Open forum, Oct 22-28

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 Editor John Hill -- john.hill@columbian.com.


130 comments

Comments


**Billy Graham Endorses Romney's Secret Conversion to Islam -- Says "At Least He's Not a Homosexual!"**

After the meeting Billy Graham said he was impressed by Romney's business career and his "strong moral convictions and how he promised to deal with women who commit adultery, girls who lose their virginity before marriage, and black American liberals who question our most cherished traditions of what the words 'master' and 'servant' signify in the Bible."

Asked by some left wing "reporters" from MSNBC if this meant that the Graham family now endorses Muslim polygamy, Franklin responded, "At least Muslims uphold our traditional concept of marriage between men and women!"

Read more @

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/billy-graham-endorses-rom_b_2000521.html

nailingit — October 22, 2012 at 11:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal


prez "debate" tonite_

IMO, Obama crushed Romney. Obama illustrated a much more knowledgeable position foreign on affairs than did Romney. I doubt that will sway much-polls show pretty much folks vote as they always do, R or D's, but we'll see. Anyhoo-they agreed on so much stuff it seems improbable much is gonna change. It's like they've been bought and paid for by same $$$, who's gonna give a chit? Meet the same boss, same as the old boss....

I did think Obama's foreign policies were far superior. But that economy thing is an anchor he'll pay for-dearly.

mrd — October 22, 2012 at 8:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Romney foreign policy brought to you by the makers of Rosetta Stone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXd8r4GkXZo

Favorite moment.

Horses, bayonets and ships that go underwater oh my! :)))

nailingit — October 22, 2012 at 8:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Had Senator Kerry displayed this much resolve and personality in 2004, perhaps our country would have been spared the last four years of Bush. Kerry made the Romney Rosetta Stone foreign policy remark before the debate yesterday. Too funny!

President Obama took command last night and Mitt looked small. Obama reminded the country what a strong leader he has been internationally. (agree with him or not). When he wasn't agreeing with Obama's foreign policy, Mitt was sounding like a 60's hippie peacenik in his latest vote pandering attempt.

Romney. No resolve. No center. No good.

OBAMA/BIDEN 2012

**John Kerry: 'Exorcism' Needed After Playing Mitt Romney In Debate Prep**

After playing Mitt Romney in debate preparations with President Barack Obama, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) said he'd need an "exorcism."

Kerry told MSNBC's "Morning Joe" on October 17 playing Romney was "an interesting exercise," but "I've got to have an exorcism of Romney out of my being." He reiterated his point after the debate Monday night on Twitter:

John Kerry

@JohnKerry
wasn't joking when I said I'd need exorcism post-debate tonight after months playing Mitt Romney cc: @stefcutter pic.twitter.com/vp24O8iK

22 Oct 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite

In the spin room ahead of Monday's debate, Kerry -- who helped Obama prepare for all three presidential debates -- joked that he was "chosen from binders of senators" to help the president. The remark was another hit at Romney, who said in the second presidential debate that he was presented with "whole binders full of women" to consider as cabinet candidates while serving as governor of Massachusetts.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/23/john-kerry-exorcism_n_2005159.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

nailingit — October 23, 2012 at 8:21 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Been pretty quiet in the basement this week. On a personal level it's nice not to have the constant barrage of derisive insults "crazytrain" brings. Maybe that's what attracts a few.

Some people make a living from it.

**Ann Coulter Calls Obama A 'Retard'**

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/23/ann-coulter-obama-retard_n_2004828.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir;=Politics

nailingit — October 23, 2012 at 8:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Considering Republican's penchant for enacting voter suppression tactics and committing election fraud this season, is this Romney's ace in the hole?

**Romney-linked voting machine company to count votes in Ohio**

The company counting critical votes in Ohio and Colorado has extensive connections to the November 6 — even though it has extensive corporate ties to the Mitt Romney camp, and even though a study commissioned by the state of Ohio has labeled its voting system a “failure” when it comes to protecting the integrity of elections.

Reports of Hart Intercivic’s ties to Romney first surfaced in late September, in a blog post by Gerry Bello and Bob Fitrakis in The Free Press, an Ohio web site which reported that a key investor in Hart was HIG Capital, seven of whose directors were former employees of Bain & Co., a consulting company of which Mitt Romney was once CEO. (Romney left the company in 1984 to co-found a spin-off company, Bain Capital.) HIG Capital announced its investment in Hart on July 6, 2011, just one month after Romney formally announced the launch of his presidential campaign.

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/23/romney_linked_voting_machine_company_to_count_votes_in_ohio/

nailingit — October 23, 2012 at 8:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Hey Nail, greetings from Vegas. It's 80 degrees and a little windy today, don't miss the rain, well maybe a little. Be back soon.

hawkeye — October 23, 2012 at 9:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Hey hawk- I talked to my Mom Sunday and she said October weather was blowing in. I remember taking my kids trick-or-treating on many a cold & windy Vegas night. Mom's getting way up in years but still manages to get out and hit the casino's a couple of times a week when she's feeling good :)). Palace Station is her long time favorite haunt and it's fairly close to home.

Exciting time of year in Vegas with playoff baseball and mid season football going on. It used to be my favorite gambling season!

Stay safe and win some $$$!

nailingit — October 23, 2012 at 9:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal


***HaHaHa, what a maroon***

Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan says that he can’t figure out what President Barack Obama meant when he mocked Mitt Romney’s complaint about the Navy’s smaller fleet of ships by saying “we also have fewer horses and bayonets.”

During the third 2012 presidential debate, Romney had criticized Obama because “our Navy is smaller now than any time since 1917. The Navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission, we’re not down to 285. We’re headed down to the low 200s if we go through a sequestration. That’s unacceptable to me.”

In response, Obama promised that military spending would not be cut, adding, “I think Gov. Romney maybe hasn’t spent enough time looking at how our military works. You mentioned the Navy, for example. And that we have fewer ships that we had in 1916. Well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military has changed.”

“We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines. And so, the question is not a game of Battleship where we’re counting ships, it’s what are our capabilities?”

Appearing on CBS the next morning, Ryan told host Norah O’Donnell that he couldn’t make sense out of the “horses and bayonets” line.

“To compare modern American battleships with bayonets, I just don’t understand that comparison,” the Wisconsin Republican said. “Look, we have to have a strong Navy to keep peace and prosperity.”

“If all these defense cuts go through, our Navy will be small than it was before World War I,” Ryan continued. “That’s not acceptable. And, yes, the ocean hasn’t shrunk.”

In an interview on ABC, Vice President Joe Biden explained to host George Stephanopoulos that the president had told “the truth, that one aircraft carrier is probably more powerful than the entire United States Navy was back then.”

“Our Navy is superior to every other navy in the world combined,” the vice president pointed out. “In one aircraft carrier, we have more air power than almost every nation in the world has in their air force.”

Biden said that he “felt a little badly” for Romney because he showed “it’s clear he is not ready to be the commander in chief of the United States military. He demonstrated a lack of sophistication about what is going on in the world.”

hawkeye — October 23, 2012 at 9:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Nail, we went to a couple of the "Station" casinos, they are really big. Checking out the strip a little today and UNLV to see the grandkids.

hawkeye — October 23, 2012 at 9:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal


So if the economy and Jobs is the number one real item moving voters then this is why we need to say good bye to Obama..

The day was shaping up to be among the worst of the year on Wall Street. The Dow's biggest decline was 274 points, on June 1.

3M, which makes everything from Scotch tape to coatings for LCD screens and is an economic bellwether, reduced its profit expectations for this year because of "current economic realities."

Chemical maker DuPont said it will cut 1,500 jobs and take other steps to increase competitiveness after earnings fell sharply last quarter. UPS reported lower earnings and said it was uncertain about the holiday shopping season.

Xerox plunged 8 percent, or 56 cents, to $6.47. Xerox's income dropped 12 percent in the third quarter following steep declines in sales for equipment, supplies and related products. The stock is off 19 percent so far this year.

Obama doesn't and hasn't ever had a plan. He has hired and fired most everyone on his economic team except geitner who should never had been on it in the first place. When will Americans wake up and smell the Roses and Lollypops... How can he be trusted when he can't even propose a budget more or less balance the Budget... He is a Fraud...

