Sorry Louise, the Federal budget has to be cut by at least 15%, and some of that has to come out of social security, medicare, and medicaid. That's reality, whether you like it or not!
"Renaissance Thinking About the Issues of Our Day"
It looks like President Obama is still open to negotiations with Republican economic terrorists. Details of the president's budget, set to be released April 10th, show that he will offer significant spending cuts to so-called “entitlement programs”- like Social Security and Medicare – in hopes of attaining a “grand” budget bargain with Congressional Republicans.
The plan replaces the sequester with other spending cuts, and increases revenues by $580 billion. In a move that is sure to infuriate progressives and many Democrats, the president will propose lowering cost-of-living increases to Social Security benefits. This is insane. Instead of asking the wealthiest in our country to pay the same percentage of their income towards our social safety net, the President thinks that the elderly, disabled, and veterans should bear the burden of Republican austerity.
Our nation has a policy of not negotiating with terrorists, and economic terrorists shouldn't be the exception. We must stand together to preserve our social programs. Tell Congress and the President that we won't stand for balancing the budget on the backs of the poor. Sign the petition at no-cuts.com.
Sorry Louise, the Federal budget has to be cut by at least 15%, and some of that has to come out of social security, medicare, and medicaid. That's reality, whether you like it or not!
Robert Heinlein put it very well when he said not to trust liberals and others who were towards the middle. Those who are extremists will always stick with their principles, while those who are looking for a compromise will tend to bargain away their values "for a higher good."
Oh, and Mauiman 2, how much of the federal budget deficit is directly due to the social programs you mentioned? Or are they separately budgeted? And could at least some of them be indefinitely self-supporting with just a little tweaking--like taking the cap off contributions.to Social Security? Cutting the budget doesn't mean cutting everything equally; that's a meat ax approach that the sequester is taking and it's beginning to cause chaos. If you're going down that road, I'd suggest looking first at two pointless lost wars and what their continuance is costing us.
Don't blame the republcians for this. Obama always leads with OUR chin.
You can see from the previous poster that the lie of the deficit is driving force behind austerity, regardless of the fact that it is making the economies in Europe descend into depression...that, apparently is what our government wants as well.
The poster above has swallowed the bait hook line and sinker.Even tho SS ahs not added to the debt by one red cent. and Medicaid ahs already been slashed to the bone and no doctor wants to take Medicare anymore cause they'll go broke, they say. Meanwhile, I hope he's ready to find a good cardboard box to live in
I just wish the democrats would stop following this DINO president right off the cliff.
He seems to WANT a republcian House and Senate.
What reality do you live in where social security is not a self funding insurance plan?
Lift the ceiling on income subject to Social Security taxes. Problem solved. No chained cpi needed.
No, it doesn't. if it does, take it all from subsidies to big oil and the pentagon. Problem solved.
Mr Obama is acting more and more like a shill for the bigs! He reminds me of other polititians who will say whatever they think will please their audience. Actions, in my mind, speak louder than words--and if you ask me he's shouting at the top of his lungs "sui, sui, sui" to the top 1%. How dare he break the social security and medicare covenant! We have paid into these systems all of our working lives only to see our governemnt steal it away by stealth and slight of hand. Do we have an Uncle Barack in the White Cabin?
Sorry! Barak Obama appears to be a man who simply wanted to be a President of America and nothing more
A straw man without anything inside or outside
Suceeding only in satisisfaction of his ego
Even in his last term has been unable to find within himself again those high morals upon which he laid down his pricipals for support and, for that so many gave support
Maybe those high morals and pricipals were just positions taken in order to kid the voters and get power
Shame on him!
He started out looking genuine and now looks something like a puppet show
Shame on him!
Never mind America... it is a country of some 300 million inhabitants
There are some 6 billion inhabitants on this planet
Try to get the picture and scale of your view point
There is enough for all!
All over the planet
Sadly! We have found out how to screw that quite royally... and, maybe that is quite royally known and has been quite royally known for quite a long time
As I understand in ball-park figures, 90% of money in america is possessed by 1% of the populace
I will stand corrected since I have no documented references
Federal buget cut by 15%..................... REALLY!
