted felon if they are not, for example. And a few years ago, a news source was sued by GM for the story on Chevy trucks blowing up when hit broadside. Turns out they rigged the trucks with blasting caps to achieve the explosions. I THINK it was ABC (20/20), but if I recall correctly they lost the lawsuit, or settled out of court and retracted the story.

Bottom line, that decision is not a blank check for any news outlet to lie and not face consequences.

[1bad65]

Of course BAD wants the impact of any program to be immediate. Spend a dollar....and immediately someone goes back to work....

Sorry...but BEFORE even one dollar was approved, it was stated that putting money into the economy via stimulus would have a 12 to 18 month lag with unemployment.

Virtually every economist I have read since last October has stated this. Where have YOU been?

Obama himself said the stimulus would have SOME immediate impact on job creation. Yet unemployment has went up every month since.

[1bad65]

It took FDR the better part of a decade to get the economy rolling again. These neo idiots have made as bigger mess of things as Hoover, Coolidge and Harden. It's not going to be a quick fix and the plan will be constantly changing....some things might works.....others may not so you have to abandon them and try something new.

Your ignorance knows no bounds.

First off, FDR NEVER got it rolling until WWII started. Second of all, Bush did not leave it near as bad as has been done in the past. Is unemployment over 10%? No, yet it was under Hoover. Are interest rates over 20%? No, but they were under Carter. Are inflation rates over 10%? No, but they were under Carter.

This 'worst economy ever' line is total bs. And it's bs only completely ignorant fools believe. I'll admit it's not very good, but it's been ALOT worse.


Personally I just laugh at the instant results thing. It's like asking some 400 pound guy who's been on a diet for a week why he hasn't lost the weight yet!:p

Not too bad of an example. Except you didn't put that the fat guy promised to lose the first 50lbs in a month. See, Obama did promise SOME immediate results.

[GLW]

Sorry, you are confusing the interpretation of the responsibility to fulfill their charter as being serving the common good (part of the FCC licensing creed) with age old libel law.

The reason they can's say someone is a felon if they are not is that the someone in question can sue them for libel and win.

This case boiled down to having a story that portrayed one of their sponsors in a bad light - the story has since been published on the web and it IS a good story and well documented. AND it does make Monsanto look bad.... So, they told their employees "Never mind about journalistic ethics...never mind we were behind you until we got a money call... change the story and add misleading stuff from Monsanto...." Now, the station can choose to run a story or not. They ran it AND changed it. The two reporters filed with the FCC. They were then fired and they filed suit under the whistleblower acts. Their claim that they were fired for lodging the complaint with the FCC was never really addressed. What was addressed was :

The jury agreed with the reporters.

Faux then appealed - appellate judge - and the "narrow" decision was handed out. The ruling that reversed the jury finding had been rejected by 3 other judges on 6 separate occasions. (hmm...sounds like judge shopping). I have not been able to find out much about the judges of the Florida court of appeals that heard it...

Faux News had offered pretty large money settlement for the reporters to drop the suit. Why - if there was nothing there.... The manager who fired the reporters got a huge promotion...

[GLW]

Well...

"unemployment has went up..."

try "unemployment has gone up" or risen...but "has went" is painful to read.

However, you have two problems here:

If the money that went out created 10 jobs but there were 20 jobs in the queue to be lost...you still end up with a net loss of 10 jobs. So, any idea how many jobs may have been created by the stimulus? And if they were NOT created, would those people be in the group of those just losing their jobs, those still employed, or those who were already unemployed?

Second is a state problem. Many states that claimed to have projects "shovel ready" have failed to start the projects. THAT is a state problem and only a Federal one if the Feds sue the states to do their job. (that is the bad thing about state's rights)

[BoulderDawg]

Second of all, Bush did not leave it near as bad as has been done in the past. Is unemployment over 10%? No, yet it was under Hoover. Are interest rates over 20%? No, but they were under Carter. Are inflation rates over 10%? No, but they were under Carter.

This 'worst economy ever' line is total bs. And it's bs only completely ignorant fools believe. I'll admit it's not very good, but it's been ALOT worse.

Me thinks your ignorance is showing.

Do you think that when this country has had a financial crisis after the great depression that we just said, "Oh well, hope it's not as bad" and did not do anything?....Of course not. After the great depression and after every financial crisis that we have had since the 30s the smartest financial minds in the country got together and devised safeguards to put into the system to prevent what happened from happening in the future.

Of course the stats are not as bad as they were back then. The safeguards have prevented that. That doesn't mean that the situation isn't just as F'd up. In fact many scholars finds multitudes of comparisons betweeen the 20s and the 00s when it comes to a conservative hands off no regulation philosophy.

[1bad65]

Faux then appealed - appellate judge - and the "narrow" decision was handed out. The ruling that reversed the jury finding had been rejected by 3 other judges on 6 separate occasions. (hmm...sounds like judge shopping). I have not been able to find out much about the judges of the Florida court of appeals that heard it...