On another closer note I find the front page story about the Sparring between Buetler and Hagan and the face book comments kind of funny... Haugen wants to create jobs, really..And he is opposed to building a new bridge.. Wow there would be some local jobs and an enormous infusion in spending in the area as well. The bridge might even keep allot more money on this side of the bridge instead of having folks go over to Portland and buy things... I know of only a couple local business folks in my circle, who are against the new bridge, most understand the positive economic factor to the area and region it will bring....

vanwadreamer — October 23, 2012 at 9:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I hear there will be a public hearing this evening on the proposed zoning ordinances for cannabis collective gardens.
They're having it down at the city hall, 415 W. 6th street, starting at 6:00 PM.

I have it on good account that crazy Kennedy cat what filed a lawsuit against the city will speak.

If you politicos have nothing better to do, maybe grab a bag of popcorn and check it out?

Drift — October 23, 2012 at 12:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal


"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. - by Roosevelt, Eleanor"

You *do* realize the irony in the statement?

Just askin' ;^)

Drift — October 23, 2012 at 12:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal


"So if the economy and Jobs is the number one real item moving voters then this is why we need to say good bye to Obama.."

Perhaps we should also say good bye to all the Republicans and that swept the House in 2010 (democrats too). Even Jamie promised jobs, jobs, and more jobs. Where are they? Same people were going to reign in the deficit. How's that working out? If you want to throw ALL the blame on the White House, as many do, that's just plain ol' partisian politics. Can you blame them all and get rid of them all irregardless of their political party? It won't happen. Read where several studies were made giving people facts, real facts based on what had happened, to see if that would change their positions. Quite the opposite was observed. Most people actually defended their beliefs, even as those beliefs were totally unsubstantiated by what had actually occurred. In fact, they tended to more vigorously defend their beliefs. Facts really don't mean much when a person's mind is made up apparently.

I can understand the frustration being taken out on Obama, but that doesn't mean Romney will do any better. As with all candidates, talk is cheap, and gets you elected. Backing up that talk? Whole new ballgame. By the time any legislation is passed, with donors, special interests, and lobbyists actually participating in the writing of legislation, what's that accomplish? For example, the measures passed to attempt to regulate Wall Street have so many loopholes, they're worthless. This gives the folks that supported the legislation something to crow about, and the non-supporters can say they opposed it, when it really doesn't matter which side they were on. The legislation was essentially worthless anyway. The lobbyists that helped write the AHCA, along with big pharma and insurance companies, why, after spending $1M/day in early 2010 (?), did they take their checkbooks and go home never to be heard from again? My guess is they bought what they needed and were satisfied.

Typically, 83% of incumbents are re-elected. With an approval rating of around 10% for Congress, it seems we vote the party more than the individual. Of course, incumbents have a tremendous advantage due to party affiliation and name recognition. There must be a lot of folks that vote for a only a name or a party. Why else would politicians spend $$$ on a stupid sign just to display their name?

mrd — October 23, 2012 at 5:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Drift 12:04 pm

The hearing is on Channel 23 [Comcast] now at 6:15 pm.

langenthal — October 23, 2012 at 6:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I watched it, langenthal.

It appears the city is going to do a bit of editing on the original proposal.

Drift — October 24, 2012 at 6:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**Presidential election: Meet the undecided voter**

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. — The presidential campaigns are hounding the holdouts — the sliver of the electorate still not sure which candidate will get their vote.

The late-night comics and cable TV pundits are hounding them, too, saying they’re clueless, ill-informed and out of touch with the news. Their point: after four years, two conventions, four debates and millions in TV spots, how clueless do you have to be to call yourself “undecided”?

..

“You know, I still find that I’m undecided because I was so grateful for that opportunity yesterday and I heard a lot of really wonderful responses and points but at the same time, a lot of the questions were kind of danced around more than answered explicitly,” Katherine Fenton said on MSNBC. “So, like, I can’t say I’ve come out with a preference for either side.”

Her reaction sounded a lot like a viral "Saturday Night Live" spoof of undecideds who ponder questions like, “Who is the current president? And is he or she running?”

In a trip to one of the most unsettled parts of Virginia, where Romney has recently made up ground but the race is a dead heat, POLITICO tried to look beyond the mocking and behind the numbers — talking to many undecideds, particularly women, who have become the focal point of both campaigns.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82798.html#ixzz2AEOdYxer

nailingit — October 24, 2012 at 8:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**Richard Mourdock On Abortion: Pregnancy From Rape Is 'Something God Intended' [UPDATE]**

WASHINGTON -- Indiana GOP U.S. Senate candidate Richard Mourdock declared Tuesday night he opposes aborting pregnancies conceived in rape because "it is something that God intended to happen."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/23/richard-mourdock-abortion_n_2007482.html

nailingit — October 24, 2012 at 8:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal


So the US in on track to overtake the oil output of Saudi Arabia, no less, but we can expect to continue paying high prices for gasoline. I guess more drilling won't ease the pain at the pump.

mrd — October 24, 2012 at 11:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**3-Person IVF? Embryos From 2 Women, 1 Man Created In Lab**

NEW YORK -- Scientists in Oregon have created embryos with genes from one man and two women, using a provocative technique that could someday be used to prevent babies from inheriting certain rare incurable diseases.

The researchers at Oregon Health & Sciences University said they are not using the embryos to produce children, and it is not clear when or even if this technique will be put to use. But it has already stirred a debate over its risks and ethics in Britain, where scientists did similar work a few years ago.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/3-person-ivf-embryos-women-man_n_2011546.html

nailingit — October 24, 2012 at 4:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mrd — October 24, 2012 at 11:38 a.m.

I still contend that if you want to get the Country back on track, you need to drop gas prices across the board (including diesel) to under $3 per gallon. It will boost sales in all areas, boost confidence and in turn create demand and create jobs. I truly believe, that's all it would take.

hawkeye — October 24, 2012 at 5:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye-totally agree but for a different reason, unless you mean the money not spent on gas will be freed up to spend on consumer goods & services, which probably will do just as you say.

Read where 65% of the jobs created in the last 4 years or so pay, on the average, about $13.43/hr. How is someone to raise a family-assuming two kids and a non-working spouse-on about $400/wk take-home? The "traditional" American family simply can't exist. Yet millions support such things. Amazes me. Vote for someone strictly because they support your "core values"? Talk about voting against your own self-interests. And to critize those folks that disagree with drill, baby drill? It doesn't seem that all that drilling helps the guy at the pump.

I find it ironic, support of projects such as the Keystone Pipeline, much of which was based on more domestic oil means cheaper gas and diesel, has been totally chitcanned-per the C's article anyway. More oil from the Arctic Refuge, or deep sea drilling, does that translate into cheaper gasoline? Doesn't seem so.

mrd — October 24, 2012 at 6:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal


> hawkeye — October 24, 2012 at 5:40 p.m.

So, just what is government supposed to do to lower gas prices?

kn_dalai — October 24, 2012 at 7:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EcaX1...

Debate starts @ 1:03:00

nailingit — October 24, 2012 at 7:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mrd — October 24, 2012 at 6:37 p.m.

So just how do your ideas translate into government action? Or are you just pointing out problems but not advocating any governmnet action?

kn_dalai — October 24, 2012 at 7:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal


"So just how do your ideas translate into government action? Or are you just pointing out problems but not advocating any governmnet action?"

Government action? Have you not looked at the Congress? The House?. I believe it has a record number of filibusters, etc, that delay any "government action". If you wanna wait for govenment action, better sit down-it ain't gonna happen. The House is pretty constipated. Government action? I'd bet on the weatherman first. BTW, do you really think the government can call out Big Oil? Wall Street? If so, I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona......

mrd — October 24, 2012 at 9:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — October 24, 2012 at 7:26 p.m.

The idea of government paid for elections has been perennial for decades. Nope. Shouldn’t happen. You may find it interesting that at least, one of the third party candidates advocated for government paid campaigns. What? Just who do these people think will decide what constitutes a “viable” third party candidate. Duh. It will be the end of third party candidates. My gawd, just how smart can these people be to turn over financing of political campaigns to…government. Something is really wrong here.

On another note. I believe it was in Merle Millers’s bio of Truman, called “Plain Speaking” that I once read Truman said that he didn’t lose any sleep over ordering the bombing of Japan with nukes. Wow. That’s a tough man. Those who can criticize, do so with 20/20 hindsight. JFK stood down Chrushev. Reagan, as far as I’m concerned, brought down the USSR. I once listened to some former Soviet official interviewed on some radio talk show, say that the USSR was closely watching the firing of the flight controllers to see what Reagan was made of. After which they knew they had their hands full.

