Isn't this the first time either of them has broken the 50-mark?
Posted By: sam on 2008-09-08
In Reply to: See link inside. - sm
nm
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Broken record. Broken rec- hic! Broken
And so forth, ad infinitum.
Right on the mark.
It's simply unbelievable to me that Americans must hope for help from Hugo Chavez in a time of crisis while their own federal government is taking a long leisurely yawn while deciding whether or not help its own suffering people.
Never thought I'd see that day in America.
Mark 8:38
"Folks haven't been reading their Bibles." ~~ Barack Obama
Your post is off the mark...
Your post doesn't make sense and is erroneous in many areas. Obviously you have never listened to the lyrics of the song and you are not familiar with the content of the Neil Young song it addresses. And I agree, it's a great rock and roll song lyrics aside, but I just can't always put those lyrics aside. I also never said folks from the south weren't intelligent - you implied that, not me. As for hating it up north, well, you're incorrect. Me and most of the community love it here. People often move south for various reasons, some monetary but quite often due to the weather.
By the way, do your black friends enjoy your waving the confederate flag (I hope you don't wave it literally, but one never knows) and loving George Wallace? Probably not.
By the way, I was born in Virginia and also lived in southern Indiana and have friends/relatives all over the south. I am also an avid student of the history of the south. So I am fairly well educated regarding the cultural, socioeconomic problems currently facing the south, albeit some parts regions than others. So you see, I am dealing with it and find the best to way to "deal with it" is to seek the truth.
You are so off the mark it isn't even funny
you are so incensed you are stating Jesus' political status like it was written in the Bible. I'm not talking to people who want to bash me....you don't even read my posts....goodbye.
Oy vey Mr/Ms. Question mark
You are so frightened by the term socialism - does it occur to you that at least the French citizens have not forgotten how to stand up to their government?
Please take just a moment and open your mind (that means turn OFF the Limbaughs out there)
Is this femnist off the mark? I think so...sm
First of all, there is NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING wrong with standing behind your husband. Did any feminists go bonkers when Hillary did it. To some degree this article challenges marriage.
****
Michelle Obama's sacrifice
It had to be hard for the high-achieving candidate's wife to give up her career -- and I'm in a feminist fury about it.
By Debra Dickerson
Michelle Obama, wife of Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, speaks April 16 at a Women for Obama luncheon in Chicago.
May 21, 2007 | You knew it had to happen.
Damn it all, Michelle Obama has quit her $215,000 dream job and demoted herself to queen. Though the party line is that she's only scaled back to a 20 percent workload, I doubt her former co-workers will bother alerting her to many staff meetings. She's traded in her solid gold résumé, high-octane talent and role as vice president of community and external affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals to be a professional wife and hostess.
Now, the energy and drive that had her up jogging before dawn and a gratifying day of work and family will mainly be spent smiling for the cameras. Just as we watch curvy, healthy-looking singers and actresses like Lindsay Lohan become anorexic too-blonde hoochies before our very eyes, so we're now in danger of having to watch the political version of that process: Any day now, Michelle Obama's handlers will have her glued into one of those Sunday-go-to-meeting Baptist grandma crown hats while smiling vapidly for hours at a time. When, of course, she's not staring moonstruck, à la Nancy Reagan, at her moon doggie god-husband who's not one bit smarter than she is.
My heart breaks for her just thinking about it. Being president will be hard. So will being first lady for the brilliant Michelle -- imagine, having to begin all your sentences with My husband and I...
I'm in a feminist fury about Michelle (I'll use her first name to avoid confusion with her husband) feeling forced to quit, but make no mistake: I'm not blaming her. Few could stand up to the pressure she's facing, especially from blacks, to sacrifice herself on the altar of her husband's ambition. He could be the first black president, you know! Also, she must be beside herself trying to hold things together for her daughters. I'm blaming the world and every man, woman, child and border collie in it who helps send the message that women's lives must be subordinate to everyone else's.
No doubt her modern, progressive husband assured her she didn't have to quit -- probably even tried to dissuade her. It's also quite likely she's making this sacrifice so her children will have at least one parent available. But the result is the same. Our daughters grow up knowing that their freedom to work at hard-won, beloved careers hinges on the doings of their husbands.
Still, there's an opportunity in this setback. Now is the time for feminism to reach out to black women via the contingent of Obama-esque overachievers out there who ought to be chilled to the bone by Michelle's retirement from work of her own. Given Secretary Rice's, not to mention Oprah's, persistent singleness, black women who have earned high status may well wonder why they should bother trying to both date and develop successful careers if one's going to cancel out the other. No other group is less likely to marry. Given the innate conservatism of the black community, the burden to tend to hearth and home falls disproportionately on its women, sending the message to ambitious black girls that they can't have both fulfilling careers and families.
It would be one thing if Michelle had tired of working, but she's clearly ambivalent about leaving paid employment, as the Washington Post's recent coverage made clear:
Every other month [since] I've had children I've struggled with the notion of 'Am I being a good parent? Can I stay home? Should I stay home? How do I balance it all?' she said. I have gone back and forth every year about whether I should work. When she finally winds down her duties as vice president of community and external affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals in the days ahead..., she said, it will be the first time that I haven't gotten up and gone to a job. It's a bit disconcerting, she said. But it's not like I'll be bored.