Mauiman, you're either an idiot or a rich swine living off of capital gains and perhaps that nice inheritance you got from daddy. I'm guessing the latter. God, how your ilk reek of arrogance!
Get it through your privileged thick skull and into your small mind once and for all that Social Security has NOTHING TO DO with the "federal budget". It's "off balance sheet" as your team of accountants would put it. Have one of them explain that to you, please!
Make 25% of big corporations who don't pay any tax pay their fair share.
End the war on drugs.
Make the trillionaires bring "their" money back from overseas. Make it illegal and tax the shit out of it.
Reduce our 13 carrier battle groups and close a large number of our over 500 overseas bases.
Knock off the oil and coal subsidies.
Bring back our well paying jobs from overseas. Make them provide pensions, decent pay and good medical care as well.
I do agree, Louise. I have signed the petition and encourage everyone to do so. We need to speak loudly on this one. Although this puts a damper on hope, that doesn't matter. We don't stop fighting as long as we can make our voices heard. I intend to do everything I can (call and write to Pres. Obama, call and write to my Rep and Sen's, sign petitions, etc.)
I never said cut everything equally, but we simply have to cut about 500 billion a year out of something. I don't see how you can do that and leave the big 3 untouched.
Wow can you imagine expecting a government program to fund itself. What goes it matter that people are living decades longer and the new meds that keep them living decades longer are extremely expensive. I payed into it So i sould get it!!! Come on guys it just simply costs more Now.
I have to say I do get a kick out of the Obama bashing. I told you so. But no, back in 2008 when I warned you where going to hang me. They are all the same. So much for hope and change.
Maui man where have you been I don't seem so lonely now.
I challenge anyone here parroting platitudes of "Social Security off the table" to explain the differences pro and con between Chained CPI, CPI, CPI-U, CPI-W, CPI-C and CPI-B -- including the rational and history behind the development of "Chained-CPI" -- including which year "Chained-CPI" was first introduced, and by which Political Party or Governmental Bureaucracy?
Anyone who can't do so, really has no informed opinion about Social Security Cost of Living Adjustments, other than whatevver faith-based opinions their handlers have fed them.
For extra credit, list several of the major groups within the CPI, including their relative weight in Pounds and Kilograms. Are Women properly included in CPI Results? Will changing the CPI Index require an Constitutional ammendment? Which Cities are used for the CPI Index? What other Inflation Indices exist? Can CPI calculate ROI for Capital-Gains? What is the essential difference between "Tea-Party-CPI" and "Progressive-CPI" values?
Hey-ho OUTBACK...You stated in post #20 on 4/2/13 that you are not an anarchist or a proponent of violent civil action.
Are you implying that anarchist are violent, or that the philosophy of anarchism promotes violence? If so I strongly disagree.
I am an anarchist, and I do not support or encourage violence. As you may already know I am 41 years old, a husband, and a father, and I hold a degree in American History and a degree in Sociology. I can honestly say that the philosophy of anarchism is not one that promotes or encourages violence of any kind. In fact Anarchism believes that if we can create a society without extrems of poverty and wealth and join hands across all national boundries, we will not need police forces, prisons, armies, or war, because the underlying causes for these will be gone.
Unfortunatly most people do define anarchy as disorder, disorganization, chaos, confusion, violence, and everyone doing as they like, however nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact what most anarchist want is a society that is organized in many different ways; with the understanding that what is good for one group is not always what is best for another. Violence doesn't even have a place in a society that cooperates in work and play in order to excist as an eglitarian society.
Anarchy does insist that any organization must avoid hierarchy and command from the top; it must be democratic, consensual, reaching decisions through constant discussion in an open forum.
What attracted me to anarchism was its rejection of any bullying authority - the authority of the state, of the church, or the employer.
There have been many people through out history who were anarchist and practiced nonviolent resistance. One person in particular is M Gandhi. As you may know he single handedly organized one of the biggest nonviolent peace movements in recorded history, which for the most part quilled two wars and in the end earned India's independence from England. Sadly though, what Gandhi was practicing and teaching, the world as a collective was not ready for. Maybe the time has come for us to slow down and change our greedy hostle way of thinking.
