Where as Clinton championed against this horror. When will we realize that it matters not who the president is. THE WHOLE FRIGGEN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO REGARD FOR OUR WELLBEING. Telling us it will change with the election of a new moron is as criminal as the harm itself.
Posted by glassman on :
Bush has ignored the law more than all the rest combined.
If the Democrat party had any intestinal fortitude? they'd move for impeachment. they don't.
Posted by Relentless. on :
Two masks on the same face. Can you not see?
Posted by T e x on :
How much conserving could a conservative conserve, if a conservative could conserve?
With enough perspective and distance, it's plain that whichever party is in control doesn't make much difference for the common person.
I hope we'll get some relief under a Democratic president, but as a whole, the government nexus will continue to be skewed toward the elite.
Bush's being a nutball has little to do with the GOP itself, which is evidenced quite hilariously by the Limburger-Coulter dysfunction.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: Two masks on the same face. Can you not see?
yes, i do see.
i've been pointing it out here for years.
there are solutions, but first? peopl have to vote and they are voting in record numbers.
if Hillary wins? it will be because the "old democrats" go against the popular vote and put her up.
the super delegates are the key in this race.
if they "install" Hillary there will be alot of very unhappy young people in this country.
Obama Calls Out Super Delegates: "Party Insiders" Shouldn't Decide Race
Politico | Ben Smith | February 6, 2008 02:00 PM "If this contest comes down to superdelegates, we are going to be able to say we have more pledged delegates, which means the Democratic voters have spoken. Those superdelegates, those party insiders would have to think long and hard how they would approach the nomination," he said.
"The argument we would be making to superdelegates is, if we come into the convention with more pledged delegates then i think we can make a very strong argument that our constituencies have spoken and I think that's going to be pretty improtant when it comes to the general election," he says.
why cant the democrats impeach bush? i think they should try.
you know what I have a problem with? the patriot act. thats not the patriot act...a patriot act would be something like taking better care of troops medically when they get back from iraq or afghanistan. it should be called the snoop act, or the intrusive act.
bush once again using the words "freedom, patriot, etc" to mask something that is dark for his own agenda. I HATE IT!
Posted by Relentless. on :
You do not see. Glass the entire premise they present and you and many others buy into is far from choice. If I tell you, you are free to choose from a kick in the the right nut as opposed to the left... Are you free to choose? The "Game" they are presenting is not far from calculated. they already know Hilary is not exactly palatable. That's why McCain is on the other side... he's vulnerable on many fronts. It's all a game and the rules are not written or legible by the likes of... well apparently... you.
Posted by glassman on :
they think they'll do better politically if they don't?
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: why cant the democrats impeach bush? i think they should try.
you know what I have a problem with? the patriot act. thats not the patriot act...a patriot act would be something like taking better care of troops medically when they get back from iraq or afghanistan. it should be called the snoop act, or the intrusive act.
bush once again using the words "freedom, patriot, etc" to mask something that is dark for his own agenda. I HATE IT!
Because they can't risk making a martyr of the GOP, by extension, and thereby blowing what seems to be a slam-dunk...
Posted by glassman on :
after Watergate? things didn't go so good...
the first thing that happened was the oil embargo...
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: .... It's all a game and the rules are not written or legible by the likes of... well apparently... you.
lol, RD... burning the midnight oil with those Dale Carnegie books again?
Posted by glassman on :
the list of Bush's "devaitions from the law" is so long an extensive that i wouldn't even know where to start..
take his economic plans. they've just buried US in more and more debt....
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by T e x:
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: .... It's all a game and the rules are not written or legible by the likes of... well apparently... you.
lol, RD... burning the midnight oil with those Dale Carnegie books again?
he's OK with me Tex. i agree with him, i don't like the unwritten rules.
my goal has always been to stir up discussion which is just a start. but in '03? people were AFRAID to show dissent from the admin. really afraid, and don't mean on the internet. i mean people i know that disagreed.
that has changed. but it took Katrina to get people to realise just how incompetent the Bush team is...
Posted by Relentless. on :
quote:Originally posted by T e x:
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: .... It's all a game and the rules are not written or legible by the likes of... well apparently... you.
lol, RD... burning the midnight oil with those Dale Carnegie books again?
Well as you know, I'm all about the people. I adore their thoughts and desires. really it's all about them... to me. That's what I want... more vulnerable people to emote within my presence so that I might adore them.
Posted by Relentless. on :
Glass you are missing the point.. by a degree of WOW. Katrina? Who gives a damn about katrina? Morons.. that's who. Funny that N.O. was worst hit huh? West side of the storm and all? It's all a game to increase federal governmental jurisdiction. Can you not see? I was in the hardest hit area... Right friggen here. And a whine one you will not hear from me or any other near me. As I am here I can give honest declaration that the only ones *****ing about the government's response to the "Hurricane of the eon" are the ones who lost nothing and wish to gain everything.
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.:
quote:Originally posted by T e x:
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: .... It's all a game and the rules are not written or legible by the likes of... well apparently... you.
lol, RD... burning the midnight oil with those Dale Carnegie books again?
Well as you know, I'm all about the people. I adore their thoughts and desires. really it's all about them... to me. That's what I want... more vulnerable people to emote within my presence so that I might adore them.
ya, Queen for a Day, I know, I know...we had TVs here, too, back then...
Glassy says, "he's OK with me Tex. i agree with him, i don't like the unwritten rules."
Hell, I know dat...
and you how *I* am ... both about unwritten rules AND written rules that go abegging...
I wish Paulie boy could've hung aroung long enough to get some his market concerns pirated by stronger candidates. As is, back to the dumpster with a "real market."
Posted by glassman on :
ones who lost nothing and wish to gain everything.
and? very little has actually been fixed since the storm (except the casinos)...
i saw Dubya on TV today encouraging the recent tornado victims..
he said the same damn thing he told eveyrybod th last three or four times he's visited the sites of devastation..
"I have no doubt in my mind this community will come back better than before," Bush said at a fire station in Lafayette during a briefing with local, state and federal officials.
he has no doubt in his mind or much of anything else for that matter...
Posted by T e x on :
OT from off-topic:
was looking up Katrina, found a VoA link, got sidetracked when I saw link to this:
Special English broadcasters read at a slower pace, about two-thirds the speed of standard English. This helps people learning English hear each word clearly. It also helps people who are fluent English speakers understand complex subjects.
so if budgee reads me his latest math papers at two thirds speed? i'll really understand it? LOL...
Posted by T e x on :
doubt he'd be restricted to 1,500 word lexicon...
so,
no. We're both outta dat loop, lol
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Special English broadcasters read at a slower pace, about two-thirds the speed of standard English. This helps people learning English hear each word clearly. It also helps people who are fluent English speakers understand complex subjects.
so if budgee reads me his latest math papers at two thirds speed? i'll really understand it? LOL...
"Special English writers use short, simple sentences that contain only one idea. They use active voice. They do not use idioms."
Like Hemingway?
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Special English broadcasters read at a slower pace, about two-thirds the speed of standard English. This helps people learning English hear each word clearly. It also helps people who are fluent English speakers understand complex subjects.
so if budgee reads me his latest math papers at two thirds speed? i'll really understand it? LOL...
You give me three years of serious effort and I could have you writing them.
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee:
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Special English broadcasters read at a slower pace, about two-thirds the speed of standard English. This helps people learning English hear each word clearly. It also helps people who are fluent English speakers understand complex subjects.
so if budgee reads me his latest math papers at two thirds speed? i'll really understand it? LOL...
You give me three years of serious effort and I could have you writing them.
Beedge, for real? Either he or I could write Hemingway in the meantime
granted, Glassy-eyed might lean more toward your offer Posted by ohio_trader on :
the president does not run this country, just barks out calls
Posted by T e x on :
"incremental change" ring a bell?
Posted by retiredat49 on :
LOL
Posted by Relentless. on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: ones who lost nothing and wish to gain everything.
and? very little has actually been fixed since the storm (except the casinos)...
i saw Dubya on TV today encouraging the recent tornado victims..
he said the same damn thing he told eveyrybod th last three or four times he's visited the sites of devastation..
"I have no doubt in my mind this community will come back better than before," Bush said at a fire station in Lafayette during a briefing with local, state and federal officials.
he has no doubt in his mind or much of anything else for that matter...
Oh I don't know, New Orleans looks about the same now as it did before the storm. It really is all a game. All presidential visits to disaster areas are nothing more than photo ops. The whining and complaining after Katrina hit was a ploy to further involve the federal government in our lives.
Posted by glassman on :
The whining and complaining after Katrina hit was a ploy to further involve the federal government in our lives.
yes and no..
the Feds have a financial system designed that they call capitalism. it sort of resembles capitalism cuz theres money involved.
the Federal Reserve (not a govt agency) orders cash from the Treasury Dept (a govt agency) and sells it to people.
the Fed Govt then calls about 1/3 of that money back in as taxes and gives out about 150% of that money to it's "customers".
Everybody wants to be a customer.
The underlying issue is that everybody wants something for nothing. Or in other words? Everybody wants to be the boss, and nobody wants to get their hands dirty.
the Federal Govt is in the business of buying votes from poorly educated consumers. We are a nation of consumers now. We SHOULD be a nation of producers who have enough money to save, and invest and live comfortably. One out of three is not good, and living comfortably may not be on the agenda for a whole lot longer either..
Is it socialism to suggest that the garbage collectors are just as important as the doctors?
stop collecting garbage for six weeks in any city in the US and you'll find out just how much more important garbage collectors are than doctors. serious illnesses will bloom all over the place like flowers in spring
somebody has to make sure the garbage is collected. that's why we need government. but the govt is exceeding it's authority in many ways
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:I hope we'll get some relief under a Democratic president, but as a whole, the government nexus will continue to be skewed toward the elite.
Hey Tex, what kind of relief do you want?
I want relief too. My idea is to ship all the scumbag contingency lawyers to Cuba and stop giving my tax dollars to those that are too lazy to work.
quote:but it took Katrina to get people to realise just how incompetent the Bush team is...
Incompetent? What can the federal government do about a natural disaster? The people had been told to evacuate and were too stupid to do so. The mayor didn't use his fleet of busses to get people out and instead let them be flooded. The people behaved like animals, looting TVs and stereos at the first opportunity. The idiot Governor impeded the President for some time after the disaster. What was President Bush supposed to do about all that?
Should he have sent in the Marines and made the idiots evacuate at gunpoint? Should he have siezed control of the city and imprisoned the mayor so that he could use the city busses to evacuate people? Should he have installed Vice-President Cheney as Governor the day before the hurricane so that the governor would have made the right decisions? If he had done any of those things, the wackos would have REALLY been screaming. RIDICULOUS!
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by T e x:
quote:Originally posted by bdgee:
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Special English broadcasters read at a slower pace, about two-thirds the speed of standard English. This helps people learning English hear each word clearly. It also helps people who are fluent English speakers understand complex subjects.
so if budgee reads me his latest math papers at two thirds speed? i'll really understand it? LOL...
You give me three years of serious effort and I could have you writing them.
Beedge, for real? Either he or I could write Hemingway in the meantime :D
granted, Glassy-eyed might lean more toward your offer ;)
Yep, for real.
And you too, Tex. I have a cadre of them out there doing it quite well now. (Those submitted to the effort must be carefully selected. And, yes, there have been those that failed.....lack of the "serious effort" required.)
I add that, in the beginning of the process, the teacher has to depend on a very limited vocabulary and sometimes speak very slowly, all aimed at getting the student to become the speaker and the doer. Success breeds confidence, which turns to desire for further development.....it snowballs...and the student becomes a colleague.....a fellow and specialist in the scholarship, at least for a time, until he or she branches to queries and specialties of their own.
Posted by T e x on :
"Hey Tex, what kind of relief do you want?"
For real? I'd start with the market, from enforcement of regs already on the books to a complete remodel of the DTC. Under the Bushies, we're hemorrhaging capital out of the country.
You say you're a biz guy--how about that new budget? Give you the warm fuzzies, does it?
Posted by glassman on :
"trickle out" is the new economy, not trickle down.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
You say you're a biz guy--how about that new budget? Give you the warm fuzzies, does it?
No, the budget does not thrill me. I would cut all the handouts, cut all unnecessary regulation, get rid of the Education department, allow drilling in Anwar, allow a huge wind farm off Cape Cod, raise the Social Security eligibility age by 5 years, etc, etc, etc. I'd go at the budget with an axe!
Posted by T e x on :
quote:But independent analysts said that the administration's prediction of vanishing deficits is based on a series of overly optimistic assumptions, among them that Congress will drop its temporary relief from the alternative minimum tax. That levy, originally created to assure that millionaires paid at least some income taxes, is increasingly biting upper-middle-class Americans.
That doesn't bother you that we have to take special measures to ensure millionaires pay AT LEAST SOME income tax?
If Bush gets his way, Medicare *will* get hit, along with Education and highway and environmental infrasctructure. Meanwhile, the deficit would more than double so the rich could enjoy further tax cuts.
Good thing he's a lame duck--doubt much of that will pass...
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:That doesn't bother you that we have to take special measures to ensure millionaires pay AT LEAST SOME income tax?
No. We don't tax wealth, we tax income. I am all in favor of the fair tax, provided that NO ONE is excluded. Paying a tax on things you buy would be the fairest tax of all.
quote:If Bush gets his way, Medicare *will* get hit, along with Education and highway and environmental infrasctructure.
Hey, that's my plan, except it should include social security, welfare, food stamps, and a lot of other handouts.
Posted by T e x on :
ya, I know...you'd have the sidewalks full of homeless people you could make fun of...
Posted by Propertymanager on :
No, I think we would need to pass a law like they have in those leftist (but very compassionate) California cities barring the homeless from the sidewalks. Can't have the Hollywood liberals stepping over the homeless, you know!
Posted by bdgee on :
Now, listen to that line of unmitigated horse crap!
Exactly what law in California are you speaking of?
I think you like to make claims of things that don't exist so you can be derogatory to people that are not extreme and illogical far right-wing radicals, in order to grant yourself the opportunity to call them names, thus, in your twisted view, bolstering your cheapskate ego by comparing your lot to the lot you imagine for others.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
California has 3 cities in the top 20 "meanest" cities to the homeless.
Posted by bdgee on :
So what? That does not justify your claim that they have laws disallowing homeless people on sidewalks.
And nothing justifies the trashy vulgarities you can't escape from and label everyone except the rich with.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:That does not justify your claim that they have laws disallowing homeless people on sidewalks.
Try reading it again more slowly (or have someone read it to you). The point of the article is that they don't want the homeless on public streets so they have passed a variety of laws to get them off the streets.
Posted by bdgee on :
Don't be a clown, prop....