No, you'll have your well-manicured hands full being your husband's hostess in chief. Funny how she didn't mention her husband's parental angst; there have been whispers that he's been pretty busy, too, what with being the great black hope and all. Wonder what finally made her decide to quit.
While I'm not blaming Michelle, I am issuing a challenge: This political and professional sutee won't end until women refuse to step into the fire, disapproval be damned. Sen. Clinton can't do everything: The rest of us women must stand our ground. Whatever else you think of Clinton, you can't deny that she blazed a trail for women's right to work and, like, be smart in public. And, man, what a beatdown she got. Since it was bringing about the end of the civilization as we know it, she caved, took her husband's name and gave up a public policy role; she had to wait, like a good girl, until her husband couldn't run for anything else. Valuable years of productivity, wasted. But at least giving up her career wasn't Hillary Clinton's first choice, as it is for most of the elite women who are abandoning their careers.
Linda Hirshman was an early observer of the phenomenon of top-tier women leading the retreat back to the kitchen. Following up a controversial article, Homeward Bound, with an equally controversial book, Get to Work, she harshly chastised elite, well-educated women for choosing not to work once they married high earners. Using census data and interviews, she argues that:
As a result of feminist efforts -- and larger economic trends -- the percentage of [working] women ... rose robustly through the 1980s and early '90s. But then the pace slowed. The census numbers for all working mothers leveled off around 1990 and have fallen modestly since 1998. In interviews, women with enough money to quit work say they are choosing to opt out. Their words conceal a crucial reality: the belief that women are responsible for child-rearing and homemaking was largely untouched by decades of workplace feminism ... Among the affluent-educated-married population, women are letting their careers slide to tend the home fires. If my interviewees are working, they work largely part time, and their part-time careers are not putting them in the executive suite.
I am not saying Michelle Obama is just another member of the so-called opt-out revolution; clearly, her reasons for leaving her job are historic -- and even so, she clearly seems pained to do it. And I hate to add to Michelle's load, but even though she's made the choice to leave work, I hope she'll keep her role in women's history in mind and increase the tiny inroad political wives have made into something approaching women's freedom of choice. With her personal wealth (albeit obtained by marriage) Theresa Heinz laid some groundwork, speaking her mind on the campaign trail and generally refusing to be mealy-mouthed and dull. Kudos to Dr. Judith Steinberg Dean, too, for refusing to give up saving lives to chat up reporters on her husband's tour bus. But until more women who want to work feel free to do just that, they'll continue to be mere appendages of their men, and the American workplace will remain just as family-unfriendly as it is now.
What can Michelle do? If Obama wins, she should go for it and take on a meaningful public policy role, à la Hillary Clinton's healthcare work. Just a lot more carefully. Why on earth should such an accomplished woman just arrange white-tie dinners? Until then, she should become more outspoken, building on her husband's willingness to confront dysfunction in the black community -- a black mother can get away with what no one else could. Obama has chastised blacks for apathy, for crime, for equating achievement with acting white, for allowing their neighborhoods to deteriorate; Michelle's street cred as a churchgoing, round the way sister who made good makes her ghetto pass (her ability to operate as an insider) irrevocable. There will be no discussion of whether or not she's black.
Since the Obamas are liberals, Michelle is bullet proof. Anyone who dares to insult her with the same level of vitriol as has been visited on Hillary Clinton and leading white Democrats like Nancy Pelosi or Dianne Feinstein will be trampled by a herd of black ministers, civil rights leaders and church ladies in big hats. (Condoleezza Rice doesn't get the same protection.) In a post-Imus world, any critiques of Michelle had best be worded very carefully. She could also build on her husband's interfaith pioneering with mainstream organizations to bring the resources of those well-endowed communities to bear on black problems.
Of course, black problems are really American problems; having the golden couple spearheading the fight will make it sexy to help blacks with their systemic problems (education and entrepreneurship, to name two). The two Obamas can de-race these issues (here is where she can use her fancy education) and help America understand that black progress is American progress.
Most important, though, I hope Michelle will bring feminism to black women.
Feminism is rightfully criticized for being irrelevant to black women and ignoring their issues. When it's not plain arrogant, that is. An excellent example of mainstream feminism's high-handedness is Maureen Dowd's recent petty bitching about Michelle's jabs at her husband on the campaign trail. She sounded like a 1940s white woman reprimanding a sassy black maid. But feminism's failure to engage with black women is only partly its own fault; black men have worked hard to reinforce the image of feminism as not just white, not just lesbian, not just a plot to make contented black women unhappy with their lot but also (as usual) a war against black men. This black male victimology has been so successful at changing the subject whenever black women complain that, 20 years after Anita Hill was successfully demonized as a tool of white feminists for daring to bring down a prominent black man, here's Michelle's tortured answer to the Washington Post's F-question:
You know, I'm not that into labels ... So probably, if you laid out a feminist agenda, I would probably agree with a large portion of it, she said. I wouldn't identify as a feminist just like I probably wouldn't identify as a liberal or a progressive.
How difficult it must be for someone so whip smart and so famously blunt, according to insiders, to have to mouth these political pieties. But if we know nothing else about Michelle Obama, we know she's determined to live in the world the way it is, not the way it should be. But she's in a prime position to help change all that.
