Sun 05 Sep 2010 09:45:48
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | PAW |
Message | I agree with PAW. |
Sat 04 Sep 2010 08:43:57
Sat 04 Sep 2010 02:41:31
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | 2006 decision |
| Message | I think a couple of the summaries I read said that the right grab and hold these guys was pretty much endorsed. And also the concept of trying them in a properly constituded venue. The fault they found was the way the commissions making judgement were set up. Also the summaries mentioned that the court had specifically referenced international law as being germaine. That would be the Geneva conventions I through IV, which mandate strong oversight and even command responcibility, for humane treatment. Which brings us to the treatment of special knowledge prisoners. Since to whatever degree you exceed the norm for everyone else, you specifically have to have a really, really good reason. And in our nation of law, you better be able to back it up. That epoch leaves a lot to be desired on that account. Unfortunatly, all those e-mails vaporized or something, when in contravention of watergate laws, the white house used some republican political front to evade scrutiny of them. However I don't blame Bush. I feel more that it was part and parcel of those times and inevitable. |
Sat 04 Sep 2010 06:22:03
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | This Supreme Court decision of 2006 has sidetracked us from our true war crimes topic. Sure, it rules Bush's TRIAL by military tribunal as improper, but it remains mute as to our right to confine the detainees and their treatment during it. |
Sat 04 Sep 2010 06:12:44
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | "In each case, such persons shall .....etc.....also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be." "Once you have them they're not much danger any more are they?" No, but the "security of the State" may require getting information from them concerning their fellow confederates still at large. |
Sat 04 Sep 2010 03:40:05
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | 4th Geneva convention |
| Message | from your post, "Why do you keep rehashing this when I showed you the passages from the 4th Convention that supercede it." Consider from 'about.com us military’ and practically every other summary I could find of the 4th, “The Fourth Geneva Convention was signed in 1949. This convention reaffirmed the requirements of the first three conventions and provided protections for civilians during wartime.” You'll notice that the 4th convention "reaffirmed" the previous 3 and did not "supercede" them.. Re your post, "Article 5: Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict,..etc....such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights....etc.... be prejudicial to the security of such State." which goes on to say, "In each case, such persons shall .....etc.....also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be." Once you have them they're not much danger any more are they? and you also posted, "Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it." The International Committee of the Red Cross states in their web site that the US accepted the provisions of the first four conventions on Aug. 2, 1955. |
Sat 04 Sep 2010 02:59:55
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | WRT |
| Message | “Since the first part of the second sentence seems to be a summation and is outside the quotes, I can only assume it came from you.” You’re right, I quoted the very words of the BBC quote in the previous sentence in an effort to focus clarity on the relevant parts. |
Sat 04 Sep 2010 02:54:44
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | WRT |
| Message | You posted, "You don't recall insinuating "W" was guilty of any crime? You keep saying his policies were violations of law." Actually I was referring to the BBC not insinuating in their article about "W" committing a crime. and re your post, "How can someone order someone else to do something illegal and not be a criminal themselves?" How about when he has his guys create a tribunal to deal with our prisoners and somehow it doesn't pass muster with the court? Is that a criminal act? No reasonable person would, but you certainly seem worried. And further the BBc summary I posted stated that the court ruled, "that President Bush did not have authority to set up the war crimes tribunals and that the commissions were illegal under both military justice law and the Geneva Convention." You notice the quote says "Bush did not have authority" and that it's the "commissions" that were illegal. |
Sat 04 Sep 2010 12:09:25
Fri 03 Sep 2010 11:15:31
Fri 03 Sep 2010 11:03:25
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | |
| Message | BW frequently throws the "liar" card at conservatives without evidence. I'm not about to spare him the title when he's caught red handed. Live by the sword... |
Fri 03 Sep 2010 11:01:53
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | "Hi WRT, please help me recall when this was. I must need more blueberrys in my diet as I can't recall. You don't have to look far back, only to your post of Sept. 2 10:45. You said... "The US Supreme Court ruled that... Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions applies to detainees in Guantanamo Bay and that the Military Tribunals used to try these suspects were in violation of US and international law." So the US Supreme Court has ruled that "Military Tribunals used to try these suspects were in violation of US and international law." Since the first part of the second sentence seems to be a summation and is outside the quotes, I can only assume it came from you. By the way, to my knowledge, the Supreme Court ONLY decide the Constitutionality of US laws or policy, they NEVER determine whether or not they adhere to the Geneva Convention or any other international law. More bozo journalism from whatever your source is. You don't recall insinuating "W" was guilty of any crime? You keep saying his policies were violations of law. How can someone order someone else to do something illegal and not be a criminal themselves? |
Fri 03 Sep 2010 10:46:09
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | "From the Third Geneva Convention, "Article 3's protections exist even if one is not classified as a prisoner of war." So wither a person is a POW or not, they are protected. Further, there must be no circumstance any time where torture in any form is legal. This is the US, not some banana republic." Why do you keep rehashing this when I showed you the passages from the 4th Convention that supercede it. And why do you keep talking about torture when there was none? |
Fri 03 Sep 2010 04:35:16
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | unemployment |
| Message | The Economist is suggesting that unempoyment will stay high in the US for quite a while. The reason being that the recent housing bubble created a situation where job skills as a whole became warped to an economy based on never ending real estate appreciation. Now that the situation is different, we have a work force whose skills do not match the real world. Part of their evidence is that there are over 250,000 unfilled manufacturing jobs in the US. Employers can't find qualified workers. |
Fri 03 Sep 2010 04:25:11
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Geneva Convention |
| Message | From the Third Geneva Convention, "Article 3's protections exist even if one is not classified as a prisoner of war." So wither a person is a POW or not, they are protected. Further, there must be no circumstance any time where torture in any form is legal. This is the US, not some banana republic. |
Fri 03 Sep 2010 04:06:33
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | over 50 years of BW |
| Message | : I've known BW for over 50 years. What you see is what you get with him and I don't think he would ever knowingly waste his or our time with phonyness or lying. Life is too short for that. As long as I'm being philosophical here, I would like to add that when people rally care about something, there will always be disagreements. How could it be any other way? And thank God for making us all different. |
Fri 03 Sep 2010 03:48:53
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | "bozo journalism" |
| Message | : WRT posted, "bozo journalism meant to imply that Bush's actions WERE criminal." Actually I quoted the BBC summary of the court's decision. I don't recall any insinuation that "W" was guilty of any crime, just that he hadn't established a tribunal that fit US and international law. The court decision itself is a document of over 100 pages of legal jargon. |
Fri 03 Sep 2010 03:30:09
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | ? |
| Message | Hi WRT, please help me recall when this was. I must need more blueberrys in my diet as I can't recall. "You yourself made the same assertion in an earlier post on a Supreme Court decision." |
Fri 03 Sep 2010 02:49:37
| Name : | To WRT |
| Email : | From PAW |
| Message | Nope, WRT, Bob might be mistaken and I think he often is but he's NOT a liar. |
Fri 03 Sep 2010 11:29:49
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | BW |
| Message | Last night and two nights ago I heard liberal talk show host John Rothmann say that candidates backed by Sarah Palin have been successful 70% of the time in their primary bids. Obviously, in this matter, you are a liar. |
Fri 03 Sep 2010 10:45:22
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | I would like to add these two comments on the June, 2006 Supreme Court decision from the Washington Post... "As a result, no military commission can try Salim Ahmed Hamdan, the former aide to Osama bin Laden whose case was before the justices, or anyone else, unless the president does one of two things he has resisted doing for more than four years: operate the commissions by the rules of regular military courts-martial, or ask Congress for specific permission to proceed differently." and... "Perhaps the only silver lining for the administration was that the decision did not affect the government's authority to keep terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere, a point Bush emphasized in his reaction. 'We take the findings seriously," he said. "The American people need to know that this ruling, as I understand it, won't cause killers to be put out on the street.'" |
Fri 03 Sep 2010 10:36:39
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | The Supreme Court decides whether things are illegal or not. The way I understand it, acts brought before the Court are only illegal if continued AFTER a decision strikes them down. I don't know where your recent quote came from...but I consider it bozo journalism meant to imply that Bush's actions WERE criminal. You yourself made the same assertion in an earlier post on a Supreme Court decision. When a federal court of appeals backs you, it is further evidence that you were not acting criminally before the high court's decision. |
Fri 03 Sep 2010 03:23:16
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Help give this guy a light! |
Message | There's a set of photos going around on the net showing a terrorist trying to set fire to a US flag, who sets himself on fire instead. |
Fri 03 Sep 2010 03:01:46
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | BW |
| Message | To be honest I haven't really followed some of those characters like McMahon, Fox, etc. If they're anything like Palin and Angle, they've made enough gaffs to float a battleship. My favorite this year is the governor of Texas saying that Texas had the right by treaty to succeed from the Union. Classic. |
Fri 03 Sep 2010 02:43:55
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | platform fire |
| Message | Thankfully, it was only a fire on that oil platform. People's reactions show how worried they are. |
Thu 02 Sep 2010 10:49:03
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | |
| Message | Any one know who Cara Carleton Sneed is? |
Thu 02 Sep 2010 10:37:15
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | I think "Your "heroes, Eisenhower, Reagan, Buckley, and Goldwater would turnover in their graves with the thought this was who the republicans were looking to lead the nation. Linda McMahon, Sharon Angle, Michele Bachman, Carly Fiorna, Jan Brewster, Sarah Palin, Virginia Fox, Nikki Haley were what the republican party had turned to for leadership. Between the group I doubt you could get 160 IQ total. |
Thu 02 Sep 2010 05:46:41
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | competent tribunal/WRT |
| Message | I also feel this is a good question and here's what I have found so far. In the case of Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld, "On June 29, 2006, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals and found that President Bush did not have authority to set up the war crimes tribunals and that the commissions were illegal under both military justice law and the Geneva Convention." |
Thu 02 Sep 2010 02:19:45
Thu 02 Sep 2010 01:01:51
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | "So the US Supreme Court has ruled that "Military Tribunals used to try these suspects were in violation of US and international law." When did the Court make this ruling? All I can find is that they decided the detainees could challenge their captivity in court. |
Thu 02 Sep 2010 10:45:07
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | war crimes/WRT |
| Message | YOU write, "What defines a "competent tribunal"? I would certainly consider the US military and government to be." I believe you are referring to, from the third convention Article 5, part one, which discusses who is a prisoner of war. "status has been determined by a competent tribunal." It's an interesting question you bring up. What is a competent body? Apparantly that is open to some question and various levels of various governments may qualify. Also it would seem that ultimately the final arbiter would be the War Crimes guys in the Hague. And further, "The US Supreme Court ruled that... Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions applies to detainees in Guantanamo Bay and that the Military Tribunals used to try these suspects were in violation of US and international law." So the US Supreme Court has ruled that "Military Tribunals used to try these suspects were in violation of US and international law." And, once again, from the third convention, "Article 3's protections exist even if one is not classified as a prisoner of war." So the point of who is a prisoner of war becomes a moot point. Finally any reasonable person has to agree with your closing statement, "Terrorists only want to horribly murder, even women and children." To which I would add, 'and as such, are the scum of the earth.' |
Thu 02 Sep 2010 07:54:00
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | It seems all of your excerpts are from the THIRD Geneva Convention. There was a fourth one. Allow ME to quote from it... "Article 4: Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it." "Article 5: Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State." As I said before, these terrorist defy classification. They are even worse than international pirates. Pirates, at least, may not kill you as they are most interested in plunder. Terrorists only want to horribly murder, even women and children. |
Thu 02 Sep 2010 07:43:04
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | What defines a "competent tribunal"? I would certainly consider the US military and government to be. |
Wed 01 Sep 2010 03:39:07
| Name : | PAW |
| Email : | |
| Message | Whatever! I'm exhausted by all of this beating of a dead horse. I think I'll take a little vacation. |
Wed 01 Sep 2010 01:41:33
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | Jo |
| Message | Peek a boo. Where are you. |
Wed 01 Sep 2010 02:39:21
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | PAW |
| Message | Re: proof, At the time, the pictures were on Arab TV big time. Bad guy propaganda spin doctors had a field day. Public opinion polls there showed very strong negative and angry reactions. To deny that this did not drive more to the radical side defies common sense. Re: who this applies to, The Art. 5 section I excerpted, makes clear that prisoners are to treated as POW's when there is doubt as to whether they belong to any of the categories in Art. 4. And then Art. 3 says, "Article 3's protections exist even if one is not classified as a prisoner of war." |
Tue 31 Aug 2010 09:10:19
| Name : | To DF |
| Email : | From PAW |
| Message | You said: "........after the torture fiasco there were more radical and freshly fired up Muslims." There is absolutely NO proof of this. I do believe though that the things that those prisoners were subjected to was out of line. If I'm not mistaken the perpetrators were punished. I have always been under the impression that the Geneva Convention appied only to declared wars and combatants in uniform. |
Tue 31 Aug 2010 08:06:53
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | OLC/The Geneva Convention |
| Message | For openers here is an extract from Article 3, "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." and, "Article 5 specifies that prisoners of war (as defined in article 4) are protected from the time of their capture until their final repatriation. It also specifies that when there is any doubt whether a combatant belongs to the categories in article 4, they should be treated as such until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal." From these it is obvious we are dealing with war crimes. How does this square with what you already Know? |
Tue 31 Aug 2010 07:29:23
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | Barb/Jo |
| Message | Note the name of the board. Like that marine DI on the TV ( Emery) says this board is not for "mamby pamby" responders. Jo isn't mamby pamby. She is an a^^ kic^^r. She needs to be here. |
Tue 31 Aug 2010 07:07:01
| Name : | Obi-Juan-Canolli |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | QUOTE: "To try to fair, let's both sort of research it and compare." So, let me get this straight... you are not sure what it means.. you will have to do some research. Is that right? I don't have to do any research.. I know what I think. But get back to me when you feel you are in a better position to support your statement. |
Tue 31 Aug 2010 07:07:00
| Name : | Obi-Juan-Canolli |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | QUOTE: "To try to fair, let's both sort of research it and compare." So, let me get this straight... you are not sure what it means.. you will have to do some research. Is that right? I don't have to do any research.. I know what I think. But get back to me when you feel you are in a better position to support your statement. |
Tue 31 Aug 2010 04:36:20
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | news notes |
| Message | 3 more congressmen were referred for investigation today by their ethics office. Does anybody even know how many of these guys are getting caught? ................. Some people in Arizona are having government problems for flying the famous Gadsden Flag. A former and a still legitimate flag of the USA, I think. They were cited for having debris on their roof! A Marine Corp flag was also banned in another case. |
Tue 31 Aug 2010 03:59:57
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Dfn. of w. c./Obi Juan-Canolli |
| Message | I think that's a good suggestion. To try to fair, let's both sort of research it and compare. |
Tue 31 Aug 2010 03:53:12
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | terrorist volunteers/P@W |
| Message | Counting those guys has to be darn near impossible. You may have noticed that they're hiding from us. We can't even keep track of our border with Mexico. In addition, what ever success we're having in the endeavor must be best kept secret. So as to not school the bad guys. Further There's a lot of truth to saying that radical Muslims all hate us, etc. It's also true that after the torture fiasco there were more radical and freshly fired up Muslims. The freshly fired up factor being a force muliplier. |
Tue 31 Aug 2010 03:48:02
| Name : | Obi-Juan-Canolli |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | Can you define what is a "war crime" is before I rebut. I think I can rebut.. but it would be easier for me, if you clarified for the dufus's like me. |
Tue 31 Aug 2010 03:29:56
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Clearly war crimes?P@W |
| Message | Some of that stuff at Abu Ghraib was clearly war crimes. The righties here have since kept saying I accused Bush which I didn't. Repeated posts with the relevent quote's seem to have had no affect. They just want it to be true so much. |
Tue 31 Aug 2010 03:07:33
| Name : | Barb |
| Email : | Jo |
Message | Thank you Jo for your posting. I have felt that way for a long time. I had hoped it would be an informational board to keep us up to date on what is happening in D.C. Will see you on the Jo's Food Board. |
Tue 31 Aug 2010 02:49:11
| Name : | ToDF |
| Email : | From Politicians at work |
| Message | Boy, you sure changed your tune in that last post. Let me quote you from 29 Aug at 4:46:27: "CLEARLY WAR CRIMES." Additionally from the same post: "How many thousands of extra bad guy recruits did that cause." To borrow from Bob, there is not one iota of proof that a single Muslim became a terrorist as a result of Abu or any other act of this government. Radical Muslims all hate us and they always will. |
Tue 31 Aug 2010 02:21:14
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | WRT |
| Message | I have not one idea in the world why they were called off o who even gave the order to back down. And I would not even throw a comment about the reason. yah Tora bora |
Tue 31 Aug 2010 02:12:52
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | BW |
| Message | Or were they called off because the Saudi royal family gave GW a billion oil dollars to let bin Laden escape? |
Tue 31 Aug 2010 01:19:52
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | BW |
| Message | "I think just after 9/11 the military had bin Laden virtually surrounded in Tora Tora, but were called off and he managed to escape." I think this is pretty accurate, except that it's Tora Bora and the "why" they were called off. To you it's because George Bush wanted show his daddy he's tough and to help make his oil buddies richer by invading Iraq a year and a half later. But to the rational world and Wikipedia it was because... "Facing defeat and reluctant to fight fellow Muslims, al-Qaeda forces negotiated a truce with a local militia commander to give them time to surrender their weapons. In retrospect, however, many believe that the truce was a ruse to allow important al-Qaeda figures, including Osama bin Laden, to escape." |
Tue 31 Aug 2010 02:24:54
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | "There you go again" |
| Message | As Ronald Reagan once famously said, "There you go again." "YOU HAVE FOUND BUSH GUILTY WITHOUT ANY FACTS OTHER THAN WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD OR READ AND WITHOUT ANY CHARGES BEING FILED AGAINST HIM EVEN BY PEOPLE THAT ARE HIS ENEMIES" Please...I never said that I think Bush himself is to blame. The reason being that I, unlike apparently BW, personnally have real doubts as to his actual guilt. I think the most likely scenario is that some clique within his upper echelon created this fiasco. That may point more to Cheney and/or Rumsfeld, but who knows. Then there must have been a righteous cover-up, further clouding things. How many million e-mails disappeared in contravention of post watergate laws? As an aside, the whole 'right' side in this debate has claimed I am "condemning", pronouncing "guilty" and "convicting" Bush. You'll note that this is the first time I even use the words guilt, etc., with Bush's name, except to quote the righties....Duh. |
Mon 30 Aug 2010 10:22:43
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | Jo |
| Message | Where you going. Without you, PAW and WRT I ain't got no life. |
Mon 30 Aug 2010 09:51:06
| Name : | Jo |
| Email : | DF |
Message | "So now we have to be careful not to piss the enemy off?" "You do get the idea of pegging our enemies in a intelligent way don't you? The bushies took the childish route, like rush, all emotion and no brains. It created an epic and historic disaster for us.And you celebrate it? Then you conflate not committing war crimes with that mosque and city digression stuff." what the hell are you talking about? You sure take people's words and twist the crap out of them dont you? Over and out...I wont be back on this board...I give up trying to talk sense to you people... |
Mon 30 Aug 2010 08:55:34
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | PAW |
| Message | It might be me you should be referring to and not DF. And I say let the TRIAL began so the FACTS not FOX NEWS BS is presented to the American public and the world. I have said forever. Two of the three are dead now, that bush should be in the same cell as Milosevic and Saddam for war crimes. |
Mon 30 Aug 2010 08:18:38
| Name : | To DF |
| Email : | From PAW |
| Message | Let me say it again but in caps this time: YOU HAVE FOUND BUSH GUILTY WITHOUT ANY FACTS OTHER THAN WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD OR READ AND WITHOUT ANY CHARGES BEING FILED AGAINST HIM EVEN BY PEOPLE THAT ARE HIS ENEMIES. Is that SIMPLE enough for you? People like you are truly dangerous. |
Mon 30 Aug 2010 08:14:59
| Name : | To DF |
| Email : | From Politicians at work |
| Message | Let me say it again in caps thgis time: |
Mon 30 Aug 2010 06:53:27
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | WRT |
| Message | I know your don't doubt my sincerity even if you believe I may be wrong, but I think just after 9/11 the military had bin Laden virtually surrounded in Tora Tora, but were called off and he managed to escape. Pretty sure this happened though. I am such a bad person. I actually take some glee with the flooding in Pakistan. The bastards are getting what they deserve. I just hope it is Taliban country. |
Mon 30 Aug 2010 05:11:38
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | danger on the right/PAW |
| Message | The real danger is that semi-literate clods, like those dominating the right currently, get in power. The end of separtion of church and state, mindless counter productive wars, destruction of social security, rampant monopolies, the end of consumer protections, unchecked faked hit piece videos, more war against science for crass political gain, hypocrisy on steroids, rampant disrespect for law and constitution whenever their emotions get the best of them, which is a lot, and lots of other really dumb and childish ideas. Lord help us if the sold out repubs get back in before the adults take them back over. Then we'll have even more of big corporations actually being our government, just like the Nazis. I suppose among other things, you didn't noticed that about the Nazis, when you were supposed to in school? |
Mon 30 Aug 2010 04:55:07
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | PAW the gullible |
| Message | Now PAW, charitably, you didn't read my post. You said, "DF has condemned Bush without any trial or even charges brought against him." Once again I point out that what I said was that you have to be gullible to not face the facts. "you have to be really gullible not to face it." Is that SIMPLE enough for you?? |
Mon 30 Aug 2010 02:21:39
Mon 30 Aug 2010 02:02:40
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | BW |
| Message | I thought we went after bin Laden in Afghanistan almost immediately after 9/11. Even before 2002. He just proved too elusive in that rough terrain. |
Mon 30 Aug 2010 01:01:08
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | WRT |
| Message | A follow up on your not having access. Saddam said he had no WMD. Since 2003 not one piece of evidence has been proved that he had WMD. And believe me after our successful war we looked under every grain of sand in that country for WMD. NOTHING!!!! |
Mon 30 Aug 2010 12:57:57
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | WRT |
| Message | I am not defending Saddam on iota. I think he got what he deserved, but it was obvious that bush was going to go after Saddam regardless. When 9/11 occurred did bush and rummy devise a plan for going after bin Laden in Afghan. No they immediately devised a plan for an attack on IRAQ. Remember all the neo cons brought in by bush were left over from Daddy's war in 1991. Ya want to blame some one ( and I am not) for the war in 2003 blame daddy because he DID NOT finish the job in Gulf 1.So rummy and dickie and their friends decided they would do the job now. Great Job huh! |
Mon 30 Aug 2010 12:45:10
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | BW |
| Message | Bush gave Saddam a second chance by bringing back the inspectors from Nov. '02 to March '03. But they were not given unfettered access to all the areas they wished as called for by UN Resolution 1441. |
Mon 30 Aug 2010 12:27:33
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | BW |
| Message | That's some funny stuff! Too bad for bin Laden the Democrats weren't in charge...then he would have only had to wait a year and a half! |
Mon 30 Aug 2010 12:26:13
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | WRT |
| Message | Note the date at the bottom of this report and it is from CBS if you want to look it up. 2 days before March 19. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Monday ordered all U.N. inspectors and support staff, humanitarian workers and U.N. observers along the Iraq-Kuwait border to evacuate Iraq after U.S. threats to launch war. U.N. spokesman Hiro Ueki said 56 inspectors as well as support staff were on board Tuesday. Reporters at the airport saw about 80 people boarding buses for the plane, and officials earlier estimated the total number of U.N. evacuees at about 150. After failing to secure U.N. authorization to use force to disarm Iraq, President Bush gave Saddam 48 hours to step down or face war in a speech Monday night. Iraq rejected the Bush ultimatum, saying that a U.S. attack to force Saddam from power would be "a grave mistake. Saddam warned that American forces will find an Iraqi fighter ready to die for his country "behind every rock, tree and wall." But Saddam made a last-minute bid to avert war, admitting that Iraq had once possessed weapons of mass destruction to defend itself from Iran and Israel - but insisting that it no longer has them. "We are not weapons collectors," the official Iraqi News Agency quoted him as saying. "When Saddam Hussein says he has no weapons of mass destruction, he means what he says." Some of the inspectors were wearing their blue U.N. caps and waved to reporters as they left the terminal Tuesday. "It's unfortunate we have to leave now," Ueki said at the airport. "I think all the inspectors and support staff have done our best." U.N. weapons inspectors arrived in Baghdad for the first time in four years on Nov. 27, 2002 and resumed inspections two days later. During four months of inspections, arms experts traveled the length of the country hunting for banned weapons of mass destruction. President Bush's speech Monday set the countdown clock for war. "The tyrant will soon be gone," said Mr. Bush, either by Saddam's own choice to leave, or by force. Saddam and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours, said Mr. Bush. <snip> More: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/17/iraq/main5442... |
