She posted articles about the big 3 in Europe, not European car cos.....(nm)
Posted By: nm on 2008-12-13
In Reply to: Profitable? Doing well? No unions? - sm
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
European healthcare
Its not all cracked up as it sounds. I use healthcare right now in Sweden and its horrendously bad. I had to fly home to the US to get my breasts examined for lumps that were found because they have the "if it isn't broken, bleeding or obviously damaged, then go home and take an aspirin" mentality. They found the lumps and we were still waiting for a mammogram over a month later because they don't want to do testing and because they have a don't care attitude when it comes to everything here. Don't rush them. its amazing. Its at least 6 months waiting list (if your lucky) to see the dentist unless you are under a certain age as a youth. You can get private healthcare here but the cost of labor is such that its hugely expensive. I don't know about other places because I have only lived here and in the US. We have great healthcare in the US and we have never chosen jobs where we weren't going to have some kind of coverage, but I would never give up my doctors and my insurance in the US for this garbage social junk.
Are you SERIOUS? Here's what the European Union
The EU is a political and economic union of 27 members states, located primarily in Europe, composed of almost 500 million citizens (as compared to 710 million on the total continent of Europe), or 7.3% of the world's total population. The EU generates 30% of the wold's nominal gross domestic product ($16.8 trillion in 2007). There are 23 official and working languages. It is 100% SECULAR in nature
Criteria for membership:
1. Stable democracy which respects human rights and rule of law.
2. Functioning market economy capable of competition within the EU.
3. Acceptance of obligations of membership (EU law).
EU member countries:
1. Austria
2. Belguim
3. Bulgaria
4. Cyprus
5. Czech Rebpulic
6. Denmark
7. Estonia
8. Finland
9. France
10. Germany
11. Greece
12. Hungary
13. Republic of Ireland
14. Italy
15. Latvia
16. Lithuania
17. Luxembourg
18. Malta
19. Netherlands
20. Poland
21. Portugal
22. Romania
23. Slovakia
24. Slovenia
25. Spain
26. Sweden
27. United Kingdom
Three official candidate countries are Croatia, the Republic of Macedonia and Turkey. Western Balkan countries of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia are officially recognized potential candidates. Kosovo has been granted similar status.
Areas of common shared interests:
1. Governance of institutions, legal system and fundamental rights.
2. Foreign relations including humanitarian aid, military and defense.
3. Justice and home affairs.
4. Economy, consisting of single market, monetary union, competition and budget.
5. Development of agriculture, energy, infrastructure, regional development, environment, education and research.
For more information on its history and details of the above:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union
Yeah, man, but it's so European!!
I guess this doesn't count as a ''tax'' as in ''no new taxes on anyone earning under $250,000''? I must've misheard that.
The insidious thing about VAT, is that you never see it. Just like a street drug that's been ''stepped on'' (diluted) by every intermediary to touch it, from Colombia to your local vender, what you end up is a whole lot less than the way it started out. You won't see a separate line for tax on your purchase. But every step of the manufacturing and transport system will be taxed as it moves along its way to you. Won't that be great?
European nations waking up all too late.....we seem
--
So,. bottom line, I am European born
and I have proven that my grammar and spelling is better than yours.
Sometimes I make some typos, but last not least this is a froum and on this forum there is no 'typo police' applied, not even 'grammar and spelling police.'
Go and take your meds, I bet you swallow tens of those every day and night, and pray!
Buffet and Soros manipulated Japan, European and
Care to share your theory on HOW they manipulated the markets? Are they also behind the mortgage meltdown, plummeting home values, bank failures, AIG, credit crisis, consumer confidence index, drops in retail sales, plunge in annual sales reports for GM and Chrysler, layoffs negative jobs growth, rise in unemployment, record Exxon and Chevron profits and the like? All manipulated?
With regard to your sour grapes. Obama will win this election because the republicans failed to overcome the Bush legacy of worst administration in the history of the country. They are in a leadershp crisis that produced a weak candidate who could not put together an effective issues-based campaign and, instead, indulged itself in cultural warfare and the politics of division...which in an of itself is a clear sign of 4 more years of the same stuff we are all trying to run far and wide to get away from. Their party is in shambles because of its right wing who is losing its grip of influence and power over the more moderate and centrist among them. Time for some new blood and a platform transplant.
Obama is clearly the best choice for the future of our country. We could use a little "touchy feely" and will benefit immensely by a giant step forward in terms of taking us into a post racial, post partisan reaffirmation of our core values and common sense of purpose, being unity, justice, equality and opportunity for all Americans. It comes as no surprise that some will not quickly recover from the negativity they have been mired in over this past year and it will be up to them whether they stay stuck in the mud or get with the program.
For those who opt for "more of the same," you will be finding out what it feels like to go through exactly what the democrats are finally emerging from after these past 8 years...the depression that comes from a sense of anomie and living in a parallel universe. That choice is yours.
Big Three's European Divisions Could Show Ailing U.S. Industry the Way Back...sm
Why are the profitable in Europe? Could it be because they have no unions? It's real hard to find the positive information on the Big 3 outside of the U.S. It's almost as if someone doesn't want us to know and compare the differences...again, it probably boils down to the unions.... GM also just opened a plant in Russia.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,466144,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Nov07/0,4670,EURussiaGeneralMotors,00.html
kyoto, one of many articles
INDEPTH: KYOTO
Kyoto Protocol FAQs
April 13, 2005
Depending on who you talk to, the Kyoto Protocol is either a) an expensive, bureaucratic solution to fix a problem that may not even exist; or b) the last, best chance to save the world from the time bomb of global warming.