You declared that California has laws not allowing homeless people on sidewalks. That is BS. It does not. Even a staunch right-winger with a limited respect for the law, restricted intellect, and disdain for people must know that.
Posted by glassman on :
i lived in SoCali for 5 years. they lived in parking lots all over the place.
So Cali has tens if not hundreds of thousands of homeless people living right out in the open...
the grocery store parking lot had dozens. they eat out of the dumpsters.
the only place with anywhere close to as many homeless people is Fla... that's cuz of the weather.
in NE? no homeless to be SEEN. they are there, but they die if they try to live on the sidewalk.
here in the poorest part of the south? we have NO homeless. there's so many abandoned shotgun shacks that they can live in for free, that we just don't have homeless people. my dogs house is better than most of them tho...
as a Vet? i used the VA which i contracted with the US Govt to do when i enlisted. they try to deprive Vets of the basic rights they are entitled to all the time, but some of us know our rights and actually obtain them.
i stopped using the VA because i don't HAVE to use it, and when the war started i saw that there would be a considerable group of people that really need it and i didn't want to be an unnecessary drain on the resources. the VA has great surgeons, but not so great primary care providers.
here's the deal: there were hundreds of vets living within walking distance of the Loma Linda VA hospital. living wherever they could.
i saw them all the time. i spoke to them. they were getting better treatment as a result of the CLINTON admin than they had ever had under the "rightwing" admins...
ten times better than they ever had before.
i can honestly say that guys like me that were using the system (that we had earned) and pitching fits when the system was messed, up also had some influence on the improvement of care.
how it is under the current admin? i can't say. i haven't been to a VA hosp since the war started.
Posted by T e x on :
you guys are responding to a goose...
lol, let it go
Posted by Propertymanager on :
you guys are responding to a goose...
I'd say that you should use an ostrich in your analogy. You guys are wrong on every argument and then you put your heads in the sand with your fingers in your ears so that you don't have to acknowledge the truth.
In this instance, I said that these compassionate leftist cities were trying to keep the homeless off the sidewalks and I was right. I posted a link to a study that explained what these cities have done and even that California has 3 of the top twenty "meanest" cities toward the homeless. Yet, instead of seeing the truth, you want to play word games (like Bill Clinton's famous "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is". I'm sure Bill is bdgee's hero when it comes to word games.
Posted by bdgee on :
" said that these compassionate leftist cities were trying to keep the homeless off the sidewalks"
No you did not. You said California had laws forbidding homeless people access to the sidewalks, which is an absurd lie and would be a violation of both the Federal and State constitutions.
Yep, a goose, Tex......and a dumb goose too.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
C'mon bdgee, you're playing word games just like slick Willy. In the future, I will try to use very precise language for you since you like to twist everything. Obviously, they don't have a specific law that says "homeless found on the sidewalks will be arrested". As the article points out, since this is politically incorrect, the cities use a variety of other ordinances to target the homeless and keep them off the sidewalks. Of course, you already knew that if you read the article, but since you're wrong as usual, the only thing left are your silly word games.
Posted by bdgee on :
If you think it is word games, the suit yourself. You'll continue to miss the point.
As you have so thoroughly proved, you are not skilled at precision in language. Thus, I recommend that you not make the foolish mistake of trying to play such a game. (It would be like the clean-up slugger of the sunday school slow pitch soft ball team thinking he could step up to the plate in a major league game.)
It isn't that it is politically correct, as you claim that California doesn't "have a specific law that says "homeless found on the sidewalks will be arrested", it is that it is unconstitutional.
I don't recall much that you have ever posted here that came close to being honest, except your incessant "honestly bigoted hatred" of all non-rich. Neither have I seen anything in any of your post that indicates much thought or attention to fact, just meanness, arrogance, and ignorance.
There isn't much that should be labeled "silly" about the games you want to play, they are too seriously dangerous and hateful.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:If you think it is word games, the suit yourself. You'll continue to miss the point.
As you have so thoroughly proved, you are not skilled at precision in language. Thus, I recommend that you not make the foolish mistake of trying to play such a game. (It would be like the clean-up slugger of the sunday school slow pitch soft ball team thinking he could step up to the plate in a major league game.)
Finally, something we agree on. You are 100% correct. You are interested in playing word games and I am not. I am interested in the real issues, with real ideas and solutions, not trying to determine what the definition of "is" is. I'll leave that to you and slick Willy.
Why is it that the left can't say what they actually believe and instead constantly resort to word games? Do you actually believe in anything? Do you have any solutions or ideas? Is your only contribution childish word games?
Posted by jordanreed on :
"slick" Willy..."wacko" left... "deadbeats"...and many more labels you slap on groups...
who plays word games???
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:who plays word games???
Slick Willy and the wacko left (and environmental wackos, of course).
Posted by bdgee on :
Hahahahaha....
I keep trying to explain to you basakerds far right-wing political dinosaurs, Clinton was not a liberal any more than Hoyte Willham was Sandy Kofax. Just because Hoyte's curve ball was inadequate when compared to Bert Blyleven's doesn't mean his political bent is also the opposite Bert's.
The goose feels a need to be cooked?
Posted by Propertymanager on :
bdgee,
Are you talking about Bill or Hillary? I agree with you that Bill was more of a politician than a conservative or liberal. He would bend whichever way the wind was blowing. Hillary on the other hand is an "it takes a village" liberal. Barak is much farther left than even Hillary and is certainly a socialist. If he even gets a few of the programs through that he discussed last night in his speech, he will bankrupt the country.
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: bdgee,
Are you talking about Bill or Hillary? I agree with you that Bill was more of a politician than a conservative or liberal. He would bend whichever way the wind was blowing. Hillary on the other hand is an "it takes a village" liberal. Barak is much farther left than even Hillary and is certainly a socialist. If he even gets a few of the programs through that he discussed last night in his speech, he will bankrupt the country.
Your concept of the terms liberal, conservative, socialist, etc. are not even sophomoric (and I mean the high school sophomore, not the college). Where you go from that false base deserves no claim to validity or reality. In short, you don't know what the devil you are talking about.
Tex, this guy is not a goose. Geese are smarter. This is like a fence post. Other than weather rotting away, they never change.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
Bdgee,
Then, why don't you educate us? Oops, I forgot, you only do word games - no answers.
Posted by bdgee on :
There are limits, prop.
Even Socrates required pupils that could and would learn.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
That's what I thought - still no ideas or facts, just childish nonsense.
Posted by ohio_trader on :
President Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe III on August 19, 1946, in Hope, Arkansas, three months after his father died in a traffic accident. When he was four years old, his mother wed Roger Clinton, of Hot Springs, Arkansas. In high school, he took the family name. He excelled as a student and as a saxophone player and once considered becoming a professional musician. As a delegate to Boys Nation while in high school, he met President John Kennedy in the White House Rose Garden. The encounter led him to enter a life of public service.
Clinton was graduated from Georgetown University and in 1968 won a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford University. He received a law degree from Yale University in 1973, and entered politics in Arkansas.
Bill was a rhodes scholar, an was honed by the elitist with control and power from the get go, something that hillary was deeply attracted to 'his link to power'
the clintons link to power came through bills' path via the rhodes scholarship, bushs' path to power came by george srs' links to the military and u.s. intelligence
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: bdgee,
Are you talking about Bill or Hillary? I agree with you that Bill was more of a politician than a conservative or liberal. He would bend whichever way the wind was blowing. Hillary on the other hand is an "it takes a village" liberal. Barak is much farther left than even Hillary and is certainly a socialist. If he even gets a few of the programs through that he discussed last night in his speech, he will bankrupt the country.
Oh...please elaborate.
Why is Barack more liberal than Clinton and which programs in particular would bankrupt America??
Posted by bdgee on :
Better yet, provide a serious and usable definition of what is meant by the statements "he (or she) is a liberal" and "he (or she) is a conservative" you are willing stick to so that we might have a chance of agreeing or disagreeing.
Understand that if if the working definition of the statement that "he is republican" is that, "in the past, he voted for a republican" or "in the past he refused to vote for a democrat" , then Virginia's junior senator is not a democrat, which he certainly is.
(A similar and similarly deficient definition for the statement "he is a democrat" results in Ronald Reagan not being a republican.
In other words, I request an actual and viable working definition that isn't kneadable to a consistency that suits your fancy of the moment.
Posted by cottonjim on :
quote:Originally posted by T e x: you guys are responding to a goose...
lol, let it go
Me thinks what tex was getting at was "....responding to a goose stepping etc..." Posted by bdgee on :
yep
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:Why is Barack more liberal than Clinton and which programs in particular would bankrupt America??
Barack has the most liberal voting record in the US Senate. The National Journal confirms this with it's annual rating of all senators.
However, I am basing my opinion on listening to Barak speak. Did you hear his speech on Super Tuesday night? Although I don't believe for a moment that his initiatives could be implemented, if they were, they would certainly push the US of a financial cliff.
For example, he declared that no person that works should be in poverty. As part of this initiative to get these people out of poverty, he talked about raising the minimum wage and having an annual cost of living increase for the minimum wage. THAT IS INSANE!
Many people are not worth the minimum wage they are paid now. Raising the minimum wage just raises prices on a lot of things and penalizes everyone else. In addition, I'm wondering if a person has the right to be out of poverty if they only work part time? If a person works 5 hours per week, will Barack subsidize them so they're not in poverty? RIDICULOUS!
First, the "poor" in this country are NOT poor. We have the richest poor people in the world! I have dozens of "poor" tenants at any given time and ALL of them have a warm, safe place to live; cable tv; plenty of food, etc. Many of them have big screen tv's. Is that living in poverty? Compared to what? I'd bet that the truly poor people in other countries would think our "poor" are living in luxury!
Then Barack made a comment that the drug companies were not going to give up their profits easily. When he starts taking the profit out of business, our businesses are going elsewhere (even faster than they already are). They will hire fewer workers in the US and move their organizations overseas. This is already happening due to over-regulation and over-taxation of our corporations and will get MUCH worse with a windfall profits tax.
Barak has also said that every Anerican will get the opportunity to have the same healthcare plan as senators. Of course, that's not true, but it will cost a FORTUNE to move toward socialized medicine.
That is just a few of the things he's promoting. Quite frankly, I think his ideas will destroy the country if implemented. However, I will vote for him if he is the nominee. I will NOT vote for a democrat dressed in conservative clothes (McCain).
Posted by glassman on :
First, the "poor" in this country are NOT poor. We have the richest poor people in the world! I have dozens of "poor" tenants at any given time and ALL of them have a warm, safe place to live; cable tv; plenty of food, etc. Many of them have big screen tv's. Is that living in poverty? Compared to what?
Then Barack made a comment that the drug companies were not going to give up their profits easily. When he starts taking the profit out of business, our businesses are going elsewhere. They will hire fewer workers in the US and move their organizations overseas. This is already happening due to over-regulation and over-taxation of our corporations and will get MUCH worse with a windfall profits tax.
Barak has also said that every Anerican will get the opportunity to have the same healthcare plan as senators. Of course, that's not true, but it will cost a FORTUNE to move toward socialized medicine.
you aren't talking about the same poor.
people living at min. wage are getting 15 thousand a year....
that's before FICA.....
the drug co's are charging Americans more than they charge any other country and they still do business there...
the "odd" fact about health care plans is that the MORE people enrolled in them? the more the cost is spread amongst the users and therefore as insurance is designed to work? works better...
on health care in general?
the fact is we are the last major industrialised nation NOT in socialised medicine. the corporations claim they can't afford to compete with co's NOT paying health care premiums.
you tell me which way to go...
most people can't afford to buy it on their own after they pay taxes and daily their cost of survival... as a matter of fact? the majority of households in this country already spend more than they earn each year.. what we pay for our insurance is pretty astounding.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
I understand the minimum wage increase balk.
It's a large departure from the way we do business. But really....it's tied to inflation so in a sense that plan is just making sure that people are paid the same amount they were the year before.
The health care plan is less liberal than Clinton's as Barack want to make it voluntary. Clinton wants mandatory insurance. My own state is going even a step farther and considering a single payer system.
Health care profits are insane. They can stand a trim. And if they do move out of country then the FDA will no longer be able to block out of country drugs from other manufacturers that are just as good and cheaper. Have you ever researched the average markup on a generic drug?
As to working poor. Yeah, a lot of em are better off than in third world nations. Guess what? We aren't a third world nation.
Besides...we all know that consumer spending is the backbone of the American economy. Investing in people will only help our situation. (As long as we are able to realize savings by cutting out inefficiencies in the system.)
I believe this is possible but it means changing the way some groups do business.
I really like his idea of giving scholarships to college students in exchange for voluntary service.
Posted by glassman on :
I really like his idea of giving scholarships to college students in exchange for voluntary service.
i would like to see a three year military term for every US citizen.
the training alone would be eqaul to one/two years of college (as we know college classes today).
every person would learn basics of lifesaving, firefighting, basic planned maintenance systems, weapons safety and proper use, and HOW TO WORK EFFECTIVELY WITH OTHER PEOPLE
people with serious mental problems would be IDed over period of time instead of some quickie evaluation.
the health system would be tied into it. and? best of all?
no more chicken hawks...
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Wouldn't a worked for me Glass. My leg kept me outta that side of life. Not disabled...but could become so if I don't take care of myself.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: Wouldn't a worked for me Glass. My leg kept me outta that side of life. Not disabled...but could become so if I don't take care of myself.
the military has every job the civilian world has, and then a few more..
there's no need to require every person to have a "front-line" job..
it would humanise the world of warcraft, and force people who enter into it to recognise they are part of greater whole.
think of all the gang-bangers that would be "re-conditioned" if they were assimilated into the broader culture.
college credit should be awarded for training and cash can be saved to help pay for continuing college and other education after your service is up...
the Swiss do it and they don't even participate in war. Dubya and Cheney might have been a little more circumspect had their children faced possible deployment even if they weren't sent to the front lines? they might have had to experience a hardship situation.
think of all the people that don't have a clue what to do in a Katrina situation that would actually be trained to respond in some form, and know how to organise THEMSELVES quickly and efficiently.
IMO? the miltiary is a great organisation with a chitty job to do.
how many highly qualified and motivated people don't consider a military career because they don't really know what it is? but would consider one after being involved in it? my bet is that alot would, and our military would be better and more efficient because of it.
throw in strong health care benefits for active reservists and their families? and you begin to have a system that is not anti-capitalistic, but provides more to poorer people who are in fact giving back "in kind"...
the Military is where racial integration really began to be implemented... the military is not an "evil" in and of itself... IMO? it's the politicians that were never in the military that are the real problem....
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:you aren't talking about the same poor. people living at min. wage are getting 15 thousand a year.... that's before FICA.....