Mon 30 Aug 2010 12:18:23
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | WRT |
| Message | DARWIN AWARD of the DECADE Osama bin Laden He had 20 people fly airplanes into the Twin Towers to destroy the American economic system when all he had to do was wait for 6-7 years and george bush did it for him for free. |
Mon 30 Aug 2010 10:36:31
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | BW |
| Message | The peace treaty Saddam signed in '91 stated clearly that we would re-invade if he ever threw out the UN weapons inspectors. |
Mon 30 Aug 2010 10:17:54
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | WRT |
| Message | The head of the UN team said there was no proof Saddam had WMD. and bush proved it but it has cost this country a lot. |
Mon 30 Aug 2010 10:15:11
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | PAW |
| Message | Had dumbie sent troops to where bin Laden was in the first place may the outcome would have been different. After all we were only after bin Laden and knew where he was ( Afghanistan). AND when Obama or the next president pulls our forces from there he will be declared a LOSER by the right that don't got to wark that just makes war occur. Back in the day 9# years ago) our fearless leader said listen to the generals they know how to fight this war and NOW you want to blame Obama for listening to the Most Popular general since IKE. A couple of things have caused us to be in the economic straits we are in.1. The war that never should have been, 2. people buying houses they could never afford 3. the greed of the Wall Street robber barons. AND BOTH political parties are equally to blame for where we are. It is not a democrat blame or republican blame alone it is the result of Congressmen on both sides of the aisle being owned by big business, whether it be big oil, big banks or big health care providers. |
Mon 30 Aug 2010 10:03:16
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | BW |
| Message | "That dumb SOB BUSH took this country to war for NO F&&G reason other than to show daddy he was a tough texan too." "I would REALLY like to see bush and his two cronies on trial for war crimes so we can find out why we went to war with Iraq in the first place." The peace treaty Saddam signed in '91 stated clearly that we would re-invade if he ever threw out the UN weapons inspectors. |
Mon 30 Aug 2010 03:25:13
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Pols @ W |
| Message | You have just exagerated my post into a different reality. What I said is that "you have to be really gullible not to face it." Further, can you get a clue that war criminals getting caught is to stop war crimes and not to serve your petty political goals? |
Mon 30 Aug 2010 03:02:34
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Jo |
| Message | "So now we have to be careful not to piss the enemy off?" You do get the idea of pegging our enemies in a intelligent way don't you? The bushies took the childish route, like rush, all emotion and no brains. It created an epic and historic disaster for us. And you celebrate it? Then you conflate not committing war crimes with that mosque and city digression stuff. |
Mon 30 Aug 2010 02:48:14
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | WRT |
| Message | "Since there's bad eggs in every unit" Let's see, how can it be more obvious that the orders came from the top. They even had their quisling, disgraced AG issue them a ruling. But no. Blame some poor grunt. How so a tool of the upper class. It's a republican trademark. "behave and stand still." Try that some time. In that guy's situation. That is just plain flat out bizarre spin. |
Sun 29 Aug 2010 11:53:59
| Name : | To BW |
| Email : | From PAW |
| Message | Let's see here Bob, you said to Jo tonight: "there has not been one iota of even skinty evidence to show that torture saved the hair of one trooper in Iraq or Afghanistan." Do you really think that if water boarding did reveal evidence that assisted our troops we would announce it to the public thereby nullifying any future advantages? I guess you do. You'd make a helluva CIA Agent Bob. Now, borrowing from you , may I say that there is not one iota of even skinty evidence that water boarding has resulted in the conversion of one (1) moderate Muslim into a terrorist. |
Sun 29 Aug 2010 11:23:18
Sun 29 Aug 2010 10:57:55
| Name : | To BW |
| Email : | From PAW |
| Message | I tend to agree with your post re: the Afghan and Iraqis. There is no hope for them. Why then is Obama practically kissing their asses in trying to show them that we are good people and they should love us? The only thing they understand is strength and power. |
Sun 29 Aug 2010 10:51:49
| Name : | To BW |
| Email : | From PAW |
| Message | Allow me to parody your last post. You make me want to CUSS. That dumb SOB Obama is socializing this country for no F&&G reason other than to redistribute income.All he has proved (should be proven) is that you and the rest, acting like lemmings,follow him into socialism and are as stupid as he is. |
Sun 29 Aug 2010 10:46:16
Sun 29 Aug 2010 10:40:48
| Name : | To DF |
| Email : | From Politicians at work |
| Message | Heck DF, at least Bob recognizes that there should be a trial. You, without any evidence other than what you have read or heard from the media have convicted Bush and his so-called cronies. So much for Bob saying that you and he believe in the rule of law. Bob might but you certainly don't. You convict without any trial. I wonder, if Obama, Pelosi, Reid and many other democrats who have everything to gain by Bush being convicted (demonizing the republican party and therefore helping them and other democrats get elected) have not pushed for legal action might there not be any case? All those democrats who have not even raised their voices against bush re:war crimes and yet you, DF, with NO/NONE independant evidence have him convicted. |
Sun 29 Aug 2010 10:30:00
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | Jo |
| Message | There has not been one iota of even skinty evidence to show that torture saved the hair of one trooper in Iraq or Afghanistan. All it has done is give enormous propaganda material to our enemies. |
Sun 29 Aug 2010 10:27:12
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | PAW |
| Message | You make me want to CUSS. That dumb SOB BUSH took this country to war for NO F&&G reason other than to show daddy he was a tough texan too. All he proved is that you and the rest, acting like lemmings, followed him into a war and are as STUPID as he is. |
Sun 29 Aug 2010 08:49:34
Sun 29 Aug 2010 07:06:15
| Name : | PAW |
| Email : | |
| Message | If Obama had ordered the invasion of Iraq and water boarding in Guantanamo 90% of the dems would be singing his praises and most reps would be condemning him. |
Sun 29 Aug 2010 06:01:35
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | Are you back home yet. How was the Beck rally? |
Sun 29 Aug 2010 06:00:24
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | WRT |
| Message | Besides WMD and that Saddam supported Al Queda which has now been proven he didn't. I admit Saddam got what he deserved for what he did to the people in Basra and in the Kurd area. Let him rot in hell for his crimes against his own people. |
Sun 29 Aug 2010 05:55:40
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | WRT |
| Message | I would REALLY like to see bush and his two cronies on trial for war crimes so we can find out why we went to war with Iraq in the first place. I mean besides all the lies the American people were told.If they are found innocent good for us and the US. |
Sun 29 Aug 2010 05:35:03
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | |
Message | Bravo to President Obama for his Afghanistan kill record! |
Sun 29 Aug 2010 05:28:41
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | Abu G-whatever |
| Message | Humiliation is not torture. Fear of being maimed or killed isn't either if you know it won't happen as long as you behave and stand still. Unless you're escaping or attacking, having the dogs turned loose on you IS torture. Since there's bad eggs in every unit, I think policy is more important than individual instances of abuse. I believe the "Bush" policies in Iraq were safely out of the war crimes realm. |
Sun 29 Aug 2010 04:46:27
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Abu Ghraib |
| Message | How about that? Clearly war crimes. You have to be really gullible not to face that. And further it was one of historys greatest propaganda blunders....ever. History books in future centuries will have the picture of that hooded guy with the wires. We're famous. How many thousands of extra bad guy recruits did that cause? How many of our best young people paid for it? And then there's the guys with dogs snarling to rip out their genitals, etc. Not torture because they didn't actually maim their victims? At least not in the pictures we all saw. How many more of our best paid. Did torture save even a few so that hundreds more could die? |
Sun 29 Aug 2010 04:17:27
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | and then they ran the wrong way |
| Message | "this liberal milquetoast" has nailed epic numbers more of Afgan talib since the previous gang's short attention span problem caused them to fake themselves out and run the wrong way, toward Iraq. This is the part where the right replies, "there you go trying to change the subject." while they try to change the subject. One of Rush Alinsky's favorite tactics. |
Sun 29 Aug 2010 04:02:17
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Every |
| Message | It was an ambiguously written paragraph. Mr. Wright at old MV would have pointed that out to you. |
Sun 29 Aug 2010 03:24:36
Sun 29 Aug 2010 02:57:13
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | BW/DF |
| Message | My sources say there were a few more than three waterboardings. 183 is ridiculous. That's the number of "pourings" KSM was given, not the number of sessions. Waterboarding might be a pretty good litmus test. It seems only liberals think it's torture. |
Sun 29 Aug 2010 02:53:43
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | "Every" I really don't understand your difficulty with my statement. This topic has become tiresome. |
Sun 29 Aug 2010 02:40:40
| Name : | Jo |
| Email : | more |
| Message | PS...I'm all for laws etc until the enemy has a knife at my throat and then I will forgo all principles and laws to stay alive...it is human nature...and who the hell cares what other countries care about us....most of them want to topple The Great Satan (us) and would use any means to do it....you can't fight/win a war with one side following all the rules and the other side fighting like animals....this is what we are up against...the sooner this country realizes that our enemy wants to wipe us out as a people down to the last man while we are arguing among ourselves about something as stupid as making enemy prisoners uncomfortable...it scares the hell out of me.... |
Sun 29 Aug 2010 02:34:47
Sun 29 Aug 2010 01:53:04
Sun 29 Aug 2010 12:36:31
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | Jo |
| Message | I think the thing that separates DF and me from the rest is that we think this country is a country based on laws. Just because other people don't adhere to the basic laws we have agreed to as a people or nation does not give us the moral right to subvert what has been an American tenet since our nation was founded. We have forever been known as a nation of morality and if we begin to diminish our morality then in the end we are no better than those who attempt to destroy us. It has been acknowledged over and over that the water boarding conducted on the people ( one guy up to 183 times) held at G did not produce reliable information, but it gave our enemies a lot of political rhetoric which they then in turn use as a recruitment tool to fight against our nation. We are the pillar or rock that the civilized world looks too. I say kick their asses but do not lower yourself and your beliefs to where you become no better than they are. |
Sun 29 Aug 2010 11:46:20
Sun 29 Aug 2010 11:36:37
| Name : | Jo |
| Email : | |
| Message | those terrorists are retarded anyway so whats the harm? LOL (this is a joke...kinda)....:) |
Sun 29 Aug 2010 03:52:41
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | torture |
| Message | There's been reports of dramatically more than three waterboardings. One report was that one guy was done so many times it has made him retarded. Sure we'll never know for sure, I feel, as this must be somewhat classified. Then there's Abu Gahraib or however you spell it. Way more than a few waterboardings went on there! Definitely war crime material. |
Sun 29 Aug 2010 03:44:35
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | WRT |
| Message | You posted, "Every conservative that was ever invited to speak at a non-religious university will be thrilled to know that the left, through DF, have finally denounced their age-old practice of shouting down speakers!" "Every". I posted. You posted, "You seem to imply, with typical liberal spin, that I said all those conservatives were "shouted down". I only said they'd all be thrilled. Now I know how El Rushbo feels!" So why did you add the part, "Every conservative that was ever invited to speak at a non-religious university" Are you trying to write misleading or unclear meanings as PAW & Henry are accusing BW of? To be fair though, my writings are not always so clear either, for sure. Further comparing yourself to Rushbo. Nah. He's a calculating liar and even though I don't know you, I feel you're basically pretty honest, even if we disagree. |
Sat 28 Aug 2010 10:05:04
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | PAW |
| Message | I was raised in the Okla version of the Church of Christ. You would NOT find a christian member of the CofC in an establishment that was basically a beer hall or never be seen in a casino and certainly not houses of ill repute. I grew up in church thinking the WHORE of Babylon was the Catholic Church. They were so strict that a womans place was to keep her mouth shut and honor her husband. They wouldn't even allow pianos played in church. Thank God I came to Calif early enough to appreciate gett'n drunk, cuss like a swabbie and chase west pac widows when the ships were out. Now I don't drink, wouldn't know what to do with a widow if I caught one, and I go to bed each night with a 50-50 wager if I am gonna wake up in the morning. All I have left is cussing and PAW wont let me do that. Dang! |
Sat 28 Aug 2010 09:15:56
Sat 28 Aug 2010 09:10:20
| Name : | To Henry |
| Email : | From PAW |
| Message | I guess he cleared it up with that last post. He must mean that ALL Christian churches are surrounded by strip joints, gay bars and rib joints. But, then again it's often very difficult to understand just what Bob is trying to say. |
Sat 28 Aug 2010 08:26:36
| Name : | Obi-Juan-Canolli |
| Email : | BW |
| Message | QUOTE: "Sounds like a normal BAPTIST church." Ok.. I'm no fan of "PAW"... and I hate agreeing with him... but I have to agree with PAW this time... what the hell are you talking about!!! |
Sat 28 Aug 2010 05:05:17
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | PAW |
| Message | No PAW I'm talking about BAPTIST and most other christians on here. |
Sat 28 Aug 2010 04:46:54
| Name : | To BW |
| Email : | From PAW |
| Message | Your last post makes no sense at all. Are you saying that most Baptist Churches are surrounded by those types of establishments? Or are you saying that Baptist Churches SHOULD be surrounded as such? Just what the heck are you trying to say? |
Sat 28 Aug 2010 02:03:58
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | WRT |
| Message | Sounds like a normal BAPTIST church. |
Sat 28 Aug 2010 03:47:25
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | |
| Message | Just heard a great idea for the ground zero mosque. If they insist on building it there we should surround it with rib joints, gay bars and strip clubs! Genius! |
Sat 28 Aug 2010 03:38:13
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | PAW |
| Message | And I believe we only waterboarded two or three terrorists, about one time each. |
Sat 28 Aug 2010 03:37:04
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | I gotta admit I didn't know those terrorist cases were being lost and those creeps sent home. But I don't put the blame on Bush, I put it on Obama for bringing them to trial in the first place. I also blame those mamby pamby ACLU loving criminals-are-victims-of-society liberal judges that have wrongly defined torture. I think most people would agree that in this context, torture must include the infliction of extreme pain and/or permanent damage. I was glad to read in your article that at least Obama will continue to hold some of the more dangerous detainees indefinitely. Should be all of 'em. I also agree with McCain in this instance. |
Sat 28 Aug 2010 03:19:35
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | "Every" You seem to imply, with typical liberal spin, that I said all those conservatives were "shouted down". I only said they'd all be thrilled. Now I know how El Rushbo feels! |
Sat 28 Aug 2010 01:46:02
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Wall street money |
| Message | In an article about wall street hedge fund head Paul Singer today, the NY Times said that financial industry donors have given $180,000,000 to both repub and dem congressional candidates this year! |
Fri 27 Aug 2010 10:44:56
| Name : | PAW |
| Email : | |
| Message | From what I've heard the so-called torture was limited to water boarding. |
Fri 27 Aug 2010 10:39:57
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | torture |
| Message | The great patriot John McCain once remarked that if torturing a bad guy could save our guys he might do it, but to also realize that there is a heavy price to pay. He felt that maybe it's a crime worth paying for based on the situation. America has standards. Torture is against those standards. It's part of what makes this place great. If we lose that, we take a huge step toward being like some banana republic like Mexico. May God bless John McCain! |
Fri 27 Aug 2010 10:22:52
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | PAW/Goons |
| Message | There's no doubt some truth about the left having it's share of goons. The problem for the right is that as a result of being in power so long their goons took over their establishment. Something about human nature, I guess. Eventually the current dems will follow in those footsteps if they stay in power long enough. For now though the dems can ride the wave of reform to some version of success, as the last two elections show. In the long run the two parties are pretty much the same, but not the short run. Remember that when Reagan came in the repubs were clearly more ethical and less goonesque than the dems for the same reasons. Now the shoe is on the other foot for a while. Several here have referred to this cycle. |
Fri 27 Aug 2010 07:43:27
| Name : | PAW |
| Email : | |
| Message | Hey DF, there are just as many goons on the left as on the right. |
Fri 27 Aug 2010 07:41:41
Fri 27 Aug 2010 04:09:53
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | the Moslem mole |
| Message | "a Moslem mole in the White House" And flying saucers in Roswell, NM, too. |
Fri 27 Aug 2010 04:04:54
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | "Every" |
| Message | "Every conservative that was ever invited to speak at a non-religious university" "Every". Give me a break! How clueless. I'm not saying it never happened though. Just that the TP gang has done it on steroids. It was virtually the TP's trademark for a while! Further does that make it OK? I'd be ashamed of the Tea Party goons actions too and try to change the subject or deny. |
Fri 27 Aug 2010 03:56:35
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Gitmo/torture |
| Message | Various federal judges are ruling that the terrorists were tortured at Gitmo. Here's a link to the news report from pulitzer prize winning ProPublica and the Nation Law Journal. http://www.propublica.org/article/judges-reject-interrogation-evidence-in-gitmo-cases Too bad for us, and good for the terrorists, that the bushies were such goons. The Right, a river called 'denial' ran through and apparantly over them. |
Fri 27 Aug 2010 03:04:15
Fri 27 Aug 2010 02:23:13
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | BW |
| Message | "...and two what Barb and I have worked for I want to leave to my sons." You're a good father, dude. I have no doubt you were a good husband as well. |
Fri 27 Aug 2010 02:20:57
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | You appear to believe that repeating your accusations, misquotes, misrepresentations and generalities over and over somehow prove them true. Every conservative that was ever invited to speak at a non-religious university will be thrilled to know that the left, through DF, have finally denounced their age-old practice of shouting down speakers! |
Fri 27 Aug 2010 12:54:55
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | WRT |
| Message | You are right about Meg. using her own money. It just makes me happy this non voting person is probably gonna be YOUR worse nightmare when she gets in. Will make you plead for conservative Arnie. |
Fri 27 Aug 2010 12:53:24
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | WRT |
| Message | Geeze you seem to forget ALL this started with bush lite. We may never get back to where we were before you fool voters listened to the "Compassionate Conservative BS in the first place. The whole world would be better off than what YOU gave us. |
Fri 27 Aug 2010 12:16:55
Fri 27 Aug 2010 12:12:05
Fri 27 Aug 2010 09:21:49
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Denial |
| Message | Denial is not just a river in Egypt for the right. With their record what have they left? You deny Angle's hiding her record? You deny Rush's "Obama's out to get whitey" statements he's said innumerable times? You deny all the name calling by the right? You deny the right has tried to shout down public speakers over and over? You deny that those terrorists at gitmo are having the cases against them ruined because the bushies tortured them? You deny all the edited hit piece videos by the right? You deny that a huge number of former right leaders have crashed and burned due to their hypocracy? The list is endless. Denial. The right's way to try to distract from their pathetic record. |
Fri 27 Aug 2010 09:18:14
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | WRT/PAW/DF |
| Message | See DF knows me where you guys don't. I am the most let'em live how they want to live guy in the world. My main and I am not going to say this right I know is that I really don't think anyone should get involved in the reproductive rights of a woman. I think that decision should rest with the woman, her doctor and God. Sure not for some gray haired old man sitting on a bench somewhere. That's it. Marriage who gives a ^^^^. My Mom had TWO terrible marriages (one to my father) and then after he died lived with a man for 34 years until she passed. Me I will never marry again. One I couldn't find any one to put up with me and two what Barb and I have worked for I want to leave to my sons. |
Fri 27 Aug 2010 02:50:37
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | You're long on name calling and accusations, but woefully short on examples. Completely out of verifiable ones. |
Fri 27 Aug 2010 01:52:39
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Rush's lies |
| Message | There was an interesting rundown in the NY Times today of Some of Rush "the racist" Limbaugh's lying techniques. I noticed him several months ago on a roll where every time he told whatever variety of lie, he would immediately say how he was so honest and that socialists are using that very type of lie technique he just used. Sometimes he went from the lie to the accusation without taking a breath in between. This guy is straight out of the commie or nazi propaganda tradion. |
Fri 27 Aug 2010 01:28:00
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | More fallout from Bush's Bonehead moves |
| Message | As a result of the Bushies immoral torture of prisoners at gitmo, terrorists are having their cases thrown out due to that torture contaminating evidence collected against them. Ofcourse, this is all Obama's fault. And it's only in the news because the socialists want everyone to not notice that Obama wants to destroy America. |
Fri 27 Aug 2010 01:15:53
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | SS |
| Message | SS actually has positive cash flow at this time. It's classic hypocracy on the right in Nevada where the reps are trying to hide their candidate's attacks on SS. Squirm piggies. |
Fri 27 Aug 2010 01:13:07
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | |
| Message | It's obvious that BW is mocking the right for being epic hypocriteds. |
Thu 26 Aug 2010 11:06:10
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | PAW |
| Message | You are the one who accuses me of being LIBERAL. I have no problem with fags, homos, christians, (so called) or real republicans ( almost every friend I have is a republican). I have problems with those hypocritical B%%%ds who talk out of one side of their mouths and do just the opposite. The John Boehnors, Mitch McCollums, Eric Cantors. I happen to like Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, Chuck Heigel, Jeb and the Maine sisters. Wont really mind seeing Meg Whitman as Gov (boy is she in for a surprise). I think Carly is a "HAIR" head. So far as I know none of the press in Calif has asked Carly or Meg what there position is on SB1070. Maybe too many voting Mexicans in Calif they don't want to ruffle up. |
Thu 26 Aug 2010 10:44:21
| Name : | To Bob |
| Email : | From PAW |
| Message | Bob, you make all kinds of ridiculous accusations lumping all reps together as homophobes but you continually use words like "fag." Do you have any idea how ridiculous that makes you look when you use that word while at the same time accusing others of being homophobes? There's bleeding heart Bob, champion of the oppressed but he uses the word "fag." Hmmmm |
Thu 26 Aug 2010 10:29:03
| Name : | To Bob |
| Email : | From PAW |
| Message | I disagree Bob. I believe Obama will go down in history as the guy who nearly destroyed this country. If the reps are so homophobic why did Bush appoint one? Yep, the reps established TARP but Obama went crazy with it. It's full of waste. What about SS Bob? At least the reps are aware that it will bankrupt the country. Good luck with Moonbeam Brown if he gets elected. |
Thu 26 Aug 2010 08:58:07
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | PAW |
| Message | PAW the republican party uses as one of its fear tactics is the thought that queerdom is evil, ungodly and fags will steal and rape your children. Just a fact jack. To have one of the architects of the bush crowning who set about using fear to elect the man who probably will go down in history as the single most important man in the destruction of this country and himslef being a FAG just blows my mind. Remember the right wing zealots who went after Clinton. Gingrich, Hyde, Barr, Livingston. Every one of them while in the act of impeaching BC were engaged in adulatory behavior themselves. Remember the WH team who brought virtually another GREAT depression and established (TARP) and then had republican Congressmen ranting and raving (still are for that matter) and then sneaking behind every ones back and grabbing as much stimulus money and credit for it. Bobby Jindal, Mark Sanford to name a couple. Remember Rand Paul who said it was UN-AMERICAN for Obama to attack BP. A company which has committed in all likely hood criminal acts as they brought about a disaster in the Gulf off our southern borders. Remember the party that just selected the next governor of Florida and the man whose company was fined 1.7 Yes 1.7 billion dollars for fraud in the health care industry. The elderly in Florida will get just what the bought. Remember Sharon Angle who wants to end SS. Remember the party that wanted to have SS ended and for people to put their retirements into the stock market. Wonder what happened to those 401's in 2008-2009. Remember the party who selected someone who hadn't voted in 28 years but was able to buy her selection as the next governor of Calif and the lady who started out as a receptionist who worked her way up to CEO before being fired who just after defeating real republicans made one of her first post election comments. Look at Boxers hair style. Profound I think. |
Thu 26 Aug 2010 08:05:56
| Name : | Obi-Juan-Canolli |
| Email : | PAW |
| Message | You sound like being a "homophobe and a racist" is a bad thing. Can I as you why you think that?? what is the genesis of your thought/belief? rum n coke #7 |
Thu 26 Aug 2010 07:49:44
| Name : | To Bob |
| Email : | From PAW |
| Message | Please explain what you are driving at in that last post. You come across as a homophobe and a racist. |
Thu 26 Aug 2010 07:14:24
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | WRT |
| Message | Just saw on the news (it's on most TV stations for verification) that the guy who was the head of the republican bush re-election in 2000-2004 is a FAG ( queer if you don't comprehend fag). I predict The next revelation coming from the whacko right will be that the current head of the RNC is a N.( negro if you don't comprehend) |
Wed 25 Aug 2010 10:45:14
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | WRT/CNN & that Van Der Sloot scumbag |
| Message | Talk about trying to create an issue out of triviality. If a CNN weather report shows rain on the east (right) coast and not the west (left) coast is that also a liberal message? |
Wed 25 Aug 2010 10:33:53
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Palin |
| Message | Politics daily forgot to mention how Palin cost McCain the presidential election! Some king maker. |
Wed 25 Aug 2010 06:29:49
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | WRT |
| Message | I read the article and have no doubt as to its veracity. What I wrote was true also. |
Wed 25 Aug 2010 02:33:35
Wed 25 Aug 2010 02:22:37
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | BW |
