Open forum, May 7 - 13

Published:

 

The forums are moderated by Columbian staff and our community guidelines and terms of service still apply. To participate, login with your Columbian.com ID or register for an account at Columbian.com.

Columbian staff members create new forum threads. Don't see a forum topic here that fits your comments? Email Web Edtor John Hill -- john.hill@columbian.com -- or Social Media Coordinator Matt Wastradowski -- matt.wastradowski@columbian.com.


144 comments

Comments

frobert — May 6, 2012 at 10:55 p.m

Continuing from yesterday----

Just to clarify, you are saying that the popular vote (the accepted way to elect someone) doesn't count for anything, only the delegates "elected" at the caucuses count even though they don't equate to any popular vote and those people are the ones who decide who they will vote for at the convention and apparently the rules don't count. Is that what you are trying to tell me?

I suspect that if you were not a Paul supporter, you would be screaming ***FOUL*** all over the place.

hawkeye — May 7, 2012 at 8:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye — May 7, 2012 at 8:52 a.m.

The delegates elected cannot be wrong. The "popular" vote is counted or not counted by the GOP establishment. Much like Washington the delegates are the **real** votes and the party can't skew those numbers.

frobert — May 7, 2012 at 11:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Isn't a caucus similar to the Electoral College?

The popular vote doesn't matter in the Presidential election - as I believe we've had made painfully clear in recent elections. Everything ties to Electoral College delegates and how they commit their votes. And then you get to the issue of faithless electors; delegates who cast their vote for someone other than the nominee they were expected by their state to support. Rare, but not unheard of.

roger — May 7, 2012 at 11:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal


From Cnn---

"The message from voters in both countries (speaking of elections in France & Greece) appeared to be the same: The current policy of deficit-cutting, reduced spending and cuts to benefits and public services is unacceptable."

Wonder what a tea-bagging gopper would say to that?

As ol' Christe is sayin', the US is turning into a bunch of couch potatoes waiting on their next government check. That's us alright. What insight these folks have.

Maybe they're right and this country needs more poor people with less education. Oh, I forgot, we're already getting them.

mrd — May 7, 2012 at 11:45 a.m. ( | suggest removal


roger — May 7, 2012 at 11:35 a.m.

My point is that in Maine, Paul did not "steal" the convention, the popular vote went to Paul delegates and Charles Webster modified the numbers to make Romney the winner on caucus night. Numbers can be wrong, actual people cannot.

frobert — May 7, 2012 at 11:45 a.m. ( | suggest removal


MRD,
"The current policy of deficit-cutting, reduced spending and cuts to benefits and public services is unacceptable."

Your comments above are pretty spot on...You can add tax revision to what also needs to happen, Consolidate gov't dept's, streamline processes and elect Romney and see what a Businessman will do to get our economy and jobs back. The current president has failed here. Enjoy the weather....

vanwadreamer — May 7, 2012 at 12:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — May 7, 2012 at 11:45 a.m

But the popular vote did NOT go to Paul in the primary.

Results for Maine Republican Caucus (U.S. Presidential Primary)
Feb 11, 2012 (87% of precincts reporting)
Mitt Romney 2,269 39%
Ron Paul 2,030 34.9%
Rick Santorum 1,052 18.1%
Newt Gingrich 391 6.7%
Other 72 1.2%

hawkeye — May 7, 2012 at 12:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal


According to this, it really doesn't matter because Maine doesn't really count anyway.

Maine is considered a ‘beauty contest’ state when it comes to caucuses. That is to say, there are no national delegates ‘won’ or ‘bound’ to any Presidential candidate in our caucus process. At the caucuses, we elect state delegates, election clerks, and in some cases town officers. What we also do is ask those participating in the caucus, to take a poll on which Presidential candidate they prefer. This is an unofficial, non-binding poll, that just simply show’s a ‘snapshot’, or takes the current ‘pulse’, of which Presidential candidate has the most support at the participating caucuses throughout the state. Some caucuses decided to not participate in the Presidential poll, and will caucus after this announcement. Their results WILL NOT be factored into this announcement after the fact. Again, this is an unofficial, non-binding poll, and we will elect our actual national delegation, from the floor of the state convention on May 5TH and 6TH.

Mitt Romney has 39.2 percent of the vote with 2190 votes, Ron Paul has 35.7 percent with 1996 votes, Rick Santorum has 17.7percent with 989 votes, and Newt Gingrich has 6.25 percent with 349 votes.

hawkeye — May 7, 2012 at 12:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I'll try that again;

Maine is considered a ‘beauty contest’ state when it comes to caucuses. That is to say, there are no national delegates ‘won’ or ‘bound’ to any Presidential candidate in our caucus process. At the caucuses, we elect state delegates, election clerks, and in some cases town officers. What we also do is ask those participating in the caucus, to take a poll on which Presidential candidate they prefer. This is an unofficial, non-binding poll, that just simply show’s a ‘snapshot’, or takes the current ‘pulse’, of which Presidential candidate has the most support at the participating caucuses throughout the state. Some caucuses decided to not participate in the Presidential poll, and will caucus after this announcement. Their results WILL NOT be factored into this announcement after the fact. Again, this is an unofficial, non-binding poll, and we will elect our actual national delegation, from the floor of the state convention on May 5TH and 6TH.

Mitt Romney has 39.2 percent of the vote with 2190 votes, Ron Paul has 35.7 percent with 1996 votes, Rick Santorum has 17.7percent with 989 votes, and Newt Gingrich has 6.25 percent with 349 votes.

hawkeye — May 7, 2012 at 12:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye — May 7, 2012 at 12:51 p.m.

Your post just further proves my point that the delegates elected in the caucuses voted for Paul therefore Paul is the correct winner.

frobert — May 7, 2012 at 12:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal


WASHINGTON (AP) - The Republicans who control the House are using cuts to food aid, health care and social services like Meals on Wheels to protect the Pentagon from a wave of budget cuts come January.

The reductions, while controversial, are but a fraction of what Republicans called for in the broader, nonbinding budget plan they passed in March. Totaling a little more than $300 billion over a decade, the new cuts are aimed less at tackling $1 trillion-plus government deficits and more at preventing cuts to troop levels and military modernization.

Are these the folks we want controlling our government. Maybe I missed something that indicates Americans want a huge, bloated military budget in lieu of spending money to improve the quality of life here. If I did miss it, I'm glad. That would be a truth I'd rather not face.

mrd — May 7, 2012 at 1:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — May 7, 2012 at 12:55 p.m

My post also shows just how meaningless the whole "election" in Maine is. A complete waste of money and time.

hawkeye — May 7, 2012 at 2:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye — May 7, 2012 at 2:32 p.m.

Washington uses the same system, slips of paper counted by the local chair does not indicate a winner. In Maine the GOP declined to count Paul friendly areas.

frobert — May 7, 2012 at 2:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — May 7, 2012 at 2:49 p.m

That's why a vote of the public is the only fair way.

hawkeye — May 7, 2012 at 4:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Destined to be a classic!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MelQ8zpXfVA

nailingit — May 7, 2012 at 6:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Looks like Mitt doesn't respect the office of Presidency unless he's in it. How unpatriotic/testicleless can one get. Romney not only embarrasses himself, but our country as a whole.

Hard to blame the "lady". She's stupid and ignorant.

**Romney rally attendee accuses Obama of 'treason'**

The interaction was the first instance of Romney facing cries from supporters that Obama is acting in a criminal way, with treason a federal crime punishable by death. As of late March, the campaign had not discussed a plan for handling such situations, though overzealous supporters contesting Obama’s birth and religion bedeviled rival GOP presidential campaigns.

“We have a president right now who is operating outside the construction of our Constitution,” the woman asked Romney during a town hall in Euclid, Ohio. “And I do agree he should be tried for treason. But I wanna know what you are going to be able to do to help restore balance between the three branches of government and what you’re going to be able to do to restore our Constitution in this country?”

Unlike John McCain, who in 2008 memorably corrected a woman who declared Obama was “an Arab,” Romney bypassed her allegation.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/05/romney-rally-attendee-accuses-obama-of-treason-122686.html

nailingit — May 7, 2012 at 7 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — May 7, 2012 at 7 p.m.

We have a very limited definition of treason, and it is laid out in the Constitution. Any so called conservative should know that.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

I in all honesty have to point this out because I pointed it out when some on here claimed the Bush should be tried for treason.

frobert — May 7, 2012 at 7:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I don't see what all the arguing is about the Republican's presidential candidates. None of them can beat obama. The only way he can lose is if he withdraws. He has already got the Mexican vote, the women's vote, the black and young vote, although he has alienated a lot of them because his promises from last election didn't pan out. Of course the media is also solidly on his side. Even so, the popular vote was close last time but the electoral vote is all that counts. I think the only fair electoral vote would be if each county got one vote. The democrats don't like that idea. If that would have been the case last election, obama wouldn't be in office. Unfortunately, the country people are outnumbered by the city slickers and we all have to pay for their unwise decisions at the polls.

cranky — May 7, 2012 at 8:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal


cranky — May 7, 2012 at 8:07 p.m.

I think the only one that can beat Obama is Ron Paul, his anti war. pro civil liberties message would resonate most of these groups if the press would give him as much coverage as they did to people like Bachmann,Cain, Gingrich, Sanorum and Perry.

frobert — May 7, 2012 at 8:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Yes Fro, we ALL know who YOU want.

