Russian Professor of Economics Believes U.S. Will Split into Six States

• Russian Professor of Economics Believes U.S. Will Split into Six States - sm
  • You probably missed the map. - old news.

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

From Pravda -

"Barack Obama may just win his place in history as the greatest con man of all time," the author said. "A hundred million people believed him and spent 600 million dollars to get him 'elected' to the highest office in America, without ever knowing if he is or is not eligible to even run as an American citizen. It is either amazing that he will pull it off or it is amazing that so many millions of people believed him."

Quite apart from Obama already having been sucker-punched diplomatically by Putin and Medvedev (but apparently having learned nothing from it), and having absolutely no confidence that the Russians will be honest brokers anyway, I hope Obama leaves us enough nukes to deal with Iran and North Korea - and whatever rogue countries they sell their missiles to.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/31/russia-agree-start-talks-seek-reduce-nuclear-arms/

It has never been a winning strategy to deal with regimes like these from a position of reduced strength.  Never.  Ever.

which you KNOW I would never do.  But having just completed my tax return, I remember seeing stuff about ensuring 'voluntary compliance' and still I feel very legally compelled to go along with it.  Voluntary compliance means they don't send a goon to each and every taxpayer's house to make them file at gunpoint, but that does not make it a willing compliance. 

Hi, I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you.

Arabs Split Over Saddam

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 PHOTOS VIDEO PHOTO ESSAYS Click image to enlarge Photo Essays: • Iraq's Constitutional Referendum STORIES BACKGROUND LINKS • Saddam Pleads Not Guilty to Murder Charges • Militants Kill 19 Ahead of Trial • Saddam Lawyer Seeks Three-Month Adjournment • Iran: Charge Saddam in Iran-Iraq War • Final Results From Iraq Referendum Delayed • Possible Fraud in Iraqi Referendum • Bush: Way Forward Is Clear for Iraq • Fast Facts: Initial Vote Results • Approval of Iraqi Charter Appears Assured CAIRO, Egypt  — Across the Arab world, some watched intently as Saddam Hussein (search) went on trial Wednesday for crimes against Iraqis but others seemed not to care — a sign the former Iraqi leader still divides this region two years after his fall. The region's influential satellite television networks, Al-Jazeera (search) and Al-Arabiya (search), carried nonstop coverage starting hours before the trial began. Pan-Arab dailies like al-Hayat also splashed the opening day on their front pages. But Saudi Arabia's Arabic language-daily Al-Watan used the headline: Saddam's Trial: No one cares and added: The curtains have opened, the cast is ready and the audience is busy with other issues ... Even if we concede that the majority of Iraqis hate Saddam, they also hate how things have developed. Yet in Kuwait, which Saddam invaded in 1990, feelings in support of the trial ran strong. We have been waiting for this trial for a long time — not only us, but the Iraqi people and Iranian people as well. We say this is the end of every oppressor, said Omar Al-Murad, a 43-year-old architect. Many Palestinians also watched closely, but with the opposite view. Weal Naser, a 42-year-old Palestinian owner of a Gaza vegetable shop, said Palestinians can never forget Saddam's past support for their cause. At the start of the Palestinian uprising against Israel, Saddam paid $15,000 to families of Palestinian suicide bombers, later raising it to $25,000. He supported the martyrs' families and he helped many students in Palestine or during their studies in Iraq, he said. Saddam is paying now the price for being a hero, for saying 'No' to America and to (President) Bush, Naser said. If the world wants justice, as they claim, they should bring Bush and (Israeli Prime Minister Ariel) Sharon to trial before Saddam. Palestinian taxi driver Saed Souror, 32, was more ambivalent about Saddam but equally critical of the trial. I am not a Saddam supporter, but I am against this trial because it came upon American orders, Souror said. If Saddam was a murderer, what can we call the American acts there? Egypt's state-owned press chose to mostly ignore the trial, with a few carrying small stories inside but none putting it on the front page. Jordan's media reported on Saddam's trial but provided no independent commentary or analysis, apparently to avoid stirring public anger already high because of opposition to the U.S. invasion. A columnist in respected pan-Arab newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat said the trial has lost much of its meaning because of the bloody insurgency that now attacks Iraqis daily. Some of the worst terror attacks are blamed on al-Qaida in Iraq, led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. It should have been held when Iraqis' memory was full of images of humiliation and that of tens of thousands of the victims and handicapped of the wars, Lebanese columnist Samir Attallah wrote. Instead, he added: Al-Zarqawi has erased from the minds and hearts all the past horrors. Innocent Iraqis used to die in prison and in their homes, now the occupation resistance is killing the Iraqi innocents and their children in the streets. In Dubai, the Gulf News paper said in an editorial that not just Saddam, but Iraq itself is on trial, to see whether its new government can rise to the occasion and give Saddam a fair hearing. Anything less will be a permanent scar upon Iraq and its future, the paper said.