While I like the heartfelt concerns of the Leftists over peace, are they really credible on the world stage? For my part, I’d be willing to give G. Johnson a try at such a level, understanding as I think he does, the proper role of government, but not touchy feely others, who are clearly not able to make the tough decisions.

kn_dalai — October 24, 2012 at 9:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mrd — October 24, 2012 at 9:24 p.m.

Well that's all nice and everything, but my question was about; just what do you think government is supposed to do about all of this. Perhaps you can give some examples of just what the US Congress is suppose to do.

kn_dalai — October 24, 2012 at 9:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal


kn_dalai — October 24, 2012 at 9:52 p.m.

First off, take oil off the commodities market. No more speculation. Make it supply and demand. Secondly, get a REAL investigation into exactly why gasoline prices are so high compared to what they were last time oil was under $95. Nobody wants to do that because it might ruffle some feathers. I think it's real funny when EVERY station raises their prices at exactly the same time.

hawkeye — October 24, 2012 at 10:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye — October 24, 2012 at 10:26 p.m.

Free markets are all about speculation. Supply and demand is something which is determined by the free market place. Not by some sort of government involvement.

Who ever sold a house that did not want to buy low and sell high.

Your idea seems to be that prices can be set by a few "backseatdrivers".

My gawd man, do you know what you're saying?

And some of you people laugh over concerns of morphing into another USSR.

kn_dalai — October 24, 2012 at 10:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mrd — October 23, 2012 at 5:44 p.m.

You certainly hit it. All politicians seem to spew talking points that sound really good, but once in office, what happens?

Topic: Budget.

I remember hearing candidate in 2008 talking about controlling budget and balancing. Four years later, we don't even see a budget, much less balanced. We continue into debt.

The other night during the debate, I heard a candidate (R for those that are curious) say he had a plan to put us "on the path" to a balanced budget. What does that mean?

Simply, balance it. Stop borrowing. If we don't have the money, don't spend it.

All candidates for all offices talk of doing so, but once in office, they agree to spend more money we don't have on whatever pet project or program.

When do we say enough is enough?

danabwoodley — October 25, 2012 at 5:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Crazytrain, all of the above!

***Now, here ya go-***

(CNN) - Sarah Palin is known for her winks, but she may have raised some eyebrows with a Facebook post Wednesday.

In the post, the former Alaska governor used the term "shuck and jive" to describe President Obama's statements on the recent attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

The radically loaded term, which means misleading and deceptive talk and behavior, has a long history as a negative view of African Americans.

Palin, who ran for vice president in 2008 along side then-Republican presidential nominee John McCain, is a conservative pundit for Fox News.

White House spokesman Jay Carney took some heat for using the phrase during a briefing last year.

He said he would have to "shuck and jive" for the media since he didn't bring the right notes

hawkeye — October 25, 2012 at 7:45 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**Colin Powell backs Obama**

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell on Thursday endorsed President Barack Obama for reelection, arguing the president has improved the poor economy he inherited and sharply criticizing Mitt Romney’s foreign policy’s positions a “moving target.”

“I voted for him in 2008, and I plan to stick with him in 2012,” Powell said of Obama on CBS’s “This Morning.” “I’ll be voting for he and for Vice President Joe Biden next month.”

One of the most coveted endorsements remaining in the 2012 presidential race, Powell said Obama walked into a horrendous economic situation and has begun to turn it around.

“I think, generally, we’ve come out of the dive and we’re starting to gain altitude,” said Powell, who served as George W. Bush’s secretary of state. “It doesn’t mean all our problems are solved.”

While Powell, a Republican, said that he had the “utmost respect” for Romney, he charged that the former Massachusetts governor hasn’t outlined how he would pay for increased defense spending or for his proposed across-the-board tax cut.

Powell had even harsher words for Romney’s foreign policy, questioning his changing stances on withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan.

“The governor who was speaking on Monday night at the debate was saying things that were quite different from what he said earlier,” Powell said.

“I’m not quite sure which Governor Romney we would be getting with respect to foreign policy,” he added. “I don’t sense he’s thought through these issues as thoroughly as he should have. He gets advice from his campaign staff that he then has to modify as he goes along.”

While in the Bush administration, Powell regularly clashed with neoconservatives, some of whom are now advising Romney. Powell said he has “trouble with” some of Romney’s “very strong neoconservative views.”

While Powell has endorsed the Democratic presidential candidate in back-to-back elections, he said he remains a Republican.

“I think I’m a Republican of more moderate mold and that’s something of a dying breed, I’m sorry to say,” Powell said. “But, you know, the Republicans I worked for are President Reagan, President Bush 41, the Howard Bakers of the world, people who were conservative, people who were willing to push their conservative views, but people who recognize that at the end of the day you got to find a basis for compromise. Compromise is how this country runs.”

Powell said he had a “very good conversation” with Romney a few weeks ago, and said he regularly speaks to Obama. Neither man directly asked Powell for an endorsement, and Powell said he didn’t alert either campaign before making his announcement Thursday.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82860.html#ixzz2AK53iH2o

nailingit — October 25, 2012 at 7:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**Robert Bork? John Bolton?? 9 Advisers Who Have Romney's Ear**

Want to know what a Romney presidency would look like? Check out these guys' records.

One way to understand what a presidential candidate might do if elected is to look at his advisers. Here are nine advisers who are shaping Mitt Romney's views—and could end up shaping his presidency. You may not have heard of them, but you should know about them.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/10/mitt-romney-administration-top-advisers

nailingit — October 25, 2012 at 8:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal


kn_dalai — October 24, 2012 at 9:43 p.m.- *The idea of government paid for elections has been perennial for decades. Nope. Shouldn’t happen.*

I don't embrace the concept either. Currently America's wealthy/corporate world is doing the purchasing. What type of campaign financing would you put into place should you have the power to do so?

A definitive reminder for words/phrases that are applicable in our Capitalistic society. For the sake of "democracy", should we embrace the Supreme Court Citizens United decision?

Greed & Capitalism go together like psychopaths & guns. After all, guns don't kill...

Hopefully future rule will dictate reasonable guidelines, with both issues.

First we must recognize we have some serious problems on the American identity front.

**corporatocracy**: Rule by an oligarchy of corporate elites through the manipulation of a formal democracy.

**plu·toc·ra·cy**   [ploo-tok-ruh-see] Show IPA
noun, plural plu·toc·ra·cies.

1. the rule or power of wealth or of the wealthy.

2. a government or state in which the wealthy class rules.

3. a class or group ruling, or exercising power or influence, by virtue of its wealth.

nailingit — October 25, 2012 at 9:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I'm throwing my endorsement behind Mitt Romney. He would not know how to "Shuck and Jive" anyone... I think the over the top PC people need to grow up a bit... Obama is flip flopping everyday on the terrorist attack in Bengazi... How can you trust this guy???? That is why our millitary isn't behind him at all.. Lack of trust at the top...That should have been the first shot over the bow everyone should have seen.

vanwadreamer — October 25, 2012 at 12:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal



vanwadreamer — October 25, 2012 at 12:02 p.m.

"I'm throwing my endorsement behind Mitt Romney."

YES, we all knew you would. I'm sure that will sway many others on the line to vote "your" way. I guess you don't have any problem with your guy trying to define exactly where his line is at any particular time. I know for me, it seems like it keeps moving depending on who he's talking to and the time of the day. Good luck with that.

hawkeye — October 25, 2012 at 3:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal


***Paul Ryan: Providing Women With Affordable Contraception Is A ‘Threat’ To The Poor***

At Paul Ryan’s speech on poverty yesterday in Ohio, he intended to explain how the Republican party’s platform would help combat poverty in America. But he made it clear that those GOP-endorsed policies don’t involve ensuring that women have access to affordable preventative health care.

As Talking Points Memo flagged, the vice presidential candidate cited the popular Obamacare birth control mandate — which eliminates cost barriers to contraception by requiring employer-based insurance plans to provide contraceptive services without a co-pay — as an example of a “threat” to the poor Americans who rely on assistance from government safety nets and religious charities:

Nothing undermines the essential and honorable work these groups do quite like the abuse of government power. Take what happened this past January, when the Department of Health and Human Services issued new rules requiring Catholic hospitals, charities and universities to violate their deepest principles. Never mind your own conscience, they were basically told –- from now on you’re going to do things the government’s way.

This mandate isn’t just a threat to religious charities. It’s a threat to all those who turn to them in times of need. In the name of strengthening our safety net, this mandate and others will weaken it.