Just a little question, who do you see as his VP?

hawkeye — May 7, 2012 at 9:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye — May 7, 2012 at 9:35 p.m

I was thinking Gary Johnson, but he received the libertarian party nomination this past weekend.

frobert — May 7, 2012 at 9:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Gawd, I should know better than to sip a liquid as I'm watching one of nails posts.

I felt like I was six again, sitting in the lunchroom at school sipping milk through a straw. You know, when milk magically appears in your nose? Only this time I was sitting at the desk watching that fool video. And by the way coffee is NOT the liquid you want to be sipping.

Oh well, it at least set the tone for the rest of my day. Gotta go and do battle with the idiots out there during rush hour. At least I will have pleasant thoughts.

JohnCasey — May 8, 2012 at 4:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Hey, who gave the right for C-Tran to get their buses from point A to point B any faster than a driver with a car?

So let me get this right. You build a transit system for one road for as much as 55 mil and all you get is 11 minutes faster service over a few miles. Niiiice. I sure would like that gig. I'm sure I could do better spending YOUR money. Could these people screw it up any more???

Call me crazy but I THOUGHT that the new taxes was to maintain and RUN the buses, not redo the roads to placate a few passengers.

JohnCasey — May 8, 2012 at 5:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Add Paul's foreign policy & the chasm turns into the Grand Canyon. If the the Republican party survives this they will be for the better. If it doesn't kill you it makes you stronger type thing. It will take years, if at all for these guys to unify. The Republican party is being ripped in two before our eyes. Let er RIIIIIIIIIIP!

Progressive culture & Foreign Policy. Ron Paul's vision for America brings more hope then the best of ideas of either Romney or Obama. Not all agree...

**The Nevada GOP's Ron Paul culture clash**

They do not want ADD to our platform, or work with our ideals and centuries-old values of smaller government, support our Bill-of-Rights or family values. Instead these newcomers to our Respected Republican Stature have chosen to overrun our ideals and instill a new platform consisting of drug abuse, higher cost insurances and a debasing of family values. No longer will hard work and dedication be the stronghold of the Republican Party. Instead these children wish to bring self-entitlement and disregard for the rights-of-others to the forefront of the Republican Culture...

I have lost all respect and compassion for Dr. Ron Paul. A man whose name graced my dinner table during many political conversations with reverence and respect has now been wiped
from my lips.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/charlie-mahtesian/2012/05/the-nevada-gops-ron-paul-culture-clash-122716.html

nailingit — May 8, 2012 at 8:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Add to that the Libertarian party has a great credible candidate, cranky's prophecy comes true. Once Mitt is forced to articulate his policies, undergoes continuing media scrutiny, i.e. tax returns, off shore accounts, failed jobs record as Gov etc., brings his "developed wit" to the debate stage against Obama, he's more than done. This election could turn into one of the greatest landslides ever, to include retaining the Senate and regaining the House.

Hey, I can dream can't I?

nailingit — May 8, 2012 at 9:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — May 8, 2012 at 9:08 a.m.

"nailingit — May 8, 2012 at 9:08 a.m."

Yes you can dream of an Obama presidency with majorities of the house and senate. Invasion of Iran, children being sent to die, house to house searches and checkpoints, all in the name of national security. I must admit, I had high hopes for an Obama presidency, but in the end Peace and civil liberties were not as high on his priority list as he claimed. If Bush had had the same policies as Obama, you would be having a fit about it.

frobert — May 8, 2012 at 9:39 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*If Bush had had the same policies as Obama, you would be having a fit about it.*

He does (in some cases) and I have.

*Yes you can dream of an Obama presidency*

Because if I don't, it turns into a nightmare.

nailingit — May 8, 2012 at 10:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*I must admit, I had high hopes for an Obama presidency, but in the end Peace and civil liberties were not as high on his priority list as he claimed.*

Oh, they were there. The only problem was, there were these other things going on like a recession caused by the previous administration, and a bunch of people out of work and a House of Reps that didn't want to play nice, need I go on?

hawkeye — May 8, 2012 at 11:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**Student Loan Vote: Republicans Block Bill To Extend Low Interest Rates**

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/08/student-loan-vote-fails_n_1499917.html

nailingit — May 8, 2012 at 12:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Yea!!!! Another update letter from Jamie in the mail.

It's a response to the postcard survey she sent out a month ago. It has the "our" responses to nine questions she said we answered. Funny thing, I saw only 5 questions on that last one. Wonder where the other ones came from.

After reading all of them, I see where a few of them came from. They were House votes that Boehner told her to agree with and vote for like the one on the Health care law (she is no longer calling it Obamacare 'cause it looks bad) where she voted to repeal it.

hawkeye — May 8, 2012 at 2:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I think Congress should allow a Justice Department investigation into House activities. This 2010 House is corrupting Government like never before. This "war against women" has no borders.

**Mail Order Bride Company President Lobbying To Weaken Protections For Abused Immigrants**

"It's shocking to me that the people who are advocating for these anti-immigrant provisions are the people who have a monetary interest in not holding batterers accountable and not holding marriage broker agencies accountable," she told HuffPost. "These are the ones reaching out to House Republicans, and Republicans are supporting the policies they're pushing."

Indeed, several House Republicans cited immigration fraud as the reason for rolling back protections for immigrant women in their version of the legislation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/08/violence-against-women-act_n_1500693.html

nailingit — May 8, 2012 at 3:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye — May 8, 2012 at 11:06 a.m.

What does the economy and the house of Representatives have to do with Obama invading Libya? Or asking for an extension of the Patriot Act? Or signing NDAA?

Oh that is right it's the blame everybody else for Obama's failures.

frobert — May 8, 2012 at 5:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Andrea Damewood put an article on The Columbian at 4:06 saying the CRC was denied their $1 billion TIFIA loan request, the reason being that neither OR nor WA had committed their $450 million cost shares. The CRC spokesman was mildly concerned - says we have a year to tighten this up and apply for 2013 approval.

Numbers are making less sense all the time. We've been told all along that each state and the Feds would contribute $400 million for the bridge itself, and the Feds under New Starts would throw in another $800 million for light rail. That's $2 billion. Now, all of a sudden, the number apparently changes to $1.9 billion, and $1 billion is a loan to WSDOT that needs to be repaid (over 35 years; interest tied to Treasury loan ate - current rate 3.03%.)

Given that $3.5 billion seems to be the current project cost, this means $1.6 billion needs to be raised from another source - apparently private investment? This will require more pay back with interest.

There's also the cost of running the tolling operation.

Portland economist Joe Cortright has been on record as saying the CRC will end up costing us close to $10 billion. His prediction is looking better all the time.

And the most galling part of all is that while WSDOT is the agency on the hook, OR is being allowed to drive this project.

roger — May 8, 2012 at 5:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal



This is what our politics have turned into. I hope **this time** (Nov. 2012) Democrats/Obama take their overwhelming win as a mandate for Big Time change. The boot heel of Democracy needs to be planted on the necks of the Republican party. What is left of it.

**Dick Lugar Loses To Tea Party's Richard Mourdock In Indiana Republican Senate Primary**

Mourdock repeatedly bashed Lugar for working across the aisle, **and vowed to oppose bipartisanship.**

In a low-key concession speech, Lugar refused to retreat from the idea of working with the other side, implicitly criticizing his rival.

"Serving the people of Indiana in the United States Senate has been the greatest honor of my public life. Hoosiers deserve the best representation possible," an emotional Lugar said. "They deserve legislators who will listen to their entire spectrum of citizen views and work to achieve consensus. They deserve legislators who each day go to work thinking about how they can solve problems."

Lugar seemed acutely aware that the right wing of his party had turned its no-surrender approach on him.

"We are experiencing deep political divisions in our society right now, and these divisions have stalemated progress in critical areas," he said, using a line that Democrats are likely to repeat going into the fall. "But these divisions are not insurmountable and I believe that people of goodwill, regardless of party, can work together for the benefit of our country."

Mourdock was due to speak shortly after Lugar Tuesday, and was rushing his victory celebration after Lugar’s speedy concession.

Whether or not Lugar's colleagues on Capitol Hill had much sympathy for him, they seemed to blame him for being too slow in recognizing the challenge he faced.

"It says you had better play offense, and not defense. That's what it says," Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said on Capitol Hill earlier Tuesday when asked about Lugar's predicament.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/08/dick-lugar-richard-mourdock-lugar-loses-indiana-republican-senate-primary_n_1501416.html?ref=topbar

nailingit — May 8, 2012 at 6:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal


WASHINGTON—The Republican National Committee is making efforts to target Hispanic voters in key swing states in preparation for the November presidential election. And by their own admission, they're still working out some of the kinks.

When asked during a meeting with reporters Tuesday how Republicans plan to convince Hispanics that their platform on immigration is better than the Democratic plan, RNC National Hispanic Outreach Coordinator Bettina Inclan declined to answer because, she said, Mitt Romney is*** "still deciding what his position on immigration is."***

Translation, nobody has given him a reasonable explaination of how to answer yet.

hawkeye — May 8, 2012 at 6:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal


What does the economy and the house of Representatives have to do with Obama invading Libya? Or asking for an extension of the Patriot Act? Or signing NDAA?

frobert — May 8, 2012 at 5:36 p.m

Seriously? You need to ask that? When you are the goto guy, everything has to do with everything.