Now is the perfect opportunity for the movement to reach out to black women by embracing Michelle and black women's causes in general. Progressive women should be working their way toward the middle ground a political wife must occupy and politely engineer ways in which Michelle can put her postelection time, win or lose, to worthy causes important to the black community -- welfare-to-work, hiring and job training, for example.
But even as I seek silver linings, I'm still sad for Michelle. As the Times reports, She expresses no regret about scaling down her job ... where colleagues say she excels at tackling thorny problems. But this winter, after spotting a book on the Obamas' coffee table celebrating Mr. Obama's Senate victory, her staff created a matching volume of her accomplishments. Mrs. Obama wept when she saw it.
Problems don't come much thornier than this. You've got a right to sing the blues, Michelle, so go ahead and cry. Then take action.
I agree she is off the mark...
and most off the mark because who is she to critcize Michelle Obama's life decisions? She is a grown woman and fully capable of making decisions for her own life. It is that same old thing...if you don't fit into the *mold* you are fair game. It is, frankly, none of this woman's business what Michelle Obama does with her life, and if she chooses to change her career to supporting her husband's run for the Presidency and support her children through the process too, all I say is good for her. She is an adult and has made her choice and certainly does not have to answer to feminists for it. It is not unheard of for a woman to choose family AS a career at some point in her life, or as the career OF her life, and she is no less a woman, no less a person, for that choice. This gal sounds like a lot of other disgruntled feminists I have read or heard speak....railing against what they secretly wish THEY had. My guess is that Michelle Obama is much more comfortable with her life and her decisions than this gal will EVER be.
You're so far off the mark..........
@
I think you missed the mark again
did you mean could NOT get by? You actually type for a living?
Gov. Mark Sanford....(sm)
It seems this guy likes to go on "mystery vacations," not telling anyone where he's going and being unreachable. And this guy is a potential candidate for 2012? Oh boy. My guess is that he went on one of his "trips" because he was just beaten to death in court for trying to use stimulus funds to pay off state debt instead of using it for it's intended purpose, or course...that being after he tried to refuse it altogether. Yeah...let's put him in the White House. Then we could have a president that goes MIA. LOL.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/06/22/2009-06-22_awol_gov_sanford_has_south_carolina_in_tizzy.html
Mark my words...this is a hoax!
All you have to do is look at the picture and see the backwards "B" on her cheek. By the way, she was working at a McCain/Palin call center just before this alleged attack took place.
He's right on the mark about the martial law thing....
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iGM8kWMV6Kd2LoM80UvPXeeBJkqAD96N3GCG0
He's right on the mark about the martial law thing....
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iGM8kWMV6Kd2LoM80UvPXeeBJkqAD96N3GCG0
I would like to see this broken down....
what was the cause of death, into specifics. Like what was the leading cause of infant death? I doubt that it is due to disparity in access to health care among racial and income groups. What "doctors and analysts?" This is a very broad article and I am thinking the specifics would paint a different picture, which is why they are not included.
Oh yeah...so how did you totally miss the mark? LOL
I know R. Bennett was Clinton's attorney at one time. Therefore I never said one word about partisan and never even tagged him as a Republican. Hard to know in that case what wide open moment you're referring to - care to share? Hehe.
Great Mark Morford article
The guy can write and he's right on as usual.
Fun Bits About American Torture
In many ways, the U.S. is now just as inhumane and brutal as any Third World regime. Oh well?
- By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Friday, December 16, 2005
We do not torture. Remember it, write it in red crayon on the bathroom wall, tattoo it onto your acid tongue because those very words rang throughout the land like a bleak bell, like a low scream in the night, like a cheese grater rubbing against the teeth of common sense when Dubya mumbled them during a speech not long ago, and it was, at once, hilarious and nauseating and it took all the self-control in the world for everyone in the room not to burst out in disgusted laughter and throw their chairs at his duplicitous little head.
Oh my God, yes, yes we do torture, America that is, and we do it a lot, and we do it in ways that would make you sick to hear about, and we're doing it right now, all over the world, the CIA and the U.S. military, perhaps more often and more brutally than at any time in recent history and we use the exact same kind of techniques and excuses for it our numb-minded president cited as reasons we should declare war and oust the dictator of a defenseless pip-squeak nation that happened to be sitting on our oil.
This is something we must know, acknowledge, take to heart and not simply file away as some sort of murky, disquieting unknowable that's best left to scummy lords of the government underworld. We must not don the blinders and think America is always, without fail, the land of the perky and the free and the benevolent. Horrific torture is very much a part of who we are, right now. Deny it at your peril. Accept it at your deep discontent.
Torture is in. Torture is the tittering buzzword of the Bush administration, bandied about like secret candy, like a hot whisper from Dick Cheney's gnarled tongue into Rumsfeld's pointed ear and then dumped deep into Dubya's Big Vat o' Denial.
The cruel abuse of terror suspects is sanctioned and approved from on high, and we employed it in Abu Ghraib (the worst evidence of which -- the rapes and assaults and savage beatings -- we will likely never see), and we use it in Eastern Europe and Guantánamo and in secret prisons and it has caused deaths of countless detainees. And Rumsfeld's insane level of Defense Department secrecy means we may never even know exactly how brutal we have become.