Well then, I don't know what "poor" you're talking about. I'm talking about people who receive $600 or $700 per month on welfare and have their housing paid by the taxpayers in the form of section 8. I'm talking about the guy working at Walmart for $7 or $8 per hour. I've got dozens of these tenants and they ALL have a safe, warm place to live and they ALL have cable TV. Almost all of them have a cell phone. They all have food to eat. That is NOT my definition of poor.
Even the people who live under bridges are not poor. Most of them are getting their government check, however they are just choosing to buy crack or meth with it instead of spending that money on rent or food.
quote:Health care profits are insane. They can stand a trim.
So, how much are you socialists going to allow a company to make and who's going to decide?
quote:Besides...we all know that consumer spending is the backbone of the American economy. Investing in people will only help our situation.
Taking money from a productive citizen and giving it to a slacker is NOT investing in anyone. That is just theft!
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
The rules are already in the books PM. No monopolies. Pharmaceutical companies PAY each other and your Pharmacist to keep prices in line with each other to be non-competitive. That constitutes a monopoly though it is brokered by agreement between multiple companies. Most generics costs could be lowered by 200% and still make more profit than the commercial average.
What you say regarding productive citizens and slackers sounds great on paper. But Black and White doesn't work in the real world. The melting pot does not allow for the mono-culture conformity required for that one sentence answer work. A hand MUST be extended at all times for the "slacker" or son/daughter of a "slacker" who is ready to take a step up in responsibility. Otherwise we have a caste system where the sins of the father are revisited upon the son.
Posted by glassman on :
I'm talking about people who receive $600 or $700 per month on welfare and have their housing paid by the taxpayers in the form of section 8. I'm talking about the guy working at Walmart for $7 or $8 per hour.
point made. do the math. cable TV and cell phone? how much is that?
why should somebody have a job and get welfare?
cuz that's what's going on...
the jobs they have are actually subsidized by all of US.. and Wal Mart pockets the "profit" from our subsidy...
does that add up for you?
Posted by cottonjim on :
A little light reading for you folks, I had to dig this out of an old file from a few years ago. This is a piece that i worked on for a while.
The High Cost of Low Prices, Retail Giants Hidden Secrets.
In the never-ending search for the truth many people have said that “Big Box” retail
chain stores are destroying our nations values as well as depleting the local economy of
any town these retail giants invade. But what about those low prices? Studies have been
conducted on both sides of this fierce debate, and in the end the evidence shows that tax
payers are getting the short end of the stick.
Undoubtedly, the biggest of all “Big Box” retail chain stores is Wal-Mart. It seems
that a person can not drive through even a mid-sized town without seeing a Wal-Mart
a super center or a Sams club. Wal-Mart is expanding at an alarming rate. To the tune of
one new super Center every two days (Weiss, 2005). According to Walmartfacts.com
there are currently at least 3,000 stores in the United States and another 1,500 or more
stores else where world wide. By its own count, Wal-Mart (2005) employs
more than 1.6 million people world wide and boasted sales of over two hundred billion
dollars in 2004.
Although Wal-Mart disagrees, it has been shown that the “Always Low Prices” that
the super store advertises costs the tax payers more every year than could possibly
ever be saved by shopping there. According to the AFLCIO (2005) one, 200
employee Wal-Mart store will cost federal tax payers over four 400 thousand dollars
every year. Tax payers will spend another 36 thousand dollars yearly for free and reduced
cost lunches for qualifying low income Wal-Mart families, another 42 thousand dollars
annually for section eight housing, again to low income qualified families, 125 thousand
dollars for federal low income tax credits, and an additional 100thousand dollars for title
one expenses. If that is not enough coming out of tax payer’s pockets, add another
117 thousand dollars for health care and energy assistance.
A recent report compiled by U.S. representative George Miller (2004) provided
evidence that California tax payers had subsidized 20.5 million dollars for medical care
for Wal-Mart employees. According to Wal-Mart itself (2005), it offers reasonable
health care coverage for employees. In fact, Wal-Mart claims to provide insurance for
over 500 thousand associates. 500 thousand employees is an impressive number to
insure, but it does leave you wondering where the other 1.1 million people that Wal-Mart
claims to employ go for insurance. According to the AFL-CIO (2005), Wal-Mart
encourages employees to pursue state funded health care when ever possible.
What about the impact on a community when Wal-Mart opens its doors in town?
Studies have been conducted, and they proved that local businesses flourished in areas
where a Wal-Mart opened. Economist Kenneth Stone (2004) from the University of Iowa
conducted his own study. Mr. Stone did find that there was a slight increase in sales at
area businesses after Wal-Mart opened due to the increased traffic and immediate
interest. To be exact there, was a 3% increase in sales after a Wal-Mart opening. The
long-term effects on the community were much more disastrous. Over all sales, at area
businesses, dropped by an average of 34% Forcing many local stores to shut their doors.
There are those who stand up behind Wal-Mart and try to make the public believe
that the situation is not as grim as nay-sayers make it look. In the article “Does Wal-Mart
Destroy Communities” written by William Anderson (2004), he makes the point that
even though a local “mom and pop” store may close its doors after a Wal-Mart opens, no
one forced them to go out of business. And, in fact, the employees of the smaller store
will most likely go to work for the chain store and have better pay and benefits.
Have a look at the better pay that Mr. Anderson (2004) talks about. Wal-Mart
employees make an average of $7.50 an hour (Herbst, 2001). An educated person knows
that any time you work with averages there are a over abundance of low numbers and
very few high ones. The United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) launched a
campaign to unionize Wal-Mart employees in Las Vegas (Herbst, 2001). The UFCW
found that employees at area Wal-Mart’s made between six and seven dollars an hour,
while employees at area, comparable, businesses made between 10 and 14 dollars an
hour. It hardly seems like the employees of the local stores could loose their job, go to
work for Wal-Mart, and still have the same standard of living.
The fact is, big retail giants are not only destroying every community they in-habit.
They are undermining Americans way of life and costing tax payers more in the long run
than they are worth. Americans have a choice to make; they can be content saving a few
dollars every time they make a trip to one of these retail giants. Or Americans can use
better judgment and realize that all they are doing is costing them selves more money in
the long run.
aflcio.org. Wal-Marts cost to tax payers
Retrieved 5/15/05
Anderson, W.L. (2004) Does Wal Mart Destroy Communities?
mises.org/fullstory. Retrieved 4/27/05
Herbst,M. (2001) Teamsters, UFCW join forces to help Wal Mart workers challenge
low wages, lousy benefits, and disrespect.
Retrieved 5/15/05
. Miller, G. (2004) Every day low wages: The hidden price we all pay for wal mart.
A report by the democratic staff of the committee on education and the workforce.
quote: _________________________________________________ Originally quoted by Propertymanager:
Even the people who live under bridges are not poor. Most of them are getting their government check, however they are just choosing to buy crack or meth with it instead of spending that money on rent or food. _________________________________________________
Sounds like you spend a lot of time under bridges.
Maybe it is the old supply and demand theory. Just not enough demand for the quality of housing that some are supplying.
Reading some of your posts makes me think of a lawyer or doctor standing on a corner waiting for a accident to happen so they can get their next customer.(Or victim depending how you look at it)
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:Maybe it is the old supply and demand theory.
You got that right. It's definitely a supply and demand issue. Not enough government money to pay for the supply of crack they need. That leaves them homeless.
It is not those big 'evil' companies like WalMart that are destroying our country, it's the loss of personal responsibility.
Posted by glassman on :
well then maybe we should just cut out the middlemen and either give the poor people all the crack they can smoke, in which case? we won't have to be doing that for very long cuz crack kills people fairly fast...
or pay the crack dealers to not deal crack?
Posted by Propertymanager on :
How about put the crack dealers in prison and throw away the key?
Posted by glassman on :
then you'll complain about having to pay for their food and cable there too...
you'd be amazed at how many cars i repoed with enough drugs in them to pay the bills..
if i turned it into the police? the cops seize the car and the banks is mad at me.
if i steal the dope? the dealers handlers want me dead.
if give the drugs back? the bank gets paid i get paid and, well, you get the picture..
the best thing was to never find the damn dope. so i didn't look for it.
the real truth is that for every two to five crack dealers on the street? there's some fat cat up in Telluride or Palm Beach sittin' on his azz collecting the real$$$
and those guys are lobbyists.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:then you'll complain about having to pay for their food and cable there too...
No, you wouldn't hear a peep from me about paying for prisons. However, I am certainly not happy about providing criminals with TV or any other entertainment.
quote:you'd be amazed at how many cars i repoed with enough drugs in them to pay the bills..
No, I wouldn't be surprised at all. Deadbeats are often druggies and criminals.
Posted by glassman on :
However, I am certainly not happy about providing criminals with TV or any other entertainment.
maybe you should ask professional prison managers whether cable TV is a good tool for them to use to do their job instead?
Posted by T e x on :
lol, this guy...?
I swear, it's like a kid, pretending to be older...
Posted by bond006 on :
Hi guys most prisons don't have cable to the general population.
They almost all have standard antenna t.v. in a clear plastic case so nothing can be hidden in it.
Yes it does help and keeps a lot of peace after all the reason for a prison is to keep harmful people out of society. It not ment to be a place of extreme punishment and cruelity for 10 years or what ever of a persons life.
Prison is cruel enough and at this point the way it is run is causing almost more harm than good.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Were your parents or are they low income property owners or managers, Propertymanager?
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by IWISHIHAD: Were your parents or are they low income property owners or managers, Propertymanager?
check out his b l og. it's linked thru his profile page... as of now anyway...
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
I had not looked at that part before Glassman.
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
quote:Originally posted by IWISHIHAD: Were your parents or are they low income property owners or managers, Propertymanager?
check out his b l og. it's linked thru his profile page... as of now anyway...
Actually, just skimming, it makes more sense than his posts here do...
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
It appears he is promoting not working in his advertisement. So why is he so ticked at people that have no job?
Isn't that his bread and butter?
Posted by Propertymanager on :
Not working? Not hardly. I worked today - shoveling snow at the apartment buildings and a quick check of the rat's nest for druggies.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
It isn't what you do that is bad.(own low income housing, propertymanager) It's what you promote.
Everything you say leads to the same door.
You keep packing a weapon and working around low income people with the attitude you have towards them and you will most likely end up behind bars some day. What a shame.
If i was you i would find a different profession. But then again i am not you.
Aren't you worried that a lawyer will some day use your prejudice against the low income and homeless to file a suit against you? Especially considering the type of business you are in. You do not seem to try an hide it in any way-- at least not on this board. Or do you think you are hiding it?
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:Aren't you worried that a lawyer will some day use your prejudice against the low income and homeless to file a suit against you?
I am not prejudice against low income people (you've been reading bdgee's 3rd grade nonsense again). I have a bunch of low income tenants and have gotten many complements from the city for providing safe, clean housing. In addition, you are confusing my normal tenants with the drug dealers, druggies, and deadbeats that we inherit when we take over a property. You would be correct in saying that I don't like drug dealers, druggies, and deadbeats. Once we've kicked out these losers, we thoroughly screen applicants to get good tenants. Even conssidering the inherited tenants from buildings we take over, we only have an eviction rate of about 1% per month.
As for being sued, that is a normal part of the business. However, I am not in the least concerned about being sued because I don't like drug dealers, drug addicts, deadbeats, and criminals. These are not protected classes and we can (and MUST) discriminate against them all day long with the city's blessing. In fact, if you were reading the Billary thread, you would see that the city forces landlords to discriminate against these people or receive stiff fines.
I completely understand why you have a different view of the world. I'm guessing that you are a normal middle class person who has lived a normal life. When people tell you something, you can believe it. Most people you deal with are probably hard working, honest people.
I was the same way before I got in this business and still am when dealing with normal, middle class people. However, after dealing for several years on a daily basis with liers, deadbeats, criminals, and druggies, I have a much different perspective on these people. You naively think that these people are victims. I see the reality of the situation because I deal with them every day. They are NOT victims. They are liars, criminals, druggies, and in many cases, pure evil. About 95% of the applicants I talk to on a daily basis have either been evicted (are deadbeats) or are criminals. That is a FACT.
I certainly wouldn't get into another business. I like my business. It is very rewarding to change a street from a drug infested nightmare to a clean, safe place for people to live. I have done this on several streets and feel very good about it.
quote:You keep packing a weapon and working around low income people with the attitude you have towards them and you will most likely end up behind bars some day.
I do not "pack" a weapon. I am not a thug! I do have a concealed carry permit and carry a handgun for protection, because I deal with a lot of dangerous people. However, this is NOT a TV show. I am very careful when working around dangerous people and would take ANY STEP to avoid a confrontation. I have never had my handgun out of its holster and hope I never do!
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
I guess i used the wrong word for carrying a handgun. Not really into them and the proper language. But the end result will be the same, if you got my point-- i have sure gotten yours.
When you lump people together like you have done throughout your posts it only reads one way. I don't think your fooling anyone but yourself, sure not many if any on this board.
So the only time you deal with people and treat them with respect is when they are middle class and above. Your point is well made and mine too.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:So the only time you deal with people and treat them with respect is when they are middle class and above. Your point is well made and mine too.
I think this is a fundamental difference between the right and left. I believe that respect is EARNED, not bestowed simply because a person is breathing. Someone that is a criminal, a deadbeat, or a drug dealer has not earned any respect and I don't give them any. Respect has NOTHING to do with income. I have GREAT RESPECT for someone that is working 2 jobs at minimum wage to provide a living for their family! I have NO RESPECT for an able bodied person who sits on their butt, collecting welfare because they are lazy!
Posted by glassman on :
I completely understand why you have a different view of the world. I'm guessing that you are a normal middle class person who has lived a normal life. When people tell you something, you can believe it. Most people you deal with are probably hard working, honest people.
I was the same way before I got in this business and still am when dealing with normal, middle class people. However, after dealing for several years on a daily basis with liers, deadbeats, criminals, and druggies, I have a much different perspective on these people. You naively think that these people are victims. I see the reality of the situation because I deal with them every day. They are NOT victims. They are liars, criminals, druggies, and in many cases, pure evil. About 95% of the applicants I talk to on a daily basis have either been evicted (are deadbeats) or are criminals. That is a FACT.
nobody is pure evil, just as you (nor anyone else) is pure good...
hence my suggestions to you that yo might be happier in another business too...
i also repeat my earlier statements about you doing business regularly with those drug dealers "bosses" that you aren't aware of and probably even respect. they DO live in Telluride and Palm beach, they are presidents of Frat houses, and bankers...
the street urchins you deal with are the dregs of humanity and will most likely always be trouble unless thay are reformed in some way...
you told me you don't believe in karma when i 'splained about repo work... maybe you think of Karma as some invisible unknown force, it's not, it is very real and the reality is some always rubs off from the people you associate with...
check out this study conducted at Stanford... it had to be ended early because the upper middle class, highly privileged (to get into Stanford)students involved began behaving like animals very quickly... Our planned two-week investigation into the psychology of prison life had to be ended prematurely after only six days because of what the situation was doing to the college students who participated. In only a few days, our guards became sadistic and our prisoners became depressed and showed signs of extreme stress.