If you were the owner of a company, shipping has to do with production which has to do with buying supplies which has to do with bookeeping which has to do with advertising etc. It's all tied together, come on fro, you know that.

hawkeye — May 8, 2012 at 6:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal


hawk @ 6:35- Good luck to the Republicans getting the Hispanic vote. :))

nailingit — May 8, 2012 at 6:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**Tom Barrett Wins Wisconsin Recall Primary, Faces Scott Walker In June**

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/08/tom-barrett-wisconsin-recall-primary-scott-walker_n_1501568.html?ref=politics

nailingit — May 8, 2012 at 7:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Amazing numbers!

The latest Investor's Business Daily/Christian Science Monitor/TIPP poll has Obama leading Romney among Hispanic voters by a 68 point margin, beating the former Massachusetts governor 80 percent to 12 percent. A second PPP poll, commissioned by the liberal blog Daily Kos and the SEIU union, shows Obama beating Romney 72 percent to 22 percent — a 50 point margin.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/05/obama-close-to-maxing-out-hispanic-support-122822.html

nailingit — May 8, 2012 at 7:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal


North Carolinians voted to change the state constitution Tuesday to say that the only valid "domestic legal partnership" in the state is marriage between a man and a woman, according to the AP's projection. The amendment passed 61 to 39 percent with most counties reporting, making North Carolina the 29th state with a gay marriage ban in its constitution.

***But ya cun still marry yer sister.***

hawkeye — May 8, 2012 at 9:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal


as someone who's father is buried in a north carolina cemetery, your insult isn't going to be ignored like i've ignored so much of your spewing lately.

NC has a very progressive/liberal agenda, especially in the charlotte area, and (predictably) at the university. you wouldn't be able to even speak on the same level of these people.

as for the rest of the state, it consists of people who would give you a place to sleep in their one-room house. they would feed you whatever they had if you were hungry and make sure your kids had shoes and warm coats. they show up to repair damage done to property and homes of their neighbors, all without thinking twice.

if what they want in **their state** is to codify marriage so it can't be forced on them from some airheaded representative of your 'team', they have every constitutional, legal and MORAL right to do so.

you are soo unworthy to even visit there.

DeeLittle — May 8, 2012 at 10:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Sure thing Dee, they are SOOOOO liberal, they not only outlawed same sex marriage, they went as far as to make it against their constitution. Honestly, I don't care where your father is buried and as for speaking on the same level as those at the university, you might be right, I don't think I can drop that low but you might be able to.

As for the rest of the state, I'm sure they would welcome anyone into their homes unless you were there with your other half and they were just like you.

Oh, and I have visited there several time and even taught there. I found I had to learn to speak slower. They told me I "sounded like the 6 o'clock news".

Slam me all you want, Dee but "there are none so blind as those who won't see".

hawkeye — May 8, 2012 at 11:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal


you're right about one thing. there ARE none so blind as those who REFUSE to see. noticed lately how few posts the basement's racked up?

DeeLittle — May 8, 2012 at 11:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye — May 8, 2012 at 9:04 p.m.

"But ya cun still marry yer sister."

Marriage of your sister is a class f felony in North Carolina.

(1879, c. 16, s. 1; Code, s. 1060; Rev., s. 3351; 1911, c. 16; C.S., s. 4337; 1965, c. 132; 1979, c. 760, s. 5; 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1316, s. 47; 1981, c. 63, s. 1, c. 179, s. 14; 1993, c. 539, s. 1192; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)

frobert — May 9, 2012 at 6:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal


noticed lately how few posts the basement's racked up?

DeeLittle — May 8, 2012 at 11:39 p.m

It's OK dee, nobody missed you.

I don't really understand all the whining about same sex marriage. What is it dee and fro, you guys afraid of gays? Do you think they will turn you into "them"? Oh sure, it's like a virus that you can catch, better be careful, you might catch cooties. Nobody says YOU have to do it, remember, it's not about sex. It's not what's in your pants, it's what's in your heart. Oh I forgot, you guys don't have hearts.

As for marrying your sister being "against the law", so is moon-shining and polygamy but we all know how that happens. Just ask Romney about the latter.

hawkeye — May 9, 2012 at 7:22 a.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye — May 9, 2012 at 7:22 a.m.

When have I ever posted anything against gay marriage? I support full marriage equality, the government should not sanction or condemn any marriage. If you are going to condemn my posts you should at least read them first.

frobert — May 9, 2012 at 7:31 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Sorry fro, just ignore the first part.

hawkeye — May 9, 2012 at 7:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal


hawk & "dee"- Have you guys checked out the latest promo video from NC?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVExrU...

nailingit — May 9, 2012 at 8:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Hi, Dee, how ya been?

I haven't seen any articles in the Columbo, of late, relating to dope. Dope's my thing, you see. With a special interest in pot; medicinal and/or recreational.

Though I (at least) skim the basement several times a day, I haven't any interest in arguing about lefts, rights, democrats, republicans, liberals, conservatives... Oh sure, there is a connection between most folks "politics" and their opinions on this current travesty called the War on Drugs, but I prefer to address real world science, not political.

Oh, that's right... the "War on Drugs" phrase (Nixon's) has dropped from favor with the prohibitionists. Folks started calling it the "War on People" so the flat earthers' have dissociated from that descriptive.

Oooh, I almost went political there! I'll rein myself back in.

Beautiful weather we're having, eh? My plants are loving the Rays. Now that I think on it, I believe I'll go roll them out into the Sun.

Good day, all!

http://capndrift.wordpress.com/

PS: You ever finish that book mrd? What did you think? It's okay, you can "let me have it".

Drift — May 9, 2012 at 8:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Good to see you Drift! You mentioned Nixon and it caused me to go #2.

Check this article out if you haven't. 2012 might see some positive change.

While the administration cracks down on medical marijuana shops, the Campaign To Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, a collective of marijuana activist groups and individuals including SAFER, Sensible Colorado, NORML and others, succeeded in getting a recreational-use legalization initiative on the November 2012 ballot.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/08/medical-marijuana_n_1498694.html

nailingit — May 9, 2012 at 8:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal


We, too, nail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Initiative_502_(2011)

The DEA, ONDCP, et al, really ought'a realize people have had quite enough of their draconian policies.

Drift — May 9, 2012 at 8:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal


drift-

not yet. i got to the part where you "volunteered" for the service, and put it down. my wife picked up her nook and read it start to finish. i only seem to remember to finish the book when I see her or one of the grandkids using the nook. Maybe tonight.

So far, I've found it delightful reading. Very entertaining. It seems you treat what probably wasn't a perfect childhood rather lightly with no hard feelings to anyone.Kinda remarkable. My wife also liked the book. She hasn't told me anything except service life wasn't anything like she'd imagined.

maybe tonite I'll remember and get back to it.

mrd — May 9, 2012 at 9:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal


http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2012/05/jailbird_fares_well_against_ob.html

Obama defeats Jailbird 59% to 41% for democaratic presidential victory..Hum, makes one wanna think there is sumpin in dat der air....
let me see you got the Hispanic Vote, does that inlclude illegal Aliens as well, got the womens vote, the mens vote , the Christian vote, the Liberal vote, The conservative vote the Evangelical vote and yet we have what 40% of the legal population still not voting..So what can we do to get 90 to 95% of the folks out to vote...??

vanwadreamer — May 9, 2012 at 11:26 a.m. ( | suggest removal


BREAKING NEWS---BREAKING NEWS---BREAKING NEWS---BREAKING NEWS---BRAKING NEWS---BREAKING NEWS---BREA

Obama announces he supports same sex marriage. I thought he would wait until after the election.

I'm afraid this will fire up the conservative base. Another stark difference between Obama & Romney. Some independents will be lost also.

nailingit — May 9, 2012 at 12:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Will this draw some Ron Paul supporters to Obama in November?

frobro?

Gen?

nailingit — May 9, 2012 at 12:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Will there be mass Mass weddings for the Catholic clergy?

Will John Boehner come out?

nailingit — May 9, 2012 at 12:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Well this is just going to piss off the Pope;

May 8, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Melinda Gates, wife of billionaire tech mogul Bill Gates, has told Newsweek magazine that she intends to spend billions of dollars on a global campaign to promote the use of artificial birth control, and highlights a type of contraception that causes abortions.

In a move that Newsweek acknowledges could cause a “firestorm” by the “Catholic right,” Gates says that she wants to raise $4 billion to supply contraceptives to 120 million more women by 2020.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/catholic-melinda-gates-announces-multi-billion-dollar-global-contraceptive/

***Way to go, Melinda!!!!***

hawkeye — May 9, 2012 at 12:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Yawn.

roger — May 9, 2012 at 12:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Interesting article, Hawkeye. (I like how they put parentheses around catholic when saying she's one in the intro.)

The Catholic Church is going to have to revisit it's prohibition on birth control to remain relevant. The world is already overpopulated, and I recall the last time this was discussed someone posted showing that the great majority of Catholic women use birth control.

Efforts to promote voluntary birth control are needed now. If not effective, then involuntary birth control needs to be seriously considered. Up to and including permanent sterilization.

roger — May 9, 2012 at 12:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal


The reason I posted this is because of the discussion we had earlier about the Catholic Church not wanting to cover birth control (or abortions) under insurance. I think they are going to have to re-think their policies as well. Melinda ISN'T going to let this go.

hawkeye — May 9, 2012 at 1:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Nailingit,

Very interesting. Not confused in the least. Also totally irrelevant - last I heard, the Repubs control the House, so DOMA is going nowhere. Further, I believe this falls under state's rights?

This ongoing focus on social issues, on the part of candidates from both parties, tells me they have no clue about what to do about the economy, jobs, taxation, and related concerns. And that's what really matters.