| Message | My source is a little more specific than just "the internet". It's the Politics Daily and it says, just as I suspected, that you're wrong... Palin Power: A Losing Month for Endorsements, but Up Overall It's been a tough month for Sarah Palin's mama -- and papa -- grizzlies. Still, her endorsement record this year is in positive territory. After a great June, several candidates endorsed by Palin lost in primary elections. Four more will take the primary test Tuesday and another six on Sept. 14. The former Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential candidate is all over Facebook and Twitter promoting her endorsements. And she's used her political action committee to donate some $87,500 to candidates. Thus far, our tally shows Palin is 6-2 in endorsements in governors' races, 3-6 in U.S. House races and 4-2 in U.S. Senate races. That's an overall record of 13-10 so far in 2010. Eleven other candidates she's endorsed face no primary opposition, and she donated to another dozen candidates after their primary election success, including Sharron Angle, who is challenging Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada. Palin said she'll actively campaign for Angle there. It goes on to list the endorsements...if you'd like to read it yourself go to... http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/19/palin-power-a-losing-month-for-endorsements-but-up-overall/ |
Wed 25 Aug 2010 01:12:07
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | WRT |
| Message | Palin endorsement losers. FROM THE INTERNET TODD HART SEN KAN CECCILE BLEDSOE HOUSE ARK ANGELA MCGLOWAN HOUSE GA VAUGHN WARD HOUSE IND TIM BURNS HOUSE PENN CLINT DIDLER SENATE WASH KAREN HEULL GOV GA BOB MCCONNELLL HOUSE COLO CECE (couldnt read my own writing)HOUSE TENN GOUG HOFFNAN HOUSE NY WINNER JOHN MCCAIN SENATE AZ SHARON Angle SENATE NE LEADING MILLER IN ALASKA over REPUBLICAN Murkowsi and am sure there are others winner and losers. |
Wed 25 Aug 2010 12:47:37
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | BW |
| Message | Thanks, yes I thought the Congress was sworn in on Jan. 20. I know the unravelling of things like Obama care won't begin until 2013, but I'm hoping the poular mandate, assuming there is one, will persuade Obama and the Senate to approve the more conservative measures that should come from the House. Where can I find the source of your statement about Sarah Palin and the candidates she's endorsed? |
Wed 25 Aug 2010 11:18:24
Wed 25 Aug 2010 11:14:20
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | WRT |
| Message | To answer my question to you the president is sworn in on Jan 20 but usually the NEW Congress convenes just after the first of the year. |
Wed 25 Aug 2010 11:11:24
Tue 24 Aug 2010 10:53:36
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | WRT |
| Message | Why on Jan 20? |
Tue 24 Aug 2010 02:41:49
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | |
| Message | Hang on, America! Economic recovery begins Jan. 20! |
Tue 24 Aug 2010 02:21:33
Tue 24 Aug 2010 11:09:06
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | |
| Message | I JUST WISH SOMEONE WOULD POST SOMETHING SO I DON'T HAVE TO CONTINUE READING THAT. PAW help me out pleeeeaase. lol |
Sun 22 Aug 2010 08:15:58
| Name : | Obi-Juan-Canolli |
| Email : | BW |
| Message | I kissed YOU... and now you are gettin all "green eyed" on me? Hey, when you give me a "ring".. then you can make demands!!! |
Sun 22 Aug 2010 08:09:30
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | H |
| Message | Ya better not be kiss'n on rw! |
Sun 22 Aug 2010 07:59:18
| Name : | Obi-Juan-Canolli |
| Email : | it's a fact Jack!! |
| Message | "rw".. just came to visit me. We had a great time. I lub me some "rw". I have to be the luckiest asshole on the planet. Oh.. and in case you are wondering.. we didn't kiss.. but we did hug... |
Sat 21 Aug 2010 10:10:44
| Name : | PAW |
| Email : | |
| Message | Nice post Bob! |
Sat 21 Aug 2010 09:42:12
Sat 21 Aug 2010 09:14:23
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | PAW/gerrymandering |
| Message | All that you post is true as far as it goes. I think you should have added that if they aren't in sure thing districts, they wish they were. And as you recall I recently posted, "Prop 27/a really bad idea!" Wherein I said, "The democratic congressman of California are supporting this prop." As far as I know the republicans still are mute, at least in part for the reasons you cite. |
Sat 21 Aug 2010 09:11:07
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | PAW |
| Message | I'm not willing to give in forever to gerrymandering. Just as I'll never forget how the people saved so many of us from the pols with Prop. 13. Indian gaming was another people vs. the pols issue. Big money, entrenched privilege, against us it was and is. If we can pull this off it will be just as huge. |
Sat 21 Aug 2010 08:36:05
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | I can't take credit for coining "when the d hits the o", I think I heard it from Capt. Dale Dye. It may have come from one of his military buddies. |
Sat 21 Aug 2010 07:49:36
| Name : | To DF |
| Email : | From PAW |
| Message | You always bring up gerrymandering as something that only conservatives support. Do you actually believe that there is ONE, that is 1, politician in office that really wants his/her district redrawn? Everyone in office is against redrawing districts, everyone, rep, dem, conservative and liberal. Their districts are gerrymandered and that's the way they want it to stay no matter what they tell us. |
Sat 21 Aug 2010 07:43:03
Sat 21 Aug 2010 07:35:54
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | hitting Iran's nukes |
| Message | There's lots of speculation about this. The Economist says that Arab countries have publicly asked the USA to do just that. They know that Iran has them in their nuclear cross hairs as well as targeting Israel. Once we leave Iraq, I wonder what can stop a big war, Shiite vs. Sunni. So maybe the Sunnis will do it. The reactor they're supposed to be fueling up now could in the long run produce enriched uranium. Bombing it would probably spread some radioactive fallout, etc. Their enrichment places are buried so deep, maybe not so much fallout. Some claim that the fuel and byproducts will, by treaty, be returned to other countries. This by a treaty negotiated by the Bushies. I think Bush, Obama, etc. were and are hoping for real change in Iran before it goes this far. Personally, I don't trust their current political set up to honor that treaty, if they don't feel like it. These guys deny the Holocaust, and lots of other looney tunes stuff, etc. Who knows how long we have before Iran has a functional bomb and delivery system? There are technical issues generally unappreciated by the layman. Things like alloys of metals, decent guidance systems, other technical issues I decline to discuss due to security reasons, etc., but whenever, it'll be to soon, probably. Once the Sunni/Shiite war starts all bets are off for sure. It would be ironic if the Arabs and Israel work together on this. As an aside, "If the defecation does hit the oscillation over there," I like that, this is a nice piece of wordsmithing. My compliments. |
Sat 21 Aug 2010 06:49:24
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Pols @ work |
| Message | From P@W, "2. You consider yourself a conservative. Well, so does BW. Nuff said." So I'm not a conservative if I don't shout down speakers at public forums, call for millions to lose their jobs for political gain, support gerrymandering, doubt Obama's citizenship, don't like people making fake hit piece videos, believe all spin produced by the mostly foreign owned oil companies, etc. I'm a conservative in the old mode, I guess. No way TR, Eisenhower, Reagan, Buckley, etc., would tolerate this stuff. |
Sat 21 Aug 2010 06:47:23
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Pols @ work |
| Message | From P@W, "1. If you belive everything on Wikipedia keep checking on what they say as anyone can change it any time. They're a terrible source of accurate information." I agree they are sometimes lacking. I have on occasions despaired about their physics stuff. I quoted them responding to WRT's previous quote of them. From WRT's post. "That Webster definition of "race baiting" sounds incomplete, over simplified and outdated. I like this modern one from Wikipedia better..." My original quote was from Merriam-Websters dictionary which WRT felt to be outdated somehow. |
Sat 21 Aug 2010 06:29:47
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | Considering your nuke expertise...when would be the best time for Israel to strike the Iranian reactor? Looks like they're already loading it up. Might be messy. I don't think the Israelis should trust the Obama administration's reassurance of a one year weaponless window. If the defecation does hit the oscillation over there, it's too bad some of you helped elect a president that will join the UN in condemming Israel instead of sending them some gift wrapped jet fuel. |
Sat 21 Aug 2010 05:58:11
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | "on a less serious note" |
| Message | I recently read that the word "idiot" comes from the Roman times. Those who had, or thought they had, great ideas would stand on platforms on street corners expounding their views to the public. They were called "idiots" presumably from the word "idea". The meaning seems to have changed a little. Anyway, here we all are, with this web site platform, so graciously provided, I think by Esoterica, expounding our ideas. So I guess that, at least in the ancient Roman sense, we are all right about each other being "idiots". |
Sat 21 Aug 2010 05:41:35
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | deep water moratorium |
| Message | For what is worth, there was a report that the deep water moratorium is close to being lifted. |
Sat 21 Aug 2010 05:33:30
| Name : | To DF |
| Email : | From Politicians at work |
| Message | Two things: 1. If you belive everything on Wikipedia keep checking on what they say as anyone can change it any time. They're a terrible source of accurate information. 2. You consider yourself a conservative. Well, so does BW. Nuff said. |
Sat 21 Aug 2010 05:29:08
| Name : | To WRT |
| Email : | From PAW |
| Message | We agree on Hannity and for the same reasons. If you like Medved try Dennis Prager. He's on AM 1170 from 10AM until noon. He's very calm and never raises his voice against those who he has on his show that he disagrees with. Even the liberal LA Times complimented his delivery a while back. I find him much more knowledgeable than Medved. One of the things that impresses me the most about him is he doesn't demonize Obama, Reid, Pelosi and the like. He disagrees with their views of what America should be but does not demonize them as inherantly evil people. To me he is truly a voice of reason. |
Sat 21 Aug 2010 05:21:46
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | wikipedia/race baiting/Rush |
| Message | Wikipedia goes on to say, "Thus the use of any language or actions perceived to be for the purpose of exploiting weaknesses in persons who can be identified as members of certain groups, or to reinforce a group's perceived victimhood, can be contained within the concept of "race baiting". Many people who practice race baiting often believe in racism, or have an interest in making the group believe that racism is what motivates the actions of others." Rush clearly has "an interest in making the group believe that racism is what motivates the actions of others." Further wikipedia says, "Many people who practice race baiting often believe in racism". That's Rush alright. Except for those wishfull thinking people on the extreme so called right, Rush is widely known to be a racist. |
Sat 21 Aug 2010 03:43:29
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | WRT |
| Message | Your quotes of Kish ,etc., are interesting and definitely worth checking out. So far I have found that his Institute for Energy Research has received $307,000 from Exxon to help them deny climate change science. |
Sat 21 Aug 2010 03:12:01
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | the shame of the right |
| Message | As I've mentioned before I consider myself a conservative. My political heroes are Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, in my mind possible the greatest in the recent century, Ron Reagan & Wm. Buckley. Can you imagine any of those great men tolerating the desire for us to fail in any way, elements of racism in the right's leadership, shouting down speakers, on and on, the list is endless. The current right is closer in many ways to the extreme left of the Viet Nam era. The lack of honesty, the cynicism, the eagerness to see America fail, the ignorance of history, etc. Shame on the right! Those guys would all strongly reject much of the current right's actions. My respect for those guys will not allow me to watch this happen without comment. The current right does not deserve those great men, and those great men do not deserve the current right. |
Sat 21 Aug 2010 01:56:54
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | PAW |
| Message | "Who gives a damn what Rush Limbaugh says." I'm shocked that any true conservative would say that. Rush is one of our ammo supplies in the war against liberals. You shouldn't lump Rush in with Sean Hannity. Sean's heart is in the right place, but he's our version of Olberman. He bends the truth and will edit statements from the left to suit his purpose. Many times I've heard him lambaste liberal guests when they've made a rare valid point. Sometimes I find myself in their corner against him. The best conservative radio I've heard lately is Michael Medved. He's not a staunch conservative like me, but he's close. I like him because he spends most of his show taking calls from opposing listeners. Most always shoots 'em down cold. |
Sat 21 Aug 2010 01:33:06
Sat 21 Aug 2010 09:31:48
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | WRT |
| Message | YOUR definition of race baiting fits RUSH perfectly. Thanks for the 21st century update. |
Sat 21 Aug 2010 04:13:39
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | I'll never believe Rush said "Obama is out to get whitey" until you prove it to me. If he's said it numerous times it should be easy to find. I challenge you to prove it, you're already shaky, in my mind, credibility is at stake. That Webster definition of "race baiting" sounds incomplete, over simplified and outdated. I like this modern one from Wikipedia better... Race baiting is any form of speech, actions, or other forms of communication, to anger, intimidate or incite a person or race of people, to behave in ways that are inimical, and often harmful, to their personal or group interests. Race baiting is a means of implying that racism is a motive in the actions of others towards the race being baited, where none in fact exists. This is how I meant it and I think how most Americans perceive it. This is also exactly what you and a good chunk of the left try to do to Rush, a man that hasn't a racist bone in his body. Conservatism is an economic philosophy that works for all peoples and is completely colorblind. |
Sat 21 Aug 2010 03:56:52
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | This topic is getting tiresome, but here's an excerpt from an article I recently read... “They’re painting the getaway car a different color,” said Dan V. Kish, senior vice president for policy at the Institute for Energy Research in Washington. Kish said the original moratorium applied only to drilling rigs operating in 500 feet of water or deeper, but that the July 12 order by Salazar applies to all floating rigs in the Gulf. What’s more, Kish said there are effectively two moratoria in place: the formal one, targeting deepwater drilling, and an informal one targeting shallow-water drilling operations. “About half of the rigs in the shallow waters of the Gulf are not operating,” said Kish, “because they can’t get permits from the government agency that is supposed to give them permits. So, in essence, what’s happening is that much of the fleet of deep- and shallow-water rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, which supplies a third of our domestic oil, are being laid up, put in cold storage, awaiting the government to make a decision one way or the other.” Analysts said that of the thirty-three deepwater rigs in the Gulf, along with another eight under construction and committed to operate in the Gulf, at least four have already left, or are preparing to leave, the U.S. for foreign shores, pursuing contracts in emerging markets like the Egypt, the Congo, Brazil, and Greenland. Eric Smith, a professor at the Tulane University business school calculated that current restrictions effectively halting shallow- and deepwater drilling in the Gulf account for the loss of a combined 137,000 jobs, and impose a cost of $3 billion in “payroll effects,” with Louisiana consequently suffering a loss of $300 - $400 million in tax receipts. Smith’s assessment is in line with some of the projections put forward by Dr. Joseph R. Mason of Louisiana State University, who estimated in a recent analysis that the moratoria will inflict “broad economic losses within the Gulf region and throughout the nation as a whole,” to the tune of $2.7 billion in economic activity. To sum up my viewpoint on the matter for the final time...the middle of this Pelosi/Reid/Obama recession is a terrible time to be hurting the economy even more. Lift the ban! |
Fri 20 Aug 2010 05:40:33
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | That Harvard Prof |
| Message | I'm willing to believe that the prof had race issues alright. And the cop surely thought a black guy trying to get into the house was pretty suspicious. It's a sad fact of our culture that both of them were led to this path by life's experiences. Too bad the two of them had to go through all this just to man up. |
Fri 20 Aug 2010 05:33:44
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Racist Rush |
| Message | Rush has said innumerable times that "Obama is out to get whitey". Interestingly, since he was recently called out for being so racist, he has not repeated it. The "big lovable fluff ball" just loves to instigate racial hatred. How lovable and humorous can you be? Websters defines "race baiting" as "making verbal assaults against a racial group". That does fit Rush. And do not racists make verbal assaults against racial groups? |
Fri 20 Aug 2010 05:14:27
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | defn. of "traitor" |
| Message | I got that definition of traitor from a dictionary. Interestingly, in Arab countries, Rush's actions would be considered treason. |
Fri 20 Aug 2010 05:09:56
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | oil rig job loss |
| Message | For 200,000 jobs to be lost or seriously affected by the deep water moratorium of around 1% of the total rigs means there has to be 20,000,000 people in those jobs for all rigs. A huge exaggeration. |
Fri 20 Aug 2010 04:50:34
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Rush & GM |
| Message | Rush has railed against GM since the gov saved their bacon. The first time I heard him pleading with people to never buy their stuff I was stunned as there had just been a GM commercial on his show. Within a few days they quit advertising with him. Recently I heard the buffoon claim he had turned down their attempt to advertise with him. Rush seems to feel a real depression is just what we need. The US can go to hell as long as his beloved GOP can win another election. How sold out for power is that? |
Fri 20 Aug 2010 02:57:25
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | PAW |
| Message | I must add a caveat to what I just said. There's probably no difference in the number of CRIMINAL politicians in the two parties. But the honesty of their messages is another lead pipe cinch. |
Fri 20 Aug 2010 02:41:00
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | PAW |
| Message | I guess I'm a little confused. Are you saying there's no difference in honesty between Republican and Democrat POLITICIANS or between the registered members of the respective parties? The latter is a lead pipe cinch. Republicans in general are much more honest than Democrats. To help prove it I'll say that there's probably little or no difference between the politicians! |
Fri 20 Aug 2010 12:48:29
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | I don't get to listen to Rush nearly enough, so I've only heard him rail against the Volt not GM itself. But if he did, just like him wanting Obama to fail in implementing his agenda, I'm sure he believes it's best for his beloved USA. If just TRYING to help cause business failure and job losses constitutes your definition of a traitor, what does that make Obama who's ACTUALLY DOING IT with his oil moratorium? I recently read that about 200,000 jobs may be lost or seriously affected by it. I forgot to ask you how Rush saying Obama is out to get or hates whitey is evidence of Rush being a racist. By the way, I don't believe he ever said that unless he was joking in his big lovable fluff ball way. For myself, I recently misspoke in the same way it seems you did. I called that black Harvard professor a racist. I don't actually know that he is...I only know he is a race baiter. If Rush said those things about Obama/whitey, and he wasn't just quoting Obama, it would make him a race baiter not a racist. |
Thu 19 Aug 2010 09:56:11
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Rush & GM |
| Message | Seems that GM is back to making big profits. Further they are about to begin selling stock. Some estimates are that they will sell 20 billion dollars worth. So Rush has made a fool of himself again with all his tirades against GM. He hoped GM would fail costing more than a million jobs. I looked up the meaning of traitor. It's someone who works against his country or it's interests. Rush is so desperate to hurt Obama that he directly tried to damage the workers of GM and their subs. Hurting a million American workers is clearly working against our country. So Rush the "traitor" has failed. |
Thu 19 Aug 2010 09:40:58
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | WRT/Rush |
| Message | At least Rush is not saying that "Obama is out to get whitey" or that white people should go out and buy guns to defend themselves cause Obama hates whites. Further, how does repeating a pathetic lie make Rush "brilliant"? |
Thu 19 Aug 2010 07:37:24
| Name : | To WRT |
| Email : | From PAW |
| Message | Nope, sorry but it doesn't prove that dems are more dishonest than reps. I admit that I'm prejudist and want to believe that the reps are more honest but deep down inside I know it's just not true. I think you would have to look long and hard to find just one REALLY honest politician at any level. It really cracks me up that a grand jury is going to indict that baseball player(name escapes me, pitcher, denied use of drugs) for lying to congress. How funny, IT'S AGAINST THE LAW TO LIE TO CONGRESS WHICH IS COMPOSED OF PEOPLE WHO LIE TO US EVERY DAY. |
Thu 19 Aug 2010 03:02:32
Thu 19 Aug 2010 01:12:57
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | |
| Message | Just as Clinton was called the first "black" President, Rush has now proclaimed Obama the first "Moslem" President! Brilliant! |
Thu 19 Aug 2010 12:51:09
Thu 19 Aug 2010 11:54:26
| Name : | Obi-Juan-Canolli |
| Email : | politicians |
| Message | Man, the "Dems" are eating their own. It makes you realize, if you didn't already know.. how politicians put their hold on their own personal power as priority #1... damn their values, ideology, the country, whatever... I'll say or do what ever I have to say or do to get re-elected. |
Wed 18 Aug 2010 10:42:07
Wed 18 Aug 2010 10:30:20
| Name : | To DF |
| Email : | From PAW |
| Message | Do you really think that one party is any more honest than the other? |
Wed 18 Aug 2010 10:17:09
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | birthers & grotesque ignorance |
| Message | The NY Times, today, says that 27% of Americans doubt that Obama was born in the US. What a great success for the GOP/TP relentless big lie machine. Is no lie to grotesque for those phonies?? Their lies are straight from the communist or nazi playbook. How disgraceful that so many Americans fall for this! |
Wed 18 Aug 2010 10:02:19
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Prop 27/a really bad idea! |
| Message | I see where prop 27 seeks to return the power to gerrymander to elected politicians in CA. A power they just lost in the last election. This is a really bad idea! I read somewhere that of the last 460 or so partisan contests in Ca only 3 have resulted in a change of party winning. Mexico is more democratic than that!!! The democratic congressman of California are supporting this prop. They could stand to lose if it fails as they have created districts where they and the republicans both virtually cannot lose. I guess the repubs are silent because the elected repubs also stand to lose their little empires in Cal. Furthermore, nationally it is estimated by the Economist, that the dems need 57% of the vote just to break even in congress, because of gerrymandering. |
Wed 18 Aug 2010 09:32:10
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Dr. Laura |
| Message | I heard that she was jerked of the air during her show for using the "N" word. It's hard to imagine that she could be even nearly as racist as Rush L. I guess as the ultimate guru of the GOP/TOP he's untouchable. |
Wed 18 Aug 2010 03:37:38
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | WRT |
| Message | Remember when Laura was the sex party for the radio DJ (Bill Balance) back in the 50-60 in San Diego with pictures and everything I think. |
Wed 18 Aug 2010 02:46:21
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | |
| Message | With Dr. Laura leaving the airwaves all the kids of America have lost a powerful advocate. |
Wed 18 Aug 2010 09:30:03
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | Please oh Please dont use OJC. He'll think it means Oh Jesus Christ> Lub YA H |
Tue 17 Aug 2010 11:03:14
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | O-J-C |
| Message | So a republic is a type of democracy. |
Tue 17 Aug 2010 10:56:09
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Republics/democracy/the difference |
| Message | : "Hey grasshoppahs... this is NOT a democracy!!, it's a REPUBLIC!!. Learn the difference!!!" "James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy as opposed to direct democracy" "Representative democracy is a form of government founded on the principle of elected individuals representing the people, as opposed to autocracy and direct democracy." "A representative democracy that emphasizes individual liberty is a liberal democracy." "The term republic may have many different meanings. It normally means a state with an elected or otherwise non-monarchical head of state, such as the Islamic Republic of Iran or Republic of Korea. Sometimes in the US it is used similar to liberal democracy. For example, "the United States relies on representative democracy, but its system of government is much more complex than that. It is not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered." |
Tue 17 Aug 2010 09:07:38
| Name : | To BW |
| Email : | From PAW |
| Message | The baseball draft is much more of a crapshoot than the football draft. Lots of high choices don't make it. Sure does seem like the Padres have screwed up more than their share though. I agree with you on attending games. The last time we went we had $45 seats and I determined that after parking, walking, traffic and cost of food and beer it just wasn't a good investment. We watch just about every game on 46 inches in high def. We get closeups and replays on every close play. Some years ago we saw Bobbie Valentine walking out to change pitchers and he spit into the wind. It dribbled down his chin and the front of his uniform. You don't get that stuff attending the game. |
Tue 17 Aug 2010 07:06:01
| Name : | Obi-Juan-Canolli |
| Email : | BW |
Message | You kinda hurt my feelings.. and I am very sensitive. You left out the part that says you "lub me"... |
Tue 17 Aug 2010 06:59:37
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | Obi |
| Message | Sorry to say there is a lot of wisdom in your last post. NYY,BRS,Phillies, even the stinkin' Dodgers and Giants. Of course that is why you are Obi. |
Tue 17 Aug 2010 05:26:39
| Name : | Obi-Juan-Canolli |
| Email : | BW |
| Message | I guess I'm saying you are an "extremist".. what if the Chargers had never signed "Ryan Leaf"??? A 1st round draft choice that destroyed the franchise for several years. In this day an age.. you BUY a baseball team... look at the Yankees.. their payroll is about a BILLION dollars.. the Padres Payroll is about .39 cents. And you are pissed off about not signing a #1 draft choice?? The Farm Clubs are a thing of the past... sorry to say. Today, you just buy what you need.. you don't need no stinkin draft choices!!! |
Tue 17 Aug 2010 05:15:14
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | Obi |
| Message | Should have been on graffiti board. What if for the last 7 years the Chargers NEVER signed a Number 1 or that he failed to ever make the team. No Phillip Rivers, No Ryan Matthews, No Shawne Merriman and who ever, No Larry English, Do you think we would be as good as we are? |
Tue 17 Aug 2010 05:05:26
| Name : | Obi-Juan-Canolli |
| Email : | BW |
Message | Sorry, but I am really confused. I cain't figure out your point... if you have one. The Padres haven't signed thier #1 draft choice? is that your point? IF that's your point.. what the hell does it mean? |
Tue 17 Aug 2010 04:29:48
Tue 17 Aug 2010 04:00:19
| Name : | Obi-Juan-Canolli |
| Email : | Grasshoppahs |
| Message | Hey grasshoppahs... this is NOT a democracy!!, it's a REPUBLIC!!. Learn the difference!!! |
Tue 17 Aug 2010 11:31:51
Mon 16 Aug 2010 09:57:22
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | PAW/all |
| Message | I am reading a real good book on Abraham Lincoln. The best I have read and it blows my mind what that man persevered to keep the union intact. He virtually did it by himself it seems. He was back stabbbed by virtually every political hack of the time, especially Wm Seward who thought he should be "KING". Until Grant he had the worse of the worse so far as generals and the politicians of the day make ours seem virtually statesmen. Wrote by Larry TAGG and is called The Unpopular Mr Lincoln. ya really need to grab a copy somewhere. |
Mon 16 Aug 2010 06:48:34
Mon 16 Aug 2010 06:32:44
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | nukes |
| Message | : "Well.. I think history will show.. and time will tell.. THAT WE SHOULD HAVE DROPPED SOME A-BOMBS on Russia too..." History and time have shown that Reagan manged to defang the communist Russians without using the nukes. It was a great historical achievement. As a nuclear physicist, I can guarantee you that a nuclear exchange would have killed millions of Americans. As Reagan demonstrated it was unnecessary. Claims that such a war would end civilization, etc. are baseless exaggeration though. |