Faux News had offered pretty large money settlement for the reporters to drop the suit. Why - if there was nothing there.... The manager who fired the reporters got a huge promotion...

I notice the plaintiffs either did not appeal the appelate court, or the higher court refused to hear the case.

And you're right they did sue under the whistleblower act. It was not a case about honesty in the media.

But please get off Fox and realize they are not as bad as the others. Did they rig trucks to explode to defame a private company? Did they accept documents faxed from Kinko's as legit? Did they have a major columnist busted for plagiarism?

[1bad65]

If the money that went out created 10 jobs but there were 20 jobs in the queue to be lost...you still end up with a net loss of 10 jobs. So, any idea how many jobs may have been created by the stimulus? And if they were NOT created, would those people be in the group of those just losing their jobs, those still employed, or those who were already unemployed?

Second is a state problem. Many states that claimed to have projects "shovel ready" have failed to start the projects. THAT is a state problem and only a Federal one if the Feds sue the states to do their job. (that is the bad thing about state's rights)

Oh no, you didn't fall for that bs did you? :rolleyes:

Obama is crafty. He put in that 'create or save' jobs as an out. So now if we lose say 5 million jobs over his term, he can always say 'Well it would have been 7 million. We did save some jobs. We fixed it.' You're smarter than that.

As for the states; yes, some projects were shelved. At least temporarily. The reason is not that the states are having "problems", it's because of the strings the Federal Government attached to the money. By taking it, they are literally giving up some of their rights. BTW, that is unconstitutional, but don't let that stop Obama.

It sure didn't stop him from trashing the 5th Amendment with the Chrysler deal.

[1bad65]

This will really help the automakers out: :rolleyes:

Obama is raising the CAFE standards. Again. The last time it was raised was in 2007. And look what great years the automakers have had since 2007. :eek:

Is he really trying to help business? Let's get real here. Seriously, how many of you think you actually help a company recover and prosper by shackling it with even more regulations on what they can make?

I'm actually starting to fear he is intentionally trying to hurt businesses so he can use the panic that massive layoffs will create to scoop up and nationalize more private industry. It's a scary thought. And I'm no conspiracy theorist.

I mean, how else can you explain it? :confused:

[BoulderDawg]

As for the states; yes, some projects were shelved. At least temporarily. The reason is not that the states are having "problems", it's because of the strings the Federal Government attached to the money. By taking it, they are literally giving up some of their rights. BTW, that is unconstitutional, but don't let that stop Obama.

It sure didn't stop him from trashing the 5th Amendment with the Chrysler deal.

I love the way that Bad has turned into a constitutional scholar!:D

By the way: Chrysler is a entity....it has no Constitutional rights.

[GLW]

I will "get off Fox news" when you quit referencing them as the major player in your posts. YOU make them a target.

Faux News has been the WORST as far as spin and misrepresentation. With folks like O'LieLy, Hannit, etc... come now.

As for the appeals, the plaintiff IS considering an appeal. They are working on the paying for it aspect the last I read. To that end, Faux News has filed suit on them to get them to pay for Faux News legal fees.

Now, does Faux News actually expect that they will ever see one thin dime from the two reporters? Not likely. So why would they do that? Well, reason 1, you prevent them form being able to fund an appeal. reason 2, you PUNISH them by making sure that they have a multi-million dollar debt hanging over them for doing what they viewed as the right thing...and obviously it took Faux News a bit of time and finagling to find a court that agreed with them. reason 3, terror to any other employee that would dare to blow a whistle (Strange how this one plays out in that several other broadcast groups have joined Faux News as "Friends of the court" for just that reason).

Of course, Faux is NOT going to report on the appeal of the other stuff.

You still seem to think that shoddy journalism around is an Excuse for Faux - the ones who claim to be oh so Fair and Balanced, to lie.

Sorry, it is NOT acceptable for any of them to lie. However, some of the items you cite are NOT exactly as you claim them...but I am NOT going to do your leg work to show you that. You have shown a total unwillingness to look for other sources. You COULD start with one source and read or listen to their story...then say "What do other sources say?" and I mean OTHER than the rnak and file mainstream media...they are NOT the be all end all of news. The BBC is a better source - as long as you are not looking for news on Parliament.

At least put a little effort into being more than one dimensional.

[BoulderDawg]

Obama is raising the CAFE standards. Again. The last time it was raised was in 2007. And look what great years the automakers have had since 2007. :eek:

I hope so. If the automakers are going to have a Cafe then I hope the government makes them keep it clean!

I'm hungry. I'm going to the cafe for some breakfast!:p

[GLW]

Gotta love it...here we are in 2009 and Bad is still quoting State's Rights...the root cause of the Civil War.....want to bring bck that flag too.