Yes - as I've said before, I have no problem with same sex marriage. I also find the difference between civil union and marriage not enough to worry about. Unless someone can get around to changing the tax codes, that is. Which takes us back to who owns the House. And the Supreme Court.

roger — May 9, 2012 at 1:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal


"This ongoing focus on social issues, on the part of candidates from both parties, tells me they have no clue about what to do about the economy, jobs, taxation, and related concerns. And that's what really matters."

I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say they might have a clue, but they're doing nothing except blah, blah, blah. And it is what REALLY matters.

mrd — May 9, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**hi roger, drift....**

about catholic b/c: i think they'll eventually have to approve a non-abortive method...don't remember if pope spoke ex-cathedra (sp?)about it. if he did, case closed forever. if not, i personally think there's no theological issue with it...as long as it's a NON abortive method.

drift...taking into consideration i'm someone who needs pain meds and a specific antidepressant (chemical, not psychological) to control severe clinical depression, still gotta take issue with legalizing drugs. it's a matter of lowering the societal norm to a non-functioning level of personal pleasure-seeking. rome fell because of that. we need a higher standard of life than just getting high.

DeeLittle — May 9, 2012 at 1:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal


roger/mrd- Yes of course. Civil liberties, individual rights, the pursuit of happiness...how this affects the dynamics of the next Presidential election, just 6 months away...yeah, a real yawner.

Of course the economy is important. (I thought we learned what not to do with Bush & the Right in charge, you guys should get with it :))) To make it the only item worthy to vote on or care about, is more than short-sighted. Sometimes when things don't affect us personally, we tend to blow them off without considering the needs of others. It's easy for folks to do as they grow older. If we as a country are to move forward, perhaps we should lend more value to hindsight. Discriminating against Americans based on sexuality or gender are pretty big ticket items if you ask me.

nailingit — May 9, 2012 at 2:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Just think where we would be economically if the Iraq war had been averted. Big picture. We need to understand how foreign policy affects the economy. Foreign policy should be one of our top concerns next election. Unfortunately it will be a choice of two evils in this category. Obama the less...slightly imo.

**Colin Powell's New Book: War With Iraq Never Debated**

Powell gives himself credit for rejecting continued appeals from Cheney to add “assertions that had been rejected months earlier to links between Iraq and 9/11 and other terrorist acts.”

All in all, Powell acknowledges that the speech was “one of my most momentous failures, the one with the widest-ranging impact.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/colin-powell-book_n_1503592.html

nailingit — May 9, 2012 at 5:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit,

Pres Obama "sold out" his Environmental base when he started pushing the Cushing to Port Arthur phase of Keystone XL. (Which, as a side note, will increase the capability of the oil companies using the largest oil storage facility in the world to move their product to port for sale overseas. Can't wait for the updates on who donated to his campaign to get published!!)

Anyhow, Pres needs to work the crowds for more votes.

So, to quote Jay Carney - "The President's position on gay marriage has not changed." "The President's position is constantly evolving." "It is as it was." and Chuck Todd - "Gay money has replaced Wall Street money." (Pure plagiarism on my part - Jon Stewart's analysis was perfect.)

And of course, we have the War On Women - led by that nut case Rick Santorum and a few other hard right neo-whatevers, jumped on by Pro Choice activists everywhere to try to push the Roe v. Wade decisions further to the woman and away from the state, and heartily endorsed by the Democratic strategists as their uber-liberal base tells them it will (probably) move votes their way.

The point is, The Pres is totally incapable of working with Congress - he doesn't have the skills or desire to negotiate acceptable compromises, and he doesn't have the cajones to do what Hill would have done - grab old orange face by the tie and tell him to get his little upstarts in line or she'll come back and rip his heart out.

So, given that he'll probably win reelection, and Congress will probably stay Republican, we're pretty much guaranteed nothing is going to change with the economy for a few more years.

But, just in case we become more fed up with his inability as November draws nearer - Pres Obama's team is playing let's remind everyone how much those mean social conservatives hate everyone else.

So, nailingit - no, I don't think we who want to get the focus back where it belongs this election - onto how to fix this economic mess we're in - are the ones who are confused. I'd say this is a perfect example of when you point a finger at me, three are pointing back at you.

roger — May 9, 2012 at 5:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — May 9, 2012 at 5:02 p.m.,

Read George Tenet's At The Center Of The Storm. Cheney and Rummy continually refused to hear anything that went against their agenda, and (for the longest time) had Pres Bush under their control. It wasn't until a couple of years later that Bush realized he'd been misled. Rummy was put out to pasture and Cheney marginalized, but by then it was too late to change course.

roger — May 9, 2012 at 5:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal


roger- No one is pointing anything your way, certainly not me. Relax.

Again, marginalizing issues such as abortion/contraception/women's health care, those issues, which in most cases don't affect the aging population only widens the chasm. Marginalizing gay rights which affect every segment of our population as well American values not so hot either! But that's my opinion.

To understand how to fix our economy, is to understand what got us there.

I don't understand this though. *and (for the longest time) had Pres Bush under their control.*

A computer chip? Hypnosis? Hostage taking? :)

*It wasn't until a couple of years later that Bush realized he'd been misled.*

Do you really think he was that stupid? Just curious, did you vote for him both times?

It's almost as though you make Bush out to be a victim. The right also likes to marginalize Bush involvement with the failed messes of Iraq/Afghanistan. I am still amazed that after 8 years of Bush, they would nominate Sarah Palin to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency

(above post meant with mellow tones!) (no fingers pointing!)

nailingit — May 9, 2012 at 6:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal


DAMMIT, MATT!!!

Will you quit deleting Nailingit's stuff? How am I supposed to squabble with him when you delete the posts that get me going?

I'm getting the idea you'd rather we just sit in a circle quilting or something while we talk about the kids.

roger — May 9, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Nope. I "wasted" my vote on Ross the first time, and voted for Kerry in '04.

Bush was as unprepared as Obama. In fairness, though, he selected a pretty competent Cabinet that covered quite a bit of philosophical territory. But then he failed to exert his leadership; many accounts I've read say that Cheney took over and controlled access. This is (apparently) why O'Neill left Treasury and Whitman the EPA; they weren't going to put up with his and Rumsfeld's bullying. I think a lot of military people knew something was amiss when Rumsfeld responded so dismissively to GEN Shinseki's estimation that Iraq would require a much higher troop and asset commitment than Rummy's estimates called for. But I think by his second term he was starting to get a better picture - Ashcroft, Rummy, and several others moved on. (Unfortunately, so did Powell.) But I think it's not much fairer to blame what happened in 2006/2007 on him than to blame it on Obama - the seeds of Wall Street going out of control were planted in Reagan's day and grew up under Clinton. Bush's fault was that he was clueless.

Pres Obama's primary Cabinet hasn't produced, other than perhaps Hillary. Geithner isn't proving too successful at Treasury, and Locke is a bust at Commerce. Also, say what you want, but I think Nancy Pelosi is still the real power in that party.

roger — May 9, 2012 at 7:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal


roger- What post was removed? What did I do??? Aw shucks...

Fair assessment. But Bush knew everything. He chose not to engage in a thoughtful way. And yeah, he is an idiot.

*But I think it's not much fairer to blame what happened in 2006/2007 on him than to blame it on Obama - the seeds of Wall Street going out of control were planted in Reagan's day and grew up under Clinton. Bush's fault was that he was clueless.*

If you mean today's economic mess I agree. Has mitt suggested anything but taking us back to Bush policy?

nailingit — May 9, 2012 at 7:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**ROGER**

and eric holder speaks for itself...keeping jeh's racist-centered operation and adding party loyalty to it

DeeLittle — May 9, 2012 at 7:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal


"drift...taking into consideration i'm someone who needs pain meds and a specific antidepressant (chemical, not psychological) to control severe clinical depression, still gotta take issue with legalizing drugs. it's a matter of lowering the societal norm to a non-functioning level of personal pleasure-seeking. rome fell because of that. we need a higher standard of life than just getting high."

Dee, I'm having trouble figuring out what it is you're trying to say. And no, it's not because I'm "high" ;^)

Okay, you take pharmaceuticals for a few (couple?) maladies. What that might have to do with my previous post, I've not a clue. So... I'll not address that.

I'll skip to "legalizing drugs". Pull up a chair. These are the facts.

The Harrison Act was passed in 1914 because someone in Congress discovered 1.3% of the population had drug abuse issues. You're hip to the Harrisson Act, right? Prior to, tonics containing heroin, opium, cocaine, cannabis, etc. could be purchased over the counter. These were called "patent drugs".

1937 came the Marijuana Tax Act. I won't go into all of the convolutions about that little piece of legislation. I will, however, mention at the time 1.3% of the 'states population were estimated to have a "drug problem".

I won't go into the various drug treaties with other countries. The first that comes to mind was 1961. Something might have been signed earlier. I don't want to go looking right now.

1970 brought us the Controlled Substance Act. At the time it was estimated that 1.3% of United States citizens had a dope problem. The "War on Drugs" was off and running.

This here is 2012. It is estimated that about 1.3% of the population have a drug problem. The U.S. constitutes around 5% of the world's population. Of all the people incarcerated (in the -world-) we are housing 25% of them.

Every year nearly two million people are arrested on drug charges. Just short of half for cannabis. Of those, 80%, or better, are arrested for simple possession.

Between the states and the feds 60 billion will be spent this year - on the war on drugs. Since 1970, the number is over a trillion.

In the last 20 years California has built 23 prisons, and one (1) university.