Mon 16 Aug 2010 04:40:24
| Name : | Henry, aka.. right wing Nazi |
| Email : | taunting "lefties" |
| Message | Well.. I think history will show.. and time will tell.. THAT WE SHOULD HAVE DROPPED SOME A-BOMBS on Russia too... LOL It amazes me that the "lefties" spew their socialist propaganda.. and don't have a clue where they got the "right" to do that. |
Mon 16 Aug 2010 02:33:05
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | End of WW II 65th anniversary |
| Message | : from the BBC, today. Prime Minister Naoto Kan visited a national cemetery in Tokyo before attending a remembrance ceremony with Emperor Akihito, son of wartime Emperor Hirohito. "We feel deep regret, and we offer our sincere feelings of condolence to those who suffered and their families," Mr Kan said. |
Sun 15 Aug 2010 11:16:58
Sun 15 Aug 2010 02:16:40
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | that mosque |
| Message | : I read somewhere today that a "Tolerance Center" in New York says that the proposed mosque is "intolerable". I couldn't resist posting this. |
Sun 15 Aug 2010 01:35:00
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | rigs |
| Message | : Those 33 rigs have to be just about all the deep water drilling in our waters. In a real sense BP did these guys in, for a while, by pushing the envelope to where an accident like this became a real possibility. The other companies operating in the gulf have much better records than BP. This is by no means the end of deep water drilling though. Technology like this is advancing and even this bad experience has had it's lesssons for improvement. I read somewhere that in 6 months or so drillers should have their ducks lined up enough to resume drilling. I also read that BP is considering the idea of selling or trading this particular oil deposit to another driller to exploit. As far as the business friendly waters of the middle east go, if they can't operate without disasters here, will middle eastern countries want that over there? Some other areas like Nigeria are almost out of control and continuously having things like this happen. |
Sun 15 Aug 2010 01:13:16
Sat 14 Aug 2010 05:51:44
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | PAW |
| Message | PAW You continue to amaze me. American boat owning skimmers being union. |
Sat 14 Aug 2010 02:45:26
Sat 14 Aug 2010 01:50:24
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | What law would be broken if we allow foreign skimmers to ply our waters? I didn't mean to imply that all 2000 were foreign, I'm told a lot of them were NY based. |
Sat 14 Aug 2010 01:46:58
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | Since you did the math I'll concede that any way you slice it 33 deep water platforms is a pretty small piece of the Gulf oil rig pie. But I do believe that 33 amounts to ALL of the deep water rigs we control in the Gulf. That means a specific portion of the industry has been targeted and may never fully recover. I read an article about a huge Houston petrol company that's already packed up their R&D division to reconnoiter the more business-friendly waters of the middle east. |
Sat 14 Aug 2010 10:34:22
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | # of rigs |
| Message | The map I referenced, for a rough estimate, is from NOAA. I couldn't get the link to the other map you sent to work, and I would like to check it out. The Houston AP numbers add up to 1628 rigs whereas the article says there's 1640 total. Somehow we're missing a little there. Cutting the estimate of total rigs in half raises the percentage of deep water rigs to 1.8% of the total. Cutting the total by 75%, down to 900, raises the percentage to 3.7% I'm rounding to 2 places as these are obvious extimates. Also the assumption seems to be that American workers only work on rigs in the US waters. Those 33 deep water rigs are still a small percentage of the total. |
Sat 14 Aug 2010 03:42:50
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | I can't tell exactly what your map is portraying. It shows a lot of dots and talks of active oil platforms, but it also refers to "planning areas". Very mysterious. I'm not sure the website exists that simply states how many oil rigs are operating in the US waters of the Gulf. Maybe it's a state secret! I did find a couple of articles that seem to give a number... HOUSTON (AP) — The number of rigs actively exploring for oil and natural gas in the U.S. increased by 35 this week to 1,640. Houston-based drilling systems provider Baker Hughes Inc. said Friday that 992 rigs were exploring for natural gas and 636 for oil. And this from PennEnergy... Drilling Rig Counts Climb Worldwide August 6, 2010 By Phaedra Friend Troy According to the regular report from Baker Hughes (NYSE:BHI), the number of onshore and offshore drilling rigs increased across the board during the month of July. The number of international land rigs increased by 10 to 1,109 in July 2010. This is a marked increase of 135 rigs year over year. Additionally, the number of offshore drilling rigs contracted internationally jumped by 11 in July 2010 to 798 rigs. Representing a year-over-year increase of 97 rigs, the number of offshore rigs working in July 2009 was only 701. I also found a map that shows our rigs in the Gulf. Considerably less than your's shows. It's here... http://www.newshoggers.com/blog/images/2008/08/30/oil_rigs.jpg Can you provide text evidence of your 3600 Gulf rig claim? |
Sat 14 Aug 2010 02:19:35
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | PAW |
| Message | That pretty much sums it up. Whatever exactness your prediction achieves in the short run, it will be even more accurate in the sum of the long run of political cycles. I'm certain the writers of the Constitution knew this and tried to create a framework that would allow us to survive and even take advantage of it. Well said PAW. |
Fri 13 Aug 2010 10:13:25
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | PAW |
| Message | AMEN!! |
Fri 13 Aug 2010 08:43:28
Fri 13 Aug 2010 08:30:30
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | PAW/WRT |
| Message | When gw and his treasury dept bailed out the big banks with "your" tax dollars (called TARP) instead of helping main street USA it is now known that AIG got most of the money and they in turn bailed out European banks. No wonder the TARP didn't help Main Street. The people in charge Paulson, Greenspan, Bernicke Summers, Geithner were too busy bailing out Goldman Sachs, AIG and spending your money on lavish get togethers in Cal. And you blame Obama for our financial crisis. Get a life. THE really bad thing is that obama has kept two of the worse culprits up his butt. Geithner and Summers. |
Fri 13 Aug 2010 07:49:02
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | turning the Titanic |
| Message | "HIS inspectors on HIS watch that failed to prevent the explosion in the first place." If the Obama admin had immediately fired all those Bush oil co stooges, in those inspection positions, the government would been attacked by the oil company's pawns, you know the GOP/TP. So they stuck to firing, etc. the ones, that they immediately started catching, taking bribes and sex for looking the other way. Besides, it takes a while to turn the Titanic. |
Fri 13 Aug 2010 07:34:21
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Obama wanted this disaster? |
| Message | You still want to imply he may somehow have wanted the oil rig disaster??? I know, the right has serially created fake videos and endless lies and distortion, so they think that is normal. But it's still bizarre. Of course Rush says it. He also says Obama wants the US to collapse. As far as I know, only Rush and the right, are advocating these traitorous positions. |
Fri 13 Aug 2010 07:24:02
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | skimmers |
| Message | It's against the law to bring non US skimmers to work in our waters. Can you imagine the sniveling from the right, if the feds had broken that law? |
Fri 13 Aug 2010 07:19:19
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | sand berms |
| Message | Putting sand berm on those exposed beaches was not always such a good idea. There are circumstances where they would have caused even worse damage. So the Coast Guard, I believe it was, would not allow it, in those cases. You can count on the GOP/TP gang to not acknowledge or know that fact. I mean, if you're crying fire in a theatre, you want panic, not reason. Interestingly, the Coasties were real heroes in the aftermath of Katrina. If the rest of the feds had been as competent the results would have been much better. |
Fri 13 Aug 2010 07:05:21
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | # of rigs in gulf |
| Message | I think the >3600 number comes from The Economist. From wikipedia there is a map and estimate of 3858 on July 11, 2006. From the map it appears that number is pretty much in our waters. Here's a link to that map. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Gulf_Coast_Platforms.jpg |
Fri 13 Aug 2010 03:01:36
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | Actually I'd like to know your source for this 3600 number. I've done a little research. I haven't been able to get exact numbers, but your's seems GROSSLY inflated. Is it possible that there have been 3600 wells dug in the Gulf? An oil rig will pump a well dry, plug it up, and move on. Your source, please. |
Fri 13 Aug 2010 01:02:39
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | How many of those 3600 oil rigs in the Gulf are in American controlled waters and therefore relevant to our discussion? |
Fri 13 Aug 2010 10:12:11
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | PAW |
| Message | PAW I AGREE WITH YOU!!! HUH I think with Clinton's ability to compromise and work with the republicans and in conjunction with the surge in tech companies and a staggering growth in home production the period at the end of the 90 decade was probably the best we have had in I don't know how long. Had BC been able to keep his cigar away from Lewinsky I think he would have went down as a really great president. And then came gw. He give away surplus, an uncalled for war with Saddam at 100b a month, the cheny led energy bill9ENRON comes to mind) and the list goes on and on and you eventually wind up in 2008 with the country almost on the collapse of capitalism as we know it. Then to save the system gw comes up with TARP to bail out the economy but the first people who got bailed out were the big banks who put us in jeopardy in the first place, Did you see where GM turned a second big profit in a row and that Chrysler, while still down 171m is chump change (if you can call that kind of money chump change) compared to where they were 2 years ago. AND you want to turn the clock back to the republicans being in charge. Maybe we should dig up BC and put a chastity belt on him. Obama turned the OIL crisis over to Thad Allen, the 4 star admiral in the Coast Guard, immediately and gw turned Katrina over to Michael Brown. Wasn't Gw somewhere in Calif when Katrina hit. Might have even golfed. And if you go back I really think Your boy Jindal looked like a real idiot when the crisis first developed. |
Fri 13 Aug 2010 03:41:37
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | Oily Obama |
| Message | First he declined the services of a fleet of skimmer ships world wide that offered to help. Next he wouldn't allow Bobby Jindal to create temporary sandbars that would stop the oil from coming ashore. What was it...50 days before he FINALLY showed up to see it for himself? If he would have left the golf course and come earlier he might have been able to personally cut through some of the bureaucratic red tape that slowed or prevented the efforts to keep the oil from reaching land. And let's not forget that it was HIS inspectors on HIS watch that failed to prevent the explosion in the first place. At worst he tried to bring disaster, at best he's totally incompetent. |
Thu 12 Aug 2010 09:07:16
| Name : | To Bob/BW |
| Email : | From PAW |
| Message | Yes Bob, Bush originated TARP but Obama has made Bush look like a skinflint. If the banks go under we pay anyway. It's called FDIC. Haven't the banks been paying it back? Yes Bob, budgets begin in the House. Who had control of the House and Senate when Clinton takes credit for those balanced budgets? Who sent the welfare reform act to Clinton? Clinton takes credit for it but he HAD to sign it or be the president who was against welfare reform. You're not just a liberal Bob, you're as whacko liberal as Rush is conservative. |
Thu 12 Aug 2010 09:02:27
Thu 12 Aug 2010 08:57:50
Thu 12 Aug 2010 08:44:53
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | Bush did not cause Katrina. But he did send Michael Brown to clean it up. |
Thu 12 Aug 2010 08:43:04
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | PAW/Obi |
| Message | You are right I really don't know what a liberal is, and secondly a democrat would take that fish and make sure everyone got a bite. Remember Jesus divided the fish and bread up amongst "ALL" the people not just to the top 2% who were already fat. Thanks for the reminder. Of course Jesus was the real Christian and probably a democrat. Wasn't it Jesus who threw the rich out of the temple? Today only the rich are heard and have a seat in the Temple (DC) |
Thu 12 Aug 2010 08:34:32
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | WRT |
| Message | Peiple forget that according to the way things are done in DC money appropriations begin in the House. Another thing people forget and it proves how successful beck and limbuger are that it was gw who initiated TARP (stimulus) not Obama. Yet a recent WJS poll said that 47% of the people that that TARP was from Obama. How could anyone forget that Paulson and Treasury department send the first 350M to the big banks instead of to main street. |
Thu 12 Aug 2010 07:24:44
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Obi-Juan |
| Message | I never heard the one about Bush causing hurricane Katrina but sounds equally bizarre to blame Bush to me. How could anyone cause a hurricane? The "good job Brownie" thing will live in history though. I never heard the one about killing American boys in Iraq, either, but it also sounds out of kilter. Yes, it seems the prezs are the target of all sorts of strange stuff. |
Thu 12 Aug 2010 04:38:36
| Name : | Obi-Juan-Canolli |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | You lefties said that Bush caused hurricane Katrina... trying to kill him some "black people".. I also remember you lefties saying that Bush was sending American boys to die in Iraq... cuz bush wanted to kill him some American boys. And now that the tables are turned.. and some are saying Obama Shmama caused the oil disaster.. now you lefties are squealing your bloody head off at the same treatment you dished out... Bush had to put up with lefty extremists.. now its Obama's turn. Obama, you want to be the Prez??... how does it feel now??? |
Thu 12 Aug 2010 04:16:20
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | But Rush said it. |
| Message | How can anyone believe that ANY president of the USA would want to make ANY oil disaster happen?? This is like Roswell flying saucers quality BS. But Rush said it, so the right believes. Bizarre. |
Thu 12 Aug 2010 04:11:23
| Name : | Obi-Juan-Canolli |
| Email : | BW and PAW |
| Message | Dang.. I agree with PAW... something must be wrong.. LOL I think I have an analogy that sums up a "liberal" vs. a "conservative". A "liberal" will TAKE fish from those that have.. and GIVE the fish to the poor and hungry.... A "conservative" will teach the poor and hungry how to fish.... In my opinion, liberalism.. or should I say (in today's parlance) "progressiveness" has NEVER worked.... rum n coke #4 |
Thu 12 Aug 2010 04:04:38
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | The 1% drilling moratorium |
| Message | It's safe to say that the 33 deep water rigs will be not drilling but will require maintenance, until they can come up with responce plans and safe procedures. Unless of course the GOP/TP gang gets back in control. Then it would be back to business like before, maybe even bribing the fed regulators and sex scandals, like the last time the GOP/TP called the shots. As you may not like to recall, as soon as their right wing protectors were gone, they were busted. There are over 3600 rigs in the gulf. So the 33 deep water rigs are less than 1% of the total. To the degree that various support functions are deep water specific they will also cut back. But the other 99% of the rigs are business as usual. And their support is too. So it's safe to say that the moratorium will affect less than 1% of the total. Talk about exageration! I have reason to believe Rush L. knows this and therefore is telling invidious lies. And the right believes them. |
Thu 12 Aug 2010 03:44:17
| Name : | To Bob |
| Email : | From PAW |
| Message | Of course you will vote for Filner Bob. He's one of the most liberal members of the house. |
Thu 12 Aug 2010 03:21:08
| Name : | To BW |
| Email : | From PAW |
| Message | Bob, you not only don't think of yourself as a liberal some time back you said you were somewhat conservative. Bob, you don't even know what a liberal is. |
Thu 12 Aug 2010 03:17:29
Thu 12 Aug 2010 03:00:47
Thu 12 Aug 2010 10:34:51
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | Down Memory Lane |
| Message | Many believe that the House is more influencial on the economy than even the Presidency. Remember the first two years of the Clinton administration? The economy was kind of sluggish. Then along came Newt and the Republicans. With their reform mandate, and Clinton being the poll-watching windsock that he was, they were able to force on him the changes that led to financial recovery. The Gingrich boom. Of course the opposite happened in 2006 when things were going swell until the Democrats got control of the House. So now here we are in the Pelosi Recession. Anyone seen the financial headlines lately? The stock market is dropping, unemployment numbers continue to disappoint. Some "Summer of Recovery"! But there's hope come this November. History could repeat itself. The Republicans could take the House with a reform mandate from the people that Obama, though not as smart as Clinton, will have to heed! |
Thu 12 Aug 2010 10:07:25
| Name : | Jo |
| Email : | |
| Message | Thanks Bobby for the greetings!!! |
Thu 12 Aug 2010 09:23:14
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | Rush blasted Obama for not doing anything and TRYING to make a disaster happen. He said all along that the amount of oil pumping into the Gulf was minuscule. The trouble would be when it hit land like Obama tried to allow. Once again, no contradiction from Rush. Take out your new calculator and see how many Gulf area jobs are lost/affected by the shutting down of these deep water wells. And how many of them will be gone forever when the rigs pack up and go to Venezuela or somewhere else. |
Thu 12 Aug 2010 08:45:16
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | Jo |
| Message | Personally I don't think Bob Filner, a democrat, has done a bad job. I will vote for him. I have been to him twice for something I needed and both times he came to my aid (or his staff probably). By the way HAPPY ANNIVERSARY. It would have been Barb's and mine on the 5th (43). I did take her flowers and spent some time with her. PAW and some on here think I am a Liberal. I don't think so. I just want what is best for everyone. |
Thu 12 Aug 2010 03:09:45
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | denying cause & effect |
| Message | Let's see, we have the right that is so desperate to win that they plot and scheme to ruin the US. Meanwhile, the right is sniveling and making up fantastic distortions, like that everyone but them is a socialist, or that Obama is out to get whitey, or no one but them respects the constitution, and on and on. Their leader is Rush L. The epic racist hypocrite and liar. Their debate tactics have been shouting down public speakers, or spreading stupid lies, like that Obama wasn't born here. All the while claiming the left is the one doing all this. And when it's pointed out that they drove the country to ruin during their time of hubris, they say it's not fair. At least the right is consistent. |
Wed 11 Aug 2010 10:15:28
| Name : | To Jo |
| Email : | From PAW |
| Message | I agree Jo but Bob blames everything on Bush and the republicans. He gets upset with Pelosi and Reid but it's because they aren't liberal enough. |
Wed 11 Aug 2010 09:08:36
Wed 11 Aug 2010 08:10:12
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | KP |
| Message | That wasn't for you. You are probably wondering what the h did I do now. |
Wed 11 Aug 2010 08:09:04
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | PAW/KP |
| Message | SORRY PAW. There really is no sense saying anything to you. Where were you 2 years ago when the banks almost fell, when all 3 auto companies were on the verge of falling apart when the housing industry collasped. The things going on today economically are the DIRECT result of your DADDY"S failed presidency. Remember the president who gave us the stimulus package and spent the first 300 Million of it to his banker friends. Jesus. |
Wed 11 Aug 2010 08:04:35
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | PAW/KP |
| Message | sORRY PAW |
Wed 11 Aug 2010 07:48:55
| Name : | To BW |
| Email : | From PAW |
| Message | Things "are better now than they were two years ago?" Please explain . How about national debt and unemployment rates? |
Wed 11 Aug 2010 06:45:05
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | moratorium % |
| Message | I have to correct my numbers on the percentage of wells involved in the moratorium. It's actually 0.9% or around one in 110 wells. I just got a new calculator, A very nice HP 35s, and added an extra zero to the calc. |
Wed 11 Aug 2010 04:58:12
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | I see where the tea party guys and girls beat the Chamber of Commerce boys and girls in yesterdays elections, but that only means that the Ultra right wing portion of the party won over the so called republican establishment republicans. My main fear in Nov is not the tea party or the party of "hell no" but that many many people will not turn out to vote. Off year elections don't usually generate the turn out the four year races do. The big difference is that republicans vote (except for Meg Whitman of course) and dems don't. Really if it were always between dems and repubs the repubs would probably win most of the time. ( think gerrymandering and voter turn out) It is my sincere hope that many people remember where we were two years ago (on the verge of a "real" depression) and even though things are far far from even remotely good we are still in better shape than we were 2 years ago. I think the fact we permitted so many jobs to be sent over seas that we destroyed the opportunity for real job growth in this country. Maybe we should say to those companies who sent the jobs over seas or moved their head quarters to tax shelter havens to hire Americans or pay a heavy levy (that means TAX) for any job that was out sourced. |
Wed 11 Aug 2010 03:21:28
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | drilling moratorium |
| Message | You guys are aware that the moratorium only applied to wells in over 500 feet of water? There are 33 such wells. That works out to less than 0.1% the wells, or less than one in a thousand! Rush was classic today. After blasting Obama for months about not doing anything and letting a disaster happen, now he's saying that it was never a disaster. He's doen this all along of course. sometimes without taking a breath he goes from one side of a story to the direct opposite. Of course Rush never has to worry about contradicting himself as no one would dream of holding him accountable. Those in the center and the left know he's nearly pure BS anyway. And he has the right under his thumb. The right would never dare question him. He has you guys whipped. |
Wed 11 Aug 2010 02:47:34
Tue 10 Aug 2010 06:45:16
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | NUTHER 62ER |
| Message | So far in this political season she has had little relevancy being most of those she has supported has lost. Mow that could change tonight as she has some candidates she has supported running in primaries. For me I love her. While she brings spark to the brain dead right she turns most people off. Her negatives in polls are higher than her positives. Now she does do good things for dems, who clearly need the help, in pushing the republicans so far to the right they have trouble with the mainstream. Even the latest brouhaha in Alaska showed her to be shallow and that all knowing comment she and her daughter made when the lady said she was a teacher should show everyone what her inner feelings are towards teachers. So keep bringing her up as your standard bearer. Like DF says she is the "perfect" valley girl. |
Tue 10 Aug 2010 06:18:39
| Name : | Nuther '62er |
| Email : | Palin |
| Message | I'm not a huge fan of Ms. Palin, but as I've said many times don't underestimate her. She has quite a following, and she will be a player in the upcoming midterms. She has no chance of becoming Pres., but if her popularity continues into 2012, she'll again be a player in Presidential politics. Not in winning but in being able to bring a lot of votes with whoever she ends up endorsing. |
Mon 09 Aug 2010 09:33:43
| Name : | Obi-Juan-Canolli |
| Email : | embarrisked Hank |
| Message | Ok you guys. I guess I have to apologize. Someone just sent me a "snopes" link that says the above photo is a fake. Well, everything is real except the airplane. The photo came from a movie called "Stealth" about 2005. Sorry... ya win some and you lose some.... But I bet you this for sure. We have something like it or better on the drawing board. And you ain't gonna know about it until it bites you on the ass... LOL |
Mon 09 Aug 2010 08:31:50
Mon 09 Aug 2010 08:17:17
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Palin |
| Message | You're right that something is out of kilter regarding what I think, anyway. that I remember about that debate. As I said before, I retract my quote of her her till I sort this out. Interestingly, most of the analysis of the debate judged Palin of having blown off the questions to her. And to have also done better than expected, as her speaking before had been pretty disastrous. And thanx again for the link to that web site with the transcript. |
Mon 09 Aug 2010 08:06:40
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | oops |
| Message | something went wrong there and my post went through in two pieces, one a fragment. Sorry about that. |
Mon 09 Aug 2010 08:04:49
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Mr. Wright and Mrs. Black |
| Message | Wasn't Obama some kind of debate champion at Harvard? However he does it, he's a pretty good speaker. He gives a general impression of having thought these things over. Palin gives me the impression she's trying to string together some platitudes. Do you guys remember Mr. Wright and Mrs. Black, our English teachers at MV when I was there anyway. Wright I think would consider Palin to be relying on "glittering generalities" as he used to say to us. It would be interesting to be able to hear what they would have said about this. As you can tell, English was a tough class for me, and I had them both try to shape me up. |
Mon 09 Aug 2010 07:56:12
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Leroy |
| Message | Wasn't Obama some kind of debate champion at Harvard? However he does it, he's a pretty good speaker. He gives a general impression of having thought these things over. Palin gives me the impression she stringing together some platitudes. |
Mon 09 Aug 2010 04:58:54
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | My guess is that Palin meant no one cares about fixing BLAME for the economic disaster. Further. I think you've either exagerrated, taken it out of context or failed to give her the bennie of the doubt on a minor misspeak. |
Mon 09 Aug 2010 01:06:40
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | Most people don't always speak fluidly in public. Consider the "great orator" himself, Obama. When he's not reading something he uh sounds a little uh like uh this. No wonder he's only had one or two press conferences his entire time in office! |
Mon 09 Aug 2010 03:21:51
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | vp debate |
| Message | The net has quite a bit of commentary about that vp debate. The main comment was about Palin blowing off the qeustions. I also watched some video and she comes off soo valley girl in her mannerisms. I also found these little gems. If you can follow this rather meandering thought train... "Now, Barack Obama, of course, he's pretty much only voted along his party lines. In fact, 96 percent of his votes have been solely along party line, not having that proof for the American people to know that his commitment, too, is, you know, put the partisanship, put the special interests aside, and get down to getting business done for the people of America." and... "And we're going to forge ahead with putting government back on the side of the people and making sure that our country comes first, putting obsessive partisanship aside." This from the party of "Hell No" |
Mon 09 Aug 2010 02:12:12
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | WRT |
| Message | Thanks for that resource on the vp debate. I asked my friends if they remembered anything about this and one guy said yes. I can still remember the look on Ifle's face. Anyway I'll try to pursue this too. When else could Ifle have asked that question of her? Even though I remember this so clearly, I'll stand back till I can search around. |
Sun 08 Aug 2010 09:18:46
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/02/debate.transcript/ This is where you'll find the transcript of that Palin/Biden VP debate. I can't find the question or response that you referred to. Or anything remotely like it. Maybe I just missed it or there was another VP debate moderated by Gwen Ifle. Can you help me out? |
Sun 08 Aug 2010 05:08:09
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Palin |
| Message | "Will I get no examples of Sarah Palin's ignorance?" During the vp campaign debates, Gwen Ifle asked Palin "what would she do to fix the causes of the economic disaster."? She replied, "No one cares about that." !!!!!! If I had been a democrat campaign manager I would have played that every 15 minutes on TV and the radio. I would like to back up here and look at this word "ignorant" that I among others have used so exuberantly. In a classic sense it simply means "lack of knowledge". Popular usage has disrespectful overtones probably. When we think of each other as idiots for our usage of this word, the difference is worth noting. I took Palin's answer to that question as a foolish attempt to skip something she was totally unable to answer. Ignorant, at least in the classic sense. |
