Undecided voter score of 98% in favor of

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

I have a straight question - please no hateful remarks from either side, just straight answers.

I read an interview with a lawyer from Pennsylvania, who is a Democrat by the way, who is suggesting that Obama was born in Kenya, not in Hawaii like he says. I have heard this too, way back in the primaries. He is pushing to have Obama show his birth certificate, which would prove to everyone where he was born. Obviously, if he was born in Kenya, he cannot run for President.

However, Obama is refusing to show his birth certificate to anyone. My question is, if he was born in Hawaii, why not just show it and prove his US birth, and be done with it? Why fuel this suspicion by not showing it? By hiding it, he looks like he has something to hide.

There are some very shady things that both parties have in their back pockets, in my opinion, and I still have not made up my mind completely. This does not sit well with me though.

North American Union. I think that it might be a good thing economically and from a strategic military aspect, but I'm not sure about the political and social issues that would accompany it. We're supposed to be a melting pot, but I'm not sure how much I want to melt...LOL.

I hate that stuff about the highway. Not too long ago they widened a highway here and we had the same issues. They would either buy however many feet of property and you would actually have to move your house farther back (leaving little or no yard) or would buy the whole thing, and never for a fair price. That was just to widen one here. I can't even imagine how many people the *super highway* will affect.

I personally think that all candidates should be subjected to a polygraph. This way we won't have to dig through all the BS all the politicians give us and we know whether they are lying or not. LOL! Kind of like our own political BS detector.

I personally think that we should just let the banks fail and not save their greedy banker butts. It seems like that's the way a lot of other people feel too. I haven't heard one person say let's save their greedy banker butts. However, I'm pretty sure that congress will bail them out. If I could vote on this, I would definitely say no, no matter what consequence to myself (drop in stock, retirement and possibly the value of my home, no loan for college next semester).

there were no exemptions whatsoever. If, say you earned a dollar, you owed a dime. No exceptions regarding where the money comes from. Tax welfare benefits too. Social Security is already taxed for some recipients. Those of us who receive Social Security and have enough income to pay taxes on 85% (maximum) of it ALL had the opportunity for a better life. Some took advantage of that and some didn't. Young people today have little hope of receiving Social Security and they also have little hope of being able to live while saving for their future.

Report Accuses EPA of Slanting Analysis
Hill
Researchers Say Agency Fixed Pollution Study to Favor Bush's 'Clear
Skies'

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday,
December 3, 2005; A08

The Bush administration skewed its analysis of pending legislation on air
pollution to favor its bill over two competing proposals, according to a new
report by the Congressional Research Service.

The Environmental Protection Agency's Oct. 27 analysis of its plan -- along
with those of Sens. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.) and James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.) --
exaggerated the costs and underestimated the benefits of imposing more stringent
pollution curbs, the independent, nonpartisan congressional researchers wrote in
a Nov. 23 report. The EPA issued its analysis -- which Carper had demanded this
spring, threatening to hold up the nomination of EPA Administrator Stephen L.
Johnson -- in part to revive its proposal, which is stalled in the Senate.

The administration's Clear Skies legislation aims to achieve a 70 percent cut
in emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide after 2018, while Carper's and
Jeffords's bills demand steeper and faster cuts and would also reduce emissions
of carbon dioxide, which are linked to global warming. The Bush plan would also
cut emissions of neurotoxic mercury by 70 percent, while Jeffords's bill reduces
them by 90 percent.

Although it represents a step toward understanding the impacts of legislative
options, EPA's analysis is not as useful as one could hope, the Research Service
report said. The result is an analysis that some will argue is no longer
sufficiently up-to-date to contribute substantially to congressional debate.

The congressional report, which was not commissioned by a lawmaker as is
customary, said the EPA analysis boosted its own proposal by overestimating the
cost of controlling mercury and playing down the economic benefits of reducing
premature deaths and illnesses linked to air pollution.

EPA estimated the administration's plan would cost coal-fired power plants as
much as $6 billion annually, compared with up to $10 billion in Carper's measure
and as much as $51 billion for Jeffords's. It calculated that Bush's proposal
would produce $143 billion a year in health benefits while Carper's would
generate $161 billion and Jeffords would yield $211 billion. Carper's measure
would achieve most of its reductions by 2013, while Jeffords's bill would enact
even more ambitious pollution cuts by 2010.

EPA spokeswoman Eryn Witcher said the agency based its cost estimates on
mercury controls by gathering comments from boilermaker workers, power companies
and emission control companies, whereas the Research Service used a single study
to reach its conclusions on mercury.

Clear Skies delivers dramatic health benefits across the nation without
raising energy costs and does it with certainty and simplicity, instead of
regulation and litigation, Witcher said. Because of our commitment to see this
become a reality, EPA went above and beyond to provide the most comprehensive
legislative analysis of air ever prepared by the agency, so it does a real
disservice to this discussion to have a report that largely ignores and
misinterprets our analysis.

But aides to Carper and Jeffords said they felt vindicated by the
congressional study.

The CRS report backs up a lot of what we initially said about EPA's latest
analysis, that it overstated the costs of controlling mercury and understated
the overall health benefits of Senator Carper's legislation, said Carper
spokesman Bill Ghent. The report clearly states that there's no reason to settle
for the president's Clear Skies plan because the legislation doesn't clean the
air much better than current law.