Prohibition is an obvious failure. Do your own homework and take a look at what happened when Portugal decriminalized personal possession. Drug rates dropped like a rock, Dee.

Take a look at how juvenile use of cannabis in the Netherlands compares to the U.S. Go ahead. Look.

Dee, legalization will simply move drug abuse from a crime to a social/health issue. Something "addicts" are far more likely to address than risk prison. We have the data.

Oh, and Dee, the Roman Empire didn't fall because of dope. I -did- take the time to briefly research that. The reasons are varied, and some opinion controversial, but not once did I see the mention of dope.

http://capndrift.wordpress.com/

Drift — May 9, 2012 at 9:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Drift — May 9, 2012 at 9:11 p.m.

Many people will tell you that the Roman Empire fell because of hedonistic excesses, But if you look at the facts it fell after becoming a christian theocracy.

frobert — May 9, 2012 at 9:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Drift @ 9/11- Thanks for your post. It doesn't get any better.

*Between the states and the feds 60 billion will be spent this year*

That's enough money to invest in Nation wide drug awareness programs, rehab centers, clinics, shore up every state budget in the country and have enough left over to see a movie. Factor in the profits taxation would bring to local gov's and it's a win win win and another win for everyone in so many ways.

But then Feds and local gov's wouldn't be able to justify their enormous budgets that build our local popo's into small armies.

nailingit — May 9, 2012 at 9:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Drift — May 9, 2012 at 9:11 p.m.

You also forgot that when Florida implemented drug testing for welfare recipients, they ended up with the same 1.3%.

frobert — May 9, 2012 at 9:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Cost 'em more money than they were originally spending, too, fro.

I'm gonna go off in left field (not that "left"!) here a moment and offer a link to a blog. This guy is offering his opinion on gay marriage. I just thought it was too good not to share.

Warning: Put down your beverage.

http://www.stonekettle.com/2012/05/love-and-war.html

Drift — May 9, 2012 at 9:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I really *do* like debating with prohibitionists, nail.

Though I do feel guilty at times. I mean... fish in a barrel. It's not very sporting, I reckon.

Heh.

Night'all. Eye lids... closing...

Drift — May 9, 2012 at 10:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**DRIFT**

since it's been a long day and we're both apparently ready to rest, i use the brief-reply style (sometimes mistaken for attitude-style, hence explanation)

1. my dependence on (legal) drugs may or may not be an influence on my opinion, so i state it so the reader may make his own determination.

2. your drug history and statistics are welcome, as this isn't an issue i follow. i won't bother to check them, as you present a credible case on its' face.

3. my point didn't have anything to do with drug-using percentages of population, agenda-driven laws or anything else of that type. it had to do with a philosophical objection to making drug use a sanctioned societal activity. and rome's demise began when the romans stopped being productive, active members of society and instead became pleasure-seeking non-producers.

DeeLittle — May 9, 2012 at 11:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Drift @ 9:58- [stonekettle] Some of the best satire I've read since...I don't remember when. Great stuff! Gratzie!

nailingit — May 10, 2012 at 12:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal


"my point didn't have anything to do with drug-using percentages of population, agenda-driven laws or anything else of that type. it had to do with a philosophical objection to making drug use a sanctioned societal activity. and rome's demise began when the romans stopped being productive, active members of society and instead became pleasure-seeking non-producers."

'Mornin', Dee. If you chose to use "philosophy" as an arguing point then a debate is pointless. Impossible, actually. I can't reason with baseless opinion. What I can do is state facts as we know them. For instance: Only a little more than 8% of people incarcerated in federal prisons are there for violent crime.

I don't know of anyone who's stating drug abuse should be a "sanctioned societal activity." What many folks are saying, though, is the current drug laws are actually worse than the harm caused by drugs. Those drug laws have cost 50,000 Mexicans their lives. Those laws are resulting in folks getting saddled with criminal convictions. And it's painfully clear those laws don't work. The POTUS has admitted to both snorting cocaine and smoking cannabis. Whether or not the man is a productive member of society... well, that's getting too close to politics ;^)

Here's some facts for you, Dee. When Portugal decrim'ed personal possession the place didn't become a haven for dopers. Something else happened. Drug addiction declined. HIV declined. You know what went up? Folks seeking help with their addiction.

In the Netherlands, where any adult can walk into a "coffee shop," sit down smoke a splif and then walk out with several grams of cannabis in their pocket, teen cannabis use is half of what it is in the U.S.

Facts, Dee... not philosophy.

The RAND Corp. has estimated the price of cannabis would drop from ~$200.00 an ounce to $10.00 or $20.00 with legalization. Do you think criminals would continue to grow pot in our national forests if the value was such? Myself, I sincerely doubt it.

No one I know condones drug 'abuse'. Myself I find nothing wrong with responsible 'use'. Drug abuse should be treated as a social/health issue, not a crime. We have real world evidence the former works. Not philosophy - real world experience.

Oh, and here is some light reading on the Fall of the Roman Empire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_...

Have a good day, Dee. It looks like it's gonna be another beauty!

Drift — May 10, 2012 at 6:31 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Crickets.

Sorry, folks. I didn't mean to be a buzz-kill ;^)

Drift — May 10, 2012 at 9:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal


***Hey Dee, I think this may be why you are having problems with your scripts.***

WASHINGTON (AP) - It would take a mighty big pill box to hold them.

A pharmacy in Kansas billed Medicare for more than 1,000 prescriptions each for two patients in a single year, part of a pattern of questionable billings at 2,600 drugstores nationwide uncovered by federal investigators in a report Thursday.

The inspector general of the Health and Human Services department found that corner drugstores are vulnerable to billion-dollar fraud, partly because Medicare does not require the private insurers that deliver prescription benefits to seniors to report suspicious billing patterns.

"While some pharmacies may be billing extremely high amounts for legitimate reasons, all warrant further scrutiny," said the report. Medicare paid $5.6 billion to drugstores whose billings are being questioned.

The analysis broke new ground by scrutinizing every claim submitted by the nation's 59,000 retail pharmacies during 2009 - nearly 1 billion prescriptions. Using statistical analysis, investigators were able to reveal contrasts between normal business practices and potential criminal behavior.

"The findings call for a strong response to improve (program) oversight," the report said.

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20120510/D9ULV1SO1.html

hawkeye — May 10, 2012 at 9:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal


What a beautiful day! Yard work gets easier every year doesn't it? ;)

Drift @ 6:31- *If you chose to use "philosophy" as an arguing point then a debate is pointless. Impossible, actually. I can't reason with baseless opinion.*

So it goes many times in political speak!

---

**Franklin Graham: Barack Obama Has 'Shaken His Fist' At God With Support For Same-Sex Marriage**

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/franklin-graham-obama-gay-marriage_n_1506922.html

nailingit — May 10, 2012 at 2:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**Shaun Winkler, White Supremacist Idaho Sheriff Candidate, Hosts Cross Burning Event**

"Mainstream society looks at cross lighting as a symbol of hate, but it predates the Klan by hundreds of years," Winkler told the Bonner County Daily Bee. "We look at it more as a religious symbol."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/shaun-winkler-idaho-cross-burning_n_1506357.html?ref=topbar

nailingit — May 10, 2012 at 2:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**Joe Arpaio Lawsuit: Justice Department Complaint Reveals Disturbing Allegations**

MCSO Arrests Arpaio Critics Expressing Their First Amendment Rights

The suit claims on multiple occasions that people were arrested for merely applauding against the office's immigration policies. The judge presiding over the case of the arrestees found that the deputy who made the arrest "believes it is his role to make uncomfortable anyone who express[es] views that disagree with the sheriff" and that he had "trampled" over the First Amendment. The court acquitted them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/justice-department-joe-arpaio-lawsuit_n_1507098.html?ref=topbar

nailingit — May 10, 2012 at 3:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**Romney’s behavior in the dorms, behavior this classmate describes as “like Lord of the Flies.”**

One former classmate and old friend of Romney’s – who refused to be identified by name – said there are “a lot of guys” who went to Cranbrook who have “really negative memories” of Romney’s behavior in the dorms, behavior this classmate describes as “like Lord of the Flies.”
The classmate believes Romney is lying when he claims to not remember it.
“It makes these fellows [who have owned up to it] very remorseful. For [Romney] not to remember it? It doesn’t ring true. How could the fellow with the scissors forget it?” the former classmate said.
In a radio interview Thursday morning, Romney offered an apology for the pranks, but said that “homosexuality” was never on his mind.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/romney-friend-stu-white-says-campaign-wants-him-to-counter-prank-accusations/

nailingit — May 10, 2012 at 3:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Snoooooooreeeeee

HEY, WAKE UP OUT THERE!!!!

The mailman brought me another "Jamie survey" today. (Seems it would be cheaper to do it by email but I guess they need to help out the Post office) Anyway, she wants to know what I think about medicare and how to make it more viable. My choices are (pick any or all) (A) Reduce payments to high income people. (B) Drive down costs by having multiple Medicare plans compete for seniors' choice. (C) Raise eligibility age to 67 by 2033. and (D) Unsure. Then there are two lines for you to write in your ideas.

So let's see, now. I would choose out of all of my choices, A. I think if you can afford your own healthcare, you don't need medicare but then that raises questions about contributions. As for B, the more you throw at seniors for choices, the more confused they get. Trust me here, I personally witnessed this all last year. As for C. If a person retires at 65 and looses their medical at 65, then they will have to wait until 67 for medicare. I don't think so. Maybe they can make it so that you can't collect medicare until you no longer have employer supplied insurance. So if you work until 70, that's when you will get medicare, if you go out at 65, then that's your number.