Those are the extremes in what has become a polarizing debate that has engaged governments, consumers, environmental groups and industry all over the world for more than 20 years.
The problem the Kyoto Protocol is trying to address is climate change, and more specifically, the speed at which the earth is warming up. Whether Kyoto can accomplish this is very much a matter of debate.
For the record, the Kyoto Protocol went into effect Feb. 16, 2005, with 141 countries signing on, including every major industrialized country – except the United States, Australia and Monaco. The U.S. is responsible for about a quarter of the emissions that have been blamed for global warming.
Two of the world's biggest – and growing – polluters also have not signed on. India and China don't have to – they're considered developing countries and are outside the protocol's framework.
First, the science behind Kyoto.
Is the climate changing?
The United Nations certainly thinks so. And so do most (but not all) scientists who study climate. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) summarizes the work of 2,000 of the world's top climate experts. Its latest report (2001) makes for some sobering reading.
Yes, the world is getting warmer, the report concludes. The IPCC says the average global surface temperature has risen by about 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1900, with much of that rise coming in the 1990s – likely the warmest decade in 1,000 years.
The IPCC also found that snow cover since the late 1960s has decreased by about 10 per cent and lakes and rivers in the Northern Hemisphere are frozen over about two weeks less each year than they were in the late 1960s. Mountain glaciers in non-polar regions have also been in noticeable retreat in the 20th century, and the average global sea level has risen between 0.1 and 0.2 metres since 1900.
Simply put, the world is getting warmer and the temperature is rising faster than ever.
What are the very long-term climate predictions?
The IPCC predicts more floods, intense storms, heat waves and droughts. Its study forecasts a rise of 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius in the global mean surface temperature over the next 100 years, with developing countries most vulnerable.
Other studies are even more apocalyptic. A report commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund predicts dangerous warming of the earth's surface in as little as 20 years, with the Arctic warming so much that its polar ice could melt in the summer by the year 2100, pushing polar bears close to extinction.
The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment predicts that caribou, musk ox and reindeer would find their habitats severely reduced. Northern aboriginal peoples around the world would find their way of life changed forever, the study said.
What is causing the world to warm up?
The 6 greenhouse gases Kyoto targets |
Carbon dioxide.
Methane.
Nitrous oxide
Sulphur hexafluoride.
Hydrofluorocarbons.
Perfluorocarbons.
|
Most scientists blame industrialization. Since the 19th century, the richer countries of the Northern Hemisphere have been pumping out ever-increasing volumes of heat-trapping greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. Industrial societies burn fossil fuels in their power plants, homes, factories and cars. They clear forests (trees absorb carbon dioxide) and they build big cities.
Greenhouse gases allow solar radiation to pass through the earth's atmosphere. But after the earth absorbs part of that radiation, it reflects the rest back. That's where the problem lies. Particles of greenhouse gas absorb the radiation, heating up, and warming the atmosphere. The increasing levels of greenhouse gases are causing too much energy to be trapped – the so-called greenhouse effect.
Greenhouse gas emissions targets apply to 38 industrialized countries and economies in transition
|
For a list of these countries and their emissions targets, click here:
UNFCCC
|
Isn't there a lot of debate over the whole issue of climate change?
While scientists tend to agree that the earth is warming, not all agree that rising greenhouse gas emissions are the culprits. A vocal minority say the earth's climate warms and cools in long cycles that have nothing to do with greenhouse gases.
Some dispute the data concerning rising sea levels and rising temperatures. Others dispute the projections, which are based on computer models. But again, those views are those of a minority. Most climatologists agree that global warming is causing unprecedented climate change…and that things will get worse unless something is done.
What does the Kyoto Protocol require?
The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in late 1997 to address the problem of global warming by reducing the world's greenhouse gas emissions. It is considered a first step and is not expected to solve the world's climate change problems by the time its first commitment period ends in 2012.
Kyoto sets out an agenda for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2 per cent from 1990 levels (although economies in transition, like Russia, can pick different base years). Some reports say the lower target is to be met by 2010. But that's shorthand for the actual target date, which is to achieve those emission cuts over a five-year average (2008 to 2012).
All countries are not treated equally by Kyoto. Canada, for instance, has committed to chopping its greenhouse gas emissions by six per cent. The U.S. target was a seven per cent reduction. But in 2001, one of the first acts of newly-elected President George W. Bush was to formally withdraw the U.S. from Kyoto. Bush said the U.S. would not ratify the treaty because it would damage the U.S. economy and major developing nations like China and India were not covered by its provisions.
Kyoto also allows some industrialized countries to make no cuts, or even to emit more greenhouse gases that they did in 1990. Russia's and New Zealand's emission levels are capped at their 1990 levels. Iceland can emit up to 10 per cent more greenhouse gases, Australia eight per cent more. (Like the U.S., Australia has announced it won't ratify Kyoto). Developing nations are not subject to any emissions reduction caps under Kyoto.