Torture is right now being discussed in all manner of high-minded articles and forums wherein the finer points of what amount of torture should be allowable under what particular horrific (and hugely unlikely) circumstances, and all falling under the aegis of the new and pending McCain anti-torture legislation that would outlaw any and all degrading, inhumane treatment whatsoever by any American CIA or military personnel at any time whatsoever, more or less.
All while, ironically, over in Iraq, our military is right now inflicting more pain and death upon more lives than any torture chamber in the last hundred years, and where we have recently discovered the fledgling government that the United States helped erect in Saddam's absence, the Iraqi Interior Ministry, well, they appear to be so giddy about torture they might as well be Donald Rumsfeld's love children. But, you know, quibbling.
There is right now this amazing little story over at the London Guardian, a fascinating item all about a group of hardy hobbyists known as planespotters, folks whose solitary, dedicated pastime is to sit outside the various airports of the world and watch the runway action and make intricate logs and post their data and photos to planespotter Web sites. It's a bit like bird-watching, but without the chirping and the nature and with a lot more deafening engine roar and poisonous fumes.
These people, they are not spies and they are not liberals and they are not necessarily trying to reveal anything covert or ugly or illegal, but of course that is often exactly what they do, because these days, as it turns out, some of those planes these guys photograph are involved in clandestine CIA operations, in what are called extraordinary renditions, the abduction of suspects who are taken to lands unknown so we may beat and maul and torture the living crap out of them and not be held accountable to any sort of pesky international law. Fun!
It is for us to know, to try and comprehend. The United States has the most WMD of anyone in the world. We imprison and kill more of our own citizens than any other civilized nation on the planet. We still employ horrific, napalm-like chemical weapons.
And yes, under the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld regime, we abuse and torture prisoners at least as horrifically as any Islamic fundamentalist, as any terrorist cell, to serve our agenda and meet our goals -- and whether you think those goals are justifiable because they contain the words freedom or democracy is, in many ways, beside the point.
Go ahead, equivocate your heart out. It is a bit like justifying known poisons in your food. Sure mercury is a known cancer-causing agent. Sure the body will recoil and soon become violently ill and die. But gosh, it sure does taste good. Shrug.
Maybe you don't care, maybe you're like Rumsfeld and Cheney and the rest who think, well sure, if they're terrorists and if they'd just as willingly suck the eyeballs out of my cat and rip out my fingernails with a pair of pliers as look at me, well, they deserve to be tortured, beaten, abused in ways you and I cannot imagine. Especially if (and this is the eternal argument) by their torture we can prevent the deaths of innocents.
Maybe you are one of these people. Eye for an eye. Water torture for an explosive device. Does this mean that you are, of course, exactly like those being tortured, willing to go to extremes to get what you want? That you are on the same level morally, energetically, politically and, like Cheney and Rumsfeld, you are dragging the nation down into a hole with you? You might think. After all, fundamentalists terrorize to further a lopsided and religious-based agenda. We torture to protect ours. Same coin, different side.
It is mandatory that we all acknowledge where we are as a nation, right now, how low we have fallen, how thuggish and heartless and internationally disrespected we have become, the ugly trajectory we are following.
Because here's the sad kicker: Torture works. It gets results. It might very well save some lives. But it also requires a moral and spiritual sacrifice the likes of which would make Bush's own Jesus recoil in absolute horror. Yet this is what's happening, right now. And our current position demands a reply to one bitter, overarching question: What sort of nation are we, really?
Thoughts for the author? E-mail him.
Mark Morford's Notes & Errata column appears every Wednesday and Friday on SF Gate and in the Datebook section of the SF Chronicle. To get on the e-mail list for this column, please click here and remove one article of clothing. Mark's column also has an RSS feed and an archive of past columns, which includes a tiny photo of Mark probably insufficient for you to recognize him in the street and give him gifts.
As if that weren't enough, Mark also contributes to the hot, spankin' SF Gate Culture Blog.
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2005/12/16/notes121605.DTL
©2005 SF Gate
Mark Fiore's Minister of Fear sm
This is a little old, but a funny short animation on Homeland Security's fear-mongering.
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0428,fiore,55135,9.html
Mark my words, it won't be six months before the world
tests Obama like they did John Kennedy.
"Watch. We're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."
-- Joe Biden
Is Biden saying that America's current enemies - sorely aware of Obama's inexperience - plan to test a President Obama with similar crises, to see what he's made of?
I guess we all know how JFK's test turned out. "Bay of pigs" ring any bells.
Biden has also commented Obama's inexperience and said the job of the Presidency "does not lend itself to on the job training." He's also said Obama's "going to need help."
Well, I guess 'ol Joe has his foot in the door and that's all he really wanted. I don't believe he's changed his mind about our new President Elect. I think he saw his way into the White House and jumped on the bandwagon.
Great! We've got a totally inexperienced, slick snake set to run this country and the man who knows Obama will fail, has announced the Obama will be tested and fail, and probably wants Obama to fail, so he can come out smelling like a rose.
Well, buckle up. It's going to be a bumpy ride.
Yup, it's that same old broken record.
X
Get used to broken promises
And squeezing money out of "the middle class".
Your thinker is broken.
Or at least, badly warped. Have you ever actuallyr read any of Obama's policies or plans, or to you just get your information out of the hate blogs and off of Fox Noise? Obama has an energy plan that addresses, among other things, price of gas (not so much of an issue at the moment). Obama believes that the economy cannot recover without restructuring mortgages to mitigate 1 and every 10 American going into foreclosure (according to the latest stats on that).