With their budget proposal, Obama and his team have forgotten the most essential element of democracy, fair representation of, "We the People." We hired Obama through the democratic employment process known as voting. Looting the social safety net in order to appease the billionaire controlled Republican party is simply not representative government. Their big money does not equate to big representation. My vote equals David H Koch's, we each get just one. He deserves no more representation than me or anyone else. Just because Fox/corp. media has messed with the heads of many voters doesn't necessarily mean they want to see Social Security cut either, in fact 70% favor lifting the cap.
Why isn't Obama fighting for a cost of living upgrade to Social Security? Do you want to see the vast majority rule? Just take a poll on that idea! Lift the cap as most already want and this could be reality. Those making multi-millions off the sweat of our backs would finally have to indirectly provide us with the pensions we deserve.
Besides, if citizens actually saved for retirement instead of spending this money, the economy would certainly crash. Who can afford to save anyway? Of course had the job creators paid people what they were worth the last few decades, should be currently $22/hour minimum wage, maybe we all could afford retirement accounts. Instead much of this wealth from increased worker productivity has ended up in the hands of a very few in offshore bank accounts, untaxed and useless to our economy. Return this wealth, close the loopholes, and raise the damn cap.
Why won't the democrats fight back and go on the offensive, the numbers are overwhelmingly against Teabagger/Billionaire Party politics.
Nachos: Sorry if I hit a nerve, and thank you for your definition. Not knowing anything at all about Anarchy as a political position, I've always assumed that it would lead to violence, or arise from some catastrophic collapse, or both. One definition of anarchy is "a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority", so you can see why so many people may misunderstand the nuanced definition of "an Anarchist". As you've defined it though, it reminds me of Communism in that, while a noble ideal, it has eluded humanity in the same way that pure democracy has. I'm reading Jared Diamond's latest book "The World Until Yesterday" right now, which touches lightly on some of this stuff. Maybe you've read it. Anyway, thanks for the correction.
And HalFonts, Say what? I don't know the intricate details of "Chained CPI" versus "Conventional CPI", but what's the point? Isn't switching to the "Chained CPI" supposed to reduce the effective cost of living allowance (COLA) over time? Otherwise, why would Obama be touting it as a reduction in outlay (which it isn't anyway, being separately funded through FICA, not general revenues)? C'mon Hal, you don't need to know the timing parameters of the back side bus of that Core 2 Intel processor your posting through to be legitimate here, do you? (And if you do, you're scaring me to death....;-)
Rational? There's no pain here, COLA simply gets downgraded to a generic diet COLA version, or as the White House explained today on the Randi Rhodes show, instead of buying premium gas just buy the regular, no pain! The Koch's still make a fortune off the $4/gal gas as you buy the regular. Thing is I've never known anybody to buy premium, for sure not folks living off Social Security.
Mauiman2 ~ You are full of what Joe the Plumber would call Sewer Traffic. You would do well to diversify your inception of the news from simply Fox News.
No money at all needs to be cut from any social programs in our country. Have you read the headlines today. Apparently we have $100 Million sitting around that President Obama wants to send to NASA to "lasso" an asteroid for future space exploration practice. Thats right! $100 Million for outer space rock collecting.
Meanwhile, our Military Industrial Complex is obese and needs to be put on a crash diet for it's own good. You haven't mentioned how much of a percent of that budget needs to be trimmed.
What about Campaign Finance waste. The combined money wasted on election campaigns in this country alone could cover our social safety net with a tidy raise in the social security benefits to our retired people and veterans.
That's just creative accounting without even considering raising revenue by jacking up taxes on the top 10% and corporations. But, oh yes, do let us ponder this possibility thoroughly as well, my friend!
One might think that someone like you would wish the poor, infirmed, wounded veterans, and retired workers the best money can buy after they worked their lives away and sacrificed so much to make your luxuriously comfortable lifestyle possible. Do you have no shame?
Bottom line is that there is an abundance of revenue for the poor and needy. The only problem is an abundance of greed of the insatiably gluttonous wealthy class. All I have to say to Money worshiping swine like you is...