But rather than existing as a “threat” to the low-income women who may need to turn to religious charities “in times of need,” Obamacare actually guarantees that those women will not have to pay up to thousands of dollars each year for their preventative health care, correcting the previously existing gender imbalance in health care costs. And the contraception mandate does not actually require Catholic-affiliated institutions to directly provide their female employees with any birth control services they object to, since it includes a workaround that allows those religious organizations to shift the costs of contraception coverage onto insurance companies.

Studies predict that the health reform law’s birth control policy will almost certainly lower abortion rates, since removing the cost barriers to contraception encourages low-income women to choose longer-lasting, more effective forms of birth control that lower their risk for unintended pregnancy. And women themselves report that they value access to birth control because it helps them achieve economic autonomy for themselves — giving them the ability to finish a degree, keep a job, or support their family — when they know they cannot afford the cost of another child. In Paul Ryan’s mind, however, the social safety net is weakened by fewer abortions and enhanced economic mobility.

hawkeye — October 25, 2012 at 3:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal


The middle part got messed up,

" Nothing undermines the essential and honorable work these groups do quite like the abuse of government power. Take what happened this past January, when the Department of Health and Human Services issued new rules requiring Catholic hospitals, charities and universities to violate their deepest principles. Never mind your own conscience, they were basically told –- from now on you’re going to do things the government’s way.

This mandate isn’t just a threat to religious charities. It’s a threat to all those who turn to them in times of need. In the name of strengthening our safety net, this mandate and others will weaken it."

hawkeye — October 25, 2012 at 4 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Maybe they think us old farts ain't lookin'. The Medicare manual-(what's that?)-and the rules used by "private contractors" don't agree with the law???? What's up with that? Someone help me out here. We PAY for SS and Medicare! As a self-employed yo-yo, I know I do. If the cost of providing these services is more than the money collected raise the SS cap, or better yet, remove it. Why should Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and I pay the same amount? Ridiculous, totally ridiculous. If medicaid needs more $$$, raise the contribution %. What's so hard about that? Before I sound like a total yo-yo, what's the difference between Medicare & Medicaid?

"The class action includes more than 10,000 Medicare patients whose claims for skilled nursing care and therapy were denied before the suit was filed. But no one knows how many Medicare recipients have simply gone without these services because they were told that Medicare wouldn't pay for them and they couldn't afford the cost themselves.

Also unknown is the financial impact to Medicare, already a large drain on the federal budget. But paying for improved care now could reduce more costly treatment and hospital stays later on.

Another odd aspect to this case is that the rule that's being rewritten -- the so-called "improvement standard" -- isn't in the law that created Medicare nearly a half century ago or in government regulations. It's spelled out in a Medicare manual and in the rules used by private contractors hired by Medicare to decide which claims are paid and which are not."

mrd — October 25, 2012 at 6:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal


The difference between Medicare and Medicaid is the government that administers it. Medicare is Federal and it's what "we" pay into for coverage after we turn 65. Medicaid is state run for people that are low income and can't afford the added insurance (part b, c, d) and need more help. You need to apply for it and it's funded by the Feds and the State.

hawkeye — October 25, 2012 at 7:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Thanks Hawk.

I'm going out on a limb here, but you're maybe older thab 65? All I know is I'm 59, wife is 60, dang it, and I've heard my (late) Mom talking about her Medicare and her supplemental Blue Cross coverage. Compared to what I'm paying for my wife and me, $100/mo (for the supplement) would be a helluva bargain. She-my mom-had low, really low copays and thought it was great.

And you-if you don't mind?? How expensive is health care when we hit the "golden years"? I'd like to shoot the goofball that thinks getting old is golden, he/she must be 30 and feel they'll never get old. Getting old sucks, as much as I like my grandkids coming over- 3 boys & 1 girl-they address me as "grandpa". I never thought I'd really be one, an old fart. But now I am. Hmm...Grandkids or my youth? Tough decision-JUST KIDDING!

mrd — October 25, 2012 at 7:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**GOP Voter Fraud Accusations Suddenly Blowing Up In Their Faces**

Republican officials, who have used hysteria about alleged voter fraud as an excuse to support measures that disproportionately block Democratic voters, are furiously trying to distance themselves from a growing number of GOP voter registration drives that either submitted false applications or threw away authentic ones.

Read more @ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/25/gop-voter-fraud_n_1990104.html

nailingit — October 25, 2012 at 8:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye — October 25, 2012 at 7:19 p.m.

I won't totally disagree with you Hawkeye, but there's more to it than that.

Essentially, Medicaid is a welfare program, while medicare is not.

Here's just some of what wiki says about it:

> Unlike the Medicare entitlement program, Medicaid is a means-tested, needs-based social welfare or social protection program rather than a social insurance program. Eligibility is determined largely by income. The main criterion for Medicaid eligibility is limited income and financial resources, a criterion which plays no role in determining Medicare coverage. Medicaid covers a wider range of health care services than Medicare. -- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid][1]

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid

kn_dalai — October 25, 2012 at 8:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal


fwiw, m/care and m/caid have different rx formularies...the covered vs. uncovered drugs. m/care covers more than m/caid. if/when the great o changes the m/care one, a lot of ppl will lose a lot of covered medicines, me included.

DeeLittle — October 25, 2012 at 9:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal


DeeLittle — October 25, 2012 at 9:24 p.m.

I've read your comments a few times now. I'm really not sure what your point is.

Are you saying that your medicare benefits, which you paid into, will be taken away from you and shifted into medicaid?

Just wondering.

kn_dalai — October 25, 2012 at 10:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal


no. i'm saying that the current benefits will be cut. right now, the lesser coverage is m/caid. i'm expecting the m/care formulary to cut to the m/caid's lesser coverage to save the gvt money.

there are many ways to achieve a given objective.

DeeLittle — October 25, 2012 at 10:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mrd — October 25, 2012 at 7:53 p.m.

I'll be 61 this year. I was taking care of my in-laws for the last two years. All of their bills and meds and doctor trips. After their passing, I took care of all the arrangements. They had supplemental insurance, medical was through AARP/United Healthcare and their meds were through Humana. We did a lot of research before picking them and they covered their needs quite well.

It's important to find the supplemental insurance that meets your needs. The local salesman from Humana came to the house and singed them up, gave us ALL the information we needed and was very helpful.

hawkeye — October 25, 2012 at 11:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**Billy Graham Faces Backlash Over Mormon 'Cult' Removal**

(RNS) The Rev. Samuel Wynn admired Billy Graham and his evangelistic association for decades, joining its spiritual crusades and urging fellow Christians to do the same. But no more.

"I will never again support anything by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association," said Wynn, the superintendent of a United Methodist Church district in Fayetteville, N.C.

The source of Wynn's ire: The BGEA's recent removal of language on its website calling Mormonism a "cult."

The scrubbing followed GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney's pilgrimage to Billy Graham's mountaintop home in Montreat, N.C. After the Oct. 11 meeting, Graham pledged to "do all I can to help" Romney, according to a campaign aide.

The BGEA said it cut the "cult" language "because we do not wish to participate in a theological debate about something that has become politicized during this campaign."

But Wynn and other conservative Christians accuse Graham of putting partisanship above piety and risking Christian souls to help Romney, a Mormon, win the White House.
"My question to Billy Graham is, What's more important for the kingdom of God: politics or the message of Jesus Christ?" said Wynn.

For evangelicals, berating Billy Graham is like Catholics dissing the pope. Through his globe-trotting crusades and passionate preaching, the nearly 94-year-old evangelist has converted countless Christians and almost single-handedly ushered evangelicalism into the modern age.

But when "the greatest proclaimer of the gospel in the last century," as one Southern Baptist called Graham, embraced Mormonism last week, he confirmed conservative evangelicals' worst fears about the 2012 election: That Romney's rise would lift his Mormon church to cultural prominence and acceptance within mainstream Christianity.

Howell Scott, senior pastor Bethel Baptist Church in Alamogordo, N.M., said the BGEA's declassification of Mormonism as a cult "will have disastrous unintended consequences."

"The most immediate consequence will be the acceptance and approval of Mormonism as a legitimate Christian'denomination' or faith group," Scott wrote on his blog last week. "The blurring will only increase if Mitt Romney is elected president."

Most evangelicals do not consider Mormons Christian because Latter-day Saints revere Joseph Smith as a prophet, consider the Book of Mormon on par with the Bible and conceive of the Christian Trinity as three separate gods. Mormons acknowledge those differences but insist they are Christians.