If you had been equipped knowledge of any of this, you would have understood what the girl was talking about. Instead, you have just assumed she is looking for an hand-out/freebie. Your thinking is so jumbled, it is difficult to address it. The people who in times of uncertainty cling to their religion and guns, i.e., those things that they are familiar with and hold dear, are rural folks, HARDLY wealthy, by any estimation.
Your thinking is so poisoned with hatred, there really is no point in even trying to reason with you. Enjoy your ignorance.
Your thinker is broken.
Or at least, badly warped. Have you ever actuallyr read any of Obama's policies or plans, or to you just get your information out of the hate blogs and off of Fox Noise? Obama has an energy plan that addresses, among other things, price of gas (not so much of an issue at the moment). Obama believes that the economy cannot recover without restructuring mortgages to mitigate 1 and every 10 American going into foreclosure (according to the latest stats on that).
If you had been equipped knowledge of any of this, you would have understood what the girl was talking about. Instead, you have just assumed she is looking for an hand-out/freebie. Your thinking is so jumbled, it is difficult to address it. The people who in times of uncertainty cling to their religion and guns, i.e., those things that they are familiar with and hold dear, are rural folks, HARDLY wealthy, by any estimation.
Your thinking is so poisoned with hatred, there really is no point in even trying to reason with you. Enjoy your ignorance.
perhaps your thinker is broken
Religion has no geographic or socioeconomic boundaries. People do not "cling to their religion in times of uncertainty." People embrace their religion as a way to live. Gun ownership also crosses geographic and socioeconomic boundaries. Seen an NRA membership list??? You think those are all people who are "hardly wealthy by any estimation." Perhaps you should have equipped yourself with knowledge of this.
Is your remote broken? (sm)
You might want to try just unplugging the TV. If it sickens you so much, why do you keep watching?
Once again....another broken promise by the big O.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/11/12/obama_softens_ban_on_hiring_lobbyists/
So much for the change Obama promised to bring. Sounds to me like it is the same old political bullcrap of the rules not applying to certain people. Why bother saying stuff when you know you can't or won't do it?
AND BECAUSE OUR MILITARY IS BROKEN.....
The biggest selling product in the US right now is GUNS. So you think the cowards in this country can't protect themselves? Think again. Your family members weren't drafted and because they made that choice doesn't make everyone else cowards. You insult this country with your pious crap.
My house has been broken into, as well...
a far cry from a war on our soil.
Broken promises.
Obama Breaks Pledge to People Making Under $250K
Today, Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) condemns the recent passage of the Waxman-Markey energy/climate bill which passed out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee last night, 33-25, with four Democrats opposing,. ATR is calling on President Obama to keep his pledge.
All of this comes without a peep from President Obama, who promised not to raise taxes on those making less than $250,000 per year. Even House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) says that he has “40-45 votes” to take down the over $600 billion climate tax bill that will cost jobs and increase energy prices.
President Obama said on September 12, 2008 in Dover, New Hampshire:
“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”
He repeated that pledgeon October 22nd in Richmond, VA:
The concerns are still the same; this bill increases the price of energy and taxes all American families, not just those making over $250,000 as President Obama promised:
-Direct energy costs will go up $1,500 per year for the typical family of four.
-Even with a 26% reduction is use, electric bills will be $754 higher in 2035 than in the absence of Waxman-Markey, and $12,200 higher in total from 2012 to 2035.
-Even with a 15% decrease in gas consumption – prices will still go up! A family of four will still pay $596 more in 2035 and $7,500 more in total from 2012 to 2035.
-From 2012-2035, a family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by $22,800.
-On average, employment will be lower by 1,105,000 jobs per year. In some years, cap and trade will reduce employment by nearly 2.5 million jobs.
-Waxman-Markey will drive up the national debt 26 percent by 2035. This represents an additional $29,150 per person, or $116,600 for a family of four.
Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform said, “It would be very helpful if President Obama would keep just one of his campaign promises and oppose this massive tax hike. If not – we have him on record and he is clearly breaking his ‘pledge’.”
Bush wants to 'leave his mark' on his term in office.
He'll probably do his best to continue skrooing up this country right down to the very last seconds he is officially able to sign anything.
Did you notice the question mark at the end of the article's title?
Do you understand the meaning of "potential?" Imagine that. Judges have a "natural predisposition" toward complying with the DEMOCRATIC WILL OF THE PEOPLE. What a crazy and novel idea.
The truth has been out there for quite a while now. There is no THERE there. This is sheer lunacy, but hey, knock yourselves out. Nobody's listening to this garbage and the entire nation has much more pressing issues to worry about, but to remind you of them here would be a complete waste of time, in view of this myopic obsessive fixation of a marginalized tiny fringe minority of the GOP (which has been recently denounced by other, more intelligent republicans).
to listen to this video, click on the red check mark
in the square.
Yawn same broken record
that keeps sticking on the same note.
They all sound like a broken record.sm
I think they all learned this from Hannity on Fox. They call everyone asking questions conspiratory theorists, or if they cannot shoot the message they focus the blame on Clinton. The one thing they never do is answer THE QUESTIONS. Here is a link to an article on Hannity's histrionics on 911.