It is far wiser to think without speaking, than to speak without thinking. Especially on this forum, my friend. Someone might hear you and tear you a new one! It might do you some good since you seem to be thoroughly constipated!
cut their salaries and make them use the same health coverage as the rest of American. They should get the same as the rest of us. All of them.
No Outback, the purpose of the Chained CPI is not "to reduce the effective cost of living allowance (COLA) over time?"
Actually "Chained-CPI" is really very simple. (See Wikipedia or the Bureau of Labor websites). The "Chained CPI" (C-CPI-U) was introduced in 2002, as an evolutionary statistical refinement to account for changing "mix" as certain components of the CPI basket became disproportionate. IE: If Transportation becomes disproportionately expensive, people reduce travel, and it's "% of the CPI basket" should be reduced. Makes sense, a reasonable evolutionary refinement ------> NOT a scheme to screw old-folks out of their dues.
Most of the jargon in my questions; like most of the political jabber was pure bullshit, purposely made up nonsense -- as anyone with the most superficial knowledge of "CPI-U" or the "Chained-CPI" refinement could (should) have known.
Thus, we are not dealing with government or budgetary issues, from a shared factual knowledge-base; we are trapped in a theatrical chirade, a farce of tribal-beliefs and word-games signifying nothing.
BTW: I'm no Economist, and I don't even play one on Teevey.
Though I was seduced by Obama the Orator to vote for him in 2008, before he revealed himself as Barack the Betrayer, and though I voted for him again in 2012 because there was no other alternative to the avowed fascism of the Republicans, I see now I should not have voted at all.
Apparently I had no other choice. The system is rigged so third party candidates cannot ever win -- hence a vote so cast is (and always will be) a vote wasted. But a vote withheld -- or better yet written-in as "none of the above" -- is a moral refusal to participate in two of the worst most unforgivable atrocities in human history, each facilitated by the most diabolically oppressive Ruling Class technological omnipotence ever known. Change is therefore impossible; we are enslaved literally forever -- that is, until our species is extinct.
Meanwhile the two unforgivable atrocities continue. One of these is the restoration of the slave-and-sweatshop economy that -- save during the tiny interregnum of the New Deal -- has always been the core reality of the United States. The other is the expansion and perpetuation of the USian Empire -- a veritable Fourth Reich of torture, murder, massacre and genocide the evil of which will eventually exceed (if indeed it does not already) anything hitherto known on this wretched planet.
Thus any member of the 99 Percent who still trusts Barack the Betrayer to represent us -- much less to protect us from capitalist savagery -- is no more than the U.S. equivalent of the "Good German" who supported Hitler to the bitter end: an ignorant, cravenly submissive fanatic whose lockstep conformity condemns us forever to the murderously exploitative realities of capitalism. Such die-hard supporters are therefore as much criminals as the Betrayer himself.
The time is long past for pleading to this president's humanitarian instincts, because he has made it clear he has none. His beneficence extends only to the One Percent – the Big Business/Wall Street aristocracy he serves so obediently – and at such terrible cost to all the rest of us. The petitioning of Barack the Betrayer is already proven pointless.
Instead he should be mocked and jeered publicly for what he truly is: a moral imbecile, the most outrageous liar ever to occupy the White House, a reanimated Richard Nixon stripped of boorishness, outfitted with maliciously deceptive eloquence, wrapped in Afro-Democrat disguise and sold to the gullible by the same obscene huckstering that prompted an infinity of mothers to cripple their children with thalidomide.
Let the Ruling Class cocoon this all-time liar with whatever lavish and protective mantel it has promised him in repayment for his treacheries. Let them honor him as Ayn Rand's most obedient servant, the ultimate champion of her genocidal economics. Let us of the Working Class always remember him as Barack the Betrayer – the most maliciously dishonest president in U.S. history – final proof our alleged “democracy” is the biggest of Big Lies.
Barack Obama and Democrats can resolve this problem by winning elections to the House and Senate in 2014. The Republicans in the Congress are only going to be obstructionists. President Obama's play today was a political move to engage Democrats to get elected in the midterm. The budget he proposed is going nowhere. Democrats hate it and Republicans hate it even more. This was merely to tickle Democrats to act in 2014!