The strings - well the constitutionality of something is not for Obama to decide or the state for that matter. THAT is a Supreme Court issue. NOT ONE of those states has taken the matter that direction...but the few sure do like to crow about the strings.

If they truly feel there is a Constitutional issue here, they CAN get a fast track to the Supreme Court and get it decided. Then the money can either be there with or without the strings. Not ONE of them has done this....because it is much better political fodder to say no and do nothing but make noise. Politic as usual.

[BoulderDawg]

FOX news.........no power, no importance....nothing.....Although they think they have a hand in controlling what happens in Washington.

This is the reason I like MSNBC. They have a few liberal shows (Olbermann, Rachel, Ed) but they make no claims to having any power to dictate to the politicians.....They also don't make any rediculous claims about being "Fair and balanced".:D

By the way, one thing I've noticed is that for the extreme, extreme crazies (Coulter, Savage) they simply won't give them a show.......I'm wondering if that will change now that the Neo GOP movement is on it's way out.

[1bad65]

You have shown a total unwillingness to look for other sources.


http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/24/why-would-clinton-not-tell-the-truth-about-her-1996-bosnia-trip/


http://www.texaswideopenforbusiness.com/news/Texas-is-Home-to-Top-5-Housing-Markets-for-2009.html

Original source:
http://www.builderonline.com/local-markets/the-healthiest-housing-markets-for-2009.aspx


http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:h-zT4sXDbpYJ:www.minneapolisfed.org/mea/contest/2003papers/jha.pdf+california+%22capital+crime%22+charged+per jury+%22causing+execution%22&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us


Source on casino tax info:
http://robison.casinocitytimes.com/articles/427.html


http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1120&full=1 (Tables 8 & 9)


Source:
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq10-1.htm

You have shown a total inability to read.

[1bad65]

I claimed:


And a few years ago, a news source was sued by GM for the story on Chevy trucks blowing up when hit broadside. Turns out they rigged the trucks with blasting caps to achieve the explosions. I THINK it was ABC (20/20), but if I recall correctly they lost the lawsuit, or settled out of court and retracted the story.

You replied:


However, some of the items you cite are NOT exactly as you claim them...but I am NOT going to do your leg work to show you that.

You won't do the "legwork" because you know I'll be shown 100% correct.

"Dateline's report on Nov. 17 featured 14 min. of balanced debate, capped by 57 seconds of crash footage that explosively showed how the gas tanks of certain old GM trucks could catch fire in a sideways collision.

Following a tip, GM hired detectives, searched 22 junkyards for 18 hours, and found evidence to debunk almost every aspect of the crash sequence. Last week, in a devastating press conference, GM showed that the conflagration was rigged, its causes misattributed, its severity overstated and other facts distorted. Two crucial errors: NBC said the truck's gas tank had ruptured, yet an X ray showed it hadn't; NBC consultants set off explosive miniature rockets beneath the truck split seconds before the crash -- yet no one told the viewers."

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/LIE/nbc.html

And I was right about GM filing a lawsuit against the news outlet:

"The network also settled the defamation lawsuit GM had filed against it over the report, the Los Angeles Times reported Feb. 10, 1993."

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2008/mediamyth/nineworst/NineWorstStoriesFull7.asp

Do I need to keep going? ;)

Are you denying CBS News used a fax from Kinko's as legit proof? ;)

[1bad65]

Gotta love it...here we are in 2009 and Bad is still quoting State's Rights...the root cause of the Civil War.....want to bring bck that flag too.

The 5th Amendment:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Now, look at the Chrysler deal and explain how what Obama did is Constitutional.


The strings - well the constitutionality of something is not for Obama to decide or the state for that matter. THAT is a Supreme Court issue. NOT ONE of those states has taken the matter that direction...but the few sure do like to crow about the strings.

Actually it is his duty. He took an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States", not ignore it.

And it is the States decision. Once again, I have the Constitution on my side.

The 10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

[GLW]

I won't do the legwork because I get PAID for such things...

Your mian sources are typically Faux news - and have been over and over. YES, you do on occasion select other sources. However, you typically do not follow those sources p to see what their slant may happen to be. You also tend to never follow up and read other sides of the story.

So, the challenge to you to do your own legwork is in part because I am challenging you to open your eyes and try at least once to view things differently. That does NOT mean you change your opinion...but it does mean open up to other sources and views. Sorry, but I doubt you have it in you. (and before you say it, if I had NOT opened up to those other sources, I would not have come to the conclusion that Faux news is about the worst... ABC, CBS, and NBC are not much better... They all do such a bad job of reporting it is hard to think that Walter Cronkite used to do that for them. To get a full 360 view of things you have to read a number of sources....and they are not only the right...open up and read the left with a mind that is not closed.

This old us/vs./them mentality is just that OLD.

Now, I COULD rip on your writing style, you comprehension, and your tone. All of these items are easy. I am ripping on your approach to where and how you get your news and form your opinion. It is extremely limited and tunnel visioned.