You are trying to justify everything you are doing, not uncommon. Take you money and run. Life is way to short to feel the way you do no matter what the rational is for it.
Sounds like you are way to young to become this bitter.
Many of those people you are talking about are veterans and many have their problems. Some do not want a roof to live under bacause sometimes those walls close in. But they do deserve respect and help just like many non veteran families.
You underestimate where i have been what i have done and whom i have dealt with.
I understand what you are saying and not everyone is good but i try and look beyond a few people in a particular group and look at them one person at a time.
Posted by glassman on :
I believe that respect is EARNED, not bestowed simply because a person is breathing.
i had that attitude too for a long long time...
i adjusted myself to grant a large amount of respect to people right off... and then add or deduct as experience dictates...
how do you allow someeone to earn respect if you start off with none for them... you'll find they tend to do the same to you as well...
i was at Morgan Freemans club this past weekend. i saw a young African American bouncer/cover charge collector working at a low wage pick up a 20$ off the floor unnoticed by anyone except me, and he didn't know i saw him cuz i was shooting pool and i have this way of watching everything around me anyway even when it doesn't seem like it...
he found the last guy that came in the door, an old white guy half lit already and asked him if he lost some money. the guy counted his roll and said he lost twenty. the security guard gave it to him.
noone else was the wiser.
i made sure to let the owner know what his guy did.
that's how Karma really works.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:nobody is pure evil
I don't believe that.
quote:i also repeat my earlier statements about you doing business regularly with those drug dealers "bosses" that you aren't aware of and probably even respect. they DO live in Telluride and Palm beach, they are presidents of Frat houses, and bankers...
I don't even know what you're talking about here. So you think my local Ohio bank president is a drug kingpin? I think you've been watching too much TV.
Posted by glassman on :
you are naive... all drug money has to be laundered.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:you are naive... all drug money has to be laundered.
So, are you saying that my local Ohio Bank president is a drug kingpin? That's a little paranoid, isn't it?
Posted by glassman on :
you said it, not me.
what kind of game do you think are you playing here? it's foolish to assume others are naive.
Posted by bond006 on :
prison is full of high wage earners and men of degree that had a lot of what you folks call respect.
Greed got the better of them and guess where they are staying now .
For the most part respect is something you say about some one when there is nothing eles to say about them that is good
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:what kind of game do you think are you playing here? it's foolish to assume others are naive.
I think you're playing bdgee's word games. This IS the problem with our country today. The lefties have successfully blurred the line between right from wrong; between good and evil; between reality and some eutopian fantasy.
There is right and wrong. There is good and evil. Criminals are not victims. Drug dealers are not victims. The millions of lazy people in our country are not victims. The vast majority of people who took out loans with introductory gimmick rates are not victims. Big companies are not evil and are not making excessive profits.
To be so confused that you think my local banker is a drug kingpin is preposterous. Is there a bank president anywhere that is involved in laundering money? Yes. Are the majority of bankers criminals - absolutely not.
You guys are losing touch with reality.
Posted by glassman on :
To be so confused that you think my local banker is a drug kingpin is preposterous.
show me where i said that first.
this is the problem with the "so-called right" today. they are stupid idiots who think they are smart because they can read and use words with four syllables..
they aren't even smart enough to seek wisdom.
i am a true conservative. i don't suffer fools for very long, but i do pity them, unlike the "so-called right" who beleive they weild the sword of righteousness.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
More word games Glass?
Posted by glassman on :
LOL... now you are repeating yourself.
show me where i said your banker is dope dealer.
those are your words, not mine.
that's a junior high school debating technique. by High school? you should be beyond misquoting other people and actually learning how to move the debate back into more familiar territory.
i said there are dope dealers at all strata of society. there has to be for it to b this prevalent. and all drug money MUST be laundered. i m not naming names.
Posted by glassman on :
lemme do you the favor of shifting the debate away from dope dealing:
do you realise that the so-called sub-prime mrotgage crisis is really due to the fact that the bankers loaned out money they NEVER even had?
Posted by bond006 on :
you are right glassman about mortage bankers lending out money that they never had.
It was investors in the end that paid and lost all in this scam.
Investores like large pension funds both private and government both forgien and domestic.
all of them lured in by misleading ratings of these securities by very respected companies like standard and poors who like others made a killing in this fraud.
Some of these private label securities backed by realestate that copied the government version were worthless in 6 months. Many today they say are worth 20 to 30 cents on the dollar if you can find someone to buy them.
Think of how this is going to affect the lives of millions of people that do not even invest at all.
And who will they in the end ask and make responsible to clean the whole mess up I tell you it will be the joe blow tax payer working at his low paying job. Any more in recent history being looked at as the sucker of the world and economic cannon fodder
Posted by Propertymanager on :
Glassman,
Why not be honest enough to say what you mean.
Here is what you said:
quote:i also repeat my earlier statements about you doing business regularly with those drug dealers "bosses" that you aren't aware of and probably even respect. they DO live in Telluride and Palm beach, they are presidents of Frat houses, and bankers...
So, you said that I do business regularly with drug dealers "bosses". You said they are presidents of frat houses and bankers. I asked you if you thought my local banker was a drug kingpin.
To which you responded:
quote:you are naive... all drug money has to be laundered.
So, if that didn't mean "yes", you think my banker is a drug kingpin, what did it mean? Why can't you say what you really mean? Since you said I'm dealing with drug dealer "bosses", who are they and what are you talking about?
You don't sound like a conservative. Conservatives are usually not afraid to just say things straight up. You sound more like the lefties who dare not speak what they really mean.
Posted by glassman on :
LOL. i said it right, out you just wanted twist my words.
i don't know whoTF your banker is, i just know how many hundreds of millions of "drug dollars" are being laundered every year, and i know the whole industry is complicit. you want me to say some specific person is guilty of criminal behaviour? i'm not as much of a fool as you want to believe everybody but you is.
as for your "conservative talk show" type freaks that don't see in living color? they assume everything is black and white because their brains can't process color.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:i just know how many hundreds of millions of "drug dollars" are being laundered every year, and i know the whole industry is complicit.
I think that's a huge exaggeration. I seriously doubt that my local bank in knowingly involved in laundering money!
Posted by glassman on :
yawn, this is becoming boring now...
Posted by glassman on :
here, i was being conservative, as usual
Drug Money Laundering Strategic Findings
* Wholesale-level drug distribution in the United States generates between $13.6 billion and $48.4 billion annually.
* Between $8.3 billion and $24.9 billion in drug proceeds is smuggled out of the United States by Mexican and Colombian DTOs across the U.S.-Mexico border, primarily in bulk through South Texas POEs. These proceeds often are repatriated to a Mexican bank account but sometimes are commingled with legitimate proceeds at Mexican money services businesses (MSBs), then transported back into the United States via legitimate courier companies. Funds transported back to the United States typically are deposited into the MSBs' U.S. bank accounts. From those accounts, the funds are most likely wire-transferred worldwide to correspondent accounts for use by the trafficker or money brokers.
Recent U.S. government analyses conducted at the request of ONDCP suggest that wholesale level drug distribution generates between $13.6 billion and $48.4 billion annually.5 This range, while broad, indicates the magnitude of revenues generated through wholesale drug distribution in domestic drug markets. Substantially more revenue is generated through midlevel and retail drug transactions; however, significant intelligence gaps concerning the volume and value of these transactions preclude precise and reliable estimative analysis as to the extent of the revenue generated through midlevel and retail drug transactions.
Traffickers continue to launder drug profits through traditional depository institutions--banks, savings associations, and credit unions--typically through various structured transactions, including deposits. Depository institutions also are used by traffickers to purchase bank drafts and cashier's checks that can be transferred to any location in or outside the United States. SARs filed by depository institutions increased from 288,343 in 2003 to 381,671 in 2004. From April 1, 1996, to December 31, 2004, approximately half of such SARs were filed in California (24%), New York (11%), Texas (6%), Florida (5%), and Illinois (3%).9 Posted by glassman on :
BTW? i hope you didn't miss this part:
Substantially more revenue is generated through midlevel and retail drug transactions; however, significant intelligence gaps concerning the volume and value of these transactions preclude precise and reliable estimative analysis as to the extent of the revenue generated through midlevel and retail drug transactions
100's of millions is chump change.
Posted by glassman on :
and just in case you think it's all about shady characters and backroom deals? the big pharma companies and the AMA are taking over the traditional markets of the "illegal cartels"...
Disturbing trends
While most illicit drug abuse, particularly for middle and high school teens, began to slow or actually decline in 2002 after a half a decade increase, abuse of prescription drugs continues to climb:
* Over the past decade-and-a-half, the number of teen and young adult (ages 12 to 25) new abusers of prescription painkillers such as oxycodone (OxyContin) or hydrocodone (Vicodin) has grown five-fold (from 400,000 in the mid-eighties to 2 million in 2000). * New misusers of tranquilizers such as diazepam (Valium) or alprazolam (Xanax, called "zanies" by youth)-medicine normally used to treat anxiety or tension-went up nearly 50 percent in one year (700,000 in 1999 to 1 million in 2000). * More than 17 percent of adults over 60, wittingly or not, abuse prescription drugs. * In 2000, more than 19 million prescriptions for ADHD drugs were filled, a 72 percent increase since 1995. An estimated 3 to 5 percent of school-age children have ADHD. A study of students in Wisconsin and Minnesota showed 34 percent of ADHD youth age 11 to 18 report being approached to sell or trade their medicines, such as Ritalin. * Among 12- to 17-year-olds, girls are more likely than boys to use psychotherapeutic drugs nonmedically.
does running around and harrassing the poorest of the victims of this institutionalised large scale criminal enterprise make you feel better? sheesh.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
Are you sure you're a conservative? Conservatives don't see everyone as VICTIMS! Conservatives are for personal responsibility. In addition, I don't run around and harass anyone. I legally evict deadbeats and druggies and then find quality tenants, which, as you saw in the Nuisance Laws I posted earlier, is exactly what the city requires.
Posted by glassman on :
lighten up man, it just seems to me like you are a little "preoccupied" with the dopes using dope.
after all? YOU are the one that tried to say i was accusing your banker of being involved, when i n fact i was saying that there are many many people involved, and many of them present themselves to the world as conservatives...
the poorest of the druggies? i am not defending them. i do see them as victims, but mostly victims of themselves.
and?
you and i and and most people are only one minor car accident away from finding out the horrors of PHYSICAL addiction.
psychological addiction tends to affect many fewer people.
rush limbaugh calls himself a conservative, i bleieve he stayed of the military for a boil on his butt, and then got himself hooked on oxycontin....
of course guys like him can afford the medical treatment to help him get "fixed" but then he makes his money sitting on his fat azz and talking nasty about people ... what a joke.
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Are you sure you're a conservative?
Have asked this before, elsewhere, elsewhen:
What is it that "conservatives" conserve? Who is a "model" conservative? I think we all agree Bush is no conservative.
Posted by glassman on :
well, a conservative has to support the military even tho they've never served.
they have to beleive that human life started 6000 years ago and every one is precious.. unless they are convicted of a serious crime? then they should be executed...
they have to beleive that lower taxes and borrowing money to pay for the govts spending is a good thing..
they have to beleive that too much education is a bad thing..
the list goes on...
Posted by Propertymanager on :
I think you're getting close.
Conservatives support the troops. Whether you served in the military or not is irrelevant.
Conservatives don't support murdering unborn babies, but do support executing convicted murderers (that's quite a difference).
Conservatives believe in smaller government and lower taxes - not borrowing money for big government spending.
Conservatives do not believe that too much education is a bad thing.
President Bush is NOT a conservative - not even close.
Posted by T e x on :
"Conservatives don't support murdering unborn babies"
At 6 weeks, they're fair game?
Posted by Propertymanager on :
Not at 6 weeks either.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: I think you're getting close.
Conservatives support the troops. Whether you served in the military or not is irrelevant.
Conservatives don't support murdering unborn babies, but do support executing convicted murderers (that's quite a difference).
Conservatives believe in smaller government and lower taxes - not borrowing money for big government spending.
Conservatives do not believe that too much education is a bad thing.
President Bush is NOT a conservative - not even close.
we are gettin' close. the problem is that there are no conservatives up in Wash DC..
and? there won't be any time soon.
however there is one fine point i'll make on your argument
a real conservative knows enough to their keep nose out of other peoples bedrooms and bodies.
Posted by bond006 on :
Property you as a lot of republicans do make such a point out of supporting the troops.
It is like ou are saying that anybody that questions the war does not support our troops.
Do you not think it is in the country's best interest to question evrything very carefully and make sure that our most sacrared resourse is not given up foolishly and if we were misled that the damage should be stopped as soon as possible?
How many more Viet Nams do we have to have to learn.
At the time of Viet Nam I thought the protestors were bad Americans because they weren't supporting me and my friends. Now I know through hind sight that they were real American hereoes that had our best interest at heart.
They could have been like the gold bricks that stayed home and yelled there support and then hid, but they put themselves in danger to get us home and stop that useless slaughter.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:the problem is that there are no conservatives up in Wash DC..and? there won't be any time soon.
On that we can certainly agree.
quote:Do you not think it is in the country's best interest to question evrything very carefully and make sure that our most sacrared resourse is not given up foolishly and if we were misled that the damage should be stopped as soon as possible?
YES. I think it's absolutely necessary to have both conservatives and liberals and to question everything on both sides.
Posted by glassman on :
YES. I think it's absolutely necessary to have both conservatives and liberals and to question everything on both sides.
so? in the interest of debate/discourse do you sometimes make posts that are a wee bit provocative in order to motivate other people to "chime in"? Posted by T e x on :
lol... I was thinking of asking sumpin like, "Why liberals?"
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:so? in the interest of debate/discourse do you sometimes make posts that are a wee bit provocative in order to motivate other people to "chime in"?
They might be provocative, but I always post what I actually believe.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager:
quote:so? in the interest of debate/discourse do you sometimes make posts that are a wee bit provocative in order to motivate other people to "chime in"?
They might be provocative, but I always post what I actually believe.
i beleive you do.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: I think you're getting close.
Conservatives support the troops. Whether you served in the military or not is irrelevant.
Conservatives don't support murdering unborn babies, but do support executing convicted murderers (that's quite a difference).