No you didn't strike a nerve with me, at least not in a negative way. I just wanted to take a minute to talk to you about anarcism. As we both point out anarchy is very misunderstood, and most people, including yourself, dismiss it before truely understanding its core.
Twenty years ago when I first begain to study and practice anarchy I was often times verbally and physically attacked by flag waving jingo patriots. Often I was called Anti-American. Even worse was when family memebers would say "Of course your rebelious...Your still wet behind the ears." This did strike a nerve and caused me to be more aggressive which in turn worked against me. Then about 14 years ago a very near and dear friend of mine gave me a copy of Coleman McCarthy's book "I'd Rather Teach Peace" which lead me to his online courses "Class of Non Violence" where I found a plethora of information and writtings by dozens of Nonviolent Peace Activist and Anarchists. At the same time I begain studying World Religion and discovered a ver common thread for Peace and Humanity..."Do unto others as you'd have done unto you." Yes I had heard that quote many times before but this time it affected me in a way that change my way of thinking and helped me gain a better understanding of the "social decay" - as you so elaquantly put it - comes from.
I'm still aggressive in practice, maybe even more than before, but I am no longer hostle.
I'll just say that any legislator that votes for this turd of a deal will NEVER get my vote again. Fortunately, I believe that it is unlikely any of the 3 I can actually vote for will get on board with this attempt to financially rape those of us who can afford it least.
MMmmNACHOS ~ I see where you're coming from with the idea of Anarchy. Unfortunately, the core goal of Anarchy is the abolishment of Government. I can see where this might be a great idea and a sound one in a small society--like Gilligan's Island. Government is unnecessary and only a hindrance in such a scenario.
However, my friend, in a large, complex society, Government is a very necessary evil. It is the only entity available to protect the weak from the strong. It allows a leveling of the playing field, fair competition, safe regulated trade, a path for justice, and a common resource for review of grievances. Corrupt and as ineffective as it may be, without Government our society would be a 'Mad Max'-like wasteland where only the strong would survive and the weak are considered useless and obsolete.
Sorry my friend! Anarchy is great for a small counter culture where there is already strong social cohesion; but, beyond that, it isn't a very good idea.
PhilipHenderson - Yes, back in the second year of Obama's first term I was still hoping against hope that the guy was just this incredible 3 dimensional chess grand master, playing all of the Beltway bullies and Wall Street buffoons off against each other. But no, my friend, I think too much bad water has gone over the dam since then. I won't bore you with my personal litany. There have just been far too many bad things happening during the man's watch for me to continue to believe that he is what he claimed to be. I really wish it could have been otherwise.
The last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, took an ax to the Great Society programs, redistributing all that money upward while creating a growing mass of permanent poverty. When liberals remained dead indifferent, we knew Social Security would be next. Bill Clinton gave us 8 years of Bush. We knew that there was risk in electing another Democrat, but it did appear that Barack Obama was not a "Clinton Democrat." We took a chance, and voted for Obama. Are the Democrats about to betray the American people yet again? If so, then it's time to tell them that the Party is over. Our Founding Fathers stated that if government should ever work against the best interests of the people, the "masses," we have a duty to remove it.
DANNEMARC, You don't need to appologize to me for your perspective...Most people would and do agree with you...and Websters Dictionary. But a single arbitrary definition (especially an ignorant one) is not the end all be all, when discussing philosophy. It would be like me saying Christianity is a violent practice because of the cruisades(.) All religions have a history of violence, but there core foundation (philosophy) does not promote such practices. Yes Anarchy does encourage the dismantleing of "A Conventional Government" but it still values a democratic practice.
I am surprised...I thought that you - a proponent for true Independence and Liberty - would better understand this!
To quote Gahndi; "People are not yet ready for the kind of peace that I teach and practice."
As for a path to justice...To practice justice - true justice - is to right a wrong. That went out the window when King (I can't recall the name) decided to put the burdon on the kingdom (state) rather then to allow peaceful mediation between both parties in order to resolve breaches of civility. Sure we see that (occasionally) in civil suits but for the most part society wants revenge as payment.
Fair Competition!?!?! Safe Trade!?!? A leveling of the playing field!?!?
If only we had had a better understanding for the Native American Indians from the start.