Read more @ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/25/billy-graham-website-mormon-cult-removed-backlash_n_2012209.html?utm_hp_ref=religion

nailingit — October 26, 2012 at 8:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**Bushies in Romneyworld**

Mitt Romney's running as far as he can from George W. Bush.

In all three presidential debates, Romney's raced from the last Republican president's policies — claiming he's got new ideas for foreign policy, the deficit and energy.

But for all of Romney's efforts to divorce himself from Bush, behind the scenes there's one critical way he's given the era a full embrace: its people.

Romney's brought on a cadre of Bush officials to serve as his senior policy advisers, lead his presidential transition effort and help him raise millions to fuel his run — the pillars of his campaign and a potential administration.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82880.html#ixzz2AQ1LQT9u

nailingit — October 26, 2012 at 8:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**Obama and the Road Ahead: The Rolling Stone Interview**

You said, "a.k.a. Obamacare." Do you mind if historians call the achievement Obamacare? I'll be very proud. Because I'm confident that I'm going to win this election, and that we're going to implement it over the next four years. Just like Medicare and Social Security, as time goes on, as people see what it does, as it gets refined and improved, people will say, "This was the last piece to our basic social compact" – providing people with some core security from the financial burdens of an illness or bad luck.

You sometimes use the term "fair shake." FDR had the New Deal, Lyndon Johnson had the Great Society. Is the Fair Shake something you'd be comfortable with to describe your legacy?
I'd be comfortable with that, and hearing it from a historian, it sounds pretty good to me.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obama-and-the-road-ahead-the-rolling-stone-interview-20121025#ixzz2AQ5vITDw

nailingit — October 26, 2012 at 8:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal


crazytrain — October 26, 2012 at 9:07 a.m.

"Would you be posting such if say Romney were to be practicing Buddhism, Hinduism, or say the Islamic religions? "

Seriously? If he were ANY of those religions, he WOULD NOT have made it this far.

hawkeye — October 26, 2012 at 9:26 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*Seriously? If he were ANY of those religions, he WOULD NOT have made it this far.*

hawkeye — October 26, 2012 at 9:26 a.m.

No doubt. His knees would have been cut at the local level, although many on the right convince themselves he is a Muslim. I wonder what kind of bias those folks are holding onto...**;)**

---

This ad is causing quite the controversy from the countless faux PC fringe on the right. This same right who would expand powers of cheesy local government politicians to make life and death decisions with a woman's body and child, to include government persecution and prosecution. This evangelical movement has become more than downright creepy.

They're in love with state politico's suppressing basic freedoms in the name of God and hiding behind the constitution to do it.

Government induced fascism at the state level. Anyway...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6G3nw...

nailingit — October 26, 2012 at 10:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal


MRD

So what would you suggest these folks pay who make more than 106K a year. Would it be 6.2% of there earnings up to whatever they make?
Getting older, yes it does suck in more ways than we know...Once I hit 40 boy oh boy.... Sure glad I'm eating healthy and excercising..... If we think the price of healthcare is expensive now and I do, wait till Obamacare gets enacted if it does and I think it will. We'll pay more in taxes for it even if your not using it because what you currently have is better.
I liked that Obama tried to tackle this huge dilema, but he went about it all wrong and didn't get it right... How about that a semi kudo for the prez....

vanwadreamer — October 26, 2012 at 10:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**Chevron Gives $2.5 Million To House Republican Super PAC**

WASHINGTON -- Chevron is firmly behind the House Republican majority. The multibillion-dollar oil company's support is so strong that it has donated $2.5 million to a super PAC working to maintain that majority in the next Congress.

Chevron's contribution to the Congressional Leadership Fund is the largest made by a publicly traded company this election cycle to a super PAC. Other major corporate givers to super PACs include Penske Corp. and Scotts Co.

The oil and gas industry has long been a Republican Party supporter, consistently sending GOP candidates more than 70 percent of the industry's campaign contributions. But that support has increased further in the 2012 cycle: Now 90 percent of the industry's contributions are going to Republican candidates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

President Barack Obama and other Democrats have campaigned in recent years for repealing certain tax breaks to make oil companies "pay their fair share." Companies like Chevron are seeing record profits as gas prices have soared across the country. Congressional Republicans, however, have voted en masse to block any effort to repeal those tax breaks.

Adam Smith, communications director for the campaign finance watchdog Public Campaign, drew a link between Chevron's contribution and the Republican Party's voting record. He said, "$2.5 million to a party who has repeatedly voted to maintain their subsidies is a worthy investment for them."

House Republicans, in fact, have done more than block efforts to repeal tax breaks for the oil and gas industry. They have passed legislation to increase drilling both on and offshore, slash Environmental Protection Agency regulations, route civil suits against oil companies through the friendly U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit (which covers Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi), and blocked efforts to deal with speculation in oil markets.

Overall, oil and gas companies have spent $49 million on political contributions this election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Chevron did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/26/chevron-super-pac_n_2023842.html

nailingit — October 26, 2012 at 11:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal


crazytrain — October 26, 2012 at 10:58 a.m

I don't think so. JFK being Catholic was a lot more accepted than any Mormon would be. Even though the Catholics are against abortion as well, they were smart enough to NOT bring it up. Also, back then, religion wasn't as much of a factor as it is now. Mostly because (IMO) they didn't legislate morality, and wisely so.

hawkeye — October 26, 2012 at 12:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Nail-

2.5 million is just 2.2% of what Mr Romney has raised and only about 1.8% of what Mr Obama has raised... And I doubt all of it is going to the presidential election but so beit... As long as these are the rules JUST like Mr Romney paying his fare share of taxes based on how his income is earned seems perfectly within the guidelines to me... Bottom line it works both ways so your argument is rather nonsense and inconsequential to me.

vanwadreamer — October 26, 2012 at 3:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Nail,

I called my buddy at a local TV Appliance store, They spend a couple times that a year in advertsing and they are Local.... So what does that mean, it means that 2.5mil while on the outside is allott probably to you and me but in the overall picture it is a drop in the bucket....

vanwadreamer — October 26, 2012 at 3:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I'm going to dispute your facts a little here vanwa.

Based on the link, that $2.5 million is about four tenths of one percent of what Obama has taken is through September and less than seven tenths of one percent of what Romney has taken in through September.

Considerably less than that if the donations to the DNC and RNC and superpacs are added in. Plus what has been raised this month.

[http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance][1]

I do agree about the drop in the bucket thing, but it's an even smaller drop.

BTW, at $5 million a year for advertising for the TV appliance store, that works out to more than $13,500 a day, 365 days a year. Seems like a pretty high figure to me.

[1]: http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance

kn_dalai — October 26, 2012 at 5:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal


vanwadreamer- From the excerpt I printed. Some of you guys.......

*Now 90 percent of the industry's contributions are going to Republican candidates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.*

*Overall, oil and gas companies have spent $49 million on political contributions this election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.*

nailingit — October 26, 2012 at 5:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal


"Now 90 percent of the industry's contributions are going to Republican candidates..."

*Bottom line **it works both ways** so your argument is rather nonsense and inconsequential to me.*

Can't argue with your logic! :)))

nailingit — October 26, 2012 at 6:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I called my buddy at a local TV Appliance store, They spend a couple times that a year in advertsing and they are Local.... **So what does that mean,**

"That", means you probably made the whole thing up for a cheap talking point as I've suspected you have with other assertions you've made in the past.

nailingit — October 26, 2012 at 6:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal


"Now 90 percent of the industry's contributions are going to Republican candidates..."

Big deal. It is a half truth. What about the Democrat donors.

This link is about the 2010 election cycle. I've been unable to find anything like this about the current election cycle, and I'm not going to spent alot of time on the thing. Like vanwa said; it works both ways, and yes, that is the bottom line.

> The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is now the biggest outside spender of the 2010 elections, thanks to an 11th-hour effort to boost Democrats that has vaulted the public-sector union ahead of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO and a flock of new Republican groups in campaign spending. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303339504575566481761790288.html?mod=WSJ_NY_MIDDLETopStories][1]

[1]: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303339504575566481761790288.html?mod=WSJ_NY_MIDDLETopStories

kn_dalai — October 26, 2012 at 6:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal


"The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is now the biggest outside spender of the 2010 elections, thanks to an 11th-hour effort to boost Democrats that has vaulted the public-sector union ahead of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO and a flock of new Republican groups in campaign spending."