Another thing is, the Medicare deduction rate is now at 1.45%, matched by the employer at 1.45%. (on all wages) I think it needs to be raised to at least 1.75%. It hasn't gone up since 1986 and the cost of health care has gone up a lot since then.

But then, I think SSI should be changed to "all wages" as well.

Bottom line is, we need to get control of health care rates.

hawkeye — May 10, 2012 at 3:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nail-
I've found many of your posts and links to be interesting and informative, pretty pointed, but whatever. The 3:05 post is, if you ask me, scraping the bottom of the barrel. I'm sure as heck no Romney fan, but a high school prank? He doesn't recall it? Big deal. If he dabbled in cocaine back then, I wouldn't give a rip either. Seems more than one president has.

mrd — May 10, 2012 at 3:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal


hawk-

I got a thing from Jamie a couple of days ago. It was results from some survey. It seemed the most popular answers came right out of a Republican playbook. Kinda made me wonder.

Right now, I'm very skeptical about anything a republican proposes about SS or Medicaire. When I read the other day the republicans in the house are going to cut SS and Medicaire to allow the military budget to remain unscathed if the cuts early next year come into effect. Those cuts are due because the "super-committee" couldn't agree on anything.

It would be nice to hear somebody at least discuss raising the SS cap. Seems the obvious start. Raise the cap, gradually raise the elgibility age as people are living and working longer. Bump up the contribution rate for Medicaire. I don't think that's so objectionable. But I think the republicans are stuck on cut, cut, cut. I guess Europe's example doesn't mean much to them.

mrd — May 10, 2012 at 3:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mrd- *The 3:05 post is, if you ask me, scraping the bottom of the barrel.*

Pretty close, I think there are a couple of layers left, but I tend to agree. It's what is hot right now media wise so I thought to post it. I remember the repubs taking issue with something Obama wrote about being president when he was in kindergarten.

nailingit — May 10, 2012 at 3:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal


http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romneys-prep-school-classmates-recall-pranks-but-also-troubling-incidents/2012/05/10/gIQA3WOKFU_print.html

Nailingit --- This is the complete Washington Post article. The other men who were in the room continue to be bothered by what happened. I think it says something about his character.

langenthal — May 10, 2012 at 4:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**DRIFT**

from your 6:31 am post, it doesn't seem we have any disagreement. if your way reduces recreational drug use, great. that is the same as making it socially unacceptable (like the meth busts today) and achieves the purpose i'm seeking.

we'll never agree on rome, buddy.

as for hawk's stuff about m/c abuse rx's, i'm not on medicare and the excessive billings i read about were for pain meds. it's not the pain meds i'm having issues with; it's the antidepressive meds that correct a chemical imbalance.

as for the pain meds, both my doctor and i watch *that* carefully because i'm on opiates, which ARE addictive, physically. they're a no-win situation, too. i wish there were some alternative to them; when the pain's bad enough i can't t control with ASA (aspirin), i have to start the opiates. and they're not only physically addictive, the pain is ENHANCED when you stop or reduce the dose, making the return to aspirin pointless until the effects are gone.

and fwiw, this argues AGAINST federal health care: if people are given control over their expenses, THEY MONITOR IT THEMSELVES. no need for any fed nose-sticking into anyone's healthcare.

DeeLittle — May 10, 2012 at 4:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal


langenthal- *I think it says something about his character.*

Quite an article. It could and it might even though it was many moons ago. I tend to not give much weight to youthful indiscretions, (but incident is disturbing to say the least on the Prez character front) When I heard Willard's explanation that he "doesn't remember" this incident in particular, I thought either he is lying or there were so many like minded incidents he couldn't distinguish them. Again this guy lacks any type of sincerity or genuineness one can believe in. I can see why he's not only loathed by many on the left, but also by those that know him on the right.

No wonder the endorsements are lukewarm, if they come at all.

nailingit — May 10, 2012 at 6:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — May 10, 2012 at 6:09 p.m

I don't find his "explanation" credible. I don't know about you, but I remember just about any and all pranks I/we pulled in high school. (and I graduated in 1970) If I had been so bold as to ***cut someones hair***, I WOULD have remembered.

hawkeye — May 10, 2012 at 6:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye/langenthal- My position on this has evolved. If a presidential candidate @ 18 ran into a burning building to save a child it would be heralded in a campaign. The same with distinguished military actions and anything notably heroic. Why shouldn't it also work with a shameful act?

Romney owns this. The more he talks the deeper it gets. I'm sure some will wonder what it has to do with jobs! Character.

Thanks for the wake up langenthal.

hawk- I still remember tossing a M-80 in the boys restroom trash can during a quiet assembly in the 9th grade. I remember fights, suspensions and girlfriends. Mitt is lying. And if not we need a President with a better memory.

nailingit — May 10, 2012 at 7:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nail, I still remember flushing an M-80 down the toilet and watching the toilet fall off the wall. Good times, good times. Oh, and taking my Biology teacher's VW and putting it up on the sidewalk between the power pole and guy wire. Them was the days.

hawkeye — May 10, 2012 at 7:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal



Nailingit and Hawkeye --- Walking a blind teacher into a glass door? Who does that? He is laughing when he responds to reporters' questions.

Nailingit 6:09 --- When I heard Willard's explanation that he "doesn't remember" this incident in particular, I thought either he is lying or there were so many like minded incidents he couldn't distinguish them. Again this guy lacks any type of sincerity or genuineness one can believe in.

langenthal — May 10, 2012 at 8:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**Catholic Church Sexual Abuse Scandal: Vatican Investigates 7 Legion Of Christ Priests For Allegedly Assaulting Minors**

The scandal of Maciel and the Legion ranks as one of the worst of the 20th-century Catholic Church, since he was held up as a model for the faithful by Pope John Paul II. The orthodox order, which has about 900 priests around the world, was praised for attracting both money and vocations to the priesthood.

Documentation from Vatican archives, however, has shown that as early as the 1950s, the Vatican had evidence that he was a drug addict and pedophile.

Only in 2006 did the Vatican sanction Maciel to a lifetime of penance and prayer for his crimes. He died in 2008 and a year later the Legion admitted he had fathered three children with two different women and had abused his seminarians.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/11/catholic-church-sexual-abuse-scandal_n_1508668.html

nailingit — May 11, 2012 at 8:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal


At least this "man of God" seemingly leaves the small children alone.

The lawsuit contends that in May 2010 Darrell Pitt confronted Little about the affair and that the minister bragged of having sex with his wife in Pitt's living room and recounting his wife's favorite sexual positions.

http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2012/04/billy_little_baptist_minister_sex_scandal.php

nailingit — May 11, 2012 at 8:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal



**No headless body here!!!**

Paul Babeu, the Pinal County, Ariz. Sheriff who confirmed he was gay in February after allegations surfaced that he had threatened a Mexican ex-boyfriend with deportation, announced that he was no longer running for Congress as a Republican in the state's 4th District and would run for re-election as sheriff instead.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/11/paul-babeu-congress-gop-sheriff_n_1508851.html?ref=politics

nailingit — May 11, 2012 at 8:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal


LMAO Crazy under estimates crazy! You can't make this stuff up!!

“Dual Citizenship Is Treason,” blared a headline at the Daily Paul, a website “inspired by” Ron Paul.
“I am against dual citizenship of any kind. When you benefit from the blood spilled by patriots in the past, the least which can be requested of you is undivided allegiance. The United States is not like any other country… For most of the country’s history, dual citizenship was considered the equivalent of political bigamy,” wrote a blogger there.
“Just when you think it’s safe to vote for a Republican, along comes Michele Bachmann… with what should be a career-ending piece of news, at least on the national level,” remarked Michael Walsh at National Review’s The Corner. “Good grief.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76211.html#ixzz1uZywUUvU

nailingit — May 11, 2012 at 9:31 a.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — May 11, 2012 at 8:52 a.m

Somethin' don't add up here. Gay+ Sheriff+ corrupt official+ Republican't = natural born politician. How could he lose?

hawkeye — May 11, 2012 at 9:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Here’s some bad news for Washington: More voters than ever would vote to replace the entire Congress rather than keep it.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that, if given the choice, 68% of Likely Voters would vote to get rid of the entire Congress rather than keep them all on the job. Just 12% say they would vote to keep the entire Congress. Twenty percent (20%) are undecided.

hawkeye — May 11, 2012 at 9:42 a.m. ( | suggest removal


hawk- Not to sound anything less than bi-partisan mind you, :) but the GOP are pretty damn tolerant of fellow can't's behavior. But have sex with an undocumented mexican male? ... No, that wouldn't bother them either ...

He'll probably run for a US Senate seat.

nailingit — May 11, 2012 at 9:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal



Time to knock back a cold one! I'll take mine shaken..not stirred

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/japanese-ice-bra_n_1503197.html?ref=weird-news

nailingit — May 11, 2012 at 6:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**House Republicans Block Attempt To Bring Afghanistan War Policy In Line With Public Opinion**

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/11/house-republicans-block-afghanistan-war-policy_n_1510209.html?ref=topbar

nailingit — May 11, 2012 at 7:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal



Just got back from Red Lobster, it IS The Festival of Shrimp, you know.

hawkeye — May 11, 2012 at 7:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal


There is a virus going around called the DNSChanger that is going to go "live" on July 9th

How can you detect if your computer has been violated and infected with DNS Changer?