[BoulderDawg]

The 5th Amendment:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Now, look at the Chrysler deal and explain how what Obama did is Constitutional.


I have no idea how you feel the Chysler deal violated the Constitution or the 5th amendment.

However I can settle this issue real fast:

Notice in the 5th: "No person shall" and "nor shall any person".........Last time I checked Chrysler had not become a "person"......unless they got some sort of funky incarnation of Dr. Frankenstein to make the change!:eek:

[1bad65]

GLW,

I'm just upset you repeatedly say I was only using Fox. I've used US Census data, official Navy documents, and even real estate sources to name a few.

Most of the Fox links I use are just to discuss a story they posted. I typically do not use them solely to back up my arguments. I admit I have a few times though.

[1bad65]

I have no idea how you feel the Chysler deal violated the Constitution or the 5th amendment.

There's a shocker. :rolleyes:


However I can settle this issue real fast:

Notice in the 5th: "No person shall" and "nor shall any person".........Last time I checked Chrysler had not become a "person"......unless they got some sort of funky incarnation of Dr. Frankenstein to make the change!:eek:

Where does the word 'person' appear in this part? "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

And they are private property in that they WERE owned by private people, ie investors.

[1bad65]

"Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons has been denied a meeting with President Obama when he is in town next week to attend a fundraiser for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at the Colosseum at Caesars Palace.

Gibbons, a Republican, had demanded a sit-down meeting following Obama's controversial statement that companies shouldn't book trips to Las Vegas if they have received federal bailouts and claims statements he made that were critical to Nevada and have caused economic damage to convention business and tourism business in the Silver State.

In a statement Gibbons put out Monday, the governor said Obama's quote that "you can't get corporate jets. You can't go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayer's dime" was seen by many as an insult to Las Vegas and as a message to companies across the nation to stay away from Las Vegas for corporate meetings and conventions.

The Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority reports over 400 conventions and business meetings scheduled to take place in Las Vegas recently have cancelled, translating into 111,800 guests and 250,000 "room-nights," according to a statement from Gibbons. The cancelled events cost the Las Vegas economy over $100 million, not including gaming revenue, the governor said.

"I am disappointed at the hypocrisy shown by this administration," Gibbons said. "President Obama is coming to Las Vegas later this month for a political fundraiser, but he will not help the struggling families in Las Vegas and Nevada who are out of work because of his reckless comments.

"President Obama is coming to Las Vegas to raise campaign cash for Senator Harry Reid, apparently our money is good enough for the president, but our tourism, jobs and economic future are not. This is politics, pure and simple, President Obama stood for change, but all he has done is brought negative economic change to Nevada."

Gibbons is calling upon Reid to use any influence he might have to ask Obama to encourage Americans to visit America during their summer vacations this year.

"Sometimes Washington politicians forget that the people of Nevada are Americans," Gibbons said. "This president needs to repair the damage he has done.""

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/05/19/nevada-governer-slams-obamas-refusal-meet/?test=latestnews

[Yao Sing]

Gotta love it...here we are in 2009 and Bad is still quoting State's Rights...the root cause of the Civil War.....want to bring bck that flag too.


It just kills me when people act like there's an expiration date on the Constitution. You thinks State's rights are no longer an issue?

It's just starting to heat up. Too long States have caved to the Fed and now we have a massive Fed Gov that's gone well beyond it's stated authority. This is just the beginning, you'll be hearing a whole lot more in the future.

Are you aware of the challenge to Fed gun control laws in Montana and others?

[Yao Sing]

I believe the legal definition of "persons" does include corporations. Get your facts straight, you'd be surprised.

[BoulderDawg]

I believe the legal definition of "persons" does include corporations. Get your facts straight, you'd be surprised.

I'd be surprised...Hardly.:D

Do you have case law to back up your statement? What are your facts? Especially as it is applied to the fifth amendment?

[1bad65]

I believe the legal definition of "persons" does include corporations. Get your facts straight, you'd be surprised.

I'd be surprised if he got his facts straight. ;)

[1bad65]

I believe the legal definition of "persons" does include corporations. Get your facts straight, you'd be surprised.

I guess according to BD, the Government can just freely take any possessions of a corporation. I mean, he says they aren't people, so the Constitution doesn't grant them any rights.

[1bad65]

I believe the legal definition of "persons" does include corporations. Get your facts straight, you'd be surprised.

He is fixing to get a surprise. :D

The laws of the US hold that a legal entity (like a corporation or non-profit organization) shall be treated under the law as a person except when otherwise noted. This rule of construction is specified in 1 U.S.C. §1, which states:

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise— the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;"

This federal statute has many consequences. For example, a corporation is allowed to own property and enter into contracts. It can also be sued, and held liable under both civil and criminal law. Among the most frequently discussed and controversial consequences of corporate personhood in the United States is the extension of a limited subset of the same constitutional rights.