The way I see it, the unions can only contribute money that was given (freely) by it's members (to buy influence) the workers or members chose to donate. I believe this is the law. I don't have to look to see who pressed that issue. Question is-why do the BIG donors get a pass? Citizens United? Shouldn't that be CORPORATIONS UNITED? I'll admit again-unions should be held to the same standard, and they are.

To me, this separates them from corporations that donate (to buy influence),for example, the Koch Bros. These guys donate to aid their corporate aims, which generally are at odds with working folks. Unless you're a true and real believer of "trickle down" economics, you've been had.

I also believe if the GOP could somehow get organized labor, from teachers to construction workers into their fold, we could increase corporate profits. Of course, our economy would closer resemble a third world country. If the race to the bottom is what you want, there you have then answer.

mrd — October 26, 2012 at 7:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9Tdw5...

Meteorological comparisons have been made to the Perfect Storm of Halloween in 1991 as well as Hurricane Hazel in 1954 and the 1938 Long Island Express in terms of expected impacts. During the next 3-4 days, Sandy will undergo a transformation, or merger, with an approaching upper-atmosphere trough or potential vorticity filament to result in a more intense, massive cyclone with deeper low-pressure prior to landfall.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/weatherbell/2012/10/26/hurricane-sandy-perfect-storm-sequel-u-s-braces-for-tuesday-landfall/

nailingit — October 26, 2012 at 7:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**mrd**

> to me, this separates them from
> corporations that donate (to buy
> influence),for example, the Koch Bros.
> These guys donate to aid their
> corporate aims, which generally are at
> odds with working folks. Unless you're
> a true and real believer of "trickle
> down" economics, you've been had.

to ME, this looks like just another true believer's attempt to justify *their* side's otherwise-unacceptible actions.

step back.

look at REALITY.

there's only one difference between the r sellouts and the d sellouts....who gets the payoff.

DeeLittle — October 26, 2012 at 7:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**mrd**

> The way I see it, the unions can only
> contribute money that was given
> (freely) by it's members (to buy
> influence) the workers or members
> chose to donate

the unions can compel their members to contribute to campaigns, not identified, and give it to whomever they damn well please.

funny thing; it's always dem candidates, never 'r'... wonder why that is.....

DeeLittle — October 26, 2012 at 8:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal


In regards to the election donation issue.

From time-to-time, I have noticed that sometimes the same person has donated to both opposing candidates, in the same election race. Something about that has always struck as questionable. Mealy mouthed is a good term.

Mostly, I have suspected that this is paramount to “insider crowd”. Perhaps there are other ways to describe this: Naw, I don't think so.

Before going any further, just what do you think about someone who donates to the two opposing candidates?

O.K.

Did any of you notice the October 14 article about the Clark Public Utilities Commissioner's race?

I refer you to one J. Tanner who is a candidate for Clark County Commissioner, and his comments about donating to both sides of a campaign.

> I feel the need to clarify my personal policy regarding campaigns other than my own. I have contributed a small amount to both of the highly qualified candidates for PUD commissioner, and thus my name appeared in today's article. I have not endorsed any candidate this year for any position - Democrat, Republican or nonpartisan. I have contributed small amounts and attended fundraisers for many candidates, often both sides of the same race. This is my way of saying "thank you for putting yourself out there to serve the public." I expect to be a Clark County Commissioner, and expect to have an excellent working relationship with all other office holders, Republican, Democrat or nonpartisan. Those elected will have a tremendous obligation to the public to get the local economy turned around. That can only be accomplished if we work together as a team. [http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/oc...][1]

[1]: http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/oc...

kn_dalai — October 26, 2012 at 8:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal


dee

I think the answer is easy. The unions, the workers, donate their money toward candidates that support workers' causes. It strikes me as unusual-given your med situation I've seen you post about-that you'd support folks that would attack that. You may find yourself in a group that supports policies that are not in your own self-interests, for some strange reason(s). Would you support a politician (as I saw on 60 Minutes, years ago when I watched TV) that enacted legislation that directly cost an elderly couple in Montana their ranch? One that had been in the family for 100+ years? They told ol' Morley Safer-I hope I spelled that right-it was OK. The guy's legislation or whatever DIRECTLY led to these folks losing their ranch was fine-they were OK with that, at least he was against abortion. I couldn't do that. Could you?

BTW, how do unions "compel" their members to donate? While I've not been a union member for 25 years or so, I was never compelled to donate anything. Has it changed? Does your union-I assume you know this because your union requires it- compel you to donate? Are you just assumming this or do you know this? I dunno, just askin'.

mrd — October 26, 2012 at 9:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal


HEY dee!!!

I've been a union member for over 35 years!. NEVER BEEN COMPELLED, TOLD OR MADE to contribute to anybody's election. It just doesn't happen. It's against the law and the members wouldn't stand for it. You want to believe that to be incorrect? Fine. But you are going to have to prove it to me.

hawkeye — October 26, 2012 at 10:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mrd — October 26, 2012 at 7:31 p.m.

Doesn’t Citizens United cover organizations including both private sector corps. as well as labor unions?

Your second and third paragraphs express nothing but putting things as you see things, and express an extreme bias. No doubt, you don’t even see this.

Frobert is correct in that individuals, as well as groups of individuals, are covered by freedom of speech constitutional guaranties.

Freedom of union participation? Then there certainly should not be a problem with “right to work state” ideas.

Frobert has repeatedly given examples of the Koch Bros, philanthropic donations, including to the ACLU. Hell, I wouldn’t even do that as I see them selective in the cases they represent. Whatever.

Talk about Left Wing Talking Points.

kn_dalai — October 26, 2012 at 11:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**mrd**

the average union member has no choice but to belong to and support the union. try getting AND KEEPING a job when you refuse to join the union in other than right-to-work states.

the UNION decides who they will give YOUR money to support. you have **no say** in what they decide, if you want to keep your job.

please think about this: in politics, the **only** consideration is power. how can *you get it* and what do you have to do to keep it?

unions and wall street have **designed** this system to have power. as we all *should* know, power=money, and that's all that counts.

wall street and the unions will **never** be on the losing side....and they have no interest in what that side is called.

DeeLittle — October 27, 2012 at 12:24 a.m. ( | suggest removal


DeeLittle — October 27, 2012 at 12:24 a.m.

Having done some research into union shops and right to work laws, I did find one amazing tidbit of information. You can actually get a job at a union shop without a right to work law. The trick, however, is that the mgmt is required to still charge dues out of your pay and direct it to the union. In effect, you are a paying nonmember of the union.

danabwoodley — October 27, 2012 at 1:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal


yeah. i know.

my son was fired from a union-shop job because he didn't support the union by funding it.

DeeLittle — October 27, 2012 at 2:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Was frobert actually referred to as a source earlier? :))..............:))) I've heard of weak argumentation, but not aware it was in part do to silly augmentation until now! :) Anyway...

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoVm2VgLgmo

A Republican war hero speaks to what many already know about Republican leadership, and what many on the right close their ears to (but quietly embrace).

This denial of racism from the right is almost humorous at times if not the subject matter so...dark.

nailingit — October 27, 2012 at 9:05 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Bill Maher gets serious, (kinda:) Check out his rant. Absolutely spot on!

**Bill Maher's Mitt Romney Warning: 'When You Elect Mitt You're Electing Every Right-Wing Nut He's Pandered To In The Last 10 Years' (VIDEO)**

If you're a moderate considering voting for Mitt Romney, there are certain facts you should know... according to Bill Maher. While you may not think the two candidates are terribly different, in Maher's opinion, only one of them is poised to release the Kraken in terms of the religious right:

"When you elect Mitt you're electing every right wing nut he's pandered to in the last 10 years. If the Mitt-mobile does roll into Washington it'll be towing behind it the whole anti-intellectual, anti-Science freakshow."

Watch Maher's stern warning to voters above and let us know what you think. Would President Romney stand-up to the zealot-side of his party or are "standing up" and "Mitt Romney" mutually exclusive concepts?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/27/bill-maher-mitt-romney-warning_n_2030187.html

nailingit — October 27, 2012 at 9:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal


DeeLittle — October 27, 2012 at 2:17 a.m.