An industry wide team has developed easy “are you infected” web sites. They are a quick way to determine if you are infected with DNS Changer. Each site is designed for any normal computer user to browse to a link, follow the instructions, and see if they might be infected. Each site has instructions in their local languages on the next steps to clean up possible infections.

This site will tell you if you are infected and what to do if you are.

http://www.dcwg.org/detect/

hawkeye — May 11, 2012 at 8:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal


***Hey!!! I thought gas was going down!!!!***

It went UP ten cents this week. Now, what the hell is going on?

hawkeye — May 11, 2012 at 8:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**From Dee, yesterday 'round 4:30 PM**

"from your 6:31 am post, it doesn't seem we have any disagreement. if your way reduces recreational drug use, great. that is the same as making it socially unacceptable (like the meth busts today) and achieves the purpose i'm seeking."

I've read that, like, five times now, and I was gonna let it go, though something about it kept niggling me. At The fifth reading it dawned on me what the bother was. It came to me, biting my tongue could well be perceived as agreement. And I can't have that, because it isn't true.

As I stated in a previous post, "Myself I find nothing wrong with responsible 'use'." So you see, I haven't any issue with responsible "recreational" use - none at all. That said, we *aren'*t in agreement.

If drug **abuse** didn't take a toll on our society, frankly, I'd be just hunky-dory with that, too. After all, a person's life is theirs to live as they will, right?

My issue is with how the world deals with dope - both governments and the criminal element (reduntant?). Prohibition has bestowed upon the drug cartels a most profitable business model.

The drug profiteers are both ruthless and smart. They regulate the market. The dope they peddle for $5000.00 a pound cost them $50.00 to produce. One shipment out of 20 gets intercepted. Who cares? Are you aware that Joaquin Guzman made Forbes? His net worth being >1B. Enter "El Chapo" into your favorite search engine, Dee. By the way, he will cut your head off, should you get in his way. Ruthless..

Money... all about money...

And then, on the flip side, there are "addicts" out there that would like to get help. There's a problem with that though. See, to admit you are a heroin/meth/whatever addict a person is incriminating themselves in a crime. Dope's agin the law dontcha know?

It doesn't work, Dee. Prohibition is the machine behind the money that bought the task force those cool ninja masks. Prohibition is a business, Dee. On both sides of the fence.

Money.

And, we as a society are paying the price.

I find it shameful. Embarassing. I want better for my grandchildren.

Drift — May 11, 2012 at 9:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Drift — May 11, 2012 at 9:24 p.m.

The Government should not be involved in our medical or recreational choices when it comes to pharmaceuticals. If people did not need to see a physician every time they needed an asthma inhaler or birth control, the strain on our medical system would be alleviated and medical cost would drop. Making our medical decisions or deciding what drugs we use for recreation is none of the government's business.

frobert — May 11, 2012 at 10:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Read where Santorum is urging Romney to use Obama's public support of gay marriage against him in the campaign. But I guess it's not surprising, when they can't address the real issues, politicians like to muddy up the water with the three G's. Hopefully, this season, they can do better but I'll not hold my breath.

mrd — May 12, 2012 at 7:10 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Morning all on this super nice Mother's Day weekend.
Regarding legalizing pot. I have grappled with that issue for
years - against? For? Personally, I am against drug use. No offense, Drift-I have no issue with medical use whatsoever.

Then I start thinking of this war on drugs and its costs in human lives. That alone changes my thinking. A little bit of weed on your person and cops haul you off to jail. A wee bit more on your person, and cops haul you off to prison. Felony conviction as the weight of the weed "obviously" means you are a drug dealer. Felony conviction for drugs means years and years of personal struggle with curtailing of voting rights etc, no access to student federal aid, etc.

Put that picture together, and I find this war on drugs totally ludicrous. So in the end, I am coming down on the side of legalization.

However, what do we do with meth? Other synthetic drugs? Coke? Heroin? Make them legal also? Somewhere along the line, I find I am once more having an issue. Although I would love to see all the Mexican drug lords down there out of business.

luvithere — May 12, 2012 at 7:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I don't know what "legalization" would look like, luv.

I have a family member who's struggled with meth for years. This person has done the drug court thing. They have done time in prison, and still is struggling.

This person would like to go to school, but can't until thousands of dollars in fines and fees are satisfied. This person hops around between several states trying to keep one step in front of the "hounds."

Would things be different if meth (use and possession) wasn't illegal? This person's desire to use the substance wouldn't be any different, but what about the postion they currently find themselves in?

People who don't currently use drugs... would they if it were legal? Or do they not, not because of the law(s), but simply because they have no desire?

To praphrase a member of LEAP, "A person can overcome a drug addiction. They can't overcome a drug conviction."

If once a year (or so) I decide to enjoy the effects of an illegal substance does that make me a druggie? If I get caught with some magic mushrooms should I be jailed and fined? To what end? Why? I'm not hurting anyone.

People have been altering their consciousness since... well, since people. They aren't going to stop. To believe they are is madness.

So what do we do? Frankly, I don't know what the model will look like. I do know the current policies are doing more harm to society than the drugs, though.

Oh, and by the way, the liquor industry is one of the biggest financial contributers to the various anti-drug groups. I don't like to blur the lines between medicinal cannabis and recreational use, but I'll offer that in states with medicinal laws both beer sales and traffic accidents (do to impairment) have shown a decline.

Drift — May 12, 2012 at 8:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Nice to get the straight dope on drug legalization! Common sense abounds! Drift you articulate so well how many of us feel.

Stop the madness! Treat America's drug use as an off shoot of legitimate societal behavior. Not to be looked down on as drug induced leprosy.

---

On another issue, why don't we ban biblical law from influencing our politicians? Where are the bills denouncing hiding behind Jesus in order to enact freedom restricting legislation?

While the Senate voted to ban Islamic law, House members passed a wide-ranging alcohol bill that legalizes happy hour in Kansas. Under the state's strict liquor laws, happy hour has been outlawed for years, but bars could do day-long drink specials, known as "happy days."

**State Lawmakers Ban Sharia Law, Legalize Happy Hour**

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/11/sharia-law-kansas-ban_n_1510773.html?ref=politics

nailingit — May 12, 2012 at 9:58 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Thanks Drift. I also have a family member who for a few ounces of weed got a felony conviction that will now haunt him. How stupid can we be? As I said, I am not against legalization but I just do not know where to stop. But the current thinking can't continue. We can't have so many people in prison for such little things and spend gazillions on this. We could focus on important things instead.

Yep, Nail,I would LOVE to see such a ban. Those hypocrites with their biblical thinking - but watch out if religion is different than theirs. Medieval thinkers abound (see that LTTE today for a prime example. I am sick of this country being so influenced by religion. You want to be religious, go right ahead. Save me though from having to follow your thinking. I find it so interesting that for the most part these are the same people who scream constitution when things don't pan out the way they want it. Wasting time banning non-existing shariah law and then spending hours praying over the next law they could implement. And never seeing the irony in it.

luvithere — May 12, 2012 at 10:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**This is one for the books, did you guys see this yesterday?**

BEAVERTON, Ore. - A church pastor is suing a mother and daughter for $500,000 because they gave the church bad reviews online.

The family being sued left the church a few years ago and Julie Anne Smith says she and her family were shunned and couldn't understand why. So she went online and wrote Google and DEX reviews of the church and then started a blog.

"I thought, I'm just going to post a review," Smith said. "We do it with restaurants and hotels and whatnot, and I thought, why not do it with this church?"

Never did she think Beaverton Grace Bible Church and Pastor Charles O'Neal would slap her with the lawsuit.

"I'm a stay-at-home mom. I teach my kids at home, and this is just not the amount of money that normal moms have."

When the family left the church, Smith says friends were told to end all contact with her.

"If I went to Costco or any place in town, if I ran into somebody, they would turn their heads and walk the other way," she said. "All we did was asked questions. We just raised concerns. There's no sin in that."

http://www.katu.com/news/local/Beaveton-Grace-Bible-Church-lawsuit-charles-oneal-julie-anne-smith-151227055.html

hawkeye — May 12, 2012 at 11:15 a.m. ( | suggest removal


WASHINGTON (AP) — Betty White says she usually keeps her political views private but in this presidential election strongly favors one candidate.

As she prepares to visit the Smithsonian Institution and National Zoo next week, White told The Associated Press she "very, very much favors" President Barack Obama in the election.

The 90-year-old actress said Friday she is very bi-partisan and has stayed away from politics all of her life. She usually never says who she is for or against because she doesn't want to turn off any of her adoring fans.

White says in this year's election, she likes what Obama has done and "how he represents us."

Her comments come after Hollywood turned out at George Clooney's home to raise $15 million for Obama's re-election, a record for a single fundraiser.

***There you have it, re-elect the President or it will kill Betty White (kidding)***

hawkeye — May 12, 2012 at 1:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Drift. Your previous posts regarding drug legalization have been excellent.

Might I add a couple of other points.

Theft. Property crimes have gone through the roof, so that addicts steal, in order to get their money to support their very expensive drug habit. Which would not be the case, if these drugs were legal, and would be much less expensive to the user. Seems the cops are all busy chasing someone smoking a joint instead of someone killing their neighbor.

Drug houses. Complaints, of people who are outraged, over the meth labs and drug houses in their neighborhoods, would disappear. If drugs were legalized, like alcohol, there wouldn’t be any drug houses or Meth labs in people’s neighborhoods.