Much of the criticism around the Kyoto Protocol is over political realities and the limitations of the treaty. Critics say a five per cent cut will accomplish little, especially with the United States not on board. Some Canadian critics say our economy will pay a heavy price for meeting our Kyoto commitments because we'll have to compete with an American economy that faces no such restrictions. Many doubt that Canada's target cuts can be reached in Kyoto's first phase that ends in 2012.
Others say the money to implement Kyoto would be much better spent on improving land usage and infrastructure in poor countries.
How are emission targets met?
Emission targets can be met several ways. The most obvious way is to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions – more fuel-efficient cars, fewer coal-fired power plants. But Kyoto also allows for three other mechanisms.
Countries can buy emissions credits from countries that don't need them to stay below their emissions quotas. A country can also earn emissions credits through something called joint implementation, which allows a country to benefit by carrying out something like a reforestation project in another industrialized country or economy in transition. There's also what's called a clean development mechanism that encourages investment in developing countries by promoting the transfer of environmentally-friendly technologies.
Each developed country must develop its own strategy to meet its Kyoto commitments. Industrial countries that ratify Kyoto are legally bound to see that their emissions do not exceed their 2008/2012 targets.
What happens if a country fails to reach its Kyoto emissions target?
The Kyoto Protocol contains measures to assess performance and progress. It also contains some penalties. Countries that fail to meet their emissions targets by the end of the first commitment period (2012) must make up the difference plus a penalty of 30 per cent in the second commitment period. Their ability to sell credits under emissions trading will also be suspended.
Articles 39 and 42 of the U.N. Charter
permit the Security Council to determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and to authorize the use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security.
I read your articles - all of them - and...
In the first link you provided, the fourth paragraph in the gray box says, "Both Mr. Kahl and a senior Obama campaign adviser reached yesterday said the paper does not represent the campaign’s Iraq position."
Also, in this article it clearly states that Obama still plans to withdraw in the 6th paragraph:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/07/mccain_obama_position_on_iraq.html
Also, Obama's website still states the same information of 16 months -
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
Europe
Almost whole Europe was sponsoring Barack Hussein Obama! Victory!
europe
Europe is trying to encourage Pres Elect Obama to join with the EU to ensure economic stability for the US
And then there is Europe
We are nothing like Russia, therefore should not compare our nation to Russian.
Germany, Austria, France, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Switzerland, Liechtenstein. They do quite well as the European nation.
I've lived there for 12 years.
There are several articles...goggle it....see inside...
this is just one.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/2008_09_13_Obama_s_female_staffers_shortchanged:_He_s_no_great_equalizer/
Many interesting articles on this site...
http://clintondems.com/2008/09/obama-admits-dual-citizenship-with-kenya/
There have been numerous news articles......sm
stating that Obama's mother was a self-proclamed atheist. You can find them if you Google and check out news web sites.
The beliefs of the Catholic church are very different in some respects than those of most Christian denominations. Catholics, as I understand, believe that without baptism (infant christening) that even a baby is not saved. Most mainstream Christian denominations believe that a person makes a choice to believe in Christ and accept him as Savior once they reach the age where they have the capability of making that decision. I am not saying all this to get into a long theological discussion with you but simply to point out the differences between the two. If you want to discuss religion, we have been asked to use the Faith board to do that.
Oh please. We just post articles of Obama
x
There are all sorts of articles; just google
x
I won't read these articles - the last time I did so,
No thanks!
I read articles on this fellow......... sm
during the campaigns before the election. His predictions are not very promising and I believe we are in for a long, rocky ride. The government bailouts are just the beginning of government owning America, lock, stock and barrel.
I live in a rural, rather economically depressed area now and wonder how quickly my area will start seeing these changes. I wonder if it will be one of the first and hardest hit or if the more affluent areas of the country that enjoy a wider variety of jobs and better paying jobs will be more adversely affected first.
My 18-year-old son and I were discussing his future last night. Although he is a junior in high school, I told him that it is time that he started looking at the job markets in our area and deciding on a job that would pay well and would be in demand for a few years, at least. He won't be going to college, partly because of financial issues, but mainly because he is just not "college material" but I do want him to investigate trades-type schools and trades jobs in which he will be able to provide for himself as an adult in an economy where blue-collar workers struggle at best. 
Personally, I am not spending any more than is absolutely necessary to survive at this point. I guess I'm being "unAmerican" by not stimulating the economy, but right now I'm more concerned about what my future holds and whether I will be able to keep my home than whether I have a big-screen TV or an iphone. Times are indeed getting scary.
yeah, in EUROPE
.
A lot of Europe, even though they hate us....
are tied our markets. I think at least one German bank has already failed...and other european banks as well. He should be calling his buddy Obama...well I bet he already has. lol.
I was BORN in Europe, So what? What does this have to do
with anything and it is none of your business.
I assume that you are jealous that I am European born, therefore you are literally 'following' me around the forum with your pathetic comments.
Nothing better to do?
Look for another past-time.
Is Pakistan in Europe?
Just wondering...
Articles of impeachment filed on Cheney sm
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), the former mayor of Cleveland who is seeking the 2008 Democratic nomination for president for the second time, introduced articles to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney Tuesday, basing his decision on Cheney's initial push to send the United States into war with Iraq.