No dee, you are wrong. again. where I worked, we had several workers that were NOT in the union but still had a job. I suspect your son was fired for other reasons.

hawkeye — October 27, 2012 at 9:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**Ten filthy rich, tax-dodging hypocrites**

*The "Fix the Debt" coalition pushes tax breaks for the rich and saddles the rest of us with the burden they created*

“Fix the Debt ” is a coalition of more than 80 CEOs who claim they know best how to deal with our nation’s fiscal challenges. The group boasts a $60 million budget just for the initial phase of a massive media and lobbying campaign.

The irony is that CEOs in the coalition’s leadership have been major contributors to the national debt they now claim to know how to fix. These are guys who’ve mastered every tax-dodging trick in the book. And now that they’ve boosted their corporate profits by draining the public treasury, how do they propose we put our fiscal house back in order? By squeezing programs for the poor and elderly, including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Fix the Debt claims their agenda is not just about spending cuts. But when it comes to their tax proposals, they use the slippery term “pro-growth reform” to push for cuts in deductions that are likely to include credits for working families and — you guessed it — more corporate tax breaks. Chief among these is a proposal to switch to a territorial system under which corporate foreign earnings would be permanently exempted (instead of being taxed when they are returned to America).

This idea, also supported by the Bowles-Simpson deficit commission, would make it even more profitable for big corporations to use accounting tricks to disguise U.S. profits as income earned in tax havens. Citizens for Tax Justice estimates that such tax haven abuse will cost the Treasury more than $1 trillion over the next decade.

So who are the CEOs who are telling the rest of us to be responsible and tighten our belts after they’ve spent decades stiffing the U.S. Treasury? Of the 80 members of Fix the Debt’s CEO Fiscal Leadership Council, here are 10 that stand out as the biggest hypocrites:

Read more @ http://www.salon.com/2012/10/27/ten_filthy_rich_tax_dodging_hypocrites/

nailingit — October 27, 2012 at 10 a.m. ( | suggest removal


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

A Romney presidency will surely lend credibility to the Mormon faith and cause an uptick in Mormon membership. Evangelicals will have no one to blame but themselves. Everyone has a price. Seems as though the political "Christian" movement can be bought for a simple vote.

Oh to be a fly on the wall during the $$$Romney/Graham$$$ Cookie n' Cracker summit.

nailingit — October 27, 2012 at 11:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Acorn, fast & furious, birtherism, black panthers running roughshod over democracy, and now this. The conspiracy crowd will bend over for anything anti-Obama, not understanding how foolish they look.

**The utterly useless Benghazi argument**

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/10/town-hall-debate

nailingit — October 27, 2012 at 11:42 a.m. ( | suggest removal


crazytrain — October 27, 2012 at 10:50 a.m

Yea, CT, good idea. Lets lob in some artillery into the buildings where the fight took place. No big deal, if anybody from our side was still alive, we could have taken them out by accident. I'm sure that wouldn't have been a bad deal.

hawkeye — October 27, 2012 at 12:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DG_k1f...

Great short take on Mormonism v Christianity. After all, Christians don't refer to themselves as Mormons. Why is it Mormons refer to themselves as Christians? (rhetorical)

Hopefully this won't upset the self righteous who believe it's wrong to discuss such...spiritual matters. It's time we stop living in fairy tale land and meet issues head on.

Society's weak becomes the strength for those who spin fables as a way of life and profit from them.

nailingit — October 27, 2012 at 12:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal




crazytrain — October 27, 2012 at 1:10 p.m.

Yea, you "Rs" are really a piece of work. I guess we should have gone in there (after the fact, of course) and just shot the hell out of everything since we really didn't have any info on who was in there and where our people were. Good idea, just kill everyone.

hawkeye — October 27, 2012 at 3:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Though I realize arguing over who the electoral college should vote in as the next president is terribly... I dunno. "Terribly" something I guess. I thought y'all might be interested in what your city is doing. You know, as a diversion whilst taking a break?

http://capndrift.wordpress.com/2012/10/27/malfeasance/

Will they come for you?

Drift — October 27, 2012 at 3:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Should be self explanatory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xu2sSV...

roger — October 27, 2012 at 4 p.m. ( | suggest removal



This is what Obama and the Democratic party are up against.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufUCmj1p9rE

This is what reasonable people are up against.

nailingit — October 27, 2012 at 6:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal


"Besides, IF IT IS TRUE, that Obama ignored the pleas for help, he should be brought up on charges for their deaths.

crazytrain — October 27, 2012 at 1:14 p.m."

***Just like Bush on 9/11, right?***

hawkeye — October 27, 2012 at 6:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Dee-

"the unions can compel their members to contribute to campaigns, not identified, and give it to whomever they damn well please."

I'm not so sure of that but I could be wrong.

On union donations/Democrats-

"funny thing; it's always dem candidates, never 'r'... wonder why that is?"

The answer, to me, is obvious. A candidate perceived as "pro-labor" will probably win the labor vote. A candidate perceived as "anti-labor, pro-corporate" probably won't.

As the Dow is around 13,000 now, the banks are making billions and corporate cash/profits are at an all-time high,
ask yourself, how's lowly "Main St" doing?

Simply abandoned. If that's not an indictment of trickle-down non-sense, I'll say no more. The US is on track to surpass Saudi Arabia as a producer of oil (per the C's article). I'm paying a recessional amount of $4/gal for gasoline. The US has, I don't know the #'s, but we have the lion's share of the world's refinery capacity. Yet we still pay what the world's market will bear for gasoline? How's that set with trickle-down non-sense? The oil companies will bleed us and the economy to death in order to make $$$. And the environmetal costs of frakking aren't even factored. Poisoned wells?-coming to a frakking site near you.

knd-on political bias-

You're kidding, I assume. Political bias on political issues? How many paragraghs of political editorial comments/opinions do you need to read to figure out the author's political leanings/bisases? Should be about one sentence. Romney was right. 47% of voters wouldn't vote for him in the first place no matter what he did. 47% of voters will vote for Obama no matter what he did or didn't do. There's a reason candidates place a lot of signs around displaying their names. Many schmucks will vote for that name, or party, based on that stupid sign. I have noticed that putting the R on the signs is much more obvious than 4 years ago. Could that have been "distancing" from the Bush era? Just askin'.

mrd — October 27, 2012 at 6:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal


From CNN-

The former Massachusetts governor has made increasing the size and role of the Navy a cornerstone of his military policy. Here in Pensacola, home to a major Naval installation where former GOP presidential candidate John McCain went to flight school, his plan for the Navy took on an outsize role in what was otherwise a largely boilerplate stump speech.

"I believe in a modern Navy. That’s why my plan is to increase the number of ships we’re building to maintain our strong commitment to our military," Romney said. "His vision is not greatness in America’s Navy or America’s military. His vision is to cut our military spending by a trillion dollars. And by the way, a trillion dollars in cuts would cost about 41,000 jobs here in Florida, and think of all the businesses that depend on all those jobs. It’s extraordinary, but the president’s agenda keeps getting smaller and smaller and smaller.”

Aren't those "cuts" which I assume. will never be made in the defense budget anyway, not if the MIC has their way, which they will, a product of budget sequestering? An anomaly that can be laid diredtly at the feet of both parties?
So who's to blame?

mrd — October 27, 2012 at 6:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal


"This deal in Benghazi is on Obama's head NOT Bush's. Why is it ever time Obama messes up, the only thing you guys can come up with is the ^blame Bush^ for anything..why is that? Nothing to defend Obama with?"

Mostly because you are full of it. I say Bush knew ahead of time and Obama didn't know for a few hours after. You think Obama knew ahead of time, PROVE IT. I don't need to defend anyone. And quit telling me to go back to school. Sounds like you need to be better educated to me. I don't care about 105mm Howitzers, 40mm Bofors cannons or 25mm Gatling cannons.

hawkeye — October 27, 2012 at 7:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye- This might explain some things. This guy Beck is cheesier than a used car dealer, but loved by the fringe.

**GLENN BECK CONNECTS THE DOTS IN BENGHAZI ATTACK: ‘THIS IS FAST AND FURIOUS TIMES 1,000′**

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/glenn-beck-connects-the-dots-in-benghazi-attack-this-is-fast-and-furious-times-1000/

nailingit — October 27, 2012 at 9:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal


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

It could be Benghazi X 911 X 1000 X 420

nailingit — October 27, 2012 at 9:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal


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

Speaking of the Navy.

Remember during the Bush years and the controversy about Rumsfeld taking his daughter with him everywhere?