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/10/23/hannitys_hackneyed_histrionics_over_911.php
If it is broken, why haven't they fixed it?
Updated in light of today's news that kangaroo centers, petting zoos and ice cream parlors are included in Homeland Security's list of vulnerable terrorist targets:
If Its Broken, Why Haven't They Fixed It?
Fort Knox is robbed in an unusual way. Burglars break in through an air conditioning vent and shine a laser at the video cameras to blind them. Billions are stolen. The head of Fort Knox (let's call him the Chief) announces that no one could have foreseen this type of burglary. The commission investigating the robbery -- stacked with the Chief's business partners and friends -- finds that the break-in was unexpected. The commission makes numerous suggestions on how to thwart similar burglaries by installing motion detectors in the air conditioning vents and main vault. Independent researchers, however, discover that there have been many previous break-ins at repositories of valuable items where the burglars crawled in through the air conditioning vents and shined lasers at video cameras. They also discover that the Fort's security system would normally have caught the burglars in the act and alerted the military in time to stop the burglarly, but the system was undergoing a series of safety tests that night -- including some that were similar to what actually occurred -- and so the military assumed that the alarms were part of the test. There had been safety tests before, but never so many at the same time. The Chief personally scheduled multiple, overlapping tests for the night of the robbery, and then oversaw the operation of the tests and the Fort's reaction to those tests. Years pass, but the Chief does not follow the commission's recommendations. He fails to install any motion detectors. That's circumstantial evidence that the Chief was in on the heist. Why? Because if the robbery really had not been foreseeable and if he was innocent, he would have a very strong incentive to install motion detectors to prevent further robberies at the Fort. His personal reputation, the government's reputation, and its gold reserves would all depend on it. You can bet that he'd shore up the Fort's defenses. PerksLet's take it a step further: the Chief's personal bank account has suddenly gotten alot bigger after the heist. That helps to prove he was in on it, right? But it also shows that one of the reasons the Chief is leaving the Fort's defenses in a compromised state now is so that additional heists can occur, and he'll get more loot. 9/11Similarly, the 9-11 Commission -- stacked with cronies of the Bush administration (like executive director Philip Zelikow, who is very close to administration hawk Condoleeza Rice, and steered the Commission away from the most important lines of inquiry) -- found that the attacks were unexpected, despite very strong evidence that they were not, and despite the fact that the government scheduled numerous, overlapping war games for 9/11 -- some involving a plane flying into a building and others involving hijackings. And while the 9-11 Commission made numerous recommendations on how to prevent future terrorist attacks -- many of them simple and inexpensive to implement -- the Bush administration has failed to do so. Indeed, the Department of Homeland Security, instead of protecting vulnerable targets, has instead randomly made up lists which include kangaroo centers, petting zoos and
ice cream parlors as high-priority terrorist threats. Just like with the Chief, the current administration's failure to make the recommended and preventative changes -- many of them cheap fixes -- despite billions being spent on supposed homeland security, is strong evidence that the administration was in on it. This is especially true because the administration has recieved so many perks from 9/11: justification for wars in Afghanistan (where a huge oil pipeline benefitting American companies was being held up by the Taliban) and Iraq (one of the world's largest oil producers), permanent military bases in the Middle East, and consolidation of power at home. And by failing to implement the recommendations of the 9-11 Commission, the administration keeps open the possibility that another terrorist attack will occur which will whip the now-dissenting American public into line, justify the invasion of Iran, and allow for the suspension of our remaining constitutional rights. The bottom line is that the administration's, like the Chief's, inaction to fix the alleged holes in security which allowed supposedly unforeseeable crimes to occur shows that they are guilty of the crimes, and hope to benefit from additional crimes in the future. And if foreign terrorists really had carried out 9/11, why is the government using all of its resources spying on innocent people who obviously have never met a terrorist in their life?
Strange silence now broken.
First reaction is if these issues, which have been posted on O's website ever since he launched his campaign, are of such sudden concern to the cons and femocons, why did they not get addressed during the RNC? Do you not see the high-jack strategy as the cons try to talk out of both sides of their mouths and reinvent themselves as the new age liberals? How is this different than the now exposed folly of the compassionate conservative Bush/Cheney ploy?
Small business. Either you can't read, you think that we can't or your spin cycle is stuck in high gear. Go here: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#small-business. Plans to give tax relief for small businesses and startups, eliminate capital gains taxes on them and provide a $500 new making work pay tax credit (one of many) for workers. For all those IC MTs out there, this is aimed at reducing the burden of double taxation in the current structure where small businesses pay both employer AND employee side of payroll tax. Obama will INVEST $250 million per year in support of entrepreneurship, by creating national network of public-private business incubators to facilitate start-up creation. Your $250,000/yr figure applied to tax cuts on INDIVIDUALS who earn in excess of that amount. Therefore, your offshore, job loss, and massive flight to lower income argument does not hold water on this point. Please cite the right-wing rag you have taken this $6 billion dollar additional tax on small business claim. I'm not finding that in O's plan. The tax breaks to the "lower brackets" (losing their homes, can't decide whether to get medicine or food this month, and if they are lucky, can gas their tank once a month) is addressed below.