Corporations as legal entities have always been able to perform commercial activities, similar to a person acting as a sole proprietor, such as entering into a contract or owning property. Therefore corporations have always had a 'legal personality' for the purposes of conducting business while shielding individual stockholders from personal liability (i.e., protecting personal assets which were not invested in the corporation).

Source:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/1.html

[BoulderDawg]

It's all very simple:

Show me a case where a legal entity other than a person was granted protection under the fifth amendment.

Also, I ask how the Obama admin has violated the Constitution.......no answer...how surprising!

[BoulderDawg]

He is fixing to get a surprise. :D

The laws of the US hold that a legal entity (like a corporation or non-profit organization) shall be treated under the law as a person except when otherwise noted. This rule of construction is specified in 1 U.S.C. §1, which states:

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise— the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;"

This federal statute has many consequences. For example, a corporation is allowed to own property and enter into contracts. It can also be sued, and held liable under both civil and criminal law. Among the most frequently discussed and controversial consequences of corporate personhood in the United States is the extension of a limited subset of the same constitutional rights.

Corporations as legal entities have always been able to perform commercial activities, similar to a person acting as a sole proprietor, such as entering into a contract or owning property. Therefore corporations have always had a 'legal personality' for the purposes of conducting business while shielding individual stockholders from personal liability (i.e., protecting personal assets which were not invested in the corporation).

Source:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/1.html


There is a difference between a "legal" person and a "Constitutional" person.....Notice the above post I left. Show me a case where a corp was provided protection under the fifth.

Bad goes down in flames again!:p

[BoulderDawg]

In any case, forget all the legalese...you never answered the question:

What exactly did Obama do to violate the Constitutiion????????

[Yao Sing]

He violated the Constitution when he accepted the nomination, and Presidency, of the USA. But you don't want to hear that so just call me names then disappear and hope nobody remembers that you didn't answer with anything resembling facts.

[BoulderDawg]

He violated the Constitution when he accepted the nomination, and Presidency, of the USA. But you don't want to hear that so just call me names then disappear and hope nobody remembers that you didn't answer with anything resembling facts.

So this is what we are talking about? That has nothing to do with Chrysler or any other corporation.........

[1bad65]

Also, I ask how the Obama admin has violated the Constitution.......no answer...how surprising!

I've done it twice. You're so stupid you missed the other two. I'm not surprised. I'll do it ONE more time, then if you ask again, you're back on ignore.

The 5th Amendment states, in part:
"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

What Obama did was force primary lenders, debt holders to cave on their contracts. And he did so without giving them commensurate value.

[1bad65]

There is a difference between a "legal" person and a "Constitutional" person.....Notice the above post I left. Show me a case where a corp was provided protection under the fifth.

Bad goes down in flames again!:p

You do some **** legwork. FOR ONCE. This gets old.

It's same thing over and over. I post something. You say it's incorrect. I provide sources to back my assertions while asking you to source your allegations. You then completely ignore the sources I already provided and again ask for sources, all while still providing no sources yourself. I provide a second (or third, etc) source, and you get quiet. Then this repeats itself over and over and over again. Only the topic changes. You're ridiculous.

Provide one source. Just once.

Here again is what Cornell Law School has to say about corporations as it pertains to US law. If you disagree, show some sources or STFU.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Corporations

[Drake]

You do some **** legwork. FOR ONCE. This gets old.

It's same thing over and over. I post something. You say it's incorrect. I provide sources to back my assertions while asking you to source your allegations. You then completely ignore the sources I already provided and again ask for sources, all while still providing no sources yourself. I provide a second (or third, etc) source, and you get quiet. Then this repeats itself over and over and over again. Only the topic changes. You're ridiculous.

Provide one source. Just once.

Here again is what Cornell Law School has to say about corporations as it pertains to US law. If you disagree, show some sources or STFU.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Corporations

He's just trying to get a rise out of people. He has no credibility and nothing to back up his claims. He jumps in, makes an assertion, and expects everyone else to look things up for him. Why you haven't put him on ignore yet is beyond me.

[Yao Sing]

So this is what we are talking about? That has nothing to do with Chrysler or any other corporation.........

You asked to name one unConstitutional thing Obama has done. You didn't say it had to pertain to Chrysler or any corporation.

But hey, at least you got out of answering the charges again.

Edit: Here's some reading (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98546) on the subject. Feel free to refute any of it, with facts of course.

[BoulderDawg]

As I have said,

Show me a case where a corp was provided protection under the fifth.


It as simple as that.

In any case you neos are now saying that anything Obama does is unconstitutional.....:D

And as far as whatever the hell you are talking about with caving into contracts.......To start with, what was taken for public use?

[1bad65]

He's just trying to get a rise out of people. He has no credibility and nothing to back up his claims. He jumps in, makes an assertion, and expects everyone else to look things up for him. Why you haven't put him on ignore yet is beyond me.