Conservatives believe in smaller government and lower taxes - not borrowing money for big government spending.
Conservatives do not believe that too much education is a bad thing.
President Bush is NOT a conservative - not even close.
A liberal supports the troops. And will be pushing the conservatives to remember to support the troops twenty years from now when the psychological effects of being in a war zone debilitates them and put them on disability.
A liberal knows that making a law saying "Thou shalt not be gay" won't stop people from being gay.
A liberal knows that making a law saying "Thou shall not abort" will not stop abortions in America.
THIS liberal doesn't care about murderers...you can deal with them as you choose. (My wife would disagree with me though.)
A liberal knows that conservatives talk a big game about fiscal responsibility...but we haven't seen any from the party in over 20 years. It's been up to us to clean up the mess. (Half of why we've had to raise taxes.)
A liberal also believes education is a good thing. A liberal believes that education goes beyond multiple choice questions and has the audacity to suggest that teachers be paid a middle class wage for their work.
President Bush may not be a conservative now but the conservative base embraced him easily enough 4 years ago. On the other hand President Bush was NEVER a liberal or embraced by the liberal base.
Posted by retiredat49 on :
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Bigfoot: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Propertymanager: [qb]
THIS liberal doesn't care about murderers...you can deal with them as you choose. (My wife would disagree with me though.)
How convenient Big....that is one of the issues that I have with Liberals...they don't have solutions...just rhetoric.
A liberal knows that conservatives talk a big game about fiscal responsibility...but we haven't seen any from the party in over 20 years. It's been up to us to clean up the mess. (Half of why we've had to raise taxes.)
You MUST be joking...I haven't seen fiscal responsibility from EITHER side in 40 years...oh and by the way...liberals don't "clean up the mess" by raising taxes...they only add to the mess while raising taxes. (don't even start with the "Clinton balancing the budget" crap).
Posted by glassman on :
the Clinton admin inherited a "peace dividedend" which can actually be attributed to Richrd Nixon (not Reagan) and they also inherited a "payoff" in the form of cheap oil prices from the Saudis for the first gulf war.
the Operating System windows increased US worker productivity by leaps and bounds during his admin too...
the Clintons are/were not a magic bullet for America. people that look back fondly on their "reign" are not seeing the true reasons for the economic boom. the president can screw up an economy (which Dubya certainly has), but the president doesn't make a good economy...
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Bigfoot:
THIS liberal doesn't care about murderers...you can deal with them as you choose. (My wife would disagree with me though.)
How convenient Big....that is one of the issues that I have with Liberals...they don't have solutions...just rhetoric.
What answers are you looking for exactly? I don't care about the death penalty. Personal opinion. My wife hates it. If you are asking about rehabilitation I can point you to two different groups, one religious in nature, one that uses "talking circles and community intervention" as its base line. Both programs have shown to have recidivism rates under 10%. If you are asking for answers regarding rehabilitation I point to those programs as my answer.
quote: A liberal knows that conservatives talk a big game about fiscal responsibility...but we haven't seen any from the party in over 20 years. It's been up to us to clean up the mess. (Half of why we've had to raise taxes.)
You MUST be joking...I haven't seen fiscal responsibility from EITHER side in 40 years...oh and by the way...liberals don't "clean up the mess" by raising taxes...they only add to the mess while raising taxes. (don't even start with the "Clinton balancing the budget" crap).
You are saying Clinton was as fiscally irresponsible as Bushy boy has been? LOL If you really believe that you have been boons-waggled good and thorough.
big, i can't speak for 49, but i can speak for alot of people of MY age group, which is the last of the baby boomers and below.
we've come to be sick and tired of the Clinton/Newt Gringrich attitudes/games.
Hillary is running against Bush.
she can't win against anybody else.
Bush is over.
let's move on.
PS: Obamma is also one of the last of the baby boomers.
Posted by retiredat49 on :
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot:
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Bigfoot:
THIS liberal doesn't care about murderers...you can deal with them as you choose. (My wife would disagree with me though.)
How convenient Big....that is one of the issues that I have with Liberals...they don't have solutions...just rhetoric.
What answers are you looking for exactly? I don't care about the death penalty. Personal opinion. My wife hates it. If you are asking about rehabilitation I can point you to two different groups, one religious in nature, one that uses "talking circles and community intervention" as its base line. Both programs have shown to have recidivism rates under 10%. If you are asking for answers regarding rehabilitation I point to those programs as my answer.
quote: A liberal knows that conservatives talk a big game about fiscal responsibility...but we haven't seen any from the party in over 20 years. It's been up to us to clean up the mess. (Half of why we've had to raise taxes.)
You MUST be joking...I haven't seen fiscal responsibility from EITHER side in 40 years...oh and by the way...liberals don't "clean up the mess" by raising taxes...they only add to the mess while raising taxes. (don't even start with the "Clinton balancing the budget" crap).
You are saying Clinton was as fiscally irresponsible as Bushy boy has been? LOL If you really believe that you have been boons-waggled good and thorough.
I made no fiscal comparison between Clinton and Bush exclusively....I simply stated that both parties are fiscally irresponsible and have been for years...and that raising taxes has not solved anything.
If you believe otherwise, then it is YOU that has had the "sheets pulled over your eyes".
Posted by retiredat49 on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: big, i can't speak for 49, but i can speak for alot of people of MY age group, which is the last of the baby boomers and below.
we've come to be sick and tired of the Clinton/Newt Gringrich attitudes/games.
Hillary is running against Bush.
she can't win against anybody else.
Bush is over.
let's move on.
PS: Obamma is also one of the last of the baby boomers.
Yeah...you can speak for me gman.
That pretty much sums it up...
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Ah, but it is the Democrats that have been demonized for tax and spend politics for years when the republicans don't even bother to trying to pay for the even more egregious spending habits they have.
And raising taxes will be necessary at this point to bring down the deficit. There are significant savings that can be had by reducing the inefficiencies that we have allowed into our systems of business and government but it will not be enough to offset the burden we have incurred thanks to 12 years of Bush.
Posted by retiredat49 on :
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot:
And raising taxes will be necessary at this point to bring down the deficit. There are significant savings that can be had by reducing the inefficiencies that we have allowed into our systems of business and government but it will not be enough to offset the burden we have incurred thanks to 12 years of Bush.
Raising taxes is the same liberal solution that they have used for years...GUESS WHAT? It doesn't work, never has, never will...lets try something new and innovative like maybe...STOP SPENDING...
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: big, i can't speak for 49, but i can speak for alot of people of MY age group, which is the last of the baby boomers and below.
we've come to be sick and tired of the Clinton/Newt Gringrich attitudes/games.
Hillary is running against Bush.
she can't win against anybody else.
Bush is over.
let's move on.
PS: Obamma is also one of the last of the baby boomers.
I will be very happy if Obama wins and Hillary loses. I will be alright if Hillary wins. Hell, I'll even be ok if Mccain takes it home though it will leave me with a sour stomach, not so much for the man as for what it represents.
Bush may be over. But the dissatisfaction within the Republican party over McCain shows that a large portion of the Republican base has not learned anything over these last 8 years and if we aren't careful they will continue to ruin this country of ours with reckless abandon as they pursue their personal projects of making sure that gays are discriminated against, vulnerable women are forced into back alleys and out of sight, and proving their manhood with the lives of our young men and women against 2nd world countries who dared to tell the USA to stop blustering in public when our own representatives are deeply involved in the backroom deals that are being defamed.
Posted by glassman on :
But the dissatisfaction within the Republican party over McCain shows that a large portion of the Republican base has not learned anything over these last 8 years
and they never will.
but?
IMO the Clintons do not represent the "good old days"
there is some sort of memory blindpsot there.
for instance?
the youngest boomers in general have been screwed over every step of the way.
they graduated with degrees to find no GOOD jobs available.
they were FORCED to take on avg 10 jobs (or more) in 20 years.
Ten jobs by age 36 - average number of jobs held by baby boomers - Brief Article Monthly Labor Review, Sept, 2002
The average person born in the later years of the baby boom held 9.6 jobs from ages 18 to 36. These younger boomers, persons born from 1957 to 1964 and thus now aged 38 to 45, held 4.4 of those jobs while they were young adults (ages 18 to 22)
the eldest boomers started the dismantling of the American industrial complex because they put their money in other places besides solid profitable companies.
why is GM failing? because they don't build the cars we really NEED. the fact is that the leadership there has been very short-sighted.
we don't make steel here in the US anymore. why? because the eldest boomers dismantled the co's and then claimed we couldn't compete due to eco-laws. that's BULL too... they dismantled them for the pension funds and the cash they could get for the assets.
i'm sick and tired of having the two parties keep pointing fingers at each other.
i don't HEAR Obama doing that.
i heard him say the GOP was the party of new ideas and when he said that? he was being honest with his voters. the Clintons jumped on that like he was some sort of heretic.
nothing is black and white.
the eldest boomers inherited the most wealth ever seen on the planet, and what i see? is them leaving us "youngsters" with a g-damn huge bill to pay for their party.
my dissatisfaction with the status quo is not about liberal or conservative. it's about being responsible for your own actions and the liberal/conservative argument is about BOTH sides blaming the other...
when my kids get into an argument? i send all parties to their rooms and i don't even bother asking why they are arguing.
later? i MAY discuss it with them? but they have learned to work chit out without arguing because they know they all lose if they don't settle it without the yelling and screaming and finger pointing (it's a vast right wing conspiracy? LOL)
Posted by Propertymanager on :
the dissatisfaction within the Republican party over McCain shows that a large portion of the Republican base has not learned anything over these last 8 years and if we aren't careful they
quote:...will continue to ruin this country of ours with reckless abandon as they pursue their personal projects of making sure that gays are discriminated against
NO ONE in the Republican party wants to discriminate against gays. That's ridiculous!
quote:...vulnerable women are forced into back alleys and out of sight
Even more ridiculous. You want gays to have special rights, but won't even afford unborn babies the right to live!!!
quote:and proving their manhood with the lives of our young men and women against 2nd world countries who dared to tell the USA to stop blustering in public when our own representatives are deeply involved in the backroom deals that are being defamed.
Killing Al Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan is completely justified and a totally necessary action. I know liberals like to think that everyone is good, but that is not the truth. Radical Islam has as one of its goals to KILL the infidels (that's us)! They declared war on us, not the other way around.
As far as Iraq, they certainly DID have weapons of mass destruction. After all, they used them on the Kurds and the Iranians. Every intelligence agency in the world believed he had weapons of mass destruction and Saddam thumbed his nose repeatedly at the world.
Posted by glassman on :
Killing Al Qaeda in Iraq
there was NO alqueda in Iraq until we went over there.
Bush knew that. he lied. he lied alot.
i would be willing to vote for ANYBODY that said they were going to get justice for what Dubya has done. (even Hillary, but she voted to invade Iraq so i doubt she would ever take that position)
i don't see anybody making a case for doing it tho.
maybe? we will see it come August. but i'm not holding my breath.
what about Saudi Arabia? they are where most of the 9-11 bombers came from.
Posted by glassman on :
As far as Iraq, they certainly DID have weapons of mass destruction. After all, they used them on the Kurds and the Iranians. Every intelligence agency in the world believed he had weapons of mass destruction and Saddam thumbed his nose repeatedly at the world.
where have you been the last three years?
not only is that a bogus statement about every intelligence agency in the world?
there are agencies in our OWN government that did not believe the evidence was there..
your and Dubya's defense of "cosnervatism" is why the GOP is about dead. (even tho you admit Bush isn't a "real consevative")
the only chance the GOP has of recovering is for Hillary to run.
the Iraq war was a personal vendetta by Dubya. the evidence is clear as day.
people began telling US all this right away and scared folks told them to shutup and called them liars.
Clarke: 'White House is papering over facts'
Tuesday, March 23, 2004 Posted: 2:39 PM EST (1939 GMT)
NEW YORK (CNN) -- Former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke will testify Wednesday before a commission investigating the attacks of September 11, 2001. Clarke claims in a new book, "Against All Enemies," that President Bush ignored the terrorist threat before September 11, 2001. Administration officials called Clarke's assertions "flat-out wrong."
CNN anchor Bill Hemmer spoke Tuesday with Clarke, who also says Bush asked him on September 12, 2001, to look for links between al Qaeda and Iraq.
HEMMER: You paint a picture of a White House obsessed with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Why do you believe that was the case?
CLARKE: Because I was there and I saw it. You know, the White House is papering over facts, such as, in the weeks immediately after 9/11, the president signed a national security directive instructing the Pentagon to prepare for the invasion of Iraq. Even though they knew at the time from me, from the FBI, from the CIA that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
HEMMER: The White House says that before they even arrived at the White House, the previous administration was obsessed with nothing. I want you to look at a picture that we saw last week from NBC News -- an Al Qaeda terrorist training camp outside of Kandahar, Afghanistan. They allege, at the time, why wasn't anything done to take al Qaeda out. This was August of 2000. ( Full story)
CLARKE: Well, a great deal was done. The administration stopped the al Qaeda attacks in the United States and around the world at the millennium period, they stopped al Qaeda in Bosnia, they stopped al Qaeda from blowing up embassies around the world, they authorized covert lethal action by the CIA against al Qaeda, they retaliated with cruise missile strikes into Afghanistan, they got sanctions against Afghanistan from the United Nations. There was a great deal the
I am with you glass I would love to see Bush behind bars he has certainly earned that right.
But wether dem or rep any more they stick side by sideand won't rat the other out.
I like Americans all over this country are just pissed with our leaders atittude of them agaist us.
We as citizens try to follow the law we are taught right from wrong. We believe in our constitution.
Bush has referd to it in the past as just a piece of old paper.
Why as Americans to we humble ourselves to him? Why in Gods name do we let his criminal minority of 25 to 30 percent run things why do we let ourselves be ruled by fear.
It is at the point the tail is waging the dog
Posted by glassman on :
wasn't "Oil for Food" abuse one of the "excuses" to invade too? didn't people say that Iraq was cheating with France and Russia? didn't peopls say that's why France and Russia and germany refused to SUPPORT US in the invasion?
sheesh:
Audit: U.S. lost track of $9 billion in Iraq funds Pentagon, Bremer dispute inspector general's report
Monday, January 31, 2005 Posted: 0412 GMT (1212 HKT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Nearly $9 billion of money spent on Iraqi reconstruction is unaccounted for because of inefficiencies and bad management, according to a watchdog report published Sunday.
An inspector general's report said the U.S.-led administration that ran Iraq until June 2004 is unable to account for the funds.
"Severe inefficiencies and poor management" by the Coalition Provisional Authority has left auditors with no guarantee the money was properly used," the report said.