Aside from the previous points you have made about drug money, what about these:

- Outlaw biker gangs derive their money from drug sales.
- As do street gangs.
- As do Leftist revolutionary outfits around the world. Like FARC in Columbia. There was a time when the Taliban cut themselves in for a percentage of the poppy field farmers in Afghanistan. Not sure if this is still the case though. (I have read where they have had a religious epiphany over the drug trade). And others.

I HAVE thought that ALL drugs should be legalized. BUT PBS had a good program on a couple of months ago, about meth. Seems that meth pretty much destroys a person’s life. Without any redeeming qualities. Meth is a synthetic, which requires certain manmade chemicals. Apparently, there are eight manufacturers, in the entire world, that manufacture the key ingredient in meth. According to the above mentioned program. According to this program, when these companies sales where regulated, as has been done; meth manufacture has gone way down.

While a person is free to destroy their own life, apparently meth is such an incredible high, that once used, it is nearly impossible to stop. While I favor, drug legalization, I’m not quite sure about some of these synthetics.

I’m more than willing to listen to others’ about the pros and cons.

kn_dalai — May 12, 2012 at 6:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Happy Mother's Day to MotherDwellers

**Paul backers boo Romney son off stage**

There isn't a whole lot of evidence out of these conventions that Paul supporters are ready to line up behind Mitt Romney, the presumptive nominee, who's now less than 200 delegates short of securing the nomination.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/charlie-mahtesian/2012/05/paul-backers-boo-romney-son-off-stage-123268.html

nailingit — May 13, 2012 at 8:31 a.m. ( | suggest removal


No wonder the US is broke. $500M (and we know how trustworthy that number is) wasted since October. I'd really like to know who got the $343M in construction contracts. I'm sure Halliburton was there with their hands out. Not sure the size of the multi-billion dollar package, maybe one of our government's buffoons will take credit for "saving" billions by eliminating the program, but never cop up to wasting hundreds of millions. A hundred million here and a hundred million there adds up, except if it's Dept of Defense $$$$$.

"In the face of spiraling costs and Iraqi officials who say they never wanted it in the first place, the State Department has slashed — and may jettison entirely by the end of the year — a multibillion-dollar police training program that was to have been the centerpiece of a hugely expanded civilian mission here.

What was originally envisioned as a training cadre of about 350 American law enforcement officers was quickly scaled back to 190 and then to 100. The latest restructuring calls for 50 advisers, but most experts and even some State Department officials say even they may be withdrawn by the end of this year.

The training effort, which began in October and has already cost $500 million, was conceived of as the largest component of a mission billed as the most ambitious American aid effort since the Marshall Plan. Instead, it has emerged as the latest high-profile example of the waning American influence here following the military withdrawal, and it reflects a costly miscalculation on the part of American officials, who did not count on the Iraqi government to assert its sovereignty so aggressively."

mrd — May 13, 2012 at 9:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*(responding to kn_dalai)*
Meth *is* bad stuff. I was strung out on it for about a year (30+ years ago). The addiction cost me plenty; utilities turned off, evicted from rental homes, fired from jobs... I even traded my kid's Atari for a bag of dope. That period in my life was the lowest. I *did* come away with a lesson learned.

I was lucky I never got busted. I would move on to a bit more productive lifestyle. I was the President of the Employees' Committee at the hospital I worked in, head of the mechanical plant department. Later I became a partner in an industrial firm. I was elected President of the local motorcycle racing association. Hell, I'm a published author working on a second manuscript.

I have no desire, whatsoever, to hold another bag of crank ("biker" slang for meth) in my hand. I'll speculate things would have turned out quite a bit differently had I been busted for peddling the stuff.

Meth wrecks lives. No doubt. It is one heck of a burden on our society - true, that. So what do we do about it? Locking people up isn't the answer. Trying to pretend we can eradicate it from the face of the earth isn't realistic.

Maybe, just maybe, a system where people can get help - without fear of prosecution - would be not only a more humane approach, but possibly more effective.

Maybe.

I do believe we need to take a different approach than the current policies. I *know* those don't work.

Drift — May 13, 2012 at 10:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I want to know when, if ever, will immigration rights groups understand that the general public is fed up with them standing up for 'illegal' aliens. If you want to stand up for someone stand up for the ones who are struggling with legally staying here. Who came here legally and want to start a new life here.

Quit trying to justify a group of people who sneak over our boarders at night without legal documentation. They are just as guilty.

I think that they, first of all, would tell them the right way to become legal. Go back and stand in line. Upstanding legal immigrant citizens do take issue with them. I do have a dog in this issue as my grandson's father was an illegal.

Twenty years ago he went back instead of taking amnesty, and came back the right way. He said to me that it was a matter of respect. He couldn't respect himself or get the respect of others.

My grandson understands this and he has no respect for those who cross illegally. He understands the plight. He does not subscribe to the theory that all of the illegals are just looking for work. He knows better and so do most of the other legal resident immigrants. His father implanted in him a strong work ethic and a sense of right and wrong. He is going to college now and is employed full time as well.

So when ICE locks up illegals they are doing their job. Nothing more nothing less. In the end it does protect all of us.

One more thing. Quit using tactics such as catch words like 'little infractions'.

JohnCasey — May 13, 2012 at 12:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — May 13, 2012 at 8:31 a.m.

Romney has only been awarded 312 delegates so far, AP does not actually award delegates, only the state conventions. He is more like 800 delegates shy of the nomination, and he is losing ground in just about every state convention so far.

frobert — May 13, 2012 at 2 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — May 13, 2012 at 8:31 a.m.

Also the story you posted failed to mention that Romney was booed by Paul supporters after he referred to Paul's campaign in the past tense. Romney currently has 312 actual(not the 966 AP claims) Ron Paul currently has 104 actual, uphill battle, yes insurmountable, no.

frobert — May 13, 2012 at 2:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal


How many delegates has Paul been awarded to date?

mrd — May 13, 2012 at 2:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal


fro, really funny how you count

NY Times says 966, CBS says 934, WSJ says 966, RealClearPolitics says 949

Even the "Daily Paul" says 762.

That's a long ways from 312.

Oh who to believe, who to believe.......

hawkeye — May 13, 2012 at 2:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal


JPMorgan Banker Who Led Unit That Had $2 Billion Trading Loss Expected to Resign

The $2 billion trading loss at JPMorgan Chase will claim its first casualty among top officials at the bank as early as Monday, with chief executive Jamie Dimon set to accept the resignation of the executive who oversaw the trade, Ina R. Drew.

Ms. Drew, a 55-year-old banker who has worked at the company for three decades and serves as chief investment officer, had repeatedly offered to resign since the scale of the loss became apparent in late April, but Mr. Dimon had held off until now on accepting it, several JPMorgan Chase executives said.

***That's total BS. The guy should be made to stay there and face the music then he should be indicted. NO FREE RIDES.***

hawkeye — May 13, 2012 at 2:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye — May 13, 2012 at 2:13 p.m.

Those are estimates, 32 states have not issued a single delegate yet. Real Clear Politics is still showing Romney as winning Maine, that shows you how up to date their numbers are.

frobert — May 13, 2012 at 2:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal


What's the Paul plan fro, blow up the convention? Divide & destroy? To what end?

nailingit — May 13, 2012 at 3:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal


hawk @ 2:36- This incident fly's in the face of those who favor deregulation. This is why the markets can't be left alone from big Gov. They just can't handle it. It speaks to Obama's weakness on reform, (the weakened Volker Rule) which is bad, but speaks louder to the issue of deregulation which Romney trumps. Fox News are grinding their teeth over this. The corporate whore that is Fox News acquired yet another reality based std in their "Mating with the Mittster" agenda. Political polygamy if you will!

This plays right into the hand of Obama's messaging, and sticks yet another grapefruit in the politically cavernous mouth of one..Willard Mitt Romney.

Has Mitt produced a birth certificate yet?

nailingit — May 13, 2012 at 3:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Drift — May 13, 2012 at 10:40 a.m.

Thanks for sharing your story with us. Sounds like bad times. Glad you got things together and moved on and up. Criminalizing drugs and treating addicts with jail time, has definitely been the wrong way to go.

kn_dalai — May 13, 2012 at 4:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mrd --- C-SPAN 2 at 7:00 pm.

langenthal — May 13, 2012 at 5:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**Right wants more from John Boehner**-*Grab the Kleenex JohnBoy, the best salve for spinning heads is...have a couple without a chaser.*

Some of the action that conservatives want will happen by necessity as the year progresses. GOP leadership plans to try this summer to extend the Bush tax rates, which expire at the end of the year, although it will likely not vote on its own form of comprehensive reform. Plus, the lame duck session will see the expiration of a smattering of items, including the estate tax, the payroll tax holiday and the reimbursement formula for physicians who treat Medicare patients.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76258_Page2.html#ixzz1uoBdgXGm

nailingit — May 13, 2012 at 7:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal




JohnCasey- Here is some good news about the subject you approached. I wonder if Obama will get some credit for this. :)

**Why wave of Mexican immigration stopped**

Our analysis of Mexican and U.S. data sources indicates that at least as many Mexicans and their families are leaving the United States as are arriving in the United States from Mexico. As a result, the Mexican-born population in the United States decreased from 12.6 million in 2007 to 12 million in 2011. This appears to be the first sustained decline in the number of Mexican immigrants since the Great Depression, and it is entirely because of a reduction in illegal immigration -- more going home and fewer coming. Today, we estimate that 51% of all Mexican immigrants living in the United States are unauthorized. In 2007, that figure was 56%.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/26/opinion/passel-cohn-mexican-immigration/index.html

nailingit — May 13, 2012 at 11:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Forum Login