The vice president is beating the same drums of war against Iran that he beat against Iraq under false pretenses, and he's doing it all over again, against Iran, Kucinich said. And I say that it's time to stand up to that. Our country couldn't afford this last war. We can't afford to go into another one. And somebody has to challenge the conduct of this Vice President.
See: http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/04/kucinich-takes-steps-to-impeach-cheney.html
Excuse me. Did you bother to read the articles and
In every single reference I provided for you, the phrase "OFFICE of the President Elect" appears....in 1969, 1989, 2000 as well as in the language of the Act. Don't care what your fringe sites say....especially Malkin. Wouldn't be the first time they invented phoney outrage over fairy tales they spin, and it won't be the last. Read the language of the ACT that created the OFFICE of the President Elect, then the articles I provided, and you might see what I mean....or NOT. You seem to have an affinity for make-believe.
BTW, I know my history, but I believe you were trying to ask me specifically about civics. The electoral college makes the election official. However, it has always been customary to refer to the successful candidate on the Nov 4 election as the President Elect. The media is not the driving force behind this...tradition is.
China, India, Europe.....
I was in Italy once and couldn't swim because the local shoe factory had just poured all their dye into the Med and it was red. Most of the world drive cars with leaded gasoline. We do more to preserve the environment than many countries.
personally i have used the healthcare in Europe
and in France and England (several times in France) and I have to say that national healthcare over there works wonderfully well.....costs are minimal (though taxes are high) and all rxs in England cost the same and I was treated fabulously (married French) at American Hospital in Paris and Gap Hospital in France in 1980.....I did England in 71-72 and again, got treated well and for less than $40. I believe national healthcare can work but the govt and medical professions here in the states don't want it - because they, the MDS, will make less. But know this, that I saw the life of a doctor in France and his family in Michael Moore's movie SiCKO and they are living like kings, well not kings, but living VERY VERY WELL.
So, based on my own experiences in Europe - and the experiences to date of my in-laws over in France - I have to say the healthcare over there is FAR better and FAR LESS EXPENSIVE than over here but again, their taxes are somewhat higher.
Hillary screwed it up once before, I don't want to give her a second chance regarding healthcare.
Who cares what Europe thinks? They are no
nm
Why do you care what Europe thinks?
__
Lots of articles on Churchill and Henry Ford and sm
Jews and communism. It doesn't matter if the pillars were made of salt (of course, history tells us that they were eventually). It matters that historically this was what Hitler built his Reich on. This is indisuptable and absolute. Henry Ford's hatred for Jews was legendary, BECAUSE of communism.
Excuse me, but you will not dictate whether or not I include articles in my post.
I post articles here in order to encourage a debate about the articles. In your limited Israel-is-always-right-and-anyone-who-questions-that-is-worthy-of-a-rabid-attack attitude, you can't see that and once again wish to control everything, even how people communicate with each other.
All you want to do is tear down, not build anything. I gave my reasons for posting this article. In those reasons I expressed some skepticism about Hezbollah's sincerity. Instead of offering an intelligent response to those reasons, you once again slammed the door of dialogue and showed that your abilities to communicate are so limited that all you can do is berate and insult. To call me anti-American only highlights your ignorance. I am absolutely pro-American, and I'm very fearful where President Bush is leading us. It's the duty of every American to question what he or she sees as failures or inadequacies in the administration that is in power regardless of party affiliation. I felt the same way during the Clinton administration, and I feel the same way now.
If I were to come on here and say that Hezbollah is rebuilding Lebanon and now the Bush administration wants to compete with them, I would get responses that demand I provide my source, and rightly so. That is the reason I post the entire article itself. I want to gauge if it brings the same questions to the minds of other (repeat once again) LIBERALS as it does to me.
You're free to have your opinion of me, but you come off as pompous and controlling, demanding that everyone bow down and kiss Israel's feet. The mere suggestion that Israel may be even slightly wrong elicits anger and rage from you, and you have shown that repeatedly.
No, you are not obligated to engage in debate with anyone here, but don't whine and complain that you're unable to when someone offers you the opportunity. Your failure to do so when invited only proves how angry and full of rage you are.
For the record, I have never said you were sent to shut down the board. It's laughable to even imagine you have the power to do that. You are no more important or influential than I am or than any other poster on this board is. Get over yourself already.
And, no, I have no idea which sentence of the original article you find disturbing. I personally found several of them disturbing, but I refuse to engage in any guessing games with you.
Am I paranoid? I sure am these days. I'm pro-peace and I'm living in a country run by a President who is trigger happy and who has done nothing but incite the world.
If looking at Israel objectively is anti-Israel according to your definition, then so be it. You said previously on this board that just because Israel didn't bother to send any troops to Iraq didn't mean they're an ally. Please enlighten me. With the BILLIONS of dollars we give Israel every year, along with weapons, we are definitely an ally to Israel. Please explain how Israel is an ally to us. Is it because they grace us with their agreement to take our money and then spy on us? (I could post a number of articles regarding the spying, but since you don't like it when I do that, feel free to Google it on your own.) What have they done for us in return?
I have always believed Israel was the underdog in the Middle East and have always favored them. This is the first time I have ever questioned their actions. We here in America still have freedom of thought and speech, whether you like it or not. You know nothing of me, including how I believe. Your assessment of me is not only wrong, it's absurd and only proves how you interact with people who disagree. I am very relieved that you are not representative of all Israelis, as it gives me a small sense of hope.