"The CPA did not establish or implement sufficient managerial, financial and contractual controls to ensure that [Development Fund for Iraq] funds were used in a transparent manner," said Stuart W. Bowen Jr., director of the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.
The $8.8 billion was reported to have been spent on salaries, operating and capital expenditures, and reconstruction projects between October 2003 and June 2004, Bowen's report concluded.
The money came from revenues from the United Nations' former oil-for-food program, oil sales and seized assets -- all Iraqi money. The audit did not examine the use of U.S. funds appropriated for reconstruction. (Full story)
i suspect most of his continuing supporters either refuse to believe anything they aren't old by the party, or they are on the payroll themselves...
Posted by glassman on :
how did i miss this last week?
Iraqi Threatens to Disband Parliament
By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA – 5 days ago
BAGHDAD (AP) — The speaker of Iraq's fragmented parliament threatened Tuesday to disband the legislature, saying it is so riddled with distrust it appears unable to adopt the budget or agree on a law setting a date for provincial elections.
Disbanding parliament would prompt new elections within 60 days and further undermine Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's shaky government, which is limping along with nearly half of the 40 Cabinet posts vacant.
The disarray undermines the purpose of last year's U.S. troop "surge" — to bring down violence enough to allow the Iraqi government and parliament to focus on measures to reconcile differences among minority Sunnis and Kurds and the majority Shiites. Violence is down dramatically, but political progress languishes.
Iraq's constitution allows Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, the hot-tempered speaker and a member of the minority Sunni faction, to dissolve parliament if one-third of its members request the move and a majority of lawmakers approve. Al-Mashhadani said he already had sufficient backing for the move from five political blocs, but he refused to name them.
Al-Mashhadani said the Iraqi treasury had already lost $3 billion by failing to pass the budget before the end of 2007. He did not explain how the money was lost.
He blamed the lack of a budget on Kurdish politicians who have refused to back down from a demand that their regional and semiautonomous government be guaranteed 17 percent of national income.
The 17 percent formula for Kurds was applied to past budgets, but some Sunni and Shiite lawmakers sought to lower it to about 14 percent. The argument is that the Kurdish population is closer to 14 percent of Iraq's total than 17 percent as Kurds insist. There has been no census in decades.
yeah the surge is working, but the whole premise of "giving them freedom" is flawed. they don't WANT it..
Posted by glassman on :
Iraqi parliament passes 3 key laws Bill meets part of U.S. demand for benchmarks
By Liz Sly | Tribune correspondent February 14, 2008
BAGHDAD — In a rare burst of productivity Wednesday, Iraq's parliament bundled together three key laws and approved them as a package, ending months of deadlock in the country's long-stalled political process.
Two of the laws, providing for a general amnesty for thousands of Iraqi prisoners and defining the powers of Iraq's provinces, belong to the set of benchmarks identified by the U.S. Congress to measure the progress of the Bush administration's Iraq strategy. The third, Iraq's delayed $48 billion budget for 2008, is considered vital for the government to continue to function and to start work on much-needed reconstruction projects.
Immediately after the unanimous vote, parliament declared a five-week holiday, deferring for now any further progress toward other key benchmarks such as a new oil law
hmmmm.....
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: [QUOTE] NO ONE in the Republican party wants to discriminate against gays. That's ridiculous!
Then give them the ability to have the same rights as married couples. I don't care what you call it but stability in relationships is a good thing and should be encouraged, not constitutionally banned.
quote:...vulnerable women are forced into back alleys and out of sight
Even more ridiculous. You want gays to have special rights, but won't even afford unborn babies the right to live!!!
I'd love for every unborn child to have a chance to live! And we are making progress there. Abortion rates have been dropping steadily since 1980 as education and alternatives continue to make headway. If we ban abortions the problem will not go away but every way of monitoring it will. Every method of ensuring these women are presented with options will be gone. Every assurance of a clean safe environment will disappear.
In 1973, the year after Roe v. Wade, there were somewhere between 600,000-750,000 abortions. Do you really think 600,000 women all of a sudden decided it was OK to get pregnant with a child they didn't want?? This was a dark alley that got brought to light thanks to Roe v. Wade and the worst thing we could do is shove it back in the alley with the mistaken impression that we would be protecting anything.
quote: Killing Al Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan is completely justified and a totally necessary action. I know liberals like to think that everyone is good, but that is not the truth. Radical Islam has as one of its goals to KILL the infidels (that's us)! They declared war on us, not the other way around.
The work in Afghanistan was going great until Bush took it in his head that Iraq should be involved. Not only has Al Qaeda reclaimed a lot of Afghanistan as the military tries to clean up Bush's obsession but they have lost many of the Afghani leaders that had stepped up in defiance of Al Qaeda who were ready to lead their country in a new direction.
Your argument is BS revisionist history and you know it.
Posted by glassman on :
A Message to the President: Abortion Can Be Safe, Legal and Still Rare By Susan A. Cohen
For example, abortion is completely illegal throughout Latin America, but abortion rates in Peru, Chile and the Dominican Republic have been estimated to be more than twice the U.S. rate. In Brazil and Colombia, they are substantially higher as well. At the same time, these countries' maternal mortality rates, which are highly associated with unsafe abortion, range from six times to more than 20 times the rate in the United States.
By contrast, in virtually every country in which abortion is legal and also widely available from trained clinicians, abortion-related mortality and morbidity is virtually nonexistent. Moreover, in these countries, abortion rates are by no means necessarily high. Indeed, in some countries in which abortion is not only legal but also very easily accessible to women and even free of charge under a national health insurance system, rates of abortion are among the world's lowest. Countries in this category include the Netherlands, Belgium, Finland and Italy.
The Role of Family Planning
It is clear that for individual women and couples having intercourse, contraceptive use is effective in preventing unintended pregnancy. Research indicates that U.S. women using a method of contraception are only 15% as likely as sexually active women using no method to have an abortion. Put another way, contraception reduces the probability of having an abortion by 85%.
More than nine in 10 U.S. women aged 15-44 who are at risk of unintended pregnancy are using some form of contraception. Rather than using abortion as a method of birth control, then, as opponents of family planning proclaim, virtually all sexually active women are trying to prevent an unintended pregnancy. But contraceptive methods are imperfect, as are the people who use them—so contraceptive failures do occur, resulting in unintended pregnancies. For this reason, just over half of the three million unintended pregnancies in the United States each year occur to the 36 million women who are using contraception. But what is really striking is that almost half of the unintended pregnancies, and almost half of all the abortions annually, occur to the three million women who do not use contraception.
I am a man that does not personaly believe in abortion.
But my personal beliefes have nothing to do with civil law why would I want somebody who wants an abortion to have it in someones basement?
If you look at this issue from the financial side of life stop making giving birth a financial problem, A social hardship. Such as your job is gone when you go back to work.
If you take the financial hardship out of this problem you will find most women would have a child it is just in there nature as women.
Of course get a right wing conservative and they will find all the money they need for war, try to get a dime for health,education,or employment and we are tld there is not enough money
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by bond006: I am a man that does not personaly believe in abortion.
But my personal beliefes have nothing to do with civil law why would I want somebody who wants an abortion to have it in someones basement?
If you look at this issue from the financial side of life stop making giving birth a financial problem, A social hardship. Such as your job is gone when you go back to work.
If you take the financial hardship out of this problem you will find most women would have a child it is just in there nature as women.
Of course get a right wing conservative and they will find all the money they need for war, try to get a dime for health,education,or employment and we are tld there is not enough money
i couldna said it better myself...
the only thing i would add is that anybody who uses abortion as a regular form of birth control is NOT going to be good parent and is likely to create an even greater burden on society in general....
one thing people forget is that a woman that is not allowed to finish her education and become upwardly mobile may eventually not be able to AFFORD to have any more kids in the future. it may literally be a choice between 1 kid in poverty and three kids in the middle class.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
'Even more ridiculous. You want gays to have special rights, but won't even afford unborn babies the right to live"!!!
_________________________________________________
Does this mean you do not "believe" in abortion Propertymanager?
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:If you take the financial hardship out of this problem you will find most women would have a child it is just in there nature as women.
That's the most ridiculous statement I've seen in a long time. There is NO financial hardship to having a child out of wedlock. In fact, our wacko socialist left so loves the idea that women are encouraged to have more kids via increases in their welfare, Section 8, and other government handouts!!! Wake up!
quote:Does this mean you do not "believe" in abortion Propertymanager?
I certainly "believe" that the left loves to murder unborn children, if that's what you mean.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Iraqi parliament passes 3 key laws Bill meets part of U.S. demand for benchmarks
By Liz Sly | Tribune correspondent February 14, 2008
BAGHDAD — In a rare burst of productivity Wednesday, Iraq's parliament bundled together three key laws and approved them as a package, ending months of deadlock in the country's long-stalled political process.
Two of the laws, providing for a general amnesty for thousands of Iraqi prisoners and defining the powers of Iraq's provinces, belong to the set of benchmarks identified by the U.S. Congress to measure the progress of the Bush administration's Iraq strategy. The third, Iraq's delayed $48 billion budget for 2008, is considered vital for the government to continue to function and to start work on much-needed reconstruction projects.
Immediately after the unanimous vote, parliament declared a five-week holiday, deferring for now any further progress toward other key benchmarks such as a new oil law
hmmmm.....
Yeah...what do you make of that? Obviously something going on behind the scenes there.
Posted by bond006 on :
Well property if don't believe in abortion don't get one.
It's that simple to me.
The right will support war for no benifit to the country and support the slaughter of millions of women and childern.
They feel this is ok and moral
As a matter of fact like general Smidly Butler used to say,two time medal of honor winner, they support the blood bath but they niether want to pay for it or fight it.
But when it comes to abortion they will scream to the top of there lungs about a situation that is really none of there business.
Then once the child is born they no longer want to educate it or help it.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:But when it comes to abortion they will scream to the top of there lungs about a situation that is really none of there business.
Murdering unborn babies is everybody's business.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager:
quote:If you take the financial hardship out of this problem you will find most women would have a child it is just in there nature as women.
That's the most ridiculous statement I've seen in a long time. There is NO financial hardship to having a child out of wedlock. In fact, our wacko socialist left so loves the idea that women are encouraged to have more kids via increases in their welfare, Section 8, and other government handouts!!! Wake up!
quote:Does this mean you do not "believe" in abortion Propertymanager?
I certainly "believe" that the left loves to murder unborn children, if that's what you mean.
wow, i suppose you JUST want more of them on your own personal section 8 *gravy train*. HOW *PHILANTHROPIC* OF YOU Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager:
quote:But when it comes to abortion they will scream to the top of there lungs about a situation that is really none of there business.
Murdering unborn babies is everybody's business.
no doubt you beleive Terry Schaivo should have been kept on a ventilator for another 30 years too....
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:no doubt you beleive Terry Schaivo should have been kept on a ventilator for another 30 years too....
The Terry Schaivo case has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with murdering unborn babies - nothing.
Posted by jordanreed on :
it is your opinion that abortion is the murdering of unborn babies...i think a few people might disagree with you
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
So anytime a child dies it is a crime, yes pm?
Doing anything for the children who die of malaria every year in central and south america?
Doing anything for the children who die of starvation in Africa?
Or does your zeal for children's rights only go so far as your vote?
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:it is your opinion that abortion is the murdering of unborn babies...i think a few people might disagree with you
What would you call it?
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:So anytime a child dies it is a crime, yes pm?
Doing anything for the children who die of malaria every year in central and south america?
Doing anything for the children who die of starvation in Africa?
No, everytime a child dies, it is not a crime. That's silly. However, everytime a child is murdered, THAT IS A CRIME! I'm surprised that you don't understand the difference between a someone being MURDERED and someone that dies of a disease or even famine.
Yes, I certainly do support children all over the world.
That's the one of the many problems with the left, they are so screwed up that they don't even understand the difference between right and wrong. When you don't even know the difference between murder and death from an illness, that is problem.
Posted by jordanreed on :
abortion of a fetus under ,i'm not sure' is it fourteen weeks?..is not murder..nor is it a crime..according to the supreme court..they dont call it murder..
but you do...you are clearly wrong..
it is only your opinion that it is murder..the majority of people in the US dont agree with you//as I'm sure you have encountered before..
but why debate this?..a definitive answer will never be fully accepted be either oppossing stance..you are obviously looking for a fight and trying to push peoples buttons...why? doesnt anyone love you?...
Posted by jordanreed on :
is shrimping murder? thats the equivalent of a legally aborted fetus..
Posted by jordanreed on :
now, I've got to get back to sax practice, so see ya later, boscoe
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:is shrimping murder? thats the equivalent of a legally aborted fetus..
Yeah, that's the same. Harvesting shrimp for Long John Silvers is exactly the same as murdering unborn BABIES! You got me there!
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager:
quote:no doubt you beleive Terry Schaivo should have been kept on a ventilator for another 30 years too....
The Terry Schaivo case has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with murdering unborn babies - nothing.
do you base your definition of murder on Religious reasons or biological ones?
this is a very important question. don't waffle.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
I never waffle. Religious reasons primarily. However, common sense also. It certainly isn't a shrimp, or a kitten, or an alien. IT'S A BABY! To claim anything else is simply nonsense and disingenuous.
Posted by glassman on :
OK, Religion is important, i assume you are Christian. Please refer me to the relevant Bible verses. i have read the Bible and i just can't seem to recall them addressing the issue.
however, i do recall that killing in general is frowned upon.
i think that the whole issue is made up by modern religious politicians to garner votes. they most definitely performed abortions as far back as 1000 BC.
they even did brain surgery.
birth control was also available to wealthy women at the time of the building of the pyramids....
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
You live in a fantasy world Propertymanager. You say you believe in what you post i assume you ”believe” from post to post but no longer.
It appears you do not believe in abortion but you also believe there should be no aid for anyone. You feel that if someone works two jobs(16 hours or more) at minimum wage is okay as long as you don’t have to pay for the free loaders.
Where do you think some of these kids are heading under your criteria.
I do not know what you think happens to these kids when these single parents have these babies. I take that back you know exactly what happens with these kids in many of these situations, just as you well know what happens to veterans and others that are on the street.
I feel most people deserve better and we should help them when ever possible.
You never answered my question on veterans that are left to rot out there. You think its okay because they deserve it or in your term they deserve no "respect". Remember some of these veterans are on those drugs you talk about.
But also remember it is guys like them that allowed you the freedoms you have today.