http://ca.youtube.com/user/weneedmccain

This video explains Obama's economic policies better than I can...

Finally - someone who can describe what's going on/happening that I can understand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djgH9wA-JSU

The poster is correct. I don't know why you insist on living in a dream world. I used to respect your comments but I see you really don't understand how supply and emand and/or government really works.

You think everything is a joke. Well, are you going to be laughing when taxes are so high you have a choice to eat or pay taxes?

Are you going to laugh when the country is broke (whopps - that has already happened) and they can't even guarantee FDIC backing for any money you have in the back or IRAs?

Are you going to laugh when other countries commit terrorist attacks on our country; i.e., N. Korea, Iran, etc.?

Are you going to laugh when this country finally crosses into fascism whereas you will seriously have no rights?

Keep laughing BB. The joke will be on you sooner or later, as the country slowly goes down the tubes unless you start boning up on the reality happening right under your nose and start fighting against it.

There are many different ideas or systems of how an economy should be run. The two most common are capitalism and socialism. They are very different in how they view who runs the economy. Most economies have ideas from both systems, but tend to be more of one than the other.

Capitalism is the economic system based on private or corporate ownership of, production and distribution of goods. It has always existed to some extent in all civilizations but was written about formally by Adam Smith in his book "The Wealth of Nations" in 1776. Capitalists favor a system of free enterprise which means the government should not interfere in the economy - that the laws of supply and demand will make sure that the ecnomy runs most efficiently in meeting people's needs. Capitalism is characterized by competition in which there is rivalry in supplying or getting an economic service or good. Sellers compete with other sellers, and buyers with other buyers. The buyers seek the best possible deal in purchasing goods and the sellers look to make the best possible sale allowing them the most profit.

Socialism is an economic theory or idea that states that the government or the state should be in charge of economic planning, production and distribution of goods. This contrasts with capitalism where free markets predonimate and property is privately owned. Socielism tends to favor cooperation whereas capitalism is characterized by competition.

The theories of socialism first arose in the late eighteenth century in response to the Industrial Revolution where factory owners were becoming wealthy and the workers impoverished. Thus, workers wanted a greater share in the wealth that factories were making. Later a form of socialism called communism sprang up based on the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Communism advocates class struggle and revolution to establish a society of cooperation with strong government control. Communism predominated in the former Soviet Union and much of Eastern Europe at one time. Today it predominates in China and Cuba, but its influence has lessened.

http://www.mcwdn.org/ECONOMICS/CapSoc.html

wraps herself up in the Bible and Jesus is her *special friend* and just gives her a wink and a nod every time she does something heinous.  At least that's what she herself said in a post not long ago.  (Aggressive denial by her to follow, I'm sure, like she lies about everything else.)

It's obvious that none of these people have Jesus in their hearts because there's no room for love and peace and truth in those jaded, hateful, dishonest, angry people.  I wonder if they even have a hint of how laughable they really are!  LOL! 

And sorry to offend you but in fact the poster is a fanatic, in my opinion.

Also, it's not a FACT that Palin is a fanatic; she is a Christian.  You call her a fanatic, your opinion.

"First Admendment" to the Constitution of the United States.

By Philip Klein on 3.11.09 @ 10:15PM

In 1983, Woody Allen made the mockumentary film Zelig about a man who longs for approval so badly that he changes to fit the people who are surrounding him. The movie may as well have been written about Michael Steele, who continues to tie himself in knots as part of his effort to reach out to moderates.