You're likely right.

I did notice he claims that 'corporations' are not afforded Constitutional rights, yet in the past he's stated he believes suspected terrorists who are not US citizens should have those Constitutional rights.

I have put him on ignore. I've drawn the conclusion that it's a waste of time and it's the same drill over and over. No one can say I didn't try. ;)

[1bad65]

Feel free to refute any of it, with facts of course.

Don't hold your breath.

[BoulderDawg]

You're likely right.

I did notice he claims that 'corporations' are not afforded Constitutional rights, yet in the past he's stated he believes suspected terrorists who are not US citizens should have those Constitutional rights.

I have put him on ignore. I've drawn the conclusion that it's a waste of time and it's the same drill over and over. No one can say I didn't try. ;)

It's the same old story. Whenever you get beaten badly you just pick up your ball and go home!:p

[1bad65]

Looks like Californians might have finally had enough.

"Californians overwhelmingly panned a handful of ballot measures Tuesday designed to pull the state from the edge of what lawmakers have called "financial armageddon."

Schwarzenegger had warned that, without budget relief from voters, he would have to take severe steps.

The steps include shortening the school year by a week and a half, cutting tens of thousands of education jobs, eliminating health insurance for nearly 250,000 needy children, laying off 1,700 state firefighters, and withholding $2 billion from local governments, which could trigger cuts in law enforcement and other services."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/20/california.proposition.vote/index.html

But still, it looks like instead of cutting only entitlements they are cutting necessities like fire and police services.

What's scary is that Obama is trying to mold the entire country into California. :eek: Strict environmental laws, high taxes, entitlements, 'free' heathcare, etc. Absolutely amazing he takes the state with the biggest fiscal mess and decides to emulate it.

Rush pointed out an interesting tidbit on this: The last time Californians were fed up was in the late 1970's. And who was elected President in 1980 in a landslide? :D

[BoulderDawg]

Rush pointed out an interesting tidbit on this: The last time Californians were fed up was in the late 1970's. And who was elected President in 1980 in a landslide? :D

Yes a neo conservative wave is sweeping the country.......all the polls says so!:D

Also, just exactly what does "overwhelmingly panned" entail?

[KC Elbows]

Hm. I thought those receiving bailouts and their stipulations were doing so voluntarily, in lieu of potentially crashing and burning from their own incompetence. In which case, accepting stipulations that allow the government to abscond with "property" has nothing to do with constitutional issues when those owning the property voluntarily give up their right to it.

And 1bad, that synopsis of corporations does not adequately define whether or not corporations have constitutional rights, and one major point seriously undermines an argument that they do: they clearly cannot be allowed any sort of vote, nor does a right to bear arms apply to them, etc.

Yao Sing,

As to the World Net daily's claim that Obama is not elligible to be president, they are the ones making the claim and not proving it, this does not require any member here to cite a single source to refute. Find a more credible source and maybe there's a worthwhile discussion, otherwise, it's just tin foil hat stuff.

[Yao Sing]

Yao Sing,

As to the World Net daily's claim that Obama is not elligible to be president, they are the ones making the claim and not proving it, this does not require any member here to cite a single source to refute. Find a more credible source and maybe there's a worthwhile discussion, otherwise, it's just tin foil hat stuff.

WND is just reporting what's going on, they aren't making the claim but they do seem to agree and support it.

Since the MSM is downplaying it like good little bought and paid for soldiers most of the info found on the Net will be from alternative news sources.

Also, you're asking to prove a negative as in "prove he isn't a natural born citizen". The proof is in the lack of evidence proving he is a NBC.

Can I go to get a drivers license and tell them if they can't prove I don't meet the requirements they have to give it to me? I don't think so.

There are other sources, that one just had the most and was consolidated on one page. I'll get some other sources for you but in the meantime maybe you can answer why he won't release his birth certificate or his school transcripts. He's definitely hiding something or he wouldn't hire teams of lawyers to keep this stuff hidden.

So do you think someone nominated for President should prove eligibility before proceeding to campaign, or at least before being sworn in to office? Why have minimum requirements of you aren't going to enforce them?

[KC Elbows]

WND is just reporting what's going on, they aren't making the claim but they do seem to agree and support it.

Since the MSM is downplaying it like good little bought and paid for soldiers most of the info found on the Net will be from alternative news sources.

Until credible news sources pick it up, it's worthless. Since even Fox is not completely willing to approach it as real news, and since Fox has zero tendency to not report a negative on Obama, it seems more likely that it's hocum. Since the DNC and the GOP and the Bush Admin had heard all this hocum during the election, and none was willing to back it, I'm suggesting that anyone with easy access to info also is not willing to stake their reputation on this "story".


Also, you're asking to prove a negative as in "prove he isn't a natural born citizen".

No, I never did this. I suggested that citing sources is only worthwhile when the sources are credible. Since no credible sources are bothering with the story, I'm suggesting posting a link does not mean you have proven anything.