Posted by glassman on :
OK, since you aren't responding, i'll push forward without you:
Exodus 21
22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. Posted by glassman on :
Leviticus 27 Redeeming What Is the LORD's
1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'If anyone makes a special vow to dedicate persons to the LORD by giving equivalent values, 3 set the value of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty at fifty shekels [a] of silver, according to the sanctuary shekel ; 4 and if it is a female, set her value at thirty shekels. [c] 5 If it is a person between the ages of five and twenty, set the value of a male at twenty shekels [d] and of a female at ten shekels. [e] 6 If it is a person between one month and five years, set the value of a male at five shekels [f] of silver and that of a female at three shekels [g] of silver. 7 If it is a person sixty years old or more, set the value of a male at fifteen shekels [h] and of a female at ten shekels. 8 If anyone making the vow is too poor to pay the specified amount, he is to present the person to the priest, who will set the value for him according to what the man making the vow can afford.
one month? no younger?
Posted by glassman on :
Numbers 3 The Levites
14 The LORD said to Moses in the Desert of Sinai, 15 "Count the Levites by their families and clans. Count every male a month old or more." 16 So Moses counted them, as he was commanded by the word of the LORD.
i find it interesting that people of Faith have no Faith in the Lords ability to right a wrong to one without any sin at all. that's paradoxical IMO...
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49:
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot:
And raising taxes will be necessary at this point to bring down the deficit. There are significant savings that can be had by reducing the inefficiencies that we have allowed into our systems of business and government but it will not be enough to offset the burden we have incurred thanks to 12 years of Bush.
Raising taxes is the same liberal solution that they have used for years...GUESS WHAT? It doesn't work, never has, never will...lets try something new and innovative like maybe...STOP SPENDING...
Cutting taxes does not work neither... I love how GOP Politicos say they always cut taxes... what they fail to say in the same sentence is they raise something else that hits our wallets anyways to make up the difference... balances out...
Posted by retiredat49 on :
quote:Originally posted by Machiavelli:
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49:
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot:
And raising taxes will be necessary at this point to bring down the deficit. There are significant savings that can be had by reducing the inefficiencies that we have allowed into our systems of business and government but it will not be enough to offset the burden we have incurred thanks to 12 years of Bush.
Raising taxes is the same liberal solution that they have used for years...GUESS WHAT? It doesn't work, never has, never will...lets try something new and innovative like maybe...STOP SPENDING...
Cutting taxes does not work neither... I love how GOP Politicos say they always cut taxes... what they fail to say in the same sentence is they raise something else that hits our wallets anyways to make up the difference... balances out...
I love how DEM Politicos say they will raise taxes to balance the budget...what they fail to say in the same sentence is that they will spend the extra taxes on something else frivolous, that does absolutely nothing for you or I...nor does it EVER balance the budget...balances out
So...if the results are the same, I would rather have the extra money in my pocket to begin with.
The secret formula that neither side wants to entertain here is to STOP SPENDING OUR EFFING MONEY frivolously...
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:OK, since you aren't responding, i'll push forward without you:
It not that I wasn't responding, I was sleeping!
How about Exodus 20 (the ten commandments) which includes You Shall Not Murder? Seems pretty simple to me.
quote:It appears you do not believe in abortion but you also believe there should be no aid for anyone. You feel that if someone works two jobs(16 hours or more) at minimum wage is okay as long as you don’t have to pay for the free loaders.
Wrong. However, the big difference between conservatives and socialists is that we believe that people should receive a Hand-UP, not a Handout! In other words, people should be given assistance to become self-sufficient, not put on permanent public assistance. You are absolutely right, I should not have to pay for deadbeats and freeloaders. If they CHOOSE not to work, they should be allowed to live in the street or under a bridge if that's THEIR CHOICE.
quote:I do not know what you think happens to these kids when these single parents have these babies. I take that back you know exactly what happens with these kids in many of these situations, just as you well know what happens to veterans and others that are on the street.
I know EXACTLY what happens to these children. They turn out EXACTLY like their deadbeat parent(s). That is precisely why the current system should be radically altered. People should NOT be GIVEN everything, they should be taught to work and required to work. If they refuse to work, the children should be taken away and ALL benefits stopped. You do NOT help people and their children improve their lives by giving them perpetual welfare. All that does is enslave them in poverty.
quote:I feel most people deserve better and we should help them when ever possible.
What have they done to "deserve" better?
quote:You never answered my question on veterans that are left to rot out there. You think its okay because they deserve it or in your term they deserve no "respect". Remember some of these veterans are on those drugs you talk about.
I think veterans should be given a Hand-UP also, along with all the medical treatment they need.
Mike
Posted by bond006 on :
Take a trip to Denmark and tell them they are stupid and living in a dream land.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager:
quote:So anytime a child dies it is a crime, yes pm?
Doing anything for the children who die of malaria every year in central and south america?
Doing anything for the children who die of starvation in Africa?
No, everytime a child dies, it is not a crime. That's silly. However, everytime a child is murdered, THAT IS A CRIME! I'm surprised that you don't understand the difference between a someone being MURDERED and someone that dies of a disease or even famine.
Yes, I certainly do support children all over the world.
That's the one of the many problems with the left, they are so screwed up that they don't even understand the difference between right and wrong. When you don't even know the difference between murder and death from an illness, that is problem.
So it isn't wrong that children are dying of a disease that America and Europe have been without for over 50 years?
So it isn't wrong that children starve when we produce so much surplus corn in any given year that we have genetically changed our livestock to be able to ingest it?
You are the one talking right or wrong here so you tell me if this is wrong or right.
Do you believe in birth control? If so than you DO believe in abortion. Birth control works in three ways. 1) It elevates hormone levels to reduce the chance of an ovulation. 2)It thickens the mucus layer around the cervix making it harding for sperm to enter the uterus. 3)It affects the lining of the uterus making it difficult for an egg to attach to the wall of the uterus. Posted by glassman on :
shouln' ougtha told him that BF, now he's educated.
Posted by glassman on :
Prop man.
Murder is the killing of a person. the Bible does not recognise fetuses as persons.
you'll be able to define any cell in the body is human life.
murder is the killing of a person.
there is another passage in the bible that indicates the Lord knows the number of everyones days.
this conflict of free will versus all-powerful, and all-knowing is really tricky stuff huh?
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:So it isn't wrong that children are dying of a disease that America and Europe have been without for over 50 years?
So it isn't wrong that children starve when we produce so much surplus corn in any given year that we have genetically changed our livestock to be able to ingest it?
Those are definitely tragedies, that's for sure. However, that is VASTLY different than MURDERING unborn babies. You know that, that is why you keep changing the subject.
[quote]this conflict of free will versus all-powerful, and all-knowing is really tricky stuff huh?[/quote[
There is no conflict. Everyone knows that an unborn baby is a baby. Murdering an unborn baby is murder. Everyone know that. This is a very simple issue - the wacko left condones the murder of unborn babies, the right does not. The left can't even agree that crushing the skull of a full term baby (partial birth abortion) is wrong! Maybe it's just like catching a shrimp (as an earlier poster implied)!
Posted by glassman on :
There is no conflict. Everyone knows that an unborn baby is a baby. Murdering an unborn baby is murder. Everyone know that. This is a very simple issue - the wacko left condones the murder of unborn babies, the right does not. The left can't even agree that crushing the skull of a full term baby (partial birth abortion) is wrong! Maybe it's just like catching a shrimp (as an earlier poster implied)!
once again? you are oversimplifying.
the left wanted protection for the mother included in the law.
the right wanted to score political points and make it possible for you to say things like you are saying.
i have spent several years looking for actual statistics on the specific late-term abortion you are mentioning. i was never able to find any.
IMO it's a myth perpetuated by the Right Reverand Falwells of the world to whip up the ignorant...
mostly? the people i hear calling abortions murder are the ones passing judgement and sentencing doctors at womens clinics to death.
interesetingly enough? if you were to defend your position as biological instead of Religious? we might actually be able to set stricter laws that are very reasonable. No, they would not go as far as you them to, but they would definiteley come closer to protecting unborn children than the Bible does (at one month)...
James Elgin Gill (born on 20 May 1987 in Ottawa, Canada) was the earliest premature baby in the world. He was 128 days premature (21 weeks and 5 days gestation) and weighed 1 lb. 6 oz. (624 g). He survived and is quite healthy.[31][32]
Amillia Taylor is also often cited as the most-premature baby.[33] She was born on 24 October 2006 in Miami, Florida, at 21 weeks and 6 days gestation.[34] At birth she was 9 inches (23 cm) long and weighed 10 ounces (283 grams).[33] She suffered digestive and respiratory problems, together with a brain hemorrhage. She was discharged from the Baptist Children's Hospital on 20 February 2007.[33]
the creepy thing about using these stats is that some people will begin to try every heroic effort they can to raise the earliest premature birth they can.
i have drawn blood samples from babies that were only long enough to rest their head on one thumb and their feet on the other while laying in my fully open cupped hands..... i helped save their live doing this but it was scary to do it.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
You said I didn't know the difference between right and wrong PM. You said abortion is wrong. I am asking you if those "tragedies" are wrong. If they are, then they are indeed the same subject. So tell me PM, how is withholding food that we have to spare not murder? How is withholding medicine that we have to spare not murder? How is that RIGHT?
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
quote: _________________________________________________ Originally posted by Propertymanager:
"If they CHOOSE not to work, they should be allowed to live in the street or under a bridge if that's THEIR CHOICE". ------------------------
"I know EXACTLY what happens to these children. They turn out EXACTLY like their deadbeat parent(s)". _________________________________________________
I like the way you use "Their Choice" you have no idea about Their Choice but it is and easy way out to rationalize "Your Behavior".
Like i said you know exactly what happens to these kids and veterans.
First the kids. Abortion is wrong but ending up in the streets most of their life is okay.
Veterans that can't work because of their problems from wars should be left to die in the streets. To you able body means they walk and talk.
Yea i know you will twist it the best you can but you know exactly the bottom line i am talking about, just as you know what most others are talking about and twist it.
It's all about you making money. The more that end up in these situations the happier you are.
I'll bet you have no problem taking their check if they are not working. You can not stand it-- all the way to the bank. You really like stomping on people when their down.
I beginning to think it has nothing to do with your experiences since you owned properties. I think it started long before that. Were you picked on as a kid and this is how you get even?
What kind of family did you grow up in?
Posted by glassman on :
yeah, you're getting close iwish, my spidersenses tell me it's much much worse...
Posted by Propertymanager on :
No, I was never picked on, nor did I pick on others. I am not a victim of any sort.
You guys pretend to be compassionate, but in reality are not. The compassionate thing to do is to teach a person to fish, not hand them half a fish once a week, leaving them in poverty. You'll never understand that because you want the government to be your mother and father. You want to be taken care of. Moreover, you think the right thing to do is give people handouts when you should be teaching them to be self-sufficient. Teaching someone to be self sufficient is a much greater gift than giving them scraps.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: No, I was never picked on, nor did I pick on others. I am not a victim of any sort.
You guys pretend to be compassionate, but in reality are not. The compassionate thing to do is to teach a person to fish, not hand them half a fish once a week, leaving them in poverty. You'll never understand that because you want the government to be your mother and father. You want to be taken care of. Moreover, you think the right thing to do is give people handouts when you should be teaching them to be self-sufficient. Teaching someone to be self sufficient is a much greater gift than giving them scraps.
if that is really what you beleive after readin' here for the last few months you don't know us from adam then.
your sense of community is not apparent from any of your posts.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
I don't think you get it at all Propertymanager even though it surrounds you most everyday.
If i was a activist fighting for abortion i would want you on the other side fighting against me.
By the statements you have made on this board how could you possibly not be for abortion?
Do you think that kids are suppose to live in misery their whole life because two people had sex and did not use protection... how sad.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Sorry Glassman you said it all. I was writting while you were posting i would have left it there.
Posted by jordanreed on :
time for me to initiate the DWE sequence...
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Attorney General will not pursue contempt of congress charges against Miers
quote:Do you think that kids are suppose to live in misery their whole life because two people had sex and did not use protection... how sad.
No, I think your "kill them out of compassion" idea is a lot better. You liberals are too much. You're against fighting radical islam, but you're for murdering unborn babies by the millions. Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
quote: _________________________________________________ Originally posted by Propertymanager:
"If they CHOOSE not to work, they should be allowed to live in the street or under a bridge if that's THEIR CHOICE". ------------------------
"I know EXACTLY what happens to these children. They turn out EXACTLY like their deadbeat parent(s)". _________________________________________________ Quote Iwishihad:
I like the way you use "Their Choice" you have no idea about Their Choice but it is and easy way out to rationalize "Your Behavior".
Like i said you know exactly what happens to these kids and veterans.
First the kids. Abortion is wrong but ending up in the streets most of their life is okay.
Veterans that can't work because of their problems from wars should be left to die in the streets. To you able body means they walk and talk.
Yea i know you will twist it the best you can but you know exactly the bottom line i am talking about, just as you know what most others are talking about and twist it.
It's all about you making money. The more that end up in these situations the happier you are.
I'll bet you have no problem taking their check if they are not working. You can not stand it-- all the way to the bank. You really like stomping on people when their down.
I beginning to think it has nothing to do with your experiences since you owned properties. I think it started long before that. Were you picked on as a kid and this is how you get even?
What kind of family did you grow up in?
_________________________________________________
quote: Iwish -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do you think that kids are suppose to live in misery their whole life because two people had sex and did not use protection... how sad. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote Propertymanager:
No, I think your "kill them out of compassion" idea is a lot better. You liberals are too much. You're against fighting radical islam, but you're for murdering unborn babies by the millions. _________________________________________________
How do you get from the points above to your last statement?
Like i said before twist it the best you can.
You can talk about liberals, being on the left and right etc. not that i know anything about that, but when you talk about letting people die in the streets because they deserve it, then you get my attention.
As far as fighting Radical Islam i can't even give you the credit for a nice try..
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Radical Islam says they are fighting against the radical western Christians who are meddling within their borders.
It's all true...but does that make it right?
Personally I am not against fighting in Afghanistan. I believe Iraq was a mistake and I hold the republican party mostly responsible for that as they are the party who put Bush and his crony's in power.
I am not against seeing that Iraq is rebuilt but I believe that we should give the power to Iraqi's to take the lead in putting their country back together. We finally have the area leaders rejecting (foreign)Al Qaeda and enrolling in the police and National Guard.
***(Something that could have happened years ago if the military had dealt with the leaders who lived there rather than the powerful who had left Iraq when the fighting started.)***
Now it is time to give them the lead and let them recreate their country and only play a supporting role in keeping foreign extremists out. We only need a few token forces in key areas to do that.
As to killing babies...there are less than a million abortions a year now thanks to education and family planning. If we can get under 700,000 (the number of abortions done the first year Roe V. Wade was passed) I'd say we very likely have dipped below the abortion rates we had back when abortions were illegal.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Part of my point about Radical Islam is that i don't think i have ever mentioned one thing about it one way or the other.
