Open forum Sept 3-9

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.


343 comments

Comments

An article that does a good job of explaining why I went back to the federal workforce a few years back, where there is no mandatory retirement age. Bottom line is that my savings can't keep up with the rate of inflation; they aren't making anything off of interest.

The article also discusses the outcome of this policy a few years down the road - when interest rates normalize (4.2% in their example). The current zero interest rate is supposed to encourage borrowing, and consequently lead to job and economic growth. (Perhaps - little sign this is taking place so far.) But a side effect is that it encourages our gov'ts to continue with deficit spending. And when rates normalize, the amount we owe will consume most of the gov't income. An analogy is the subprime ARM rates in the housing market, which exploded in the faces of everyone who thought they could unload at a profit.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/04/30/the-downside-of-the-feds-zero-interest-rate-policy

roger — September 3, 2012 at 8:45 a.m. ( | suggest removal


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

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – James Taylor is performing onstage at the DNC on Thursday, and the singer says he’s proud to be associated with President Obama.

Calling himself an “unabashed liberal,” Taylor told the Charlotte Observer that he’ll go to bat for Obama because “he may not be that good at blowing his own horn.”

“This president represents the best instincts of America and Americans,” Taylor said.

The singer, who was raised in North Carolina, is already in town and set to perform at CarolinaFest on Monday in uptown Charlotte.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/click/2012/09/james-taylor-in-carolina-for-obama-134192.html?hp=l12

nailingit — September 3, 2012 at 10:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — September 3, 2012 at 10:41 a.m

Huh, that's funny. I always thought he'd be a conservative. I do enjoy his music.

hawkeye — September 3, 2012 at 10:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal


The Repubs can claim this guy - though I'm not sure how the family values crowd likes it. But he did put on a great show - one of the better concerts I saw; definitely got my money's worth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Qadtk...

roger — September 3, 2012 at 11:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Well the Tea party can have this guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nW8S58...

hawkeye — September 3, 2012 at 12:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Our SpecOps forces are suspending training of the Afghani security force, pending a relook at just who they are and where their loyalties lie. It seems we've been very lax with this process - the requirement to grow that force to the size needed to allow the 2014 withdrawal timetable to be adhered to was deemed more important.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/training-suspended-for-new-afghan-recruits/2012/09/01/adc4ed1c-f398-11e1-b74c-84ed55e0300b_story.html

roger — September 3, 2012 at 12:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I think Ted went on that journey a couple of times too often.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eYT1wb6y0o&feature;=related

roger — September 3, 2012 at 12:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal


"The move comes as NATO officials struggle to stem the tide of attacks on NATO forces by their Afghan colleagues. The attacks, which have killed 45 troops this year, have forced NATO officials to acknowledge a painful truth: Many of the incidents might have been prevented if existing security measures had been applied correctly."

I read on a foreign news website a little different view of this. The US military, in the rank & file, are not necessarily viewed as "colleagues", trainers, or advisors. Many hold the opinion these people are at best "handlers" and at worst "occupiers".

The view of many Afghanis is OK, great, you tossed the Taliban. It's been 11 years and you will be manning your permanent bases for a long time. We don't want to fight your proxy wars for a government you spend billions to prop up. Just leave.

The author felt attacks on Americans would probably increase and also the number of Afghanis attacking Americans would increase into larger groups rather that just one or two individuals.

They don't want us, we can't afford it, so why are we still there? Who really wants this war? Oh yea, the good ol' boys down in the complex. And they can and will slip enough money to our elected stooges to make sure these things continue enabling them access to the taxpayer's loot. Why Lyin' Ryan wants to throw even more $$$ into this cauldron for the good ol' boys. Some deficit cutter he's gonna make.

mrd — September 3, 2012 at 2:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal


LOS ANGELES (AP) — Michael Clarke Duncan, the hulking, prolific character actor whose dozens of films included an Oscar-nominated performance as a death row inmate in "The Green Mile" and such other box office hits as "Armageddon," ''Planet of the Apes" and "Kung Fu Panda," is dead at age 54.

Clarke died Monday morning at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, where he was being treated for a heart attack, said his fiancée, Reverend Omarosa Manigault, in a statement released by publicist Joy Fehily.

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/actor-michael-clarke-duncan-dead-54-214440462.html

***RIP Michael, you will be missed***

hawkeye — September 3, 2012 at 3:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mrd,

Who do you suggest we elect? As Dana noted last night, if the people of this country are that opposed to our being in countries like Afghanistan, then we need to elect people that will follow through and bring the troops home. I sort of recall this was a major plank of the Obama platform, yet 4 years later....