Additionally, the "journalists" doing these "articles" do have a responsibility to try to prove their assertions, and they have, thus far, failed.


The proof is in the lack of evidence proving he is a NBC.

The proof is more likely in the fact that only the tin foil crowd is giving them much heed.


Can I go to get a drivers license and tell them if they can't prove I don't meet the requirements they have to give it to me? I don't think so.

There are other sources, that one just had the most and was consolidated on one page. I'll get some other sources for you but in the meantime maybe you can answer why he won't release his birth certificate or his school transcripts. He's definitely hiding something or he wouldn't hire teams of lawyers to keep this stuff hidden.

So do you think someone nominated for President should prove eligibility before proceeding to campaign, or at least before being sworn in to office? Why have minimum requirements of you aren't going to enforce them?

Given that both parties, two presidential election campaigns, Fox news, MSNBC, and CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and every credible news agency worldwide, have yet to prove there even is a question as to his citizenship, either this is the greatest conspiracy ever held, with Fox in cahoots, or it's hocum.

Are you suggesting that Fox news is protecting Obama? Can you provide a link supporting that?

[KC Elbows]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/oct/30/nation/chi-birth-certificate-30-oct30

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/06/federal-judge-obama-citiz_n_172616.html

Just more links, I don't consider any of them that important because THE ISSUE THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT HAS NEVER BEEN SHOWN TO BE REAL, MUCH LESS NEWS.

The part where Obama, during the election, shared his birth certificate, might be relevant.

Additionally, if random wingnuts wanted to sue me to get my personal info, and I had deep pockets, I'd let them waste their time, and their families time. Again, Fox hasn't pursued this as a viable story, why should anyone else?

[Yao Sing]

Dang, I was logged in and posted a big long reply then when I was done it asked for my login again and the post was gone.

http://www.examiner.com/x-5697-Grassroots-Politics-Examiner~y2009m5d20-National-billboard-campaign-launched-challenging-Obamas-eligibility-for-office

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-12-08-obama-eligibility_N.htm

http://usjf.net/archives/182

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081013064550AA7cVgs

http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/11/16/alan-keyes-files-lawsuit-over-obama-eligibility/

I'm not going to type that all in again. I just want to know why you are so opposed to transparant government. Should eligibility be established before electing POTUS?

Is an electronic copy sufficient proof for anything?

[Yao Sing]

"In June, the Obama campaign released an electronic copy of the certificate bearing the seal of the State of Hawaii Department of Health and showing that Barack Hussein Obama II was born to mother Stanley Ann Dunham in Honolulu at 7:24 p.m. on Aug. 4, 1961." - chicagotribune.com

This is NOT sufficient evidence to get a drivers license, sign up for school, vote, pretty much anything. Why do you think it's good enough to become POTUS?

Are you aware that experts have pretty much proven that image to be a poor forgery?

"If the question regarding Obama’s birth certificate is not a legitimate one, then why was the document produced not the genuine article? Why did it not have the name of the hospital, or the name of the attending physician, on it? Why was it the short form, or a forged likeness of one, for which foreign born children of Hawaiian residents can be obtained for based on a statement of one relative only?"

http://www.americandailyreview.com/home-features-articles-blog/2009/5/6/obama-birth-certificate-forgery.html

Why is this an issue? Why allow rumors to run wild? Why is there not a validation process for all to see so there aren't any problems? Why not err on the side of caution?

Obama said he would bring transparent government yet he hides his past. This isn't like me asking to see your birth certificate, this man is required to prove his eligibility and it affects all of us.

This is a real issue and needs to be put to rest, the sooner the better.

[1bad65]

Hm. I thought those receiving bailouts and their stipulations were doing so voluntarily, in lieu of potentially crashing and burning from their own incompetence. In which case, accepting stipulations that allow the government to abscond with "property" has nothing to do with constitutional issues when those owning the property voluntarily give up their right to it.

The problem with your theory is that those protected by the Constitution cannot voluntarily give up their Constitutional rights.


And 1bad, that synopsis of corporations does not adequately define whether or not corporations have constitutional rights, and one major point seriously undermines an argument that they do: they clearly cannot be allowed any sort of vote, nor does a right to bear arms apply to them, etc.

The courts have said that while corporations do not enjoy the rights guaranteed a 'person' under the Constitution (voting, bearing arms, etc), they do indeed have the protections granted a 'person' by the Constitution.

[1bad65]

I'm not saying Obama is or isn't a natural born citizen. There seems to be evidence pointing both ways at this point.

But I will say in answering KC, that you cannot say something is not true simply because "credible news sources" do not pick it up. Remember, Drudge broke the Lewinsky story, which turned out to be 100% true, while the "credible news sources" had passed on reporting it. Same as the John Edwards mistress story. It was broken by the National Enquirer, and also initially passed over by "credible news sources".