Steele already has been ridiculed by all sides of the political spectrum for blasting Rush Limbaugh on CNN only to apologize when he received blowback. But now, via Matt Lewis, I see he told GQ that he believes abortion is an individual choice. Here's the portion of the interview:

How much of your pro-life stance, for you, is informed not just by your Catholic faith but by the fact that you were adopted?

Oh, a lot. Absolutely. I see the power of life in that—I mean, and the power of choice! The thing to keep in mind about it… Uh, you know, I think as a country we get off on these misguided conversations that throw around terms that really misrepresent truth.

Explain that.
The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life. So, you know, I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other.

Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?
Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice.

You do?
Yeah. Absolutely.

So basically, in an effort to seem more inclusive, Steele tried to appropriate the language of the left by saying life is a choice, but then he allowed himself to be backed into a corner in which he said that women have the right to choose abortion -- by definition, a pro-choice postion. Perhaps realizing what he had just said, Steele then tried to add nuance to his point:

Are you saying you don’t want to overturn Roe v. Wade?
I think Roe v. Wade—as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter.

Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?
The states should make that choice. That’s what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide.

Do pro-choicers have a place in the Republican Party?
Absolutely!

So, after getting boxed in, he suddenly shifts from "individual choice" meaning "women have the right to choose an abortion" to it meaning that states have an "individual choice" about whether or not to permit women to exercise choice. Liz Mair, charitably, thinks that Steele was trying to express the pro-choice, anti-Roe, position but that he just was clumsy about it. Even if that were the case, however, it wouldn't be consistent with other recent statements he made on the subject.  

In December, when he was under fire during the RNC race for being a member of Christine Todd Whitman's moderate Republican Leadership Council, he portrayed himself as emphatically pro-life to CBN's David Brody, barbing, "I was a monk for goodness sakes ok?" Appearing on Fox News Sunday after his election to serve as RNC chair, Steele declared, "I'm a pro-life Roman Catholic conservative, always have been."

In a debate moderated by Tim Russert during the 2006 U.S. Senate race in Maryland, Steele was all over the place on Roe. Check out the following exchange:

MR. RUSSERT: Would, would you encourage — would you hope the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade?

LT. GOV. STEELE: I think that that’s a matter that’s going to rightly belong to the courts to decide ultimately whether or not that, that issue should be addressed. The, the Court has taken a position, which I agree, stare decisis, which means that the law is as it is and, and so this is a matter that’s ultimately going to be adjudicated at the states. We’re seeing that. The states are beginning to decide for themselves on, on this and a host of other issues. And the Supreme Court would ultimately decide that.

MR. RUSSERT: But you hope that the Court keeps Roe v. Wade in place?

LT. GOV. STEELE: I think the Court will evaluate the law as society progresses, as the Court is supposed to do.

MR. RUSSERT: But what’s your position? Do you want them to sustain it or overturn it?

LT. GOV. STEELE: Well, I think, I think, I think Roe vs. Wade, Roe vs. Wade is a, is a matter that

should’ve been left to the states to decide, ultimately. But it, it is where it is today, and the courts will ultimately decide whether or not this, this gets addressed by the states, goes back to the states in some form or they overturn it outright.

MR. RUSSERT: Is is your desire to keep it in place?

LT. GOV. STEELE: My desire is that we follow what stare decisis is at this point, yes.

Huh?

The problem with Steele's defenders is that they like the idea of Steele -- i.e., the idea that Steele is going to reach out to moderates. But the reality of Steele is quite different. He is proving himself to be a shape shifter who is trying to please everybody, but in the end delivering a completely muddled message. Ultimately no pro-choice independent or Democrat is going to be more inclined to become a Republican as a result of that GQ interview, because Steele comes off like a bumbling clown who is trying to have it both ways. The mere fact that we have to have a whole debate over what he means demonstrates that he's doing a terrible job at communicating. And lest we forget, communication was supposed to be his strong suit.

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/03/11/michael-zelig-steele

He also terms global warming "a serious and urgent economic, environmental and national security challenge" and adds that "the problem isn't a Hollywood invention," according to excerpts of planned remarks his campaign made available Sunday.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18269994/