I doubt your sincerity in stating that I'm not worth the time to answer, considering all the time you spent doing just that. Another example of your hypocrisy. No doubt you will waste your time once again responding to this with more hatred and insults, only this time I will let you have the last word, since you are now no longer worth the time it takes to respond.
It means you're good at paraphrasing articles others
nm
Lies? What we show are facts, links, articles.
What about poor Palin? She is a human being and look at the ATTACKS on her. By the way, she is a republican and I would say Dem's are bashing. We are not bashing Obama, we try to show you articles, links from CNN who by the way supported Obama, and you state we are bashing Obama.
A very intelligent and honorable man, but the articles leans severely to the right.....sm
I tipped over twice reading it. I am not trying to be mean or facetious, I think sometimes people feel so strongly in their beliefs,and I agree with many of his beliefs, that they comes get "tunnel vision", they lose their peripheral vision for that part of humanity that has been good and honest, but has been dealt some very bad, unfair blows and needs help. In my own heart and opinion, there is a difference between radical, fundamentalist Muslims, and mainstream, peaceful, truly religions Muslims, and have have met and worked with many with lovely families. Basically, the author seems to want to cling onto an idealistic life where everything is fair, the good guys always win, and there is only black and white. Well, there are lots of shades of gray in between, and like it or not (and I grew up in the Beaver Cleaver generation), the earth has moved on, time has moved on, and we have to deal effectively with WHAT IS. Yup, I am tired too, especially since my husband and I both have health issues, we certainly aren't kids anymore, and retirement is looking more and more like a pipe dream, even though we invested, sacrificed, and saved. But whining or wishing will not solve anything, as Americans we are famous for pulling ourselves up by the bootstraps and getting the job done, and our job now is to work together, search out viable answers, care for each other, and pull through this depression INTACT AND WHOLE. Off my ratty soapbox now!
You sound bitter and should just stay in Europe
I'm no Bush fan (now), but let me tell you why I voted for him. I was tired of the dems taxing the you know what out of us. In my whole life I had never been taxed as much as when Clinton was in, and Gore was going to continue on with those taxes. I couldn't afford anything. DH and I had good jobs, but close to 38% of those paychecks were going for taxes and then each year in addition to that we ended up not paying enough and would have to fork over an additonal $1500 to 2000. We didn't own a house, we didn't have an expensive car, no fancy wardrobes, no vacations, nothing, zip, nada. We had to pass on going out to eat a lot with family because we didn't have it. We lived in a one bedroom apartment in the silicon valley. We had enough of the Clintons. We had enough of the high taxes, the bumbling yahoo from the south. The guy who said he was going to do this for us and that for us and once he got into the white house all that changed and he catered to his rich friends. He didn't have a clue as to what the average American citizen was going through. He just kept imposing taxes to fund his phony programs. He brought in NAFTA. Lots of people lost their jobs and then he created these "false" jobs (i.e. the ones that paid minimum wage and people still had to go on food stamps). People were losing their homes. You want to talk about a Hillbilly you need to start with Bill and Hillary Clinton (please no offense to the Hillbillies). Those two were a disgrace to the country and made us look like fools to other countries. His phony gaffaw to make it seem as though he thought something was funny (not presidential at all!). Then on their overseas trips the insulting mannerisms of Hillary who is suppose to be first lady but acting as though she was the Queen. When graciously given a gift from another country if she didn't like it she was overhead telling people what a piece of $*$@ it was and there was no way she was going to put it on (it was a piece of homemade jewelry). She disgraces the country and made me ashamed to call it my country (I served the country under Regan and was very proud and they yanked that out when they came into power). Then you have his lying to congress, lying to the American people, Bill & Hillary's fights in the white house. The mysterious deaths of people, the affairs, the scandels, them acting as though they are King and Queen of America. Calling people to be there at a certain time then waltzing down the stairs making sure everyone was their watching their "grand entrance". Then you had the disgraceful people he had on his staff. People stuffing classified documents into their pants pockets to hide stuff, Janet Reno, Waco Texas, Elian Gonzales, drug runs, missing people only to be found having taken a "dirt vacation", etc, etc. They were the two biggest disgraces to ever step foot into the white house and clearly did nothing of any benefit while in there.
Bush is not the brightest but neither was his predescessor. Sure Bush has a lot of faults, sure he should be impeached like Clinton was - remember that detail - Clinton is an impeached ex-president and in my opinion has lost the right to still be called Mr. President.
Gore as VP was one of the most worthless VPs we've had. I put him right up there with Quayle. Good for absolutely nothing. But I guess we should remember. He created the internet and he and Tipper were the role model for the movie "Love Story". Wait a second...I'm going to barf here... Sorry but I did not want Mr. Stiff as the next President. Especially when he was hiding and covering up what the President and Hillary were doing. He was a weakling and I did not want them in there. Do I believe the election was stolen? Yes I do. Am I sorry it was? No. Gore would have not done any better and nobody can tell me otherwise. He's an imbi*cile pushing this global warming thing of his, which he won't even listen to the expert scientist and weather people who know what is happening in the world. I still wonder what he's going to tell his kids when they ask him one day why he lied about global warming. I'd love to be there when that happens.