Sun 08 Aug 2010 08:53:38
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | WRT |
| Message | EXAMPLE ON IGNORANCE. WATCH HER LIPS MOVE. |
Sun 08 Aug 2010 01:59:55
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | |
| Message | Okay I get it now. Valley Girl has morphed into blonde. Why wasn't I notified? Will I get no examples of Sarah Palin's ignorance? |
Sat 07 Aug 2010 06:43:46
| Name : | Obi-Juan-Canolli |
| Email : | DF.. and all... |
| Message | Well.. if you ever had real life brothers.. then you know we "scrap".... "Boys will be boys"... LOL BUT... if some outsider intercedes.. then we ban together. Until then, we be gonna "scrap"... LOL We be gonna fuss and fight.... but we be havin us a strong bond....."be true to your school". If you don't take anything away from your obnoxious pappy.. at least take this... "be true to your school". |
Sat 07 Aug 2010 04:50:40
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | to WRT and all |
| Message | Thank you for the nice compliment. And for bearing with my lousy spelling and proofreading. And for my more exuberant posts. And for my worthy fellow patriots, let the debates rage on! |
Sat 07 Aug 2010 04:35:02
| Name : | Obi-Juan-Canolli |
| Email : | WRT |
| Message | What a nice post. That's a "MAN UP" post. I wish I could be that "manly". |
Sat 07 Aug 2010 11:47:47
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | By the way, I'm sorry I referred to you as BW's "loudmouthed buddy" earlier. I judged you based on just a couple of your more exuberant posts. You're an accomplished person a lot smarter than me and I'm priveledged to have the enjoyment of debating with you. |
Sat 07 Aug 2010 11:46:57
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | WRT/Reagan and Buckely |
| Message | I think that the dems ruled for so long before Reagan that they got sort of dumbed down and sold out for power. Reagan and his gang represented and were reform and renewal of our process. They too had to overcome massive gerrymandering and public indifference. Now the shoe is on the other foot. The Repubs have ruled Congress, which is the most powerful force in our government, since the middle of Clinton's terms. The arrogance, etc that eventually overtook them is so like what became of those earlier democrats. And Obama and his crew are the forces of reform now. No doubt they will continue this long cycle. We need a contructive right. Not a party of "No". Some leaders of the right openly call for us to fail! Reagan and Buckley must be spinning in their graves. |
Sat 07 Aug 2010 11:32:31
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | "You imply that if most of the US votes "no" then that somehow changes science" My concern is not changing science. But if most of the US votes "no" thousands of perfectly harmless companies won't be taxed out of existence and scores of thousands of people won't lose their jobs. That's not politicizing it...that's REAL LIFE. |
Sat 07 Aug 2010 11:25:37
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | WRT/climate change |
| Message | Evidence for climate change, on Earth, is overwhelming and comes from very diverse sources. For instance, various satellite measurements scan the whole globe, and at various levels of the atmosphere and ocean. Various isotope distributions in ancient glaciers give evidence. And on and on. I'm not sure how various newspapers, etc. come up with their reports, but I can assure you that they have enormous context issues and are often flumoxed by trying to interpet things they never bothered to learn in school. And they live for sensationalism. The fact is that the sun is and has been in a minimum for the recent period. Some feel that it's the deepest minimum in recent times. So the sun is not heating up at this point. In fact it is cooler. Further this minimum is sure to end more or less soon. Non-political scientists are watching this process with great interest. Will it produced measureable and attributable changes in our climate? I wouild say that this stuff about other planets is almost bizarre, but I know that would be unfair to you. You're not a planetary physicist or astronomer, so I give you credit and understanding of where you're coming from. I would say the right would do better to try to learn the physics of the atmosphere and proceed from there. For the "layman" that may be a several year project. And drop the political animus. It's hard to appreciate a point of view so steeped in the shallowness of politics. |
Sat 07 Aug 2010 11:07:59
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | I agree that the modern right no longer reflects the values of Buckley and Reagan. At least it didn't the last couple of years. But we're going to throw out the mamby-pamby cross the aisle ideas of the rinos and get back to good old fashioned CONSERVATISM this November! We'll make those two boys proud again. But I can't for the life of me figure out why they would be heroes of your's. |
Sat 07 Aug 2010 11:01:02
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | The mosque has nothing to do with science. The common thread I tried to point out is that they both clash with the religous right. I guess I could have worded that better. "And some scholar. Her ignoance has provided comic relief since she made the scene." Examples, please. And you can skip the Bush Doctrine one. Dollars to donuts neither Obama nor Biden could have answered that question. But then they never would have gotten it. From the main stream media they only get questions like "How does it feel to be the first black presidential nominee of a major party?" or "Tell us, Joe, what's Mr. Obama REALLY like?". Or maybe they'd throw a real fastball at 'em like..."So what kind of change are you going to bring to Washington?" |
Sat 07 Aug 2010 10:40:42
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | I'm no scientist and far be it for me to debunk the entire man-made global warming theory here but, okay, let's discuss a little global warming science. This from The Telegraph... "Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research. A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes. Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: 'The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.'" This from The Register... "Global warming and melting polar ice caps are not just problems here on Earth. Mars is facing similar global changes, researchers say, with temperatures across the red planet rising by around 0.65 degrees over the last few decades." This from NASA... "Now, Jupiter has a third red spot, again produced from a smaller whitish storm. ... Jupiter's recent outbreak of red spots is likely related to large scale climate change as the gas giant planet is getting warmer near the equator." This from The World Climate Report... "Neptune has been getting brighter since around 1980; furthermore, infrared measurements of the planet since 1980 show that the planet has been warming steadily from 1980 to 2004." I can't imagine how man has caused the warming on these globes. Unless you blame the emissions from the few space probes we've sent their way! There is also substantial evidence that the world is not even warming...man caused or not. Like the exposed e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit showing exagerrated data, destruction of contrary temp readings, conspiratorial resistance to disclosure, e-mails admitting flaws in their research and conclusions, etc. A lot of folks believe higher average earth temps are in part the result of "urban sprawl". Civilization has encroached on temperature recorders that were once in cool meadows but are now in places like asphalt parking lots. I think man-caused global warming is a fraud brought on by liberal scientists that feel guilty over the "waste" produced by countries like the US. It was "confirmed" by the UN and other groups jealous of the industrial world's wealth. It's perpetuated by despicable carpetbaggers like Al Gore that just want to get rich and live the kind of extravagant lifestyle they would deny the rest of us. |
Sat 07 Aug 2010 10:12:12
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | science and the right |
| Message | "Just like the Ground Zero mosque...science occasionally clashes with the religious beliefs of many American conservatives." I'm not sure I follow this part. What science has to do with the ground zero mosque? By the way I feel that the idea of putting a mosque there is insensitive and counter productive at best. |
Sat 07 Aug 2010 10:03:15
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | gerrymandering |
| Message | No comment from the right on this?? I'd be embarrassed to if I was you guys. |
Sat 07 Aug 2010 09:54:57
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | W F Buckely |
| Message | Bill Buckely was one of my heroes. I followed his work his whole life. The same goes for Reagan. BW knows this and we have chewed the subject righteously. I'm aware of his feelings re the Economist. He respected their work if he sometimes disagreed. Naturally he didn't sit around talking about how he agreed with whatever. What's interesting for comment rarely involves agreement but does follow contrasting points of view. My problem with the modern right is that it no longer reflects the essence, and barely the substance, of either of those great men. |
Sat 07 Aug 2010 09:41:49
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Palin |
| Message | Whatever you say, to wash the facts away, the characterization of Palin as a "Valley girl" resonates with and amuses a huge amount of people. And some scholar. Her ignoance has provided comic relief since she made the scene. Further, last year I spent some time with some of her political workers. They said whe is the most self=centered and shallow pol they had ever worked for or encountered. Being the worst among the politician crowd is saying something. |
Sat 07 Aug 2010 09:39:14
Sat 07 Aug 2010 09:32:11
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | WRT |
| Message | DF and I are worried about the future. It is very funny how righties scream and holler about how their grand kids will have to pay for the deficit yet are unconcerned that due to man kinds treatment of our earth there will be no future for our grand kids to live in.The gigantic profitable coal mines, oil producers and car makers are not concerned about the air you breath or the food you eat. The Chinese have no concern about the lead in products they send our children. They are concerned about PROFITS for their share holders and rally nothing else. You have seen scorched earth policies all over the world whether it be strip mining, cutting the Amazon forest, polluting our rivers. (Remember Lake Erie). DF I know for a fact is concerned about the water(ocean) quality off IB as he has spent virtually his entire life near that ocean. |
Sat 07 Aug 2010 09:24:24
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | science & politics |
| Message | "It's already near the bottom of the top ten concerns of Americans. Soon most all of the US will understand it was a FRAUD" You guys see everything through a politics filter. Your discussion of climate change skips the science part. You imply that if most of the US votes "no" then that somehow changes science. By that standard Einstein was never right. By that standard no part of modern physics is true. By that standard the earth recently became a sphere. |
Sat 07 Aug 2010 03:37:59
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | I agree that it sometimes seems the right is at odds with science. But I would hardly call it a war. Just like the Ground Zero mosque...science occasionally clashes with the religious beliefs of many American conservatives. But I think the clashes are infrequent and small enough to not cause much lack of sleep. |
Sat 07 Aug 2010 03:28:39
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | Wrong again. Conservatives are not against higher education. We admire and respect the wisdom of true scholars. We just dislike the liberal indoctrination that goes on in most US universities. "The right is trying to turn a long time science issue into politics." You were speaking of climate change. But you forgot to add the "LOL". The RIGHT has turned it into politics? I can't even believe you said that! Who turned it into "man made" on fradulent evidence? Who has turned it into a guilt tax, a crippler of business and destroyer of jobs all over the world but mostly in the USA? The LEFT of course! To us righties it's always been what it is... part of the earth's natural cycle. It's already near the bottom of the top ten concerns of Americans. Soon most all of the US will understand it was a FRAUD. As for the UN and the rest of the world...WHO CARES! |
Sat 07 Aug 2010 03:06:05
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | I'm afraid I don't get this "Sarah Palin is a Valley Girl" thing at all. She's not from the Valley. She's lived in Alaska since she was a baby. She was an athlete and a scholar. She's an outdoors enthusiast and a conservative spokesperson. Hardly Valley Girl traits. I think Joe Biden is an idiot among politicians. Can I call him a hillbilly? Valley Girl? It's moronic. |
Sat 07 Aug 2010 02:54:50
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | Bill Buckley may have read The Economist, but I doubt very seriously that he ever endorsed it. Wikipedia's not the best source of information, but it's more impartial than any of us. This is what they say about the British weekly... The Economist generally supports free markets, globalisation, and free immigration, has been described as neo-liberal although occasionally accepting the propositions of Keynesian economics where deemed more "reasonable".[18]. However, the Economist has also long supported more government health and education spending and supports government "stimulus" spending during recessions and the bailing out of banks and other financial industry enterprises. It also supports social liberalism, including legalised drugs and prostitution. This contrast is attributed to The Economist's roots in classical liberalism, disfavouring government interference in either social or economic activity,[citation needed] although the news magazine favours a carbon tax to fight global warming.[19] According to former editor Bill Emmott, "the Economist's philosophy has always been liberal, not conservative. I guess if you scrape away all the liberal slag, there's a tiny little puddle of conservatism there. |
Sat 07 Aug 2010 01:54:42
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | MV grads and trolley drivers |
| Message | "It's so funny to hear guys that barely have high school diplomas", etc. I thought the right was against college and all that. You know, "if they spent a lot of time studying something" then they're predjudiced. Rush says it all the time. It's part of your war on science. |
Sat 07 Aug 2010 01:36:35
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | hmmm/obama's birth |
| Message | The state of Hawaii provides access to records of Obama'a birth there. state officials have said they have 10 or so requests a day. Is this fact also some sort of deflection? Your third paragraph is a classic example of "deflection". You seem to want to disprove BW's statement about Palin by changing the subject to Obama. Then, with barely taking a breath, you accuse others of doing what you just did. |
Fri 06 Aug 2010 05:46:46
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | WRT/gerrymandering |
| Message | Yes, the state proposition about gerrymandering passed. And it was the dems who gerrymandered the state, even though the repubs got their 2 bits in too. Now the liberal voters of this state have repudiated gerrymandering. They have given up their undemocratic and un-American hold on our state. Nationally it's the republicans who have gerrymandered by far the most. The Economist said in 2008 that because of gerrymandering the democrats have to get 57% just to break even. The republicans only need 43%. Do I hear any of the "hollier than thou" republicans coming out against gerrymandering. Only in CA. What's the word for that? Hypocrites!! The liberals can do it but the right is too sold out for undemocratic and un-American power. |
Fri 06 Aug 2010 05:27:40
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | hmmm/The Economist |
| Message | Where do you come up with this "left leaning liberal rag" stuff? The Economist is widely considered to be right of center and pro business. W F Buckely read and respected it. Was he a left leaning liberal, too? Do you know who W F Buckely was even? Further you say that when my conservative friends tell me what they feel about Palin, that it is heresay and not factual? Well it's still their opinion and they still think she's a "Valley Girl" How is that not factual? Are they lying to me? As a physicist and former oceanographer I have some awareness of theis climate change issue. It's pathetic to not acknowledge that the climate is changing. Where is the ice going? What is uncertain is how much we are contributing to the whole thing. To say we have no influence is ridiculous. Equally, to overstate our influence is also weak. The right is trying to turn a long time science issue into politics. It's making you guys look ignorant, cause you're acting like you understand something that you have barely begun to look at. Then there's the right's attack on evolution, etc. I have read some of the most fraudulent and intentionally misleading fake science trying to support creationism. Since 30% of Americans believe in creationism, they constitute most of your political base. And they are at war against science. |
Fri 06 Aug 2010 03:20:47
| Name : | hmmmm |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | "The Economist stated, when Palin was chosen, that she was the candidate of, mostly foreign owned, big oil. The most general opinion I hear from people, is that she is a "valley girl". Even many conservatives agree. So, basically a valley girl stooge of the oil companies made the conservatives look bad and cost McCain his chance. How the conservatives have fallen since the days of William F. Buckley. From true intelect to being at war against science." Wow, I love the way you came up with that conclusion about Palin. Taking an excerpt off a left leaning liberal rag and combining it with heresay and no facts (..even many conservatives agree)... and Voila!! a "valley girl stooge of the oil companies..." How pathetic, I mean, prophetic. From your last statement, "From true intelect (sp) to being at war against science", you sound like one of the people who believe in global warming, oops, I mean climate change. Yup, there's some "true" science alright. |
Fri 06 Aug 2010 12:20:07
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | hmmmm |
| Message | Great post! Right on point. Goal, goal, goal. A hat trick! |
Fri 06 Aug 2010 11:59:54
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | BW |
| Message | I truly admire your accomplishments. It's okay that you can't acknowledge the abilties and accomplishments of anyone on the right. But do you have to wrap your negative comments with filth? Especially when talking about a woman? I guess I was just raised differently. |
Fri 06 Aug 2010 10:54:55
| Name : | hmmmm |
| Email : | Obi |
| Message | "As you and your progressive friends have shown right here... mention Sarah and you guys start hyperventilating... LOL" The behavior is indicative of one who is threatened by another and results in character assassination rather than debate with facts. What is very interesting is BW mentions Republicans and Conservative fawning over her, a "half term" governor and "dumb". Yet, he and other liberal/dems/leftists are in lock step with Obama who's past is even more questionable (everything about him from his birth through his college education is sealed), has no administrative experience, whatsoever (being "present" as a Senator hardly qualifies, or being a "community organizer" for that matter). But, as I've observed, they will always come back with a deflection when confronted by facts. |
Fri 06 Aug 2010 09:48:02
| Name : | Obi-Juan-Canolli |
| Email : | BW |
| Message | "I am so wrong about Palin"???? I didn't say anything about her to be wrong about. All I said is.. she and Fox news drive the lefties friggen crazy... and I LOVE IT... As you and your progressive friends have shown right here... mention Sarah and you guys start hyperventilating... LOL |
Fri 06 Aug 2010 09:18:33
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Palin |
| Message | The Economist stated, when Palin was chosen, that she was the candidate of, mostly foreign owned, big oil. The most general opinion I hear from people, is that she is a "valley girl". Even many conservatives agree. So, basically a valley girl stooge of the oil companies made the conservatives look bad and cost McCain his chance. How the conservatives have fallen since the days of William F. Buckley. From true intelect to being at war against science. |
Fri 06 Aug 2010 09:04:59
| Name : | BE |
| Email : | WRT |
| Message | In fact I would put DF up against brainy gw any day of the week. In fact I would put ESO up there ahead of him too, and me and Henry and El Paso Tom. Sorry PAW I think you and I are sorta clunkers who just keep chugging down the road. |
Fri 06 Aug 2010 09:00:08
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | WRT |
| Message | I would put my high school education from MVHS up against dumb as a turd Palin in day or night. Secondly some of us at 17 had to get a full time job to help get their family off welfare and help put food on the table. That some one supported his family totally until his country called him into service and he honorably served his country for 2 years. Thirdly that someone dumber than Palin, with a great wife managed to work and buy a house 200 yards from the golf course at Eastlake and that someone like PAW ( who is actually someone I do respect) paid cash for his car in 2006 and could have bought and paid for any car he wanted but chose a Hyunadi Azera because it was loaded with all the bells and whistles and cost thousands less. Today it is likely Palin (the half term governor)could not get elected dog catcher of Wssilla, Alaska and she probably did cause McCain loss in 08 simply due to her profound stupidity. If she wasn't the epitome of every mans blow job oh well I could go on and on. |
Fri 06 Aug 2010 03:36:10
Fri 06 Aug 2010 03:24:43
Fri 06 Aug 2010 02:57:02
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Rush |
| Message | Rush was in full "Ralph Kramdon" mode today over the prop 8 thing here in CA. It was the un-American horror of "making our votes not count". But I guess it's not so un-American or horrible if gerrymandering negates everyone else's vote?? The hypocrite on steroids. |
Fri 06 Aug 2010 02:48:22
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | BW |
| Message | When I said Bush's supporters talked him out of that questionable court nomination, that also included Republican senators. Duh. Once again you helped make my point. Never see that kind of courage out of Democrats. Hell no! Whenever Obama speaks-they jump! |
Fri 06 Aug 2010 02:05:25
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | volt |
| Message | I tried to figure how to get through that web site to topic 170599 and finally decided to ask for help. |
Fri 06 Aug 2010 02:02:34
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Palin |
| Message | It is scairy to think a "valley girl" like her could be president. It cost McCain the presidency maybe. |
Thu 05 Aug 2010 10:37:40
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | Obi |
| Message | You are so wrong about Palin. We dems know she is dumber than a day old turd,. What blows our mind is how you idiots continue to eat her dumb shit. Her and that Angle chick from Nevada don't have the brain power to think and fart at the same time. |
Thu 05 Aug 2010 10:31:54
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | WRT |
| Message | You are BSing whether you realize it or not. The republican party Senators drove the unqualified bush personal attorney from being a justice. The repubs had the Senate at the time but they did not like the nominee. So she was pulled and we got Alito. Even the next Justice, even if recommended by Obama, will draw fire from he right, BUT if Obama gets to name Kennedy's replacement there will be blood in the aisles to prevent a so called liberal. Kennedy's seat is the real balance of power even though he is a right wing republican. (Gore vs Bush) comes to mind. |
Thu 05 Aug 2010 07:52:28
| Name : | Obi-Juan-Canolli |
| Email : | lefties |
| Message | Just watching TV and minding my own business... and I cain't help but notice that Sarah Palin and Fox news drive the "lefties" absolutely, friggen crazy.... LOL... I'm loving it... |
Thu 05 Aug 2010 07:04:50
| Name : | hmmmm |
| Email : | regarding the volt |
| Message | FYI ... with link to article and comments. http://www.rightnation.us/forums/index.php?showtopic=170599 |
Thu 05 Aug 2010 02:26:20
Thu 05 Aug 2010 09:52:56
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Volt |
| Message | As I said in my post, those numbers are based on the claims by GM. When the feds release their new mileage regs we should have to revise any estimates of course. The relative fruitlessness of looking at these estimates depends on how far off GM's claims are. Interestingly, the current epa mileage estimates are sometimes conservative. At the price point GM has now, those cars would seem to be possibly practical for those driving lots of miles per year. And if the price of gas goes up, things change fast. How many think the price of gas will go up? Doubtless GM and supporters of these things hope that the car catches on enough to ramp up production to lots of them and mass production makes them cheaper and more affordable. That could shift the paradigm. Then our current non-hybrids would become "transitional" I find Eso's comments, about alternative technologies, very interesting. Please elaborate. |
Wed 04 Aug 2010 09:01:17
| Name : | PAW |
| Email : | to WRT |
| Message | I agree with ESOs last post and will add a little more. How insensitive can these Muslims be? Let's build a monument to the SS near each of the sites where Jews were gassed. Let's build a monument to the brave Japanese soldiers(and they were indeed very brave)on Ford Island. This Imam Rauf says the Mosque is to promote "interfaith dialogue." We don't need interfaith dialogue in this country. This is the best place in the world for freedom loving Muslims. They can worship unmolested. Here's a real good way for Muslims to promote interfaith dialogue. Let there be a Christian Church in just one Arab country. Let there be a Synagog (sp?/ in just one Arab country. Arabs stop killing people who are not Muslims in your own countries. Imam Rauf who is the leader of the group pushing for the Mosque is quite a tolerant person indeed. When asked if he agreed that Hamas was a terrorist organization he said "I am not a politician." Crap! He is the quintessential politician, he avoided the question. When commenting on 9-11 he said " US policies were an accessory to the crimes committed." Yes, I guess he's right. We haven't converted our entire country to the Muslim faith. Therefore we deserved the attack. Ironically they win either way. If they can't build it they will scream bloody murder about how evil the US is. If they do build it there will be vandalism and they will say look how intolerant the US people are. I wonder if they will be able to find any construction company or construction workers to build the damn thing? I hope not. |
Wed 04 Aug 2010 08:35:40
| Name : | Esoterik |
| Email : | WRT |
| Message | "I've got a bone to pick with some of my fellow conservatives..." In principle, I would agree with you. However, I think I am inclined to draw a line between “Religious Freedom and Tolerance,” and bowing down to the Ummah and their intention of building a monument glorifying what they regard as a victory. I would also draw that line in regards to any Imam, either a citizen of the US or foreign, calling for Jihad against our nation and actively recruiting “holy warriors” while on our soil and hiding behind “Freedom of Religion and Speech.” We have no problem drawing that line with “White Supremacists” hiding behind the same curtains. I really don’t think “devout Christianity” is clouding anyone’s minds on this one. |
Wed 04 Aug 2010 08:10:18
| Name : | Esoterik |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | The Volt. Assuming that this vehicle actually performs as projected when in full production with “real” drivers, on “real” roads, under “real” driving conditions, then I suppose your calculations would be faultless. Unfortunately, I am not aware of any production vehicle that performs as advertised. Even the Smart car doesn’t perform anywhere near its vaunted window sticker mileage and it is essentially a well engineered tin can with a lawnmower engine. At best, any of the “Hybrids” are a transitional technology and far too expensive for the masses to afford. (Of course, a standing member of the UAW could afford one in a heartbeat, but we won’t go there.) They are not the answer, and not worthy of government subsidy. There are actually practical and affordable technologies already in existence that the average “handy” type individual can build and deploy from their own backyards that are just as viable if not more so that would provide far less expensive alternatives without need of government subsidy, as well as creating a rich variety of profitable cottage industries. The problem is that the government would have difficulty sucking “revenue” out of them so they are minimally not encouraged and in many cases not “legal.” Once again, the answer is to get the government the hell out of the way. |
Wed 04 Aug 2010 12:55:33
Wed 04 Aug 2010 02:51:56
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Volt |
| Message | I guess there used to be subsidies for Hummers too. And you can see where that led. Then there's corn,I guess so we'll still have farmers, big oil which mostly isn't even American, police, so we don't turn into Mexico, etc. It would boggle our minds if we knew some of this stuff. I figure the gas part of driving at 25 mpg and $3 gas is around 12 cents a mile. Since the Volt is say 2 cents a mile, you save 10 cents a mile. $1,000 per 10,000 miles. $10,000 per 100,000 miles, etc. $4 gas is 16 cents a mile at 25 mpg. You get $14,000 per 100,000 miles saving then. |
Tue 03 Aug 2010 08:00:00
Tue 03 Aug 2010 05:16:43
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Chevy Volt |