I guess you go to war with the kid you have...

nailingit — October 27, 2012 at 10:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**"modern military" vis-a-vis the navy**

*note to dana & roger: if i get this wrong, lemme know. haven't had to 'know' this stuff for a lonnnng time*

the great O notwithstanding, the navy does a lot more than carry around airplanes.

troop ships: doubt we can get massive numbers of troops where needed, IF needed, any other way

battle ships: gotta love the new toys those bad boys can launch. don't fit too well on planes.

strategic operations: ever try to have a show of force around a strategic shipping lane with a bunch of planes? even helios aint gonna cut it.

misc duties: imagine how offended those friendly muslims big O keeps insisting are there if we dumped bin laden's carcass from an air plane. also, they're awfully handy in providing a place to get close to the theater for high-level battle plans, while still being totally defended AND mobile. gives our assets in-country a safe haven that's a heckofa lot closer and faster to get to than making flight plans to neutral countries.

DeeLittle — October 28, 2012 at 12:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**G.O.P. SPLIT OVER WHETHER TO EMPHASIZE MISOGYNY OR RACISM**

Posted by Andy Borowitz

NEW HAMPSHIRE (The Borowitz Report)—With less than two weeks to go until Election Day, there is a deep divide among Republican leaders over whether to emphasize misogyny or racism as the campaign’s closing theme.

In one camp is the Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock, who says that his view that God is sometimes O.K. with rape is “gaining real traction with a key demographic: men who don’t like women very much.”

“I can’t tell you how many misogynists have come up to me at my rallies and said, ‘Thank you for saying what you said,’ ” he told reporters today. “I think they’re like, finally, someone’s taking a more nuanced position on rape.”

But in the other camp is the former New Hampshire governor John Sununu, who worries that the Republican Party’s emphasis on misogyny is threatening to drown out its “winning message of racism.”

“I understand the appeal of Mourdock’s anti-woman theme, but I worry that it’s going to overshadow our core value of racism, which is still our best shot at winning this thing,” he said. “In politics, you’ve got to dance with the one who brung you.”

Hoping to heal a possible rift with so little time left until Election Day, the R.N.C. chairman Reince Priebus said today that there is room for both views in today’s Republican Party: “Our ‘big tent’ message to voters should be this: come for the misogyny, stay for the racism.”

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2012/10/gop-split-over-whether-to-emphasize-misogyny-or-racism.html#ixzz2AbyopDBw

nailingit — October 28, 2012 at 9:22 a.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — October 28, 2012 at 9:22 a.m

Maybe what they are trying to say is the Republican'ts are OK with rape as long as it isn't a white woman.

Me, not so much.

hawkeye — October 28, 2012 at 2:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal


DeeLittle — October 28, 2012 at 12:50 a.m.

I was Army. We flew. Equipment went on ships that MTMC contracted; I don't believe they're Navy (definitely not for the first Desert). Marines will occasionally ride along with their equipment; that would depend on whether they plan on doing an amphibious landing.

The Navy is still big on their carrier fleet and sending airplanes on shorter missions. But their guided missiles (surface to surface, surface to air and anti-ship/sub) are a major part of their attack capability these days.

The WWII movies with airplanes attacking fleets (Midway) is a bygone day. From what little I know, you have to be pretty bad, or more likely pretty dumb, to go against a modern fleet.

roger — October 28, 2012 at 2:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal


A modern AC130 is pretty lethal; infrared targeting systems and the previously mentioned guns. But it doesn't tell you who the enemy is. And I sort of think we still don't know when/if we knew what was going on there when CIA wanted to go in with the plane. Our problem remains that our different intelligence groups still don't play well together, despite the efforts of the Bush2 administration to fix this. So while someone may have known there was a real terrorist attack going on, as opposed to a mob, we don't know whether the decision makers got the word. And CIA's reputation as cowboys is an earned one.

roger — October 28, 2012 at 2:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal


here's one for ya-

Run the light rail across the 205 bridge by going thru the bike ramp with columns. These columns, in turn, will be supported on a beam between the two bridge columns below as they are not centered on the bridge. Put the light rail on an elevated deck as it is south down by the airport. Then it can tie into C-tran's park and ride facility to be built along 205 at 18th St.

mrd — October 28, 2012 at 5:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal


All political discussion aside for a moment here, folks.

After multiple conversations with a friend in Brooklyn, New York...the seriousness of the "hybrid storm" set to hit landfall on Monday has prompted the transit service to shut down by 7 pm eastern time tonight. According to personal observation by the friend, the grocery store shelves are all but empty of anything edible or for personal needs in activities of survival in an emergency. With no transit service and no food at this time on the east coast, I only hope and pray the people who have not had a chance to prepare are able to seek refuge somewhere safe. The storm surge has the distinct possibility of being as high as 11' and all low lying areas will be affected. For anybody who thinks staying in a high rise would be safe...we must take into account that there will be no way to leave the building when the power goes out and the temperatures drop. This storm is supposed to combine with an arctic blast as well as the system that brought snow to our wonderful mountains. Already, West Virginia is under a blizzard warning.

This storm and the actions of the people on the Eastern Seaboard in preparation for the onslaught of this storm and its aftermath lays a foundation for a good reminder why it is only sensible to always be prepared for any emergency. You never want to be the one who tried to find emergency supplies at the stores, only to find empty shelves or locked doors.

I know some of you are prepared for a couple of days supplies and it's hardly likely we'd ever see a storm of such magnitude but if there's any hint of what type of emergency we could be enduring...just remember what happened in the Queen Charlotte Islands last night and the possibility of such an event here. You just never know what Mother Nature will lash at us next.

So folks...are you ready? No...seriously...are you truly ready???

goldenoldie — October 28, 2012 at 5:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal


We are.

Probably several months worth of food in the freezer/pantry. A generator capable of keeping the freezer running long enough daily to keep stuff frozen and at the same time, power up the well to fill all the bathtubs with water (for bathing, flushing toilets, and drinking) and run the septic pumps. The fireplace is propane, so we'll have some heat. The fridge will run as long as the generator does. The stove(must light with matches) & microwave will also run, but the the ovens won't-the only 220 is directed at the well-not the heat pump or ovens. The only thing we'll miss is hot showers and baking unless my wife wants to bake in that cast iron contraption on the stove. PS-she made some bread that way and it was pretty good. I guess we'll use propane (on the stove) to heat bathwater if the water heater cools down before power is restored. The computers and phones will work. I have 10 gallons of extra fuel (uses .75 gals/hr) on hand for the generator, plus a full tank, so I'm good for at least a week, as are most neighbors.

We lost power for 7 days back in 2005 (?) due to a windstorm, couldn't get out of here for 3 days until downed trees and power lines were removed-NEVER AGAIN!

mrd — October 28, 2012 at 7:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal


We are set as well. Freezer is FULL. Lots in the pantry and cupboards. Two generators, plenty of gas. If we need the oven, the BBQ works great. Lots of propane as well. Water is from a spring, on septic. Fireplace is a wood stove with a blower, lots of wood, dry and ready to go. Chainsaw is ready to go, two back-up blades. Should be good for a week or two.

hawkeye — October 28, 2012 at 10:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal


DeeLittle — October 28, 2012 at 12:50 a.m.

One thing people forget, in the event of a natural disaster (recently the tsunami in Thailand and Japan), a Navy Carrier is equipped to:

Provide power from it's reactor on shore to critical infrastructure

Cargo aircraft to deliver relief supplies.

Cargo aircraft can also deliver personnel to conduct recovery of isolated people

Surveilance aircraft to locate trapped personnel

Medical facilities to treat wounded should local medical facilities find themselves overwhelmed.

For anyone who may be interested in what they are capable of aside from the given warfighting function.

danabwoodley — October 29, 2012 at 4:05 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Another serious consideration regarding Hurricane Sandy and what the Eastern Seaboard isn't prepared for...which one of my relatives had stated the following...

*"Something which is receiving no media attention as far as Sandy is concerned is the storm surge and wave threat to two large and ancient nuclear plants at the narrower end of Delaware Bay, where the surge will concentrate. The plants are only 9' above highest tide and they are predicting the worst case surge potential there, not to mention 20-30' waves on top of the surge. One of the plants including the emergency generators to keep the cooling functioning is exactly the same design as Fukushima's. This could be the big story by the end of the week. These plants are 18 miles south of Wilmington, where most of the credit card companies and Delaware corporations are based."*

If this person is right...we're not just talking about storm damage on the East Coast.

goldenoldie — October 29, 2012 at 6:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal



nail @ 7:56 so true........ ;>

soapbox4u — October 29, 2012 at 5:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Forum Login