Am I going to vote for McCain? Are you out of your mind. No I don't like Bush. Yes I don't think he's running on all cylinders. As someone once said to me "He's one fry short of a happy meal". I'm not going to continue on with another term of Bush.
Who are you to "warn" other people. Who are you to "tell" other people who to vote for. You are entitled to your opinions, but it is this elitist attitude that gets very tiresome. There are plenty of very good reasons why half of the country did not vote for Gore. I actually did not vote for Bush, but voted against Gore. As my mom told me you have to pick the lesser of the two evils. Nobody, including you, knew Katrina was going to happen when Bush was running, you didn't know that 911 would happen. You didn't know any of the disasters that happened would happened unless you have a crystal ball, and now you act as though "you warned everyone this would happen". How someone reacts to crisis is a whole different story. Clintons were no better with the disasters that happened when they were in. Yes it could have all be handled better.
You mentioned stem cell research. Funny how that wasn't approved when Clinton was in there. Gay marriage...I heard nothing about Clinton approving it. Gay couples were struggling back then as they are now fighting for their rights to the equality that opposite sex marriages have. You make it sound as though Bush took all of this away - this is rubbish!
No, I am no Bush fan and am glad he's on his way out. I'm sure in his last days he too will be handing out pardons like Clinton did as if they a K-Mart blue light special.
Yes, this is a free country and you are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine and mine is that you have an elitest attitude and I hope you stay in Europe.
Speaking of Europe, lol, they love Obama.
nm
No wonder Europe thinks this country is full of
nm
And I can visit Europe and actually TALK to people, without
How refreshing will THAT be? To not be embarrassed to death about what country we live in?
I was BORN in Europe, So what? What does thishave todo
with anything and it is none of your business.
I assume that you are jealous that I am European born, therefore you are literally 'following' me around the forum with your pathetic comments.
Nothing better to do?
Look for another past-time.
Hallelujah! Leftists in EU elections across Europe are
Don't think this will go unnoticed on this side of the pond as well. Obama's numbers shriveling, the Democratic-dominated Congress even worse numbers...and the Republican gubernatorial candidate in New Jersey, of all places, is leading the Democrat incumbent by double digits in the polls. Those who crowed prematurely about the demise of conservatism are going to find that the toe tag has been switched - and they're the ones who will end up wearing it. Why? Because they got above themselves and WENT TOO FAR. It's so true, isn't it - "pride goeth before a fall".
Conservatives Racing Ahead in EU Parliamentary Elections:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090607/ap_on_re_eu/european_elections
Yes, let's post articles to mother's of military. So helpful. Geez. nm
I found several opposition articles and will post the high points....
and actually I was surprised to see that there were some common concerns and actually very little concerning *a move toward socialized medicine.* This is what I found:
Proposals to expand coverage to children from families earning three or four times the federal poverty limit ($61,940 and $82,600, respectively, for a family of four) also highlights the question of just how many should be subsidized, necessarily at others' expense. The $61,940 eligibility limit would cover median-income families in 14 states, and the $82,600 limit would do so in 42 states. Parents earning such incomes do not need additional subsidies for their children to get health care.
************************
Baucus, Grassley Comment
Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and the committee's ranking Republican Chuck Grassley (Iowa) jointly requested the CBO study but "had divergent views of its findings," according to CQ Today.
Baucus, who supports spending $50 billion over five years to expand SCHIP, said the report validates the program. CQ Today reports that Baucus "expressed little concern" that people would leave private insurance plans to enroll in SCHIP, saying that every public health insurance program provides coverage to some people who might be able to obtain private health insurance (CQ Today, 5/10). Baucus said, "The fact that uninsurance for children in higher-income families has stayed about the same means that SCHIP is helping the lower-income families it's meant to serve."
Grassley said the report supports his argument that SCHIP eligibility should not be expanded beyond 200% of the poverty level. He said, "This report tells us that Congress needs to make sure that whatever it does, it should actually result in more kids having health insurance, rather than simply shifting children from private to public health insurance" (CongressDaily, 5/10).
****************************
SCHIP is a joint state-federal program that provides health coverage to 6.6 million children from families that live above the poverty line but have difficulty paying for private insurance. Already, the program is generous. A family of four with an income of more than $72,000 (350% of the federal poverty level) is eligible for SCHIP's subsidized insurance. Now, Congress wants to expand coverage even further, to families making up to 400% of the federal poverty level ($82,600 for a family of four). But, according to the Congressional Budget Office, 89% of families earning between 300% and 400% of the federal poverty level already have coverage. The CBO estimates that some 2 million kids already covered under private insurance would be switched over to government insurance. The only purpose of all of this seems to be to turn children's health insurance into an outright entitlement — part of the Democrat's broader push to move all of America's health-care industry under government control.
Along with expanding SCHIP coverage to include people higher and higher up in the middle class, the Democrats' bill would also give states incentives to sign up aggressively new "clients," by loosening requirements to join the program and encouraging states to market the program (anyone who rides the New York City subway knows how active the Empire State is already being on this front). How is all of this to be funded? Well, the bill would impose a 61-cent increase in the 39-cent a pack federal cigarette tax, bringing it up to an even dollar. We've written before on how corrupt is the government's interest in the cigarette business. It turns out that the government needs to keep people smoking; the Heritage Foundation estimates the government would need to sign up some 22 million more Americans to take up smoking by 2017 to fund this increase in SCHIP. To add to the irony, most smokers are low-income Americans, meaning that the poor essentially will be funding the health insurance of the middle class. Mr. Bush would be right to veto it while working to increase access to private insurance through tax breaks and deregulation.