| Message | They say that the little gas motor charges the battery so that the electric motor can run the car. The web said that the feds are reviewing mileage standards for electric cars. I guess every hybrid car has a different way of doing things, so it'll interestingto see what they come up with. I read they're $33,500 after a federal rebate of some kind, designed to get these things going. At 230 mpg that's about $4 to go that far. Or 1.7 cents a mile. I wont be getting any of this stuff any time soon. I've got a ten year old van that gets 18 mpg and runs great. By the time I wear it out, vans and trucks will get 30 mpg and I'll live with that. $33,500 is over 11,000 gallons of gas at $3 a gallon. For someone looking to buy though, it might pencil out over enough years, say if you drove a lot of miles each year, etc. This thing is supposed to have decent acceleration and a top end at 100 mph. |
Tue 03 Aug 2010 03:04:06
| Name : | PAW |
| Email : | |
| Message | How much does it cost and who's going to buy it? Other than DF and Bob that is. |
Tue 03 Aug 2010 12:12:23
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | 190 miles on a gallon of gas? Wow! How'd they do that? Did they reverse engineer a crashed spacecraft of their own or something? |
Tue 03 Aug 2010 09:41:33
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | GM and Rush |
| Message | I listened to several hours of Rush over 3 days where he continually slammed GM. I heard his 40 miles range remark about 20 times. There was no mention of cargbon footprint, or even the gas backup, when I was listening. While trying to check on the mileage ratings for the volt I found a web site saying that he did qualify his remarks though. Considering his prejudice against them, I sense another attempt to mislead on his part. Interestingly, GM rates the mileage of this car at 230 mpg. The first 40 miles being electric alone. They say the average cost to recharge at home for that first 40 miles will be 90 cents, the cost of about 0.3 gallons of gas. Since they claim 230 mpg, that means that for the following 190 miles you, according to them, use one gallon of gas. So totally, you use the electric equivalent of 0.3 gallons of gas and one actual gallon of gas to travel 230 miles, by their estimate. So that 0.3 gallon of gas equivalence electricty would have to have an epic carbon footprint to be even remotely less efficient than other cars. Even with corporate America's need to exagerate this makes Rush's claim ridiculous. I will allow Rush the right to claim ignorance and questionable resources. In the past he has evidenced his lack feel of technological things, so that it's a plausale excuse. But you know he made that mistake gleefully. |
Mon 02 Aug 2010 11:48:30
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | A banking collapse stands much less chance of doing the economic damage it did in the 30's because nowadays most of our deposits are insured. I guess a lot of the banks would fail and disappear, but I think there'd soon be new ones to fill the void. I have to admit bailouts are a lot more palatable when they're in the form of loans and we get our $ back. If GM can make good cars that sell and still pay those union wages, I say fine. But if they can't do it without government assistance, I say bankruptcy and start over with non-union workers. I heard part of Rush's show dealing with the Volt. I don't think he was suggesting that you end up stranded after 40 miles. Only that you then become just another carbon-emitting polluter. So he wondered where the big ecological benefit is with such a short electric range. |
Mon 02 Aug 2010 01:44:01
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Obi-Juan |
| Message | "Chelsea has to be one of the homeliest girls I have ever seen!!!... " And you went to MV too.. ... (Disclaimer) ... Just kidding any of you MV girls out there. |
Sun 01 Aug 2010 10:39:42
Sun 01 Aug 2010 10:02:04
| Name : | obnoxious jerk.. aka Obi-Juan |
| Email : | telling it like it is |
| Message | Did you notice that Chelsea Clinton got married today? Hey.. I'm not trying to offend anybody (this time).... but I gots to say what I gots to say. Chelsea has to be one of the homeliest girls I have ever seen!!!... Mama and Pappa Clinton should be jumping up and down for joy that their ugly child found a man that would marry her. |
Sun 01 Aug 2010 03:38:49
| Name : | Obi-Juan-Canolli |
| Email : | DF/WRT/BW/ESO/PAW |
| Message | I have a question for you political brainiacs on this board... I'm thinking that we should go back to the "gold standard". Do you know what that means?.. what is your opinion? |
Sat 31 Jul 2010 04:44:54
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | WRT |
| Message | At the risque of eroding your conservative cred, I agree with a fair amount of your comment. McCain certainly had a lot going for him in the election. For my own point of view, I'll always wonder if he would have won with a stronger VP running mate. It would seem on the face of it all that Obama should represent the classic democrat model. But the times we're in though have distorted the usual reference system. For instance with no banking system there is no US economy, etc. Serious economists for decades have laid a large amount of blame for the seriousness of the 30s depression on the government allowing the banks to fail and disappear. The huge bailouts saved the banking system. And they have been paying back huge amounts of that money. Either party would have had to do this or face epic consequenses. So is Obama a classic big spender? I feel it'll take more normal times to judge. I agree mostly with your assesment of the foolishness of borrowers and lenders too. My reference to capitalist cultures failing is more directed to the long list of premodern societies that had various forms of capitalism. The fact that they have essentially not survived is the point. Pure capitalism may have never existed in any but the most basic and egalitarian (a fancy word for everyone being equal) societies. Regarding General Motors, Rush seems to want to tip the scales against them. If they can get those wages and build a car that is good and sells, why rain on their parade? For instance, Rush is purposefully misrepresenting the range of the new electric Volt model, saying it has only a 40 mile range. He knows that it's a hybred and that the little gas motor kicks in at 40 miles to keep charging the battery so that the actual range is 340 miles. But he continually tells that invidious (another fancy word meaning a lie told to incite) lie. Is that the true spirit of darwinian Capitalism? Not for me and from the reasonable tone of your remarks maybe you feel the same. |
Sat 31 Jul 2010 12:37:29
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | I think McCain is a moderate. Consevative sometimes, liberal others. He could have been the "uniter" the electorate was seeking in '08. Much more than the divisive Obama. I don't think Obama is a socialist. I think he's just a tax and spend big government liberal. And incompetent. Seems to me the past troubles with capitalism, both in the '30s as you said and the recent housing collapse, are because foolish people get in way over their heads and foolish lenders let them. Too much investment made on shaky ground. And when the chickens come home to roost, we just have to let those foolish risk taking lenders and investors take their lumps. Capitalism itself doesn't fail, as you said, it just sometimes weeds out those that risk too much. It's hard, especially when you have to boot a family out of their house, but it's for the greater good. I agree with Rush, if he really said it, about throwing auto workers under the bus. Because of their union, they make way too much for way too little skill. It hurts us all. Mind you I'm a capitalist and I don't begrudge people getting whatever they legally can, but I'm for busting up their union and giving them a more commensurate pay and benefits. |
Sat 31 Jul 2010 11:09:17
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | WRT |
| Message | "Advising McCain could just as easily make him a liberal." Well looking at your comment. It does allow room for ambiguity. The right is certainly vilifying him lately. So do you think that McCain is a conservative or a liberal? It would be refreshing to have the right admit there are moderates who are not "socialists" Left alone, capitalism, in several of it's different forms, has failed numerous times through history. Ford went into the recent GOP recession in much better shape than GM and Dodge, due to having made better quality products. So they didn't need assistance. Ford is now among the world leaders in quaity and GM has shown vast improvement and is making money. And over a million jobs were saved. Your theories about economic darwinism contributed big time to the mistakes made contributing to the great depression of the 30s. |
Sat 31 Jul 2010 04:28:05
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | PAW |
| Message | Let's see here. I give a factual account of your maximum leader and thinker, rush Limbaugh selling out the workers at General Motors and you lash out and say I'm filled with hatred? So who's filled with hatred? Does the truth about your leader and head thinker hurt so much? |
Sat 31 Jul 2010 02:09:48
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | BW |
| Message | "...FORD which took no stimulus is doing okay and the other two big auto companies are doing better than they were." You yourself just made my case for me! All three were nearly in the dumps. The one with no bailout recovered better than those unnecessarily propped up by tax payer money. Also, bankruptcy is not always the end of the world, sometimes it's a chance to straighten your course and become successful again. If left pretty much alone, capitalism will NEVER fail! But it is Darwinistic, as it should be. I'm not going to waste much time with your loudmouthed buddy. He illustrates well how the left must deceive, misquote and mislead to garner any support at all from normal people. Example: I never said McCain was a liberal. Seems you two have one undying mantra in common...people or companies with their hands out are honorable and decent; people and companies that are successful are evil. Upside down. One last thing. The economy was going along fine while the Republicans had total control during the Bush years. It only started to fall apart when the Democrats got control of the congressional purse strings. How are things going now with Dems in total control? Don't ask! |
Fri 30 Jul 2010 10:53:45
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | WRT |
| Message | Of course you attacked the messenger about the economic policy I mentioned.BUT did you read what was said. I am sure you read and kind find it in any number of places. The country is in very bad shape. BUT if you consider where the country would be if it were not for the stimulus package, We would have a lot more unemployed than we do have. Our financial system (called capitalism) may have failed. FORD which took no stimulus is doing okay and the other two big auto companies are doing better than they were. They were at the edge of bankruptcy. If fact GM and Chrysler, which are now owned in part by you and me, are paying back stimulus money and both hope to go back into the public market in 2011. So while the republican house and senate continue to drive this country into the ground it is hoped that most of the people who see what is really going on vote in Nov and keep the dems in power. God help us if Rand, Angle and their friends get another crack at destroying our nation. |
Fri 30 Jul 2010 10:37:43
| Name : | To BW |
| Email : | From PAW |
| Message | I'm now going to make a statement as ridiculous as Bobs. Those darn democrats. They're all socialists. They want to totally change this country into a cradle-to-grave communist country and that goes for every last one of them. They are the party of HELL YES. That is hell yes to anything that puts our country into debt so great that the country collapses and a dictatorship can take over. They ALL scheme together to do just that. They don't care one bit that future generations will have to pay for our excesses. They ALL say let's live well today and to hell with future generations. How's that Bob? That's the kind of stuff we hear from you and DF regularly. Kinda stupid isn't it? |
Fri 30 Jul 2010 10:20:37
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | PAW |
| Message | PAW you are so wrong. DF is one of the kindest people in the world. He really has been most of the time we have known each other a Republican. And he still may be so far as that. BUT he is smart enough to know the rich play you fools. Just like today the Republicans in the House refused to support aid for the 1st responders to the 9/11 incident which you all so proudly call one of America's finest moments. I hope those on here who are not as blinded as you are see what the republican party (the party of HELL NO) which has been against everything worth while in this country while at the same time sucking the proverbial ****s of big banks, big oil, big insurance. And to top it off the republicans today even defeated a bill supported by the Chamber of Commerce which would have helped small business. The policies of bush and the republican controlled Congress came very close to bringing about a DEPRESSION. So on one hand you should be proud. You have brought this great country to its knees in just one decade. |
Fri 30 Jul 2010 08:39:55
| Name : | To DF |
| Email : | From PAW |
| Message | You're filled with a lot of hatred there my friend. Do you actually believe that democrats are inherantly more honest than republicans? The parties have different philosophies and are EQUALLY CORRUPT. |
Fri 30 Jul 2010 03:46:08
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Socialist General Motors |
| Message | For the third straight day, Rush Limbaugh, GOP/TP top dog, blasted GM for nearly his whole 3 hours. In a fit of fake patriotic fervor he threw them and their workers to the sharks. Just another routine example of the GOP/TP trying for crass political gain at the expense of the American people. And wrapping themselves in Old Glory while they do it. |
Fri 30 Jul 2010 03:35:32
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | McCain the liberal? |
| Message | McCain the liberal?? Or is he a "socialist"? Or are you guys grasping at straws? Much! And the 911 recession? It was a pimple compared to the recent Bush/GOP debacle! $20 trillion disapeared almost instantly. Almost a third of our total national value. We dragged the whole world down with us. A bigger percentage loss than the cause of Great Depression of the 30s. Obviously, the old Bush/GOP nostrums were toast. Except in the world of GOP/TP denial. |
Fri 30 Jul 2010 03:19:38
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | crass political gain |
| Message | So only if the GOP/TP admits to double crossing small business for crass political gain is it anything more than opinion? The great party of NO. The party with a long string of fake video smears, fallen hypocrite leaders, wishing for America to fail, cooked opinion polls, shouting down speakers at public meetings, racist leadership elements, selling out to big foreign owned oil, and on and on. Their credibility is so bad that if they admitted it, that would be the strongest evidence to the contrary! |
Fri 30 Jul 2010 03:03:27
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Arizona moot point |
| Message | Several leagal writers have said that the part of the Arizona law, bannig sanctuary cities, that the judge let stand, has created a precedent to the effect that other states may ban sanctuary cities. Maybe not so moot a point after all. |
Fri 30 Jul 2010 01:58:01
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | BW |
| Message | Blinder is a long term Princeton professor, a Clinton appointee, advisor to Kerry and Gore, and obviously a big Obama supporter. I can find no evidence that Zandi is a "leading conservative" as you say. Nor can I find any evidence that he's a conservative at all. Advising McCain could just as easily make him a liberal. These guys are both in the Obama camp, their opinions mean little. Tax cuts alone would have gotten us out of this recession by now. My evidence? As I said before...the Bush tax cuts quickly got us out of the 911 recession. |
Fri 30 Jul 2010 12:25:37
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | WRT |
| Message | Where have you been the past 2 years. Republicans are for the big banks. Where did the first part of the stimulus money authorized by george bush go. The money went to the big banks and Wall Street. And who fought like crazy in this latest financial bill to protect the big banks. Your fellow republicans. Come on be real!!! |
Fri 30 Jul 2010 12:19:59
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | WRT |
| Message | Look who did the study::::This week, economists Mark Zandi and Alan Blinder released a new report that is the first attempt to comprehensively estimate the effects of the policy responses to the economic crises of the last few years. They find that the government's direct intervention to stabilize the economy since 2008 "helped avert a second Depression" and that it can be "empirically proved." Zandi, a leading conservative who advised John McCain's presidential campaign, and Blinder, former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, employed "straightforward" and "conventional" modeling techniques to simulate four scenarios that quantify the impact of both the fiscal stimulus and financial-market policies. The report finds that, without both the stimulus and financial policies, the "GDP in 2010 would be about 6 1/2 % lower, payroll employment would be less by some 8 1/2 million jobs, and the nation would now be experiencing deflation." The report highlights two government programs that significantly contributed to preventing further economic depression: President Bush's Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and the fiscal stimulus package, which includes President Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). While noting that "particularly heavy criticism has been aimed at" both programs, Zandi and Blinder find that these programs were vital to staunching the economic bleeding that characterized the low point of the Great Recession. Despite this factual documentation, many Republican policymakers are nevertheless calling for a repeal of these successful programs. In slamming the government for its participation in the economic recovery, Republicans are essentially campaigning for "Great Depression 2.0." |
Fri 30 Jul 2010 12:17:28
Fri 30 Jul 2010 03:45:47
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | Small Business Bill |
| Message | Among other things, that bill included $30 billion of tax payer money for what amounts to another bailout for banks and about $5 billion to settle lawsuits filed by minorities against the government. I think the Republicans feel this is not a good time to be spending even more money. Especially since Obama has already shattered just about every spending record there is in just a year and a half in office. How about taking everything out of the bill except the small business tax cut...that would make everyone happy, right? |
Fri 30 Jul 2010 02:30:53
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Really?? |
| Message | Strange how your reply to the Republicans, throwing small business to the sharks, for crass political gain, totally tried to change the subject. And trying to hide behind “American principals” to do this. Sol Alinsky rides again. |
Fri 30 Jul 2010 02:14:42
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | ESO |
| Message | You meant this "tax bracket issue" reply for BW? |
Fri 30 Jul 2010 01:47:28
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | PAW |
| Message | So you're saying that Arizona passed a law banning sanctuary cties they don't have. Sort of a moot part of the law. I still have a strong hunch that the Arizona effort will be essentially futile till they build and man a wall. That was our experience here. |
Thu 29 Jul 2010 11:24:28
| Name : | Esoteirk |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | Well you know how they say that a broken clock is right twice a day? You are correct, I am not at the top 1% of the tax paying bracket and likely never will be. But it is because of the Bush tax cuts that accumulatively over the time period they existed I was not required to pay the federal government an additional $55,000 of my hard earned money in taxes. Guess what? I feel bad for those at my income level that will not have that advantage over the next decade. You that think the “Evil Republicans” are only in it for “The Rich” and that the “Compassionate Democrats” are somehow the heroes of the “Little Guy” are so deluded it is unbelievable. Now… back to the point you so conveniently skated away from and ignored… “True American Principles,” your remember those right? You grew up with them. As an “Independent Entrepreneur” who associates with a great many other who are so inclined, we do not need or ask for government “assistance.” All we ask is that the government stay the hell out of our way and out of our pockets. We will solve the issues at hand as we always have or succumb to market forces with out complaint. The government creates absolutely nothing but additional problems. Because of the government, I won’t hire anyone, even though I could really use a great deal of help and I have dozens of qualified individuals sending me unsolicited resumes weekly. Because of the government and their inability to do anything other than create a plethora of unnecessarily complicated laws and regulations, no one at state level can tell me whether or not my business is in compliance with state law, so I open my doors daily while waiting for some bureaucrat to shut me down because of some asinine regulation that has nothing to do with reality. Government bureaucrats who have never participated in the private sector on an unending spending spree while co-opting or squelching private enterprise is so wonderful. Nirvana has arrived. |
Thu 29 Jul 2010 10:27:32
| Name : | To DF |
| Email : | From PAW |
| Message | It's a state law, not a federal law. There are NO sanctuary cities in Arizona so your point is moot. |
Thu 29 Jul 2010 10:11:42
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | ESO |
| Message | The bush tax cuts you are so worried about were installed after the 2000 elections giving 1.3 trillion dollars to the wealthiest 1% of the population. The stringer is that the plan was for only 10 years. So for the republicans to continue aiding their rich friends the dems have to vote to let the tax cut stay on the books. It is not a tax increase for the lower or middle class but will end the ten year bill put in by the republicans. And I don't think you are quite at the top 1% of the tax paying bracket YET!! |
Thu 29 Jul 2010 09:21:40
| Name : | Esoterik |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | Really? Strange how the NYT failed to mention the Democrats freight train lunge to affect the most obscene tax increase in history? One wonders if you remember the historic tenants of our Republic. “Tax Rebellion.” “Independence!” You know… those principles that Americans have traditionally had pride in. Principles for which they have and will die for! |
Thu 29 Jul 2010 08:42:52
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Small business aid |
| Message | From the NY Times. Senate Republicans on Thursday rejected a bill to aid small businesses with expanded loan programs and tax breaks, in a procedural blockade that underscored how fiercely determined the party’s leaders are to deny Democrats any further legislative accomplishments ahead of November’s midterm elections. The measure had the backing of some of the Republican Party’s most reliable business allies, including the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business. Several Republican lawmakers also helped write it. |
Thu 29 Jul 2010 08:35:26
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | |
| Message | The are news reports that state that the judge let stand the parts of the laws that will ban santuary cities. |
Thu 29 Jul 2010 01:19:39
Thu 29 Jul 2010 11:10:57
| Name : | rw |
| Email : | bad hank |
| Message | I will be out there in about two weeks AND I will make it up three floors to see you bad hank"""""" |
Thu 29 Jul 2010 08:59:10
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | |
| Message | I htink I had Mr. Lee for Geometry, Chemistry and Physics. I saw him once in later years at a car repair place in National City. |
Wed 28 Jul 2010 06:50:12
| Name : | Obi-Juan-Canolli |
| Email : | peeps and look loos |
| Message | I ask no quarter and I give no quarter... and that's a FACT JACK. I will torment friend or foe. BUT.. I can be VERY charming to blonde ladies.. LOL rum n coke #9 |
Wed 28 Jul 2010 06:46:18
| Name : | Obi-Juan-Canolli.. aka your pappy Hank |
| Email : | rw |
| Message | Sorry "rw".. I have no mercy. Ah, on second thought.. I ain't sorry!! I gots to do what I gots to do. BUT.. I lubs you.. if that is any consolation. |
Wed 28 Jul 2010 06:07:54
| Name : | Obi-Juan-Canolli.. aka your pappy Hank |
| Email : | Nuther '62er |
| Message | Well.. I lub you.. BUT there is a price to pay for my lub. And that is.. I will embarrass you with my exclamation of my lub for you. There ain't no gettin around it. I pretty much do and say what ever the hell I want. I lub you.. and there ain't no gettin over me... I can be very charming.. LOL |
Tue 27 Jul 2010 06:49:45
| Name : | Nuther '62er |
| Email : | O-Bi-Wan |
| Message | And thanks to you for the song!!!! |
Sun 25 Jul 2010 10:43:05
| Name : | Nuther '62er |
| Email : | BW |
| Message | Wow! Getting caught up on the posts. BW you brought up a name from the past that I had forgotten about. Mr. Lee at Southwest. It brought back a rush of memories...thanks!! |
Sun 25 Jul 2010 10:34:33
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | BW |
| Message | In retrospect You can see where having a lot is a relative thing. BW had the greatest mom anyone could ever hope for. And we all new it. They had no money but her kids all turned out to be he salt of the earth. She was so tolerant of us bunch of yahoos. She would try so hard to lead by example, but the rest of us, not BW so much, were just a bunch of dumb asses. Emphasise on dumb. It's part of the reason that to this day I have feelings that rich people, if they think they are better, can kiss my ass. She proved that money ain't everything. And the quality of the individual is related to something more profound. |
Sat 24 Jul 2010 08:21:38
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | We used to kick ass. We'd go anywhere to play. So East SD,South Crest, Lincoln didn't make no diff. When Jim Brooks pitched we were unbeatable. Just a bunch of guys who "lived" at the South Bay Park at 17th & Coronado. Dave worked there as a Rec center worker. Most of us didn't have a lot. Dave did. His DAD had a job. LOL. The Martinez, Castro's, Francis brothers Dave & Bob, Ed Ragos, Maurice Camp, Hubert Perry, We were a UN. Then college and the war broke us up. |
Sat 24 Jul 2010 06:46:04
| Name : | Obi-Juan-Canolli.. aka your pappy Hank |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | Thanks for sharing... I didn't know BW had a friend like you. I always think of BW in his fox hole in Viet Nam.... taking on all comers.. just like he does on this board. I don't agree with BW much... but I lubs me some BW And that's a FACT JACK!!! |
Sat 24 Jul 2010 06:29:56
| Name : | Df |
| Email : | BW |
| Message | It's true that I've known BW all these years. The facts are that over all those years his wisdom has kicked my wisdom's ass about half the time and vice versa I guess. In person he is a very humble guy, but I'm not he only one through years to end up watching his tail lights leave them in the dust. We used to play baseball for a team dressed in rags, for instance. We were IB, so no fancy shit for us. Our shortstop wore a hawaiian shirt and a straw hat often. That was when they weren't in style. Guys would have to wash cars and windows for a long time if they wanted cleats. Ofcourse Bobby couldn't do that as everthing he had went to help his sainted mother. She was a widow with a bunch of kids. God Bless her soul. Everybody we played had all the actual baseball stuff. When we went to away games some guys always had to ride in the trunk of an old beat up $25 car somebody had. Our whole team in one car. Sometimes we would shoot free throws to see who got stuck in the trunk. Ofcourse we didn't have any equipment to take up lots of room. Those guys in the trunk would make us swear on whatever not to play tricks on them while they were back there. OH YEAH! As soon as that trunk door was shut, we were off for the best bumpy roads we could find. Then we'd chip in for a soda and dump it through a hole in the top of the trunk on them. I can still hear them screaming and cussing us out. It was just music to our ears. Let me tell you other teams laughed when they saw us the first time. But not for long. BW was our leadoff guy. Some how that slow piece of you know what was always on base. How such a slow guy could always bunt and hit and slink around the bases and score lots of runs just defies baseball logic. And he was a great fielder too. He looked like a slow train wreck moving around out in the outfield, but he somehow he caught damn near everthing. Well anyway. |
Sat 24 Jul 2010 05:47:29
| Name : | Obi-Juan-Canolli.. aka your pappy Hank |
| Email : | BW |
| Message | You are sounding a lot like me.. the King a-hole... trust me.. you don't want to go there.... it's not a happy place. I ain't 'asceered of "DF".. or "Eso"... trust me on that. Ignorance is bliss. And besides that.. I can hide behind me computer and feel safe.. hopefully.... |
Sat 24 Jul 2010 05:27:52
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | H |
| Message | I taught DF everything he knows. Ha! In the 8th grade bus ride to Southwest I can't tell you how many times he beat me in chess. And often in 3 moves. SO BEWARE!! And he would drive Mr. Lee nuts in Physics by having the answer without showing him how he got there. |
Sat 24 Jul 2010 05:21:20
| Name : | Obi-Juan-Canolli.. aka your pappy Hank |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | Thanks DF... it makes me feel good when you or Eso compliments me. You guys are above my station... but I learn... and I lubs learning. I'm just a little turd... but I like to learn. And you and Eso make me have to look up stuff. And that's a good thing. Your pappy hank lubs you.. and that's a FACT JACK!!! I cant compete with you and Eso... but I can learn.. and that can make me VERY dangerous.. LOL |
Sat 24 Jul 2010 05:10:45
| Name : | Henry |
| Email : | agitating |