� 2005 The Washington Post
Company

On January 5, 2006, Congressman Murtha held a town hall meeting with Cong. Jim Moran (D-VA 08).

The soldier who asked the first question served in Afghanistan and said that morale among troops is high and that he would gladly serve in Iraq today. His comment was the only one replayed by Fox News the next day.

But the majority of soldiers in attendance spoke out against the current policy. Fox News did not broadcast their remarks.

Garin Reppenhagen, served as a sniper in Iraq for a year in the First Infantry Division:

Frankly I do not see much good coming from the policies of the last 8 years. An out of sight deficit, home foreclosures, terrible price hikes and job losses, I can;t see the pluses in these. Has Iraq made us safer? My gut tells me no. If there had, in fact been weapons of mass destruction than I would feel differently. I think what has matterd the most protecting the US have been more careful survellience domestically in the form of airline survelliences and the like.

I think Obama has the potential to make some positive changes, domestically and worldwide as well. While there is no guarantee of that I really don't feel that McCain will do to much except to continue more or less to promote the same policies as in the last eight years. We can do better than that. The post 9/11 politics of fear are eating the country alive economically. While there is never a guarantee that another terrorist attack will not occur, as they do every so often world-wide, I think it is foolish to sink your economy and play on the fears of its people on the remote chance that another one 'might occur someday.'

I like the message of hope and change that Obama speaks of, and if elected I hope that he is able to achieve some of his goals.

CNN just reported in Raleigh, NC-- people standing in line for 2 hours, and opps, all the sudden there are no ballots....there they are.....they are wet and will not go through the machine, so just put those to the side and we'll run them later.

There seems to be a HUGE list of this kind of stuff. And who benefits from a lower voter turnout? Hmmm.

First, let me say this testimony by a Cal State professor of economics pertaining to the proposed "cap-and-trade" program isn't light reading, but it isn't very long or overly technical, either. It's only a little over 3 pages, double-spaced with generous margins, and takes less than 10 minutes to read, especially since the whole first page is taken up with the economist's credentials and background which you can skip if you wish.

Second, we have to bring a certain mental framework to things like this, which I compare to digging the meat out of a walnut shell. People like this don't typically use the kind of sensational language that we're accustomed to hearing on the news, and they tend to be rather polite and very low-key in the way they say things, especially when they're addressing a Congressional committee.

So nothing here is "bolded" or "underlined" in the way it's expressed, and ordinary reader like ourselves can easily miss the significance of what this economist is trying to tell the committee, which - if you want to cut right to the chase - is that "cap-and-trade" will destroy our economy. Now, the economist uses somewhat less drastic terms but only SLIGHTLY less so, and if you simply think about the consequences of his predictions (which he expects the committee members to do), his meaning is quite clear.

Cap-and-trade is admittedly INTENDED to make energy costs higher, on the theory that higher prices will induce reductions in energy use, hence pollution, etc., etc. While this might sound like a good theory (odd, though, that those who support it are the very same people who laugh at "trickle-down" economics, which is exactly what this is, in reverse), it actually hides new taxes that consumers will ultimately pay for either directly or in the form of higher prices for literally everything because every good and every service includes an energy cost of one sort or another (and that, in turn, will also mean another layer of increased tax because you pay a higher sales tax when the price of anything goes up - a double whammy, in other words). At 8%, something that costs you $10 today = $10.80. If the price goes up to $15, you pay $16.20 - which is not only a 50% increase in the price, but also a 50% tax increase on that item. (It's critical to learn to think in percentages, and also to learn how prices are related to taxes!)

Cap-and-trade may just be the most horrendous idea ever to come down the pike. This economist thinks so, calling it the "most anti-consumer" idea proposed to any Congress in our history. This has nothing whatsoever to do with any political party. It's simply another example of the absolute madness that seems to grip Washington these days - and members of both parties are afflicted with this insanity.

So, as always, here's the link for those who wish to paste it into their browsers, and it's also in the clickable link below. This is a PDF file and I can assure you that there's no virus risk.

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/robert-michaels-testimony-april-23-2009.pdf

In the Senate today, 19 Senators voted that it was okay for the Iraqi government to give amnesty to anyone known to have attacked, killed or injured American soldiers, and every single one of them was a Republican. I guess this is an example of how Republicans *support* the troops. The only one that truly surprises me is McCain. He must have lost his mind since he began pandering to those who believe they are Bush's *base.*

Vote Summary:
Question: On the Amendment (Nelson (FL) Amdt. No. 4265 )
Vote Number: 178 Vote Date: June 20, 2006, 03:27 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to
Amendment Number:S.Amdt. 4265 to S. 2766 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 )
Statement of Purpose: To express the sense of Congress that the Government of Iraq should not grant amnesty to persons known to have attacked, killed, or wounded members of the Armed Forces of the United States.
Vote Counts: YEAs 79
NAYs: 19
Not Voting: 2

Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State
Grouped By Vote Position

NAYs ---19
Allard (R-CO)
Bond (R-MO)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
DeMint (R-SC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Hagel (R-NE)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
McCain (R-AZ)
Sessions (R-AL)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Warner (R-VA)

YEAs ---79
Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Dayton (D-MN)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ensign (R-NV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Frist (R-TN)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Salazar (D-CO)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Wyden (D-OR)