****************************
So, it would appear to me that the major problems some have against it are: it will shift children who are now covered by private insurance onto a program unncessarily; it will allow for more adults on the program, something that was never intended; that paying for it with a tobacco tax targets the very people who need the assistance, the lower income families as statistically that is where the most smokers are...essentially shifting the burden for adding middle class families to the lower income families...and I think we can all agree that is not a good thing.
In my research I also found something VERY interesting...
I am sorry to say I did not know the particulars of the President's proposal regarding insuring children...only his proposal extends to everyone, not just children...sure have not seen the media report it....
Opposing view: President's plan is better
Extend SCHIP program without spending billions to expand it.
By Mike Leavitt
We all want to see every American insured, and President Bush has proposed a plan to see that everyone is. Congress, instead, is pushing a massive expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) that grows government without helping nearly as many children.
The president's plan, announced last January, would fix our discriminatory tax policy so that every American family received a $15,000 tax break for purchasing health insurance. If Congress acted on the president's plan, nearly 20 million more Americans would have health insurance, according to the independent Lewin Group.
In contrast, Democrats in Congress would more than double government spending on SCHIP and extend the program to families earning as much as $83,000 a year. But their plan would add fewer than 3 million children to SCHIP, and many of the newly eligible children already have private insurance. So instead of insuring nearly 20 million more Americans privately, Congress would spend billions of dollars to move middle-income Americans off private insurance and onto public assistance.
The Democrats' plan has other problems. It would fund SCHIP's expansion with a gimmick that hides its true cost. It would allocate billions of dollars more than is needed to cover eligible kids. And it would allow states to continue diverting SCHIP money from children to adults. This is a boon for the states but costs the federal government more.
Ideology is really behind the Democrats' plan. They trust government more than the free choices of American consumers. Some in Congress want the federal government to pay for everyone's health care, and expanding SCHIP is a step in that direction.
SCHIP is part of the fix for low-income children, and Congress should put politics aside and send the president a clean, temporary extension of the current program. Expanding SCHIP is not the only way or the best way to insure the uninsured. The president's plan is better. It would benefit many more Americans. It would focus SCHIP on the children who need help most. And it would move us more sensibly toward our common goal of every American insured.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I think a $15,000 tax break would help more American families afford health insurance, thereby covering more kids AND adults, which is the goal, right? And no raising of taxes or targeting the lower income families with a tobacco tax...sounds like a win-win. I don't care if it is Bush's idea or the Democratic Congress' idea...it is a good idea. This time it happened to be Bush's.
Just my take on it.
If you want to find the articles, just put *expanding SCHIP* in a Google search. I read several articles in support of both sides. I did not see much about the income leveling, except in one article, which did mention that New York had a "sliding scale." It did not define it, but I am thinking it is at the purview of the states, and if New York did it others probably could too?
Why do you think Obama campaigned in Europe/Germany last year? sm
Were they voting for him?
Huge red flag went up for a lot of us on that one.
The writing was on the wall, but so many refused to see it.
You hope it's wrong, and so do I. But only time will tell.
Loony Left is LOSING Clout in Europe
Once again (how many times do we have to do this?) socialist ideas are being thrown 'on the trash heap of history' where these losers belong.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124425154944290829.html
"He (Obama) chairs the subcommittee on Europe. ... He's held not one substantive hearing to do
Fischer, who is a minority staff member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said something as major as NATO’s role in Afghanistan would typically be held before the full Foreign Relations Committee, rather than Obama’s European subcommittee.
In fact, the Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on Afghanistan on Jan. 31, 2008, and NATO was a part of the discussion. Obama attended a Democratic debate in California that day. Clinton is not on the committee.
The Clinton campaign put out a statement reiterating Clinton’s comments to reinforce the theme that Obama is more about talk than action.
“Given the opportunity to take the reins of leadership and shape two critical areas of U.S. foreign policy — Afghanistan and our alliances in Europe — Senator Obama has done next to nothing,” the statement said.
Obama’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
So let’s look at Clinton’s statement:
“He chairs the subcommittee on Europe.” Yep.
“It has jurisdiction over NATO.” Yep.
“NATO is critical to our mission in Afghanistan. He’s held not one substantive hearing to do oversight, to figure out what we can do to actually have a stronger presence with NATO in Afghanistan.” Yep.
Some may argue that the issue of NATO’s role in Afghanistan typically and more appropriately would come before the full Foreign Relations Committee. But Clinton is right when she says Obama’s subcommittee has been largely dormant while Obama has campaigned for president. We rate her comment True.
Foreign policy advisors
Barack Obama is currently advised on foreign policy by a support group of approximately 300 people organized into 20 teams based upon subject.[89] A core group of advisors, led by Susan E. Rice and Anthony Lake, filters hundreds of papers and messages daily to provide the Senator with more concise positions on foreign policy and more specific reactions to international developments. Obama's foreign policy advisers have included Richard Danzig, Mark Lippert, Gregory Craig, Dennis McDonough, Daniel Shapiro, Scott Gration, Sarah Sewall, Ivo Daalder, Jeffrey Bader, Mark Brzezinski, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Richard Clarke, Roger Cressey, Philip Gordon, Lawrence Korb, James Ludes, Robert Malley, Bruce Riedel, Dennis Ross, Mona Sutphen, and Samantha Power (resigned March 7, 2008).[90][91][92]
If he is such an expert why does he need 300 advisors?