| Message | WOWZERS... DF is matching Eso... big word for big word. I bet Eso never thought that would happen. Yep, I'm agitating... that's what I do. Although I admit I'm feeling left out. I cain't compete with these brainiacs... Ok, I'll "butt out" and just view.... |
Sat 24 Jul 2010 05:10:37
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | |
| Message | Also well spoken Henry. Please don't break your neck, we need your reality check. Sometimes the old rum and coke reality filter is the best. |
Sat 24 Jul 2010 05:03:01
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Re: the BW/PAW |
| Message | Obi-Juan. Well spoken! |
Sat 24 Jul 2010 04:55:30
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | the 14th |
| Message | So Esoterik. You can't accept that I might have an open mind? Maybe that means you should try openning yours a little. Thanks for the news flash about all MV grads not being latin speakers, too. Using that latin term is only a shorthand way of saying something which is more cumbersome in English, and now anyone who bothered to read our stuff knows it too. I really do like Dr. Eastman's case you presented. Can you somehow accept that? I really do not know what the answer is regarding this citizenship thing. I totally agree that is it a huge problem. Can you open your mind to somehow grant me my own opinions and not your idea of what I think and mean? My hypothetical rebutal is just that. I throw it out there for consideration as a kind of devil's advocate kind of thing. It's not some kind of subterfuge. I'm here cause I want to know what you all think. In this case, everyone's take and ruminations may lead us through. But we need open minds to take advantage of this resource. I think I see what I believe to be your argument is. And I think it's a fair question regarding the seemingly simple meaning of that phrase from the 14th. How does "being subjest to our laws, in our country" not mean being under our jurisdiction? Ask a bunch of people that question and you're gonna get just about one answer. They're not gonna think about requiring the pledge of allegiance first. That makes it a fair question. Does that seem convoluted? And thanks also for calling me a obfuscator (liar to the less fancy inclined among us). It's nice to have a nice adult name calling contest, while discussing complicated things. |
Sat 24 Jul 2010 04:12:55
| Name : | Obi-Juan-Canolli.. aka your pappy Hank |
| Email : | BW/PAW |
| Message | QUOTE: "Who Do we thank for this? I say politicians, ALL politicians, both parties." I don't disagree.. but what I have posted many times is.. the electorate MUST take some responsibility. We vote these a-holes in office. And what I have also posted many times is... why do we think politicians are any different the us "regular" people? They are the same people that fill our prisons. The politicians are our neighbors.. politicians are "us".... the prisons are FULL of "us"... your neighbors... so why would you expect them to be any different in an elected office. |
Sat 24 Jul 2010 04:08:34
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | |
| Message | Thanks BW for the very nice piece of work. I agree with PAW, except I will add the American people who allowed themselves to be bamboozled by the housing bubble into complacency. |
Sat 24 Jul 2010 03:50:03
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | From PAW |
| Message | Pretty bad picture Bob. Who Do we thank for this? I say politicians, ALL politicians, both parties. |
Sat 24 Jul 2010 02:50:24
| Name : | Henry |
| Email : | you brainiacs!! |
| Message | Dang... uz guys are uzing words over my pointy little head. Hows do uz guys 'espect me to understand what the hell you are saying!! Speaky da English PLEASE!!!... Ok.. I'm gonna have me some "rum n coke".. then maybe I'll be able to understand what uze grasshoppahs are saying. Or I could fall and break my neck... wishful thinking on your part, don't count on it. |
Sat 24 Jul 2010 02:33:55
| Name : | Esoterik |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | “First of all, I did not say that the hypothetical rebutal to Dr. EAstman was my position.” So now you wish to equivocate as to whether or not your “hypothetical rebuttal” is representative of your “position.” What a Hagfish. Being equally aware that the average reader is not conversant in Latin as I am aware of the term “Reductio ad Absurdum (as it is particularly known in “Logic” circles), I rendered the term in English. And there is nothing convoluted about my “interpretation,” it is logically strait forward. You however stretch to a convoluted interpretation in a frail attempt at obfuscation. Nice try. “And the idea that if you are not loyal to our republic, you are not subject to our jurisdiction?” If that was truly your “take-away” from what I posted, then you just lost any credibility I formally held for you. |
Sat 24 Jul 2010 12:57:43
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | Information |
| Message | Editor's note: Michael Snyder is editor of theeconomiccollapseblog.com The 22 statistics detailed here prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the middle class is being systematically wiped out of existence in America. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer at a staggering rate. Once upon a time, the United States had the largest and most prosperous middle class in the history of the world, but now that is changing at a blinding pace. So why are we witnessing such fundamental changes? Well, the globalism and "free trade" that our politicians and business leaders insisted would be so good for us have had some rather nasty side effects. It turns out that they didn't tell us that the "global economy" would mean that middle class American workers would eventually have to directly compete for jobs with people on the other side of the world where there is no minimum wage and very few regulations. The big global corporations have greatly benefited by exploiting third world labor pools over the last several decades, but middle class American workers have increasingly found things to be very tough. Here are the statistics to prove it: • 83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people. • 61 percent of Americans "always or usually" live paycheck to paycheck, which was up from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007. • 66 percent of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans. • 36 percent of Americans say that they don't contribute anything to retirement savings. • A staggering 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement. • 24 percent of American workers say that they have postponed their planned retirement age in the past year. • Over 1.4 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009, which represented a 32 percent increase over 2008. • Only the top 5 percent of U.S. households have earned enough additional income to match the rise in housing costs since 1975. • For the first time in U.S. history, banks own a greater share of residential housing net worth in the United States than all individual Americans put together. • In 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to one. • As of 2007, the bottom 80 percent of American households held about 7% of the liquid financial assets. • The bottom 50 percent of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth. • Average Wall Street bonuses for 2009 were up 17 percent when compared with 2008. • In the United States, the average federal worker now earns 60% MORE than the average worker in the private sector. • The top 1 percent of U.S. households own nearly twice as much of America's corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago. • In America today, the average time needed to find a job has risen to a record 35.2 weeks. • More than 40 percent of Americans who actually are employed are now working in service jobs, which are often very low paying. • or the first time in U.S. history, more than 40 million Americans are on food stamps, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that number will go up to 43 million Americans in 2011. • This is what American workers now must compete against: in China a garment worker makes approximately 86 cents an hour and in Cambodia a garment worker makes approximately 22 cents an hour. • Approximately 21 percent of all children in the United States are living below the poverty line in 2010 - the highest rate in 20 years. • Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the United States rose a whopping 16 percent to 7.8 million in 2009. • The top 10 percent of Americans now earn around 50 percent of our national income. Giant Sucking Sound The reality is that no matter how smart, how strong, how educated or how hard working American workers are, they just cannot compete with people who are desperate to put in 10 to 12 hour days at less than a dollar an hour on the other side of the world. After all, what corporation in their right mind is going to pay an American worker 10 times more (plus benefits) to do the same job? The world is fundamentally changing. Wealth and power are rapidly becoming concentrated at the top and the big global corporations are making massive amounts of money. Meanwhile, the American middle class is being systematically wiped out of existence as U.S. workers are slowly being merged into the new "global" labor pool. What do most Americans have to offer in the marketplace other than their labor? Not much. The truth is that most Americans are absolutely dependent on someone else giving them a job. But today, U.S. workers are "less attractive" than ever. Compared to the rest of the world, American workers are extremely expensive, and the government keeps passing more rules and regulations seemingly on a monthly basis that makes it even more difficult to conduct business in the United States. So corporations are moving operations out of the U.S. at breathtaking speed. Since the U.S. government does not penalize them for doing so, there really is no incentive for them to stay. What has developed is a situation where the people at the top are doing quite well, while most Americans are finding it increasingly difficult to make it. There are now about six unemployed Americans for every new job opening in the United States, and the number of "chronically unemployed" is absolutely soaring. There simply are not nearly enough jobs for everyone. Many of those who are able to get jobs are finding that they are making less money than they used to. In fact, an increasingly large percentage of Americans are working at low wage retail and service jobs. But you can't raise a family on what you make flipping burgers at McDonald's or on what you bring in from greeting customers down at the local Wal-Mart. The truth is that the middle class in America is dying -- and once it is gone it will be incredibly difficult to rebuild. |
Sat 24 Jul 2010 12:48:02
Sat 24 Jul 2010 12:02:33
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | I find your rebuttals on the $68 billion issue the same as your "quotes" from Rush...too riduculous to warrant addressing. |
Sat 24 Jul 2010 11:28:13
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | $ 68 Billion |
| Message | The idea that's there's nothing government can do better/cheaper is patently false. Consider fire protection. Areas with private sector fire protection have problems such as poor people's houses being allowed to burn cause they can't pay up in advance. Further the options for corruption are epic when public money is dispersed by politico's to their rich corporate buddies, under the cover of providing public services. I know their's often huge waste the other way too. Proving, this is a 2 way and complex issue. I like the emergency room example. But consider this. Do we want to pay that $68 billion for the luxuary of telling ourselves we didn't let them manipulate us? How about skipping the "we'll show them attitude" for the adult attitude of gimme that $68 billion and even use part of it to build a wall and hire sufficient BP to man it. Presto a huge drop in the problem and lots of $$$ in our pockets. |
Sat 24 Jul 2010 10:39:10
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Rush the racist |
| Message | Rush waited all the way to the week after Obama inauguration to say everyday, for at least several days, that, "Obama is out to get whitey. White people need to get guns and go out into the woods and start practicing up." He has followed that up by saying hundreds of times that "Obama is out to get whitey." He hasn't said it lately, since being called out by the NAACP. Showing that he knows those are racist remarks. |
Sat 24 Jul 2010 10:28:34
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Rush rides again |
| Message | Paul Krugman a writer in the NY Times remarks about the "right" trying to blame Obama for the economic collapse. I remember Rush saying the day after the election of Obama, that it was now official that Obama had caused the economic collapse. Maybe I should have said "Rush issued orders today to all Repulicans to hew to that really pathetic line." Now that I've read Sol Alinsky's book, Rush's stratagy guide, I see what he was up to. Laying the ground work to baffle those not paying much attention to what's happening. |
Sat 24 Jul 2010 10:16:01
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | the 14th |
| Message | First of all, I did not say that the hypothetical rebutal to Dr. EAstman was my position. I am trying to have an open mind about this as it is a crucial issue going forward. I do agree that Dr. Eastman presents a pretty interesting argument. As an aside. The logical process you describe, "logical reduction to the absurd" is called "reductio ad absurdum" in math circles. Your convoluted interpetation certainly seems much less direct than the simple, "if you are here, you are subject to our jurisdiction". And the idea that if you are not loyal to our republic, you are not subject to our jurisdiction? Tell that to the Russian spys we just caught, for instance. Can you imagine them trying to use that as defense?? "Reductio ad absurdum" |
Sat 24 Jul 2010 09:21:22
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | 68 Billion |
| Message | There's NOTHING government can do cheaper than the private sector. So I can only assume the savings a public option provides are from things like giving illegal aliens tax payer funded health insurance to keep them from clogging our expensive emergency rooms. Approving it for that kind of reason is tantamount to giving in to extortion. |
Sat 24 Jul 2010 08:56:39
| Name : | Esoterik |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | “Whatever the intent of those words were, they do state ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, are citizens.’ So the most direct meaning is those born here are citizens. If you are here, you are subject to our jurisdiction, further.” So… even having been presented with a viable, cogent and authoritative argument, supported with historical citing of precedent, you will stubbornly adhere to your interpretation of the highlighted phrase refusing to recognize that the logical conclusion of such an interpretation negates itself. Why am I not surprised? You are correct that the “most direct meaning” should be applied. Dr. Eastman’s argument affords compelling substantiation that both in context and intent, the “direct meaning of the words “subject to” as modified by the word “and” as opposed to “are” is defined as not as a condition of authority, but as a condition of loyalty. If you should choose to apply the rules of “logical reduction to the absurd” to the proposition of your own phrase, “If you are here, you are subject to our jurisdiction,” you will readily find the contrary flaws in your conclusions regarding the “most direct meaning.” If you are here, you are obliged to except the “authority of our laws.” - True If you are here, you are of necessity “loyal to our Republic.” – False If you are in Mexico, you are obliged to except the “authority of their laws.” - True If you are in Mexico, you are of necessity “loyal to their government.” – False If I am born of American parents in Mexico, I will be expected to remain “loyal” to the US – True If I am born of Mexican parents in America, I will be expected to remain “loyal” to Mexico. - True |
Sat 24 Jul 2010 03:14:40
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | more Rush |
| Message | Today there were times that Rush sounded so much like Ralph Kramdon, the famous Jackie Gleason character, that it was uncanny. Not just the voice but the whole childish emotional over the top thing. I thought I would hear him say "One of these days, Barack, pow, straight to the moon." |
Sat 24 Jul 2010 02:31:43
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Today with Rush |
| Message | Interestingly, the CBO just said that the public health option saves the taxpayers $68 bilion over 6 years. Rush scoffed that $68 billion is chicken feed. So that seems to make a $68 billion luxury, for the taxpayers, out of having no public option. And it couldn't come at a better time. On another issue Rush assured us that over 50% of all people collecting unemplyement are parasites. |
Sat 24 Jul 2010 02:17:56
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Gerrymandering |
| Message | How familiar are you guys with what gerrymandering is? You know, it has permanently marginalized the right in California? |
Sat 24 Jul 2010 02:04:04
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | |
| Message | And talking in treatment means? |
Sat 24 Jul 2010 02:00:11
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | the 14th |
| Message | Wow, Esoterik, I like the way you can break all that stuff out into categories with names. And I admit I didn't draw those conclusions from what I could grok of it all. I think I don't know you guys well enough to get there. That is a very impressive presentation you have there re: the 14th. I especially like the historical stuff. I think if I wanted to rebut it, I would find lots of other senators and congressman of those times to quote otherwise. Then I would move on to the logic presented in justification by the immigration and Naturalization Service, of their current practice. then move on to This being a nation of law I would guess that it goes something like. Whatever the intent of those words were, they do state "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." So the most direct meaning is those born here are citizens. If you are here, you are subject to our jurisdiction, further. The rebutal, I'm guessing is that if the amendment meant more than those straight forward words, they would have said so or should have if they wanted something different. For various political and human nature reasons I feel this may end up being resolved by amendment or lack thereof. |
Fri 23 Jul 2010 11:15:40
| Name : | To ESO |
| Email : | From PAW |
| Message | What state are you living in? |
Fri 23 Jul 2010 10:27:36
| Name : | Esoterik |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | “I'm not sure what you mean with the influence of peyote stuff. And the wookie stuff too?” As you seem to need clarity, I will attempt to illuminate you on the subject of “humorous repartee.” The “the influence of peyote stuff” was a form known as “satirical parody” employing the device of “self deprecation.” The “wookie stuff” was an “implicit allegory,” comparing Obi-Juan’s potential reaction to your making fun of his “grasshoppah” comments, to the potential violent reaction of a Wookie, implying that he is a Wookie. Now on to your misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment and your fallacious “Constitutional Mandate for Citizenship” argument; Read the following carefully: “The 14th Amendment provides that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens . . . ." To treat the last clause as describing merely territorial jurisdiction, as Ms. Jacoby does, is to render the clause superfluous. Even temporary visitors are subject to U.S. jurisdiction in that sense; everyone here has to obey our traffic laws, for example. The clause must therefore mean something much more -- an allegiance-owing jurisdiction. The debates in the Congress that approved the clause, and the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court justices who first interpreted it, confirm this understanding. Sen. Reverdy Johnson of Maryland explained during floor debate, for example, that "all this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign power -- for that no doubt is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us -- shall be considered as citizens of the United States." The author of the provision, Sen. Jacob Howard, announced that the clause "will not, of course, include foreigners." The Supreme Court first considered the clause in the Slaughter-House Cases of 1872, unanimously recognizing that the phrase "was intended to exclude from its operation children of . . . citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States." This view was confirmed in the 1883 case of Elk v. Wilkens. The phrase, according to the court, meant "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance." Children of temporary visitors to the United States, particularly those who are here illegally, owe primary allegiance to their parent's country, not to the U.S., and are therefore not guaranteed citizenship by the terms of the 14th Amendment. Congress retains the power to offer citizenship more broadly than the Constitution requires, of course, pursuant to its plenary authority over naturalization. To date, it has not done so. In 1898, the Supreme Court raised the citizenship floor mandated by the Constitution slightly, to include children of legal, permanent residents who, by virtue of a treaty with the Chinese emperor, were never eligible for citizenship themselves. But to read the holding in Wong Kim Ark as determining that the Constitution also mandates automatic citizenship to children of temporary, illegal immigrants not only presses the Constitution's text beyond the breaking point, but significantly intrudes on Congress's plenary power over naturalization.” -Dr. John C. Eastman; Professor of Law; Chapman University School of Law; Director, The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence. |
Fri 23 Jul 2010 09:29:48
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | The Wall |
| Message | Of course there are "consequenses" for illegals caught over here. Those wothout documents are sent back. This is no doubt a huge setback for those so poor. Sometimes whole families save for years to send one young guy up here to work a little and then most of the time go back on their own. Border Patrol stats show that there has been a huge decline of that type of border crosser. The economy no doubt. Those cartel guys totally have immigration documents so they pass the line freely. I like your idea regarding the temporary labor program. The old bracero program was a step in the right diection as the workers were escorted to the job area and then back to the border. The being born here citizenship issue is tied togather with the Constitutional mandate of citizenship for all those born here. If the people feel strongely enough, they will have to change the Constitution to stop that. Those of you who have been around IB must remember the pre-wall days. Crowds of illegals running through IB, etc. All politicians, both parties, huffed and puffed and nothing even slowed the illegal down. Then, thank God, came the wall. It was like night and day. No wall and associated BP enhancement means no change in the staus quo. |
Fri 23 Jul 2010 09:09:11
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | TJ, etc. |
| Message | RE: TJ and creationism. There was quite a contoversy lately concerning the Texas school board's recent text book guidelines. An attempt was made to de-emphazise TJ's stand for separation of church and state. I take you agree that was a bed idea. Because the "Right" has muddied the meaning of "socialist" so much lately it's not clear to me if you mean really extreme people like Chavez in Venenzuela or someone right square in the middle like McCain. I apologize for that, but those words have used so loosely. I'm with you about that enforced atheism stuff. That's a huge breach of the separation of church and state. To impute this atheistic attitude to most Democrats is extremely ridiculous. They are just as religeous and respectful of other's beliefs as the rest of us. Further to say that the left wants to impose atheism is even more ridiculous. Chavez, I can see totally see that for. Since McCain is being called by the TP a socislist, no. I seem to have demonstrated an inability to type or proofread, I apologize again. |
Fri 23 Jul 2010 08:44:04
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | ? |
| Message | Besides woofing on my pathetic typos I'm not sure what you mean with the influence of peyote stuff. And the wookie stuff too? |
Fri 23 Jul 2010 08:32:19
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | OOPS |
| Message | OOps, Big apologies to PAW and Esoteric for switching them around. Sorry about that!! |
Fri 23 Jul 2010 07:19:01
| Name : | Esoterik |
| Email : | No one in particular |
| Message | “I had an ineresting conversation with an Indian from the remotest mouintains of Mexico recently” (Don’t spit up your run-n-coke on the LCD screen Henry) I had an “ineresting” conversation with an Indian from the remotest “mouintains” of Mexico as well. But being that I was under the influence of Peyote, I really don’t have any idea what he said, or how many times I threw up, or why the hell I woke up with that goat. “One who tells another, especially one they do not know, that he is their master has failed the test of masterhood. It is the double failure of hubris and the lack of humility. No true master would be so foolish.” My only comment to that has to be: "I'd let him have it, it's not wise to upset a Wookie." "But sir, no one worries about upsetting a droid." "That's 'cause droids don't pull people's arms out of their sockets when they lose. Wookies are known to do that." "I see your point, sir. I suggest a new strategy, Artoo. Let the Wookie win." |
Fri 23 Jul 2010 06:43:26
| Name : | PAW |
| Email : | |
| Message | Would somebody please tell me just what business I'm in? |
Fri 23 Jul 2010 06:39:52
| Name : | To DF |
| Email : | From PAW |
| Message | You're really on top of things there DF. |
Fri 23 Jul 2010 06:35:47
| Name : | Esoterik |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | “The creationist Right has teated him so disrespecfully because of his promotion of the separation of church and state.” OK Mr. 250… “teated” him? Just what is that exactly? And “disrespectfully?” Now… aside from the occasional typo, which really doesn’t mean anything (most of mine are much worse), I am having a little difficulty making since out of that statement. I am definitely from the right and also lean toward creationism. Treat TJ with anything but admiration, you are out of your mind. We simply recognize that “separation of church and state” in no way mandates nor provides inspiration for the radical left’s wet dream of enforced Atheism, a necessary condition of any hard core socialist hegemony as there is no room for any god but the state. If the left has its way, Atheism will be the state religion. Oh… and “the wall?” Make me laugh. Interdiction programs of any kind, barriers included, will do nothing until there are consequences for stepping across our borders uninvited that give people cause to worry. This needs to be coupled with a “Temporary Laborer” program that provides an easier means for people who wish to come here in order to work that is separated from the corruption of the Mexican government. It also needs to be coupled with the elimination of automatically conferring citizenship to the children of foreign nationals who happen to be born on our soil. |
Fri 23 Jul 2010 05:33:45
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | illegals |
| Message | I had an ineresting conversation with an Indian from the remotest mouintains of Mexico recently. His take on the Arizona thing is the new law will hardly change anything. He told me that his friends tell him that the cops already grab suspicious looking Mexicans, and take them to the jail, where the BP has a permanent guy just to deal with illegals they catch. So what good does this whole big noise do, except to distract from the fact that without a wall like we have here, it's all hot air. Now I see where, to the shame of the Arizona GOP/TP, that they are turning on John McCain, a truly great American. He suports the wall, while the TP is spinning around chasing it's tail on this issue. We went through this whole thing years ago here. Everything the politcos said was just flim flam till they built that wall! Period! |
Fri 23 Jul 2010 05:17:25
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Equality |
| Message | I have one more take on this equality thing. Looking at the case of PAW. Here is an individual who is making a damn near superhuman effort to prosper and surive in the small business world. If his business fails, are we to believe that he is somehow not equal to another whose business, by the grace of God, makes it. I know almost nothing of PAW. But I do know that he is an energetic and sharp individual, with an almost unstopable drive to survive, just from the few comments we have shared. We may differ on current events, but he (or she) has my respect just for getting of the couch and trying to kick some ass. I just cannot accept that that type of an individual is less equal than anyone. And to me that is part of what is great about this country. |
Fri 23 Jul 2010 04:12:45
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | Does Watergate fit in there somewhere??? The Pentagon Tapes. Contra Iran/Israel arms deal |
Fri 23 Jul 2010 04:08:40
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | WRT |
| Message | I have lived here since 1957 and one of my greatest sadness is that I am not bilingual. I know very few words and know I should know a whole lot more. Not to become Mexicanized, but to better share the culture where we live. And those Latina girls are hot. LOL There is a joke goes somewhat like this: Person who can speak 3 languages Tri lingual Person who can speak 2 languages Bi lingual Person who can speak one language GRINGO |
Fri 23 Jul 2010 10:07:58
Fri 23 Jul 2010 09:14:00
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Debacle on the right |
| Message | First they are caught trying to sneak into the Louisiana senator's office illegally. Then caught and convicted of editing those video tapes of the acorn guys to present a totally fake version of what happened. Then caught again editing video tapes to frame another innocent person in the Ag. Dept. Innocent bystac nders are targets of opportunity now for the Fox/TP gang. Can the Right's credibility sink any lower? Oh I know it's not fair cause only you guys are being caught. Your maximum leader and big thinker Rush L. spent most of yesterday trying to wish that it was all somehow Obama's fault. His analsis seemed something like, "Since you afforded Fox news some shred of credility, it must be your fault for the lies they push." Meanwhile the dems are cleaning their own house, kicking that crook Rangel's ass. |