Outback ~ I've found PhilipHenderson's comments to be well thought out. This one is no different. I might suggest you listen to him and give the President the benefit of the doubt. Remember, PhilipHenderson's contention that the lopsided representation--especially in the House of Representatives--prevents a lot of actions that the President can exercise. There is a certain amount of support the Oval Office needs to get things done. The voters will have the opportunity to speak on this issue next year.
On the other hand, raising the debt ceiling with an Executive order to avoid more nonsensical budget cuts to the poor is more than within the reach of President Obama. Let us see how he acts in the coming months before we slam the door on this man. It may not be necessary to wait till 2014 to pass judgement; however, certainly, by 2014 we will know without a doubt where we stand with this Administration, this Democratic Party, this Government, this Nation, and Democracy as a whole.
Let us all hope that hope is still alive; and, proceed from there!
OUTBACK, Here is where I get aggressive.
So why did you vote for Obamney this election???Assuming that you did.
C'mon your an intellagent guy, you didn't see the writing on the wall during his first two years when he had both the house and the senate in his pocket and still didn't follow through with all his Hope and Change!?!? Let me guess you were afraid of Mitt, so instead of living up to your principles you caste a fear vote...No?
MMmmNACHOS ~ Please don't get me wrong about this. I firmly believe we are more on the same page than not. Indeed, I feel certain that there is a future awaiting us all where Government will be obsolete and people will be completely self governed. Though, not now.
I cite you're very own quote from Gandhi, "People are not yet ready for the kind of peace that I teach and practice."
I'm not saying you are wrong. All your points are well taken! Your timing is off. Please don't be discouraged. Your model is not unlike the Kingdom of God. Till then we have to tolerate Government.
It's just a practical statement. Fair Competition, Safe Trade, and a Level Playing Field are lofty goals that will never be purely realized because of the corruption of the people that run the Government; not because of the failure of the Government. A taste and hope for justice is better than no justice at all.
Please don't make me defend the Government more than that--it makes me feel soiled and dirty inside.
MMmmNACHOS ~ As far as voting for Obama. You're damn right I voted for him out of fear of Mitt. Hell, after two Bush's, and Reagan you're damn straight anyone who says, "I don't really care about poor people..." or, "We should let the Banks fully foreclose on homes and let the market recoup the losses." How about, "Oh, I can't remember all three departments of Government I would cut, just education."
Of course, man, we all voted to keep this pompous imbecile away from power far more than to give Obama a seal of approval. We reacted with instinct and not forethought. May I ask you what you did? Stay home?
Fool me once shame on you...Fool me twice shame on me.
All you fear voters say the same bullspit...Yet you sit there and flat out complain even though you say you caste your vote for the lesser of two evils...Hows that working out for you???All you fear voters have allowed corporations to hijack our country, by not standing your ground and not defending our country from such swine like Obama and Romney.
What did I do???I hit the streets campaigning for Jill Stein of the Green Party. I also researched Rocky Anderson of the newly founded Justice Party. I called into local community radio talk shows that do not screen callers and allow for open discussions. How did it turn out???Not so good, since Obamney still won. How do I feel???Good, I didn't get fooled again.
MMmmNACHOS ~ I must say I genuinely love your Tenacity. Please stick around. Next election you can lead the way with the Green Party. I'm behind you 100%. I refuse to be tricked again by the DMC Charade (Party).
Like I've said before, I'd rather loose on the side of Righteousness than prevail on the side of popularity.
Kudos! MMmmNACHOS Kudos!
Beside DANNEMARC you completely disregard what I was saying to Outback.
Obama had 2 years to live up to his campaign and serve the people that voted for him. Instead he fucked us over and danced for those that greese his pockets.
Yes you are right about Regain, Bush, Bush, Romney...You forgot Clinton though.
We have not had a true leader that represents the core of America...The working middle class and under employed since FDR.
For me I got out of the Pot 'o Bubbl'en water 20 years ago.
You tell me...Why you put him in the same catagory as FDR???
DanneMark, It is half past 1am...I will lookforward to continuing our discussion and banter another time.