On the plight of the struggling rich. Define rich, please. From the bottom, INDIVIDUAL incomes in excess of $250,000/yr might look about right. From the top, $5 million a year maybe (one of McC's not-so-funny jokes, some would wonder). The 90% of the federal tax bill claim must be a typo. Go here for 2008 info: http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/04/the_rich_and_their_taxes.html. Our top 1% of filers pay 40% or tax burden. An accurate argument would include these facts as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth. In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth. Let's say that one more time. Top 1% gets 38%, bottom 40% get less than 1%. Since they are not earning a living wage, probably that is why they cannot afford to pay tax. Got the picture?
There is only one reason our long suffering corporations are taking their business overseas. Greed. They do not want to pay their share and they get tax incentives currently for outsourcing. Do not take us down the path of needing to address sweat shop working conditions, 7-day work weeks, $2/day wages in developing countries where US labor laws do not apply. Greed is not a universal American value.
There you go again. Please try to keep this discussion in the context of McCain plans and how they are different than Bush plans. You are spinning way out in right field without a paddle on that ridiculous statement about keeping people in lower brackets. What in the world make you think this kind of ignorance is going to help JM/SP win the election.
Preying on discontent, fear and division was a blatent and nauseating subtext for the RNC this entire week. I do agree with inspecting history, and the history that is under the microscope now is Bush/Cheney and JM voting history. Do you really want to bring up govt "borrowing." Again, Bush is the record setter in this regard and while we are talkin' W, don't forget the Bush slash and burn policies toward our seniors. Here's a link for you to a rather exhaustive analysis on 12 reason privatizing social security is a bad idea. http://www.socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=503. You can get back to me on that one with your rebuttal. My question would be putting WHICH people before WHICH party?
Survey Americans on which party they associate election fraud with in the past, say, 30 years or so and tell me what you come up with. So you forgot to mention what JM's plan is on this one. Again, just saying no to personal attacks and steering you back on course. JM's plan for lobbying and earmarks is what exactly. I see O has one.
JM hate war? LMAO. So what was all that military service orgie this week all about? The entire McCain family for generations have shown to us just how much they hate war. Where is his war prevention strategy? Did I miss the part where he sang Give Peace a Chance? Sam, really, do you care nothing about your own credibility or that of your candidates? Am laughing too hard to comment further on this.
Here's a link for you to serve as a primer on the Patriot Act controversy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act#Controversy. Will not address the attempts you are making to minimize the unconstitutional aspect of this legislation. I would like an explanation as to how RNC protestors engaging in destruction of private property, vandalism, resisting arrest, disturbing the peace and such have suddenly been charged with terrorism? The we have not been attacked yet defense does not make me feel warm and fuzzy about standing legislation that violates the constitution 9 ways to Sunday. Far mongering does not a justification make. O's plan demonstrates ways to tackle terrorism that do not involve trashing the constitution.
There are many issues swirling around the separation of church and state. Christian theocracy will be kept in the marginal fringes where they belong. Religious principles will not be incorporated into laws that seek to remove a woman's right to control her own body. Freedom from religion is also at stake here as are hate crime definitions that provide protection for Moslems in the US. That is the freedom the cons overlook every time.
You may not direct me anywhere in history on this subject that would attempt to blur the division between military and diplomatic initiatives. Hello. These are mutually exclusive concepts and one is designed to prevent the other. Got it? Where is JMs diplomacy? In the past 16 years, which party has demonstrated the ability to balance the budget and create surplus. Hey sambo, who turned a $559 billion surplus into a $400 billion deficit in just 8 years? Looks like there already has been a trillion-dollar screw-up that the next administration will be having to clean up. Wonder which party has the most credibility on this one?
Your prescription for poverty sounds like it was lifted straight out of O's plan. Read it before you try to claim it for the party who would ridicule it. My post ends here because the remainder of yours is recycled communist/socialist innuendo that has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand. And the top of the evening to you too, dear.
This is like listening to a broken record! (nm)
It just keeps skipping back and repeating the same thing over and over and over. Do have these comments set up in a word Expander to save time and keystrokes?
BC fanatics, the broken record.
x
No dog? ANOTHER campaign promise broken?
I guess we shouldn't be too surprised that the "tax cuts for 95% of Americans" will "not likely survive a budget battle with Democrats on Capitol Hill".
That's good, Obama. Some leadership! And blame it on the legislature. That's your MO, isn't it,Obama? Blame everything on everyone else.
You love to have your cake and eat it too, don't you, you pathetic L O S E R.
Yet another campaign promise broken..... sm
This originally included pictures, but apparently they would not post here.
A Boeing 757 and a fleet of armored cars for Michelle’s sight seeing tour!
Michelle One
On Sunday, President Obama flew back to the United States on Air Force One. His wife, two daughters and her mother did a bit of shopping in Paris before taking their own Boeing 757 (C-32) over to London to do some sight seeing.
We all remember Obama’s admonishment to corporate CEO’s in February:
“You can’t get corporate jets, you can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayers dime.”
Apparently that doesn’t apply to his wife.
The London Times opened it’s description of Michelle’s visit this way:
Motorcycle outriders, armoured Chevrolets and bullet-headed men in raincoats criss-crossed London yesterday as Michelle Obama and her daughters spent a second day on an unofficial visit to the capital.
The Times went on to describe that when Michelle and the girls arrived at Westminster Abbey, the building was closed to tourists with people already in told to “wait against the wall.” An American visiting the Abbey said “Right then I knew it was probably someone from our ‘royal family’.”