Europe - Swastika vigilantes kill foreign students to keep their city 'clean' ...see article.
Swastika vigilantes kill foreign students to keep their city 'clean'From Jeremy Page in Moscow
|
|
![src=http://images.thetimes.co.uk/images/trans.gif]() |
THE African students did not even see the man raise the swastika-emblazoned shotgun as they emerged from the Apollo nightclub in St Petersburg.
When he opened fire from the shadows behind them, some of the group thought it was a firecracker going off.
Then they saw Samba Lampsar Sall, a 28-year-old student from Senegal, lying dead on the pavement with his throat blown apart.
Within hours, a sinister message had appeared on the website of a group called the Party of Freedom. “The clean-up of the city continues,” it said.
Mr Sall had come to study at St Petersburg’s State Communications University in 2001 in the hope of finding a better life when he went back home.
Instead, around dawn yesterday, he became the latest victim of a hate campaign by neo-Nazi extremists on the streets of Russia’s cultural capital.
“How can people be so evil?” asked Michael Tanobian, an African student who was with Mr Sall when he was killed. “We come here just to study, for nothing else. We don’t take anything here.”
Mr Sall’s brutal murder exposes one of Russia’s most disturbing problems as President Putin prepares to host the G8 summit in St Petersburg in mid-July. For all its grandeur and impressive art collections, Russia’s second city is fast becoming the racist capital of the world.
Critics say that the authorities are not doing enough to combat the extremists who routinely attack, and kill, Africans, Asians and immigrants from the Caucasus or Central Asia.
Seven people have been killed, and 79 injured, in more than 40 racist attacks this year, according to Sova, a non-governmental organisation that monitors extremism in Russia.
Last year, 28 people were killed and 366 injured in racially motivated crimes, it says.
The Interior Ministry sent a team of special investigators from Moscow to work on yesterday’s murder. The Foreign Ministry expressed “sincere condolences to the relatives and loved ones of the deceased”. The Prosecutor’s Office said that the case was being treated as a racist killing.
But dozens of similar cases have been treated as “hooliganism”, a crime that carries a far lighter sentence. One of the most shocking attacks occurred in 2004, when teenagers stabbed to death a nine-year-old Tajik girl in St Petersburg. Last month, a court convicted them of hooliganism, giving six of them 18-year jail sentences and one of them five years.
Desire Defaut, chairman of the local community group African Unity, urged Mr Putin to lead the fight against neo- Nazism. “They must make an announcement at a state level that such a problem exists and state organs must work on it,” he said. “We can’t say they are doing enough if there are two attacks within one week.”
Last week, the nine-year-old daughter of a Russian woman and her African husband was wounded in a knife attack in St Petersburg. “What more proof of extremism do they need in St Petersburg?” asked Juldas Okie Etoumbi, chairman of the Association of the African Students of Moscow. But, he added, the problem is not confined to St Petersburg. In the past week, skinheads in Moscow beat up a journalist of Caucasian origin and the culture minister from the Caucasus region of Kabardino-Balkaria.
Mr Putin has called racism “an infection” and pledged to stamp it out. But critics say that the Kremlin has tolerated, and even encouraged, ultra-nationalist groups to foster loyalty to the State and make itself look relatively liberal.
MURDER CITY
Sept 2003 Tajik girl, 5, beaten in St Petersburg
Feb 2004 Tajik girl, 9, stabbed
Mar 2004 Syrian student pushed in front of train
June 2004 Anti-Nazi campaigner shot dead
Oct 2004 Vietnamese student stabbed
Sept 2005 Congolese student beaten
Dec 2005 Cameroonian student stabbed
Feb 2006 Malian medical graduate stabbed
Apr 2006 Senegalese student shot |
|
Wow, I can't believe you posted that. sm
considering all else you have posted on these boards. LOLOLOLOL!!! Man oh man!
who posted it?
I suspect it was the person who goes under the name Brunson who posted the Army mom post as in the post it talks about C-Span and I kind of thought..mmmmm..this is just one of those crazy right wingers posting to start stuff..So right after the post came through, I checked out the right wing board and Brunson was posting the same thing about checking out C-Span today. Coincidence? I dont think so..Two posters within one minute posting about checking out C-Span today?
She posted this as a
She stated above the reference to the Clinton body count and that it was a conspiracy theory. The statement of someone above *It seems that people that sue Bush turn up in bad health or dead* is every bit as much a conspiracy theory as this. Someone on both boards has been trying to spam us with conspiracy theories for days now none of which have an ounce of substance or actual fact behind them. Most of us can see the difference between conspiracy and an actual story with facts behind them. It's really hard to get away with conspiracy theories when there is so many facts out there on the net.
This has been posted before. sm
And is in no way or shape complete or accurate. Rumsfeld served 3 years. You think a flight instructor is a small job? That's pretty telling. Clinton dodged the draft by deferring for a ROTC duty, which he never fulfilled after writing his famous loathing of the military letter. So if we are going to post these lists again and again, let's get it right.
|