Maybe Propertymanager saw something posted i don't remember, but i bet he can't find it.
I do not even know where he was going with his point but then again i am naive about the subject so it's hard to get me going there. But i am sure some others can fill in for me.
If he elaborates maybe we can have an argument.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote:I do not even know where he was going with his point but then again i am naive about the subject so it's hard to get me going there.
The point is that the liberals aren't willing to fight radical Islam because of the bloodshed, even though that is protecting our freedom. However, the wacko left is more than willing to murder MILLIONS of innocent unborn childern. Doesn't make much sense to me!!!
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager:
quote:I do not even know where he was going with his point but then again i am naive about the subject so it's hard to get me going there.
The point is that the liberals aren't willing to fight radical Islam because of the bloodshed, even though that is protecting our freedom. However, the wacko left is more than willing to murder MILLIONS of innocent unborn childern. Doesn't make much sense to me!!!
the fallaciousness of this argument is likely to be the downfall of our nation.
i'm deadly serious. we cannot afford to spend 12 BILLION$ a month for ever, there is no winning this type of war.
right now? the ONLY reason the surge is working has NOTHING to do with troop strength.
numbers are meaningless. the reason the surge is working is because they are waiting for US to leave. we cannot spend 12billion$ a month indefinitely. that IS 12billion$? per month we are borrowing from overseas, not even from our own people. we don't HAVE it. you can't keep borrowing from your enemies and remain free.
when interest rates went up? it wasn't just adjustable rate mortgages that have problems. the national debt has problems too...
China has almost totally financed the war in Iraq. that was foolish for US to allow, they are lessening their interest in financing it already.
they are Communist, and they are NOT our friend. they may not be overtly fighting US right now, but their interest is to defeat US monetarily and we've given them all they need to do just that already..
SUN TZU ON THE ART OF WAR THE OLDEST MILITARY TREATISE IN THE WORLD
By discovering the enemy's dispositions and remaining invisible ourselves, we can keep our forces concentrated, while the enemy's must be divided.
[The conclusion is perhaps not very obvious, but Chang Yu (after Mei Yao-ch`en) rightly explains it thus: "If the enemy's dispositions are visible, we can make for him in one body; whereas, our own dispositions being kept secret, the enemy will be obli ged to divide his forces in order to guard against attack from every quarter."]
the Soviets LOST the cold war in Afghanistan.. now BUsh has lost THAT VICTORY for US in Iraq. whether we pull out or stay? the stage is set. we can't win by fighting. we can WIN by making them a strong ally. and that won't come by force. it never has and it never will. don't compare them to the Japanese. the camparison won't fit. Japan is an Island Nation that had NO allies prior to WW2.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
What countries are Radical Islam in Propertymanager?
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:the Soviets LOST the cold war in Afghanistan.. now BUsh has lost THAT VICTORY for US in Iraq. whether we pull out or stay? the stage is set. we can't win by fighting. we can WIN by making them a strong ally. and that won't come by force.
Quite the contrary, Bush is winning in Iraq. We have won the war and we are now winning the peace. Iraqis are taking control of their country and we will pull out over time, unless of course the socialists win and start waving the surrender flag!!!
Where is radical Islam IwishIhad? C'mon! Radical islam is in just about every nation including the United States. It is a direct threat to our way of life.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Outside of the US how do we fight them Propertymanager?
Posted by Propertymanager on :
I think killing them is a good answer. It is a war after all and they are certainly trying to kill us and destroy our way of life!
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Should we go kill them all right now in all these countries?
How do we identify them?
Posted by Propertymanager on :
Identifying them is a job for the military and intel communities.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Do they get fired if they can't identify them?
Or get court martialed if they are wrong.
Quite a task to kill and identify them throughout the world.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: Identifying them is a job for the military and intel communities.
and as long as we occupy their lands militarily? they'll produce more terrorists. that's how we got binladen and all the rest of the terrorists.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager:
quote:the Soviets LOST the cold war in Afghanistan.. now BUsh has lost THAT VICTORY for US in Iraq. whether we pull out or stay? the stage is set. we can't win by fighting. we can WIN by making them a strong ally. and that won't come by force.
Quite the contrary, Bush is winning in Iraq. We have won the war and we are now winning the peace. Iraqis are taking control of their country and we will pull out over time, unless of course the socialists win and start waving the surrender flag!!!
Where is radical Islam IwishIhad? C'mon! Radical islam is in just about every nation including the United States. It is a direct threat to our way of life.
ahh, the surrender flag. yep that's what it is.
diplomacy has never worked before nor will it ever work again?
do you know who Muqtada al-Sadr is? he's the reason we have had a successful surge. do you even know the difference between a Sunni and a Sh'ite? Alqueda is Sunni. The Shia are the Iranians. When you say Islamic terrorists? you don't even know who you are talking about. Neither does Bush i bet.
however, what you are calling success is like having the bleeding stop after both somebodies arms have been cut off.
the Iraq civilian casualty numbers are about halved from what they were last Aug... that means they are down from 1600 month to 700 month... that's not success and that's not winning.
as for our troops? our numbers are back to where the y were in '04...
that's not winning either.
meanwhile? our spending over there has tripled...
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
If Canada were to come across the border and start killing teenage boys while saying they are protecting their country from the gang violence that is spreading through Canada due to American gang members who cross their borders would that be ok with you PM?
Would you allow it to happen or would you fight back and tell Canada to get the hell out of our country?
Posted by bond006 on :
The best thing we can do for ourself and the peoples of the mideast is leave them alone.
If you want a war ok all of you right wingers lets have one see all of you down at the recruriter asap. if not then no war very simple. Oh and by the way bring your 18 yr olds with you lets make this a family affair.
And also just so we can pay for it thoes that stay home get paid no more than the lowest paid soldier. All the extra that you earn above that goes to pay for the war.And that means progfit to.
Going to war I always thought the whole country does or does not.
I swear if it worked that way we would all have a lot less of them.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:The best thing we can do for ourself and the peoples of the mideast is leave them alone.
That is very naive. Evil will not leave us alone if we "leave them alone". However, I think that is a good idea. Pull all our troops out and also pull out all our aid to all these countries. Let them do for themselves. I would spend the huge savings on building an effective missle defense shield and building effective fences on our borders. Then, when they attack us even though we're minding our own business, I'd just start launching massive air strikes. That's a much better solution.
If we weren't supporting the entire world, we'd certainly have a lot more money!
Posted by glassman on :
Evil will not leave us alone if we "leave them alone".
LOL... what are you doing? writing a comic book?
EVIL... it's like telling little kids about Red Riding Hood. grow up.
Posted by bond006 on :
We were not minding our own business.
We are doing nothing more than the Brits and French did in that area.
The only difference is we have a bunch of kool aide drinker that think we go all over the world and ocuppy countries for ther own good.
These kool aide drinkers are always yelling for more blood and death to save people by blowing them to kingdom come.
The only problem with them most have never had a shot fired at them.
Take the money and oil out of Iraq and we would not be there for 60 more days.
As a matter of fact if you want to talk about evil. Look no futher than us we have done just as bad and we did it for revenge waving a flag to attack a country that never did anything to us. But I suppose you think Iraq blew the twin towers up to.
You are starting to talk like a disgusting draft dogger to me.
We could pull all our troops out and put all the bush supporters over ther and they could show us how it is done.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:You are starting to talk like a disgusting draft dogger to me.
I think you're a little behind the times. THERE IS NO DRAFT! At any rate, I was proudly in the military and believe that the military is doing a good job in Iraq.
quote:EVIL... it's like telling little kids about Red Riding Hood. grow up.
I know that you probably don't believe in evil - I do.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:EVIL... it's like telling little kids about Red Riding Hood. grow up.
I know that you probably don't believe in evil - I do.
______________________________
you don't know that.
what i DO know is that evil is in every person. as your Bible tells you it is.
it also tells you that you must first deal with your own proclivities in order to be able to deal with others.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Quote Propertymanager:
I think you're a little behind the times. THERE IS NO DRAFT! At any rate, I was proudly in the military and believe that the military is doing a good job in Iraq.
_________________________________________________
I am assuming you were in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
I forgot to ask two other questions. What year were you in the military and in what units?
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Quote Propertymanager:
"The point is that the liberals aren't willing to fight radical Islam because of the bloodshed, even though that is protecting our freedom".
"I think killing them is a good answer"
"Identifying them is a job for the military and intel communities."
I think you're a little behind the times. THERE IS NO DRAFT! At any rate, I was proudly in the military and believe that the military is doing a good job in Iraq."
_________________________________________________
I don't think your that old and i am assuming that Iraq 1 or Iraq 2 are around your time of age.
You sound rather Gung Ho in your statements again just my assumption.
Your statements about killing all the Radical Islams hit me as being rather naive. Again remember i said i was rather naive about the subject.
I will agree with you, the military is doing a good job in Iraq under the circumstances. But winning? What is that? Either way(winning or losing) what is the final toll going to be? Lives, money etc.
I served in Vietnam and there are others on this board.
I found out in Vietnam that identifying all those Radical Communnists was not and easy task and that was just in Vietnam let alone the whole world.
Now if you did kill the wrong one by chance then you better hope it was a real mistake or you could find yourself in deep s.... Remember these radicals can be women, children and women with babies.
I only know the situation in Iraq by what a few people have told me and the news. It does not sound that easy to identify and kill all those Radical Islams in Iraq let alone the world.
Somehow you are under the assumption the military and the intel communities can identify these indivuals all over the world.
I worked in a LLRP team for three months in Vietnam and it was never easy to identify the enemy let alone track them. There were situations where it was easy, but not around towns and villages.
Somehow i think that may be a problem now in Iraq and the world, but it is just a guess.
I think Bond was making many points that in some ways should be true. If we go to war lets make sure its a nation wide commitment. And after it's over lets do what's necessary to keep veterans off the streets.
You made a good point.(pull back and cut aid )That is a point that has been made several times on this board in the past.
We will see what happens after the election.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
what i DO know is that evil is in every person. as your Bible tells you it is.
it also tells you that you must first deal with your own proclivities in order to be able to deal with others.
I've never understood why it is so hard for certain types of people to understand this.
It is said so many different ways in the bible.
'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...'
'Before you try to remove the speck from your neighbors eye take the plank from your own...' (paraphrase)
Man is fallible. It is impossible for man to make himself clean. Yes, you can be forgiven, but that does not mean you are no longer fallible and therefore gives you the right to judge. That attempt by itself makes you unclean again. Judgment is GOD'S. It is not for you no matter who you are. Not even James Dobson, Pat Robertson, or Jack Van Impe are able to do that without casting sin and stones.
Posted by glassman on :
More FBI Privacy Violations Confirmed
By LARA JAKES JORDAN – 1 hour ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — The FBI acknowledged Wednesday it improperly accessed Americans' telephone records, credit reports and Internet traffic in 2006, the fourth straight year of privacy abuses resulting from investigations aimed at tracking terrorists and spies.
The breach occurred before the FBI enacted broad new reforms in March 2007 to prevent future lapses, FBI Director Robert Mueller said. And it was caused, in part, by banks, telecommunication companies and other private businesses giving the FBI more personal client data than was requested.
Testifying at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Mueller raised the issue of the FBI's controversial use of so-called national security letters in reference to an upcoming report on the topic by the Justice Department's inspector general.
An audit by the inspector general last year found the FBI demanded personal records without official authorization or otherwise collected more data than allowed in dozens of cases between 2003 and 2005. Additionally, last year's audit found that the FBI had underreported to Congress how many national security letters were requested by more than 4,600.
In contrast to the strong concerns expressed by Congress and civil liberties groups after last year's inspector general's report was issued, Mueller's disclosure drew no criticism from senators during just over two hours of testimony Wednesday.
Speaking before the FBI chief, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., urged Mueller to be more vigilant in correcting what he called "widespread illegal and improper use of national security letters."
when is Congress going to step up to the plate and hit a home run?
they aren't going to do anything....
"There has to be a better chain of command for this. You cannot just have an FBI agent who decides he'd like to obtain Americans' records, bank records or anything else and do it just because they want to." Posted by thinkmoney on :
It is true no one should judge cause weaaare all with sin - but speaking against something is not judging - judging is for God - I can speak about unfairness, and wrong- plus we are all imperfect so we do judge -
Not to judge would not judge the murderer that killed your son or daughter -
since we are human, i rrealize I am fallibe with perfection at my root and I am not perfect in my actionsso I will say what is wrong-
I am against all those that play victim and want me to work for them - i will speaak against those that harm -
dont know if i judging but i know it is wrong -
if one cant speak against wrong - than why speak against slavery or racism or sexism? but, racism also is vice versa - it isn also blacks racism against whites - another topic-
no judgment menas no judgment - I say we asser t for fairness but let god judge damnation in hell - i will seek justice on earth but god can judge all for hell or heaven
Posted by glassman on :
good for them:
House challenges Bush on surveillance
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The House of Representatives voted Friday to back the Democratic-sponsored revisions to federal surveillance laws.
The vote was 213-197 in favor of a revision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act bill that was supported by the Democratic leadership.
One member voted present.
The vote came after a secret session Thursday night in the House. It was the first time the House has met in secret since 1983.
The Democratic plan would allow telecommunications companies to be sued for their role in the administration's much-disputed warrantless surveillance program.
The bill now goes to the Senate, but both the Senate and President Bush have made it clear that they will not support the bill without an immunity provision.
Bush has spent weeks pressuring the House to grant retroactive legal immunity to the phone companies that took part in the program, initiated after the September 11 attacks.
Bush argues that legal protection is needed for companies to continue cooperating with the government and has vowed to veto the House Democratic proposal, which would allow the lawsuits to move forward in federal courts.
The Senate has voted to protect the phone companies from lawsuits filed by privacy advocates, who argue that the surveillance program was illegal.
The Democratic plan, however, will allow the companies to argue their cases and present classified evidence to a judge during a closed proceeding without the plaintiffs present.
quote:The Democratic plan would allow telecommunications companies to be sued for their role in the administration's much-disputed warrantless surveillance program.
...and then, after a nuke goes off in NYC, the whiney, spinless, wacko socialists will be crying that someone should have connected the dots!
Posted by glassman on :
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
let 'em whine.... who cares. this right was granted to US under the Constitution.
don't you find it very ODD that so-called Conservatives who cry out for a return to constitutional values are the very ones fighting to take them all away?
Corporations HAVE NO RIGHTS in the constitution. THE PEOPLE do.
Posted by bond006 on :
Let them whine is right. They knew they were breaking the law when they went along with Bush.
We should find them guilty and hang them 10 minuets latter on the front lawn of the white house.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[BadOne]](graemlins/headbash.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)