Michelle’s motorcade shut down the London street above as the First Lady of the World and her children go for Fish and Chips at a pub in Mayfair . The entourage inside the restaurant was 15 people while dozens more wait outside. Include the dozens of Air Force personnel to fly and service the plane, embassy personnel and other staff and we are talking about a serious expenditure of tax payer dollars.
Meanwhile, millions of Americans have lost their jobs and won’t be able to take their family on a summer holiday. Despite their circumstances they’ll still be expected to fork over the tax dollars to pay for Michelle’s trip!
I solved the problem with the broken link
When I first clicked the link I noticed the OOPS! page not found, so I looked at the address bar of the URL and the link had a " at the end of it. So I erased the " after the htm and it worked just find.
Here is the link
http://www.iwilltryit.com/fixed1.htm
More like Clinton's broken promise to cut our taxes
That little campaign platform that he would cut our taxes (middle income) when elected. Within days after being elected he raised our taxes to the highest ever in record history.
Also, according the to U.S. Treasury website that tracks the national debt, there was never a surplus because the debt rose every year. I know a lot of people don't like to hear that, but that is just the facts in black and white
During Clinton the National Debt was:
Fiscal
Year |
Year
Ending |
National Debt |
Deficit |
FY1993 |
09/30/1993 |
$4.411488 trillion |
|
FY1994 |
09/30/1994 |
$4.692749 trillion |
$281.26 billion |
FY1995 |
09/29/1995 |
$4.973982 trillion |
$281.23 billion |
FY1996 |
09/30/1996 |
$5.224810 trillion |
$250.83 billion |
FY1997 |
09/30/1997 |
$5.413146 trillion |
$188.34 billion |
FY1998 |
09/30/1998 |
$5.526193 trillion |
$113.05 billion |
FY1999 |
09/30/1999 |
$5.656270 trillion |
$130.08 billion |
FY2000 |
09/29/2000 |
$5.674178 trillion |
$17.91 billion |
FY2001 |
09/28/2001 |
$5.807463 trillion |
$133.29 billion |
As you can clearly see, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a budget surplus that he subsequently turned into a deficit. Its true the budget was "almost" balanced in 2000, but it never reached zero, let alone a positive number. Also, the growing deficit started in the Clinton budget, not the first year of the Bush admin.
To understand what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. Therefore I will attach a link that explains this.
I do know a lot of people really liked Bill Clinton as a President. No doubt about that. He had charisma and was very mesmerizing to listen to him speak, but you just can't toss out facts.
http://www.letxa.com/articles/16
P.S., this article states you can access the US Treasury website to see for yourself.
You're a broken record. How about providing some
Roberts certainly has more credentials and work experience than you do.
Do you just close your eyes and refuse to believe the truth because you **need** the use of Israel in order for all that **Rapture** stuff to come to fruition?
To only call it **propaganda** over and over again just proves you don't know what you're talking about. If you do, provide proof to the contrary.
Slaughter of Foreigners in Yemen Bears Mark of Former Gitmo Detainee
The fate of three of nine foreigners abducted in Yemen last week is known — their bodies were found, shot execution style. The whereabouts of the other six — including three children under the age of 6 — remain a mystery.
But terrorism experts say their abductors and killers are almost certainly not a mystery. They say the crimes bear the mark of AL Qaeda, and they fear they are the handiwork of the international terror organization's No. 2 man in the Arabian Peninsula: Said Ali al-Shihri, an Islamic extremist who once was in American custody — but who was released from the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Link for full story: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,527868,00.html
No idea....looked like maybe a broken blood vessel?
It DID look bad.
Broken Record...just keeps skipping back and repeating!
Can you guys please come up with some new material already. Hearing the same mantra over and over and over again is getting annoying!
Yep, but it was straight time. No time and a half
DHL is GERMAN OWNED. And, company was located on Snotsdale, I mean Scottsdale, AZ which means. Labor laws in Arizona suck. Right to work state. Basically a company can do whatever they want to do with you and if you do not like it, then quit and find another job.
Broken record, skip, skip, skip
You just keep repeating the same things over and over and over again. Please, find something new to say!
Broken Record...skip, skip, skip, skip.
I guess that is what you do when you run out of anything important to say!
same time?
Well, if these posts are showing up at the same time, how could it be me? I cant post everywhere at the same time, LOL. You are idiots if you think that. For you to even try to connect me with other posts..what for? Dont you have better things to do with your time? It makes me laugh that you actually have taken the time. It would not even occur to me to try to link up your posts and initials with other posts and initials. Gosh, guess I could take it as a compliment that you are spending so much time obsessing about me. I have a better suggestion for your time. Spend it researching this murderous lying administration.
Goes on all the time.
Does not surprise me at all, all politicians are crooks, that is why they had the wearwithall to get into it, smart, but all crooks. Bill Clinton was a sex addict, no doubt, but he did more to help me than any other president. I am a swing vote, I vote for the man not the party. I don't like the current President, I can see he has no soul in his eyes, but yet, they claim they won "two elections", he only won one, and I still doubt that considering that his brother was the gov of one of the highest electoral votes. But I do believe he won the last election, and his supreme court nomination has to be respected. I am not happy with Dudley Do Right, but Dubya did win one election, (we think), and he as president has the right to appoint whomever he wants.
|