MMmmNACHOS ~ JFK stood up for the middle class as well. He isn't as celebrated for it as FDR because his presidency was during a time of boom for the middle class; whereas, FDR's Presidency was during the Great Depression. Granted, FDR did the bulk of the foundation for the economy of the middle class; but, JFK put his life on the line to fight for civil rights, breaking up monopolies and mob controlled cartels, ensuring the solvency of the dollar, and blowing the whistle on Secret Societies. He might not have founded the social safety net; but, he did lose his life earnestly trying to better society for the common man. FDR died of natural causes.
Also, remember that Jack Kennedy was a rich playboy who didn't need to seek public service for wealth.
Jesus once told his disciples,
Mark 10:25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God
Everytime I see the Zapruder film I think to myself:
Verily, with God all things are possible! Behold, the Camel that passes through the eye of a needle!
Certainly, the contribution of JFK has some noteworthiness?
And what about the $3 billion NSA spy center they are building in Utah? There's only one reason why they are building it...and that is to spy on all of us even more effectively than they do now.
By the way, anyone watch Bill Maher show this evening. Bernie Sanders was on and I thought he was going to slug that rude loud-mouthed woman, Abby Huntsman, who cut him off. Sanders had such a look on his face that you could tell he was extremely ticked off. He spent the rest of the show waving and thrusting his hand just inches past her face as he argued with that extremely loud mouthed idiot Steve Moore who sat on the other side of Huntsman. She had to repeatedly grab his hand and push it away. But I sure don't blame Bernie one bit. It's just like the right wing blow-hards to try to shout over someone trying to make a point. I'd be very grateful if Maher didn't have these Fox News flunkies on the show anymore. It was really hard to hear and understand what Bernie was saying. At least, I guess, the audience caught it because they clapped and cheered for Bernie. They had a 19 year walk-on guest who is fighting the Louisiana state over religious issues...he sounded very intelligent. Even he was able to put down that right winger Steve Moore.
Excellent points. Very true. Thank you.
Can't keep my eyes open...Catch-up with you later, have a great weekend. Tomorrow I am installing a 220 line to run my new hot tube...That is the only Pot 'O Bubble'en water I will soak away the day in! ;)
Palindromedary wrote ~ "With microminiaturization anything is possible!"
Thats not what she said. LOL
Have a great weekend everyone. I'm turning in too. This was fun!
That's why I call it "bipartisanshit" and have ever since Obama first mentioned this proactive surrender, just like Clinton did.
Nachos - Actually no, I didn't vote for Obama a second time. And contrary to where Loren Bliss (#27) and many others felt compelled to vote for Obama as "the least bad choice", I decided to make my protest vote as positive as possible and voted for Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party. I felt then and still do, that if enough people who are dissatisfied with our one party system, versions A and B and start voting for credible outsiders it will have a ripple effect through the midterm elections. Over time it might just lead to a viable third party alternative.
I was snookered in by Obama in 2007, was an evangelist for him and even contributed financially to a political campaign for the first time in my life for him. The first red flags were the appointments of Rahm Emannuel as Chief of Staff, Larry Summers as Chief Financial Advisor and Tim Gheitner as Treasure Secretary. This in my opinion, along with other actions and non actions by his administration in his first two years was the principal reason for the backlash of the 2010 midterm elections. But Obama had lost my support long before then and I was beseeching Bernie Sanders' organization to go national and make a run in 2012.
And as an aside to DAnneMarc (Re:#38), you have to see the folly of voting for the "lesser wevil". Sure, If I'd have had clear crystal ball knowledge that Romney would have been elected without my vote for Obama I would have been strongly tempted to vote for Barack. But then when I realized that even under that scenario my vote would be interpreted as actually endorsing his policies, I made my decision to go 3rd party. Knowing that no 3rd party candidate would win I felt that I'd be submitting input as to a better alternative and not endorsing failed policies. I haven't completely given up hope and faith in the American people DAnneMarc, It's just that I've decided to cut my losses and take another direction. Besides, what would have been the worst that could happen if Obama lost? An acceleration of a process that may be inevitable? Not a bad outcome.
Sorry I missed all the action earlier. Y'all have a great weekend. (Don't be scalding yourself Nachos. We need you here;-)