Fri 23 Jul 2010 04:18:16
Fri 23 Jul 2010 04:00:18
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | treatment? |
| Message | and what is "talking in tratment"? |
Fri 23 Jul 2010 03:47:16
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | A master? |
| Message | Obi-Juan, I know you jest with your grasshoppah comments and front of somehow being a master. One who tells another, especially one they do not know, that he is their master has failed the test of masterhood. It is the double failure of hubris and the lack of humility. No true master would be so foolish. |
Fri 23 Jul 2010 03:35:21
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | pappy Hank? |
| Message | what does that mean? :) |
Fri 23 Jul 2010 03:31:26
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | T. Jefferson |
| Message | Obi-Juan I'm glad you respect TJ. The creationist Right has teated him so disrespecfully because of his promotion of the separation of church and state. What can they be thinking of? That's what makes it possible for them to exist. If there was offical state religion they really would be persecuted! |
Fri 23 Jul 2010 01:40:11
Thu 22 Jul 2010 08:12:47
Thu 22 Jul 2010 08:03:54
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | Shame on Bob |
| Message | You are one dumb****. That so shows YOUR ignorance It doesn't justify a remark. I am actually sorry I responded, but those on here know me well enough that was a more than stupid comment. |
Thu 22 Jul 2010 07:05:02
| Name : | Shame on Bob |
| Email : | |
| Message | He only knows that "some" of his brothers and sisters. How come he doesn't know which ones are unemployed? He's as bad as that republican guy. |
Thu 22 Jul 2010 04:52:43
| Name : | Obi-Juan-Canolli.. aka your pappy Hank |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | We are equal... ONLY in the EYES of God, Abraham Lincoln, the Constitution or TJ or whomever... but they are NOT TALKING LITERALLY. They are talking in treatment!! You have a 250 IQ... but you have NO wisdom... you are grasshoppah.. and I am Obi-Juan. Try again, GRASSHOPPAH!! |
Thu 22 Jul 2010 04:46:55
| Name : | Obi-Juan-Canolli.. aka your pappy Hank |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | YEP... the fact that you have a 250 IQ proves my point!.. we are NOT EQUAL. How do I feel about "Thomas Jefferson"?... I feel the same way you do. TJ was one, if not the greatest" orators, seers and foreseers of all time. That must blow your mind, right?.. LOL Tommy is a hero of mine... BUT... even with your higher IQ... you are still a grasshoppah. If you really, really understood.. you would know that in the bible and in TJ... were talking in the "eyes" of the observer.. in other words NOT LITERALLY... think about it, GRASSHOPPAH.... |
Thu 22 Jul 2010 04:33:43
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Equality |
| Message | "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are crated equal", etc. That would be Thomas Jefferson's take on this subject. Widely considered to be among the most powerful words ever put on paper. How do you feel about that? Would you argue that what you really mean is not equal because of individual talent? Would the fact that I have a 250 IQ, for instance, make me somehow more equal than you? No way! |
Thu 22 Jul 2010 01:37:42
| Name : | Obi-Juan-Canolli |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | QUOTE: "He went on and on recently about how the rich are rich because they are better. Not fortunate to survive the shark infested waters of our economic sysytem, BETTER." And.. how is "Rush" wrong? Rich people ARE better. 'Esplain why you don't think they aren't better" PULLEEEZE.. don't tell me we are all equal.... but you will won't you. |
Thu 22 Jul 2010 11:32:11
Thu 22 Jul 2010 11:31:09
Thu 22 Jul 2010 11:18:49
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | ESO |
| Message | Thanks for the offer. But in my socialist mentality I helped put my son through SD State and he has a degree in computer networking. He helps run the computer system for the South Bay Union School Dist. Another trough feeder. So when I do something that causes me a problem I wait until he comes home and he walks in hits a key or two and I am back in business. Ah Socialism is so good HA! |
Thu 22 Jul 2010 11:15:18
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Rush "Alinsky" Limbaugh |
| Message | Rush has a great take on this unemployement and poverty thing. He went on and on recently about how the rich are rich because they are better. Not fortunate to survive the shark infested waters of our economic sysytem, BETTER. He and the TP/GOP will throw everyone of us, including those of you who I disagree with here, overboard in a instant. This is their great leader speaking. You guys here should repudiate this fool before he ruins the GOP/TP. None of us is important enough for him to have his goons force us to apologize, so go for it. |
Thu 22 Jul 2010 11:11:59
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | me |
| Message | I believe totally in a Supreme Being as our creator. Where I draw the line is the so called written word trying to explain it. Do you ask me if I believe there is a heaven Yes I do. Do you ask me if Jesus died for my sins to pave the way for my salvation Yes I do. |
Thu 22 Jul 2010 11:04:24
Thu 22 Jul 2010 10:28:30
Thu 22 Jul 2010 09:37:18
| Name : | Esoterik |
| Email : | Dave, or DF? |
| Message | “Well, I have to go play now. It seems that by working and saving for 48 years I've earned a small pension that with prudence sets me free. I wish the same for you all.” God Bless you and enjoy the fruits of your years of effort. Why however, you would want to support political trends that will eventually assure that your children and theirs will find it impossible to do the same, confounds me. |
Thu 22 Jul 2010 09:32:30
| Name : | Esoterik |
| Email : | BW |
| Message | "I truly wish you the best luck." Thank You. And if you need any help with any of your computing needs, you just contact me. If I can take care of you through a remote session, I will be happy to do it for free. |
Thu 22 Jul 2010 09:28:46
| Name : | Esoterik |
| Email : | WRT |
| Message | “Who said anything about cutting unemployment benefits? You're being disingenuous by trying to portray a failure to approve an increase as a cut. The GOP wants to extend those benefits but they were demanding a budget cut to pay for it. Seems reasonable.” No… actually I believe they were insisting that extension funding be allocated from already existing “stimulus” funding, much of which has not been distributed. That is what made Obama’s lies so ridiculously disingenuous. |
Thu 22 Jul 2010 09:20:38
| Name : | Esoterik |
| Email : | PAW |
| Message | “We have opposing philosophies of what America should be and we are never going to agree Time will tell and hopefully we will survive.” The historical schism between those who would be free, responsible to and for themselves, and those who would be serfs, settling for arbitrary security at the hands of some “benevolent” master will is always with us. It is part of the human condition. For me, the only benevolent master is that one which surpasses human understanding, and like our forefathers, I believe he is self evident and calls for us to live as free and responsible men. Time indeed, will “out” the truth. Unfortunately, history teaches us that where freedom is secured, there will be blood and many of us will not survive. I for one will live free. I will NOT submit, and in the words of the iconoclastic fictional character of the true American spirit, Captain Malcolm Reynolds, “I aim to misbehave!” |
Thu 22 Jul 2010 12:45:32
Wed 21 Jul 2010 11:04:07
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | me |
| Message | Yes tar pit and fossils that are older than 12,000 years. But contrary to what you think I do believe in a supreme being. Am not going to argue religion, because I don't know but I find it ironic the oldest written word is in the cuniform tablets about 3,500 years BC. I think from the Babylonian era. |
Wed 21 Jul 2010 08:57:12
Wed 21 Jul 2010 08:47:48
Wed 21 Jul 2010 08:41:56
Wed 21 Jul 2010 08:30:21
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | PAW |
| Message | AND the Supreme Court in the hands of whom. I think you recall they anointed gw President in 2000. Labor unions work to get benefits so you can be on here instead of still working for the owner of the Company store. Have you forgotten the 8hr day, 40 hr week, sick leave, vacations, pay raises, job protection, pensions, OSHA, family leave to care for sick family, and to let the mother stay home to bring that new born into the world. I could probably go on and on but am not the brightest bulb in the building. |
Wed 21 Jul 2010 08:19:33
| Name : | Hey DF |
| Email : | From PAW |
| Message | Democratic party in the pockets of trial lawyers and public employee unions. For about the 100th time. THE PARTIES ARE EQUALLY CORRUPT. |
Wed 21 Jul 2010 07:16:48
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | I of course meant evolution rather than evaluation. |
Wed 21 Jul 2010 06:54:29
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | DF ( I think) |
| Message | Notice the same people who gave us Voodoo economics and tax cuts for the rich are arguing over creation and evaluation. Until someone proves differently I'll take the tat pits over something unseen and un evidenced. Put that in your big bong (I mean bang)and smoke it. |
Wed 21 Jul 2010 06:47:09
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | PAW and all |
| Message | PAW by the way Bill Clinton was President in 2000. GW, your buddy, didn't become President until Jan 20,2001. Lets see GW took office 8 months before the Aug 6 warning of a terror by bombing attack (remember the IED) and 9 months before 9/11.Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm! |
Wed 21 Jul 2010 05:32:05
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Gerrymandering |
| Message | Democratic California is certainly moving strongly in the direction of stopping gerymandering. Can the Right walk their talk? Are they really for the voice of the people. Can the same gang that shouted down speakers at public meetings for the last couple years change their spots? . If you guys are for democracy get off the couch and force the parties to knock it off. I'll be shocked if you try and even more if you succeed. Remember that democrat controlled CA is doing it. Giving up their lock on the legislature in the name of democracy. I will admit to be being really surprised. If you guys are not a bunch of sold out Poindexters, I'm calling you out. Remember that the "socialists" can do this. So why can't you? I AM CALLING YOU OUT ON THIS!!! |
Wed 21 Jul 2010 05:20:43
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Rush "Alinsky" in action |
| Message | Highlights of todays Limbaugh show. Rush today said that Wall Street reform caused huge damage today when multiple bond ratings companies quit issuing ratings. That would be the same ratings guys who sold AAA ratings to the highest payers, no matter how junk bondesque they were. Today they quit doing that as they are now liable for their fraud. The GOP made it OK for them to do that on their watch and tried their best to keep allowing this crime to continue. You may recall that these guys were at the heart of, and a huge cause of, the recent Economic disaster. Rush, the GOP/TP gang, and the crooks on Wall Street hope you will all fail to remember this. |
Wed 21 Jul 2010 05:06:51
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | Big Oil welfare |
| Message | "Your guys will filibuster till the sun gets cold first, before they let their handlers lose all that TAX PAYER money." Above was my statement that triggered PAW's comment, "Big oil and big business do NOT pay taxes. They pass it on to us when pricing their products." Talk about trying to change the subject! |
Wed 21 Jul 2010 04:57:28
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | unemployment benefits |
| Message | "trying to portray a failure to approve an increase as a cut" Call it what you want then. Those poor devils who lost their jobs due to the feckless GOP still are having their benefits ended thanks to that same GOP and their new TP overlords. Shades of Scrooge. Oh yeah, I forgot they pulled the same shameful stunt a few days before Xmas too. The public kicked your tails then too. Still sold out to big oil, wall street, etc. And the little guy can go to hell. |
Wed 21 Jul 2010 03:19:54
| Name : | To Bob |
| Email : | From PAW |
| Message | Of course the wealthy people realized more money from the tax cuts of 01. They have more taxable income. I heard a while back that something like 30+% of people pay zero taxes and the top 10% pay something like 60+? of all income taxes. |
Wed 21 Jul 2010 03:15:02
| Name : | To DF and BW |
| Email : | From PAW |
| Message | Bob, you said personal income taxes are 20% below what they were in 2000. Who was president in 2000? After 2000? If you look at my post of last Friday you will see the bracket changes if the Bush tax cuts are repealed. Bob, if you had ANY taxable income after deductions you paid 5% less taxes on it uner the Bush cuts and after the Clinton increases. You keep refering to the "tax cuts for the rich" Bob. Are you rich? |
Wed 21 Jul 2010 02:55:54
| Name : | To DF |
| Email : | From PAW |
| Message | What I'm saying is when the goverment raises taxes on oil companies they pass it on to us at the pump. Which party likes to raise taxes DF? |
Wed 21 Jul 2010 12:22:29
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | WRT |
| Message | You might want to look at more detailed data. According to CBO, revenue through 2004 is only up because social security taxes have increased. Corporate income taxes were still 5% below what they were in 2000 and personal income taxes were still 20% below what they were in 2000. Social Security Taxes were up by 12% since 2000 and are almost as high as personal income taxes now. They do not have 2005 data yet. I am not a fan of high taxes on principle, but I do think the government should pay for the things it does. If government expenses can be lowered, than taxes should certainly be cut. However, in the same time (2000-2004) government expenses have risen by 28%. Discretionary spending has risen by 46% and mandatory spending has risen by 31%. Military spending was up 50%. From October of 2000 through October of 2004, US GDP increased from $9.953T to $11.995T (21% increase). The population increased from 282M to 294M (4.1% increase). Based on the available data, it is as easy to support the idea that GDP has increased due to increased government spending as it is to support the idea that GDP has increased due to lower taxes. If you add in the fact that GDP did not decrease when Bush and Clinton increased taxes in the 90's, there is basically no support for the idea that lowering taxes leads to significant growth. Looking at the past century's data, it is clear that government spending can help end recessions, with WWII military spending as the clearest example. |
Wed 21 Jul 2010 12:11:52
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | WRT |
| Message | The difference between you and I are if the taxes somehow work their way into helping people like ESO start a business or helping people eat or pay rent then I don't mind. But then I am a terrible socialist. |
Wed 21 Jul 2010 12:09:41
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | WRT |
| Message | You are so wrong on that. The 1.3 trillion dollar tax cut in 01 did not increase anything except put more money in the pockets of the rich. Now that is what I call income redistribution. |
Wed 21 Jul 2010 12:02:11
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | BW |
| Message | We don't need budget cuts to pay for tax cuts. It's already been proven that tax cuts INCREASE revenue to the government along with stimulating economic growth. That's how the Bush tax cuts brought us out of the post 911 recession so quickly. You liberals are always chanting the "tax cuts for the rich" mantra but since the upper 10% pay the vast bulk of all taxes, it only seems logical to include them in any tax cuts. That encourages them to invest in and grow businesses and that equals JOBS! I never got a job from a poor man. Besides I'm certainly not rich and my taxes will go up if the Bush cuts aren't renewed. I'm guessing your's will too. |
Wed 21 Jul 2010 10:29:28
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | ESO |
| Message | BP. I truly wish you the best luck. I know you are trying to start a business to support yourself and your family. AND I know it must be difficult. I don't have any clue what you are going through but I do know all the time and energy must be nerve racking. I know I DO NOT have the accuman of any kind to try to do what you are doing. I hope and I think that there are programs out there that try to help new Entrepreneurs. I know you are not a pro government advocate but there is nothing wrong to having a little step ladder to reach that goal. As you well know it is small business that is the real back bone of the country. I for one and this is from my heart. I do not think those people owning a business that employees 10-25 people should pay any tax. NONE. And I think that the govt, no matter at what level, should help whether it be by no license fee or whatever like that. AND I think the govt (we the people) should help in getting some health care for the owner and employees of that business. I did not say there should be NO regulation I said there should be no fee for all the filing and paper work that is needed to start a business. If that makes me a socialist then so be it. |
Wed 21 Jul 2010 09:47:40
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | WRT |
| Message | Republicans who want to pay for the unemployment insurance with budget cuts are the same republicans who want to continue the tax cuts for the rich without any budget cuts. ???? I read where for every dollar that is received in benefits it generates 1.67. An economist might explain that to me. Cause all I do is try to balance my own budget. But I do agree with PAW about businesses not paying for taxes. They just pass it along in higher prices to the consumer. |
Wed 21 Jul 2010 03:48:06
| Name : | WRT |
| Email : | DF |
| Message | Who said anything about cutting unemployment benefits? You're being disingenuous by trying to portray a failure to approve an increase as a cut. The GOP wants to extend those benefits but they were demanding a budget cut to pay for it. Seems reasonable. I think what PAW meant was that any tax increase levied on a corporation is merely passed on to us consumers in the form of higher prices...it never seems to come out of their profits. Not such a terrible thing when you consider that something like 90% of oil company stocks are owned by people like you and I with 401Ks. |
Wed 21 Jul 2010 02:23:58
Wed 21 Jul 2010 02:16:06
| Name : | DF |
| Email : | formerly Dave |
| Message | Thanks Obi Juan. After I posted it I looked at it and thought, I have to figure how to do this better. |
Tue 20 Jul 2010 07:15:10
| Name : | To Dave |
| Email : | From PAW |
| Message | Big oil and big business do NOT pay taxes. They pass it on to us when pricing their products. This has been advertised for years. |
Tue 20 Jul 2010 05:19:25
Tue 20 Jul 2010 12:40:32
Tue 20 Jul 2010 12:21:43
| Name : | Be Polite |
| Email : | |
| Message | Dave 2 should use a different "handle". He's gonna give the real Dave a bad name. |
Tue 20 Jul 2010 09:18:22
Tue 20 Jul 2010 09:02:09
| Name : | Esoterik |
| Email : | Dave |
| Message | “First of all, our med care is widely known to be way over priced and if it's so great how come were're not? Americans are falling apart. Our new generation has a lower life expectancy than the previous, for the first time in 200 years... It's the insurance companies, attorneys and their big corporate handlers. And they own the republicans too.” Way overpriced compared to what exactly? Government subsidized care? That works quite well actually in a small and easily managed populations like that of say… Sweden, which also enjoys virtually no foreign policy overhead (due to our efforts by the way.) Attempting to replicate such models within the framework of our society? <Shudder> I agree with you that our “new generation” has serious health concerns including lower life expectancy, obesity and various other quality of life issues. But this is not due to our medical infrastructure, the “evil” insurance companies, attorneys and big corporate handlers. It’s a little thing socialist nitwits constantly fail to mention. It’s called “personal responsibility.” Look it up. “I guess PAW & Esoteric feel that because the dems also gerrymander, like here in CA, that makes it ok. To hell with the voice of the people, sure.” I fail to see where I have ever excused either party for disregarding the voice of “We The People.” But just keep up with your unfounded Saul Alinsky inspired invectives, it’s quaint. It was you that made the “gerrymandering” accusation toward the Republican Party exclusive to them. That would indicate that you are the one excusing the Democrats for the same egregious practices. Try again Poindexter. Well… I would love to play more, but I have a business to run… I must go. |
Tue 20 Jul 2010 03:47:28
Tue 20 Jul 2010 01:14:35
| Name : | Esoterik |
| Email : | BW |
| Message | “deny unemployment benefits for the out of work.” Once again BW, you have been listening very closely to the “liar in chief” spew his petulant and disingenuous propaganda, or at least to the multitude of “lame stream media” talking heads who so fondly regurgitate his pap for you to lap up. Republicans by and large are indeed in favor of the benefits extensions, just not in favor of Obama wanting to use a high interest rate credit card that is already maxed out in order to pay for it. But… don’t let the facts get in the way of you psychotic “Bush/Cheney/All Things Republican Derangement.” It is what renders you so endearing. “Small Business has been the back bone of repubs for ever.” Well BW, if that is true, it is because “Small Businesses are Entrepreneurs, pioneers into the vast wilderness of the economy as it were, who with brave determination and a mind toward self reliance, liberty and independence set out to create something for themselves and very often for others as well. Did you catch those words BW? “Liberty” and “Independence?” Do they carry any meaning for you anymore? Did they ever? Or did spending the majority of your adult life sucking off the government tit while driving trolleys utterly consume any degree of inner desire for self determination you once held supplanting it with the resigned fawning of serfdom? I am one of those small businesses BW! I am no Republican by any means, but I am one of the pioneers who scratch and scrape opportunity out of the often times rocky soil of the economy in order to make a way for both my self and any who want to work along side of me the means to thrive and prosper. I work 14 to 15 hours a day in order to make a go of it. And who do you think gets most of the benefit of my efforts BW? I just paid my state sales taxes today so you really don’t want to go down that path with me. You don’t want to think too much about the rest of my overhead either, a good portion of it due to unnecessary government regulations. I could use some help at my business. Do you think I can hire employees? Maybe help ease the unemployment situation our Republic is currently suffering? Not with the burden the government has assured that action would cost me. I could go on but I am dead tired. It is 1 in the morning, the end of a long day and the next starts in just another 5 hours so I can get back to being the “rich, greedy, non-compassionate” (Oh… and did I fail to mention “evil”) small business man that I am. I have to, some government bureaucratic twit needs a paycheck, who else is going to provide it? |
Tue 20 Jul 2010 12:13:37
| Name : | Esoterik |
| Email : | Dave |
| Message | “I'd love to see someone explain how what the government just did to stop that from happening, didn't prevent a rerun.” You’re kidding right? You actually think that the government accomplished anything other then spiking our national dept for the next 2 centuries? Our financial system was never in jeopardy, but because of inept government meddling in what was a natural balancing cycle we are now that much closer to the “one single world bank” dreamed of by internationalist progressives. “If they're so interested in the voice of the people being heard, how about giving up their anti-democratic and un-american gerryamandering advantage.” You want to seriously contend that the Republican Party has some exclusive role in the practice of “gerryamandering” for political advantage? That’s rather amusing actually. Absurd… but amusing. “During Clinton we were paying the debt down... the right took over we went straight into the red again, massively.” Yes… the creative book cooking and budget confabulations which occurred during the Clinton years didn’t stand up to well when all the obligations that had been ignored for 8 years finally had to be paid. Of course what Obama is currently doing will make Clinton look like an amature. “20th best health care system” Yeah… OK… People from all over the world come to the 20th best health care system to have their lives saved. It all just came so clear to me all of a sudden. What a fool I have been. I think you missed your calling. I heard Bill Maher is looking for a new comedy writer. |
Mon 19 Jul 2010 11:50:36
| Name : | To Bob |
| Email : | From PAW |
| Message | Holy cow Bob. Preposterous war? Obama does not agree with you. 1.3 trillion left over? BS Who told you that? Even if it's true the thanks go to the rep senate and congress, not Clinton. Gingrich MORE immoral than Clinton? How do you figure that? You can bet that if the situation had been reversed the dems would have tried the same thing against a rep president. Screw world health stats. They are political BS. Of course if you believe Michael Moore???? Reps want tax cut for the rich? Didn't you read my post giving the tax rates. You Bob, you got a tax break under Bush's cuts. Help for small business? Great, small business is the backbone of America. Holding up unemployment? The reps just want budget cuts to pay for it instead of going further into debt. |
Mon 19 Jul 2010 10:19:22
| Name : | Obi-Juan-Canolli |
| Email : | BW |
| Message | QUOTE: "What happened in Clinton's reign. No soldiers got killed in preposterous wars." Are you wacky or what?? Does the name "Bosnia" mean anything to you?... maybe if Clinton had done more then make a feeble attempt to send one drone to kill Osama Bin La La... there might not have been a 9/11. Does 2,000 plus Americans killed because Clinton was a woosey count for anything?? |
Mon 19 Jul 2010 10:08:46
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | me/PAW |
| Message | What happened in Clinton's reign. No soldiers got killed in preposterous wars. 1.3 trillion dollars was left for the next administration to give to their rich friends. Bet you didn't get much. He was impeached by the right wing SOB's in the senate and house who we found out were more immoral than him. Remember Barr-Gingrich-Hyde-Livingston. PAW I think if you look at any world wide health stats the US is far down in providing health care. And we pay a bunch more. And what is this that is going on now where the repubs want a tax cur for the rich and deny unemployment benefits for the out of work. They are also fighting trying to help small businesses get help from the banks. Small business has been the back bone of repubs for ever. |
Mon 19 Jul 2010 08:33:47
| Name : | To Dave |
| Email : | From PAW |
| Message | Wow, Dave, you've just lost all credibility with me after that last post. We have the 20th best medical care? That is preposterous. But, after Obama care goes into effect that could come true. You talk like gerrymandering is something only republicans do. That too is preposterous. Who is this economist that is your guru? No doubt in my mind that he has an agenda. The good news is that Bob believes EVERYTHING you say. |
Mon 19 Jul 2010 08:06:42
Mon 19 Jul 2010 05:57:01
Mon 19 Jul 2010 02:31:53
| Name : | Obi-Juan-Canolli |
| Email : | agree |
| Message | What "To Dave" said to Dave.. ditto for me... |
Mon 19 Jul 2010 02:22:02
| Name : | To Dave |
| Email : | From Politicians at work |
| Message | I assumed you were the Dave that has been so helpful to all of us re: computers. How is it Dave that the TPers are in conflict with the constitution? 20% loss in purchasing power? Isn't that across the board? Didn't the well off and rich lose the same percentage? What is your source for the 20% figure? Assuming you are correct, how did the wealthy end up with the money? You said that the Bush era of our history ruined the right's credibilty. We'll see in November Dave. You said our leaders came up with a rescue plan "and it worked." You gotta be kidding. Have you seen the unemployment percentages? Are you aware of what has happened to the national debt? I think the jury is still out on that. I fully understand your paragraph on social services but am left wondering how far you believe we should go in that direction. I'm not a fan of politicians at any level. I believe the majority of them to be self-serving people who will sell the country down the river if it would benefit them personally. Best wishes to you. |
Mon 19 Jul 2010 12:53:10
| Name : | Obi-Juan-Canolli |
| Email : | BW |
| Message | QUOTE: "obfuscate" I don't know what that means. Are you trying to get all "smarty pants" on us??? Regarding "Dave"... be vewy, vewy careful. I distinctly remember "Dave" kicking my ass on these boards one time. I advise you not to rile his feathers... my ass still hurts... LOL Don't mistake kindness for weakness... "Dave" can "throw" with the best of them... and that's a Fact Jack!! rum n coke #2 |
Mon 19 Jul 2010 12:08:35
| Name : | Webmaster |
| Email : | peeps and looky-loos |
| Message | This board reached it's allotted size and has been refreshed, except for today's posts. To see past posts, visit the archives. |
Mon 19 Jul 2010 09:35:11
| Name : | BW |
| Email : | PAW |
| Message | Well ain't that somethin'. I don't have to show my shallow intellect any more. I'll just sit back and read what Dave has to say. Let's see. Spelling okay, Grammar okay, no cuss words. Damn! Oh shucks. But Dave you have no idea what you have done. Wait until me and ESO get a hold of your butt for every nuance and thought you have will be subject to challenge. They wont argue your points because they can't but they will try to obfuscate every thing you say. Just wait. Oh by the way that was great!!!! |