And we all agree that Drudge and the National Enquirer are not "mainstream news", right?

[BoulderDawg]

The courts have said that while corporations do not enjoy the rights guaranteed a 'person' under the Constitution (voting, bearing arms, etc), they do indeed have the protections granted a 'person' by the Constitution.

Fine. Just cite the case where a corporation was given protection under the fifth amendment.

It's as simple as that.

[BoulderDawg]

Limby is feeling the heat. After months of being expose by people such as Olbermann and Maddow on MSNBC he has finally started to plead with the network to let up on him and "don't talk" about me.

I like what Keith Olbermann said about that......"F you":D

Also, the gall of the man.....to get on his radio show for three hours a day and personally insult dozens of people then to demand they quit talking about him......I agree with Olbermann.

Anyway, of course, MSNBC is going to talk about the leader of the Republican Party.

[BoulderDawg]

The proof is more likely in the fact that only the tin foil crowd is giving them much heed.

That's the reason I won't even entertain that stuff.

"Tin Foil" I just call them what they are...The crazies.

[1bad65]

1886: Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - Corporations get personhood under the 14th Amendment

1890: Sherman Anti-Trust Act - Sections 7&8 define corporations as persons

1893: Noble v. Union River Logging - 5th Amendment (due process) - first Bill of Rights

1906: Hale v. Henkle - Corporations get 4th Amendment "search and seizure" protection

1925: Gitlow v. New York - rules constitutional protections for corporations include 14th Amendment, press, speech, and 5th Amendment

1976: US v. Martin Linen Supply - corporation uses 5th Amendment to protect against double jeopardy to avoid retrial in anti-trust case

http://www.nancho.net/corperson/corptime.html

Now, maybe some ignorant fools will stfu. If they had done their own homework, they wouldn't have embarrassed themselves by repeatedly demanding proof that is quite easy to find.

[1bad65]

In 1936 Grosjeav v. American Press affirmed that corporations also were also protected under the 1st Amendment.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/297/233/case.html

[1bad65]

"While the economy will begin growing again by the end of 2009, the unemployment rate will continue to expand into next year, the Congressional Budget Office reported Thursday.

The CBO projects Americans will continues to lose jobs through mid-2010, with the umemployment rate peaking at 10.5 percent next year, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf said in testimony before the House Budget Committee.

The CBO's March assessment initially predicted unemployment would peak at 9.5 percent.

The current unemployment rate is 8.9 percent. The Labor Department on Thursday reported 631,000 new jobless claims last week.

The Federal Reserve said Wednesday that the unemployment rate could rise to 9.6 percent this year and remain elevated until 2011. Some private economists told The Associated Press they expect the rate to reach 10 percent by the end of this year."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/21/congressional-budgeters-predict-percent-unemployment-rate-year/?test=latestnews

[BoulderDawg]

1886: Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - Corporations get personhood under the 14th Amendment

1890: Sherman Anti-Trust Act - Sections 7&8 define corporations as persons

1893: Noble v. Union River Logging - 5th Amendment (due process) - first Bill of Rights

1906: Hale v. Henkle - Corporations get 4th Amendment "search and seizure" protection

1925: Gitlow v. New York - rules constitutional protections for corporations include 14th Amendment, press, speech, and 5th Amendment

1976: US v. Martin Linen Supply - corporation uses 5th Amendment to protect against double jeopardy to avoid retrial in anti-trust case

http://www.nancho.net/corperson/corptime.html

Now, maybe some ignorant fools will stfu. If they had done their own homework, they wouldn't have embarrassed themselves by repeatedly demanding proof that is quite easy to find.

Half of those cases(including Gitlow) had nothing to do with the fifth. The other cases involved protection in case of being charged with corporate crimes involving antitrust violations or illegal seizure of private property. In any case the main focus here was whether or not these corp were being afforded due process as ascribed by law as opposed to wheter of not they were classified as a "person". That's the point being made in these cases.

When I asked what Obama did to violate the fifth amendment you got all defensive and gave some general vague answer. I still don't know what was supposely taken without due process. I think, unless you want to reinvent this again, that we can rule out double jeopardy against the Obama Admin.

In any case if any corporation/person wants to file suit and argue the fifth then they are free to do so. However as far as I know nobody has.

[BoulderDawg]

I've done it twice. You're so stupid you missed the other two. I'm not surprised. I'll do it ONE more time, then if you ask again, you're back on ignore.

The 5th Amendment states, in part:
"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

What Obama did was force primary lenders, debt holders to cave on their contracts. And he did so without giving them commensurate value.


I doubt you know anything other than this general statement you pulled off of a neo blog somewhere. Exactly what did Obama do that cause these companies to "Cave on their contracts"? Any company that makes a loan or any individual that buys a bond is taking a risk. There was no seizure for public use......unless maybe the government is going to used the useless paper in government building bathrooms!