Offhand, I wonder what is behind the change in the Administration's position. Do we already have corporations invested in exploiting their newly discovered mineral potential that was reported on a couple of years ago?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html?pagewanted=all

Perhaps the women's rights movement is influencing the decision? Afghan women have made modest gains, but if we leave and the Taliban regains control (extremely probable), then what happens?

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/afghanistanunveiled/women.html

As long as we are in places like that, however, I want the full weight of the military industrial complex backing the effort. Perhaps a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" solution, but I'm of the opinion this approach dedicates maximum resources and is in the best interest of the troops on the ground.

roger — September 3, 2012 at 4:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Obama ended combat operations in Iraq two years ago, and promises to end Afghanistan in 2014. No reason to doubt this. If you guys didn't watch this live check it out. It's clear who is Commander in Chief. I can't imagine Romney relating to the troops in this way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DEuVF...

Romney will listen & bend to the neo-cons if in office. Again, his transition team is loaded with Bush drones.

Obama/Biden have great foreign policy experience. Romney/Ryan have zip.

OBAMA/BIDEN 2012 :)

nailingit — September 3, 2012 at 4:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal


"Offhand, I wonder what is behind the change in the Administration's position. Do we already have corporations invested in exploiting their newly discovered mineral potential that was reported on a couple of years ago?"

For the corporations that make this country the merchant of death, thar's gold in them thar wars!

"As long as we are in places like that, however, I want the full weight of the military industrial complex backing the effort. Perhaps a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" solution, but I'm of the opinion this approach dedicates maximum resources and is in the best interest of the troops on the ground."

The US shouldn't have been involved in most of the military excursions in the last 50 years-period. And we don't throw everything at whoever the enemy is supposed to be, again, there's more money to be made in a protracted war. We attempt tactical, clean little wars, fronting development of weapon systems et all (for the you-know-who, gotta get "tested" at taxpayer expense) behind "advising" or "aiding" or "training" allies, when in fact, they usually aren't, at least not for very long. An occupying force is never really an ally, especially after many years. But this nonsense is a cornerstore of American foreign policy, and it's failing again, and drags down our treasury and international standing, which really makes it difficult for me to understand. Are the people in this country so immune to violence they can see it as an exportable commodity?

As long as songs are the order of the day, I'll butcher the lyrics from Simon & Garfunkel's "Mrs. Robinson"--

Sitting on the sofa on a Sunday afternoon
(Something about listening to the candidates)
Doesn't matter who you chose
Either way, you're gonna lose.

Close enough to get the idea.

mrd — September 3, 2012 at 4:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon
Going to the candidates' debate
Laugh about it, shout about it when you've got to choose Every way you look at it you lose

the lyrics the right way

captch 3 me 1?

mrd — September 3, 2012 at 4:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal


While I'm posting away, this guy, like me, is wondering why the corporate owned media in this country isn't calling out Lyin' Ryan. He's gotta be making Mittens smile. And it's working. Mittens is getting quite a pocketful from corporate America, much more than Obama. A little long, but a good read.

www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/09/201291925132175.html

mrd — September 3, 2012 at 4:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mrd --- Here's one so you can sing along.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKEr5U...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_an...

langenthal — September 3, 2012 at 5:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal


OK, mrd, you started this!!!

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

roger — September 3, 2012 at 5:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal


But I thought these guys were better vocalists.

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

roger — September 3, 2012 at 5:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I think Judy is at least 70 - Still beautiful; both voice and looks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj5sDxHI0Mc

roger — September 3, 2012 at 6:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Since everyone is into the music thing…

There’s one which is a little obscure, but I think is just great.

Al Di Meola. Usually classified as Jazz. But reminds me a lot of Spanish classical guitar. Like Segovia. He did some interesting stuff, but there is nothing as good as Fantasia Suite for Two Guitars. Apparently, when he was a kid, his other band members wanted to get rid of him. They broke up the band, and then started a new one, without him. Went out and made himself as good as he could be. I believe this song/album, is different tracks, all by himself.

Talk about an eclectic mixture in the basement, thanks to all of you.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zf0uW...][1]

[1]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zf0uW...

kn_dalai — September 3, 2012 at 6:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal


knd- Check out the week before you started posting again. You'll find some great Spanish Classical guitar posts, to include Di Meola August 19 @12:37. You won't be disappointed.

nailingit — September 3, 2012 at 7:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Regarding minerals to be mined in Afghanistan. They are there, and GIRoA has already signed an agreement for the mining rights. With China.

And it is true that we have ended operations in Iraq, but did anyone here that we have 100% US Military presence out? I know for a fact we do not. As long as there is a US embassy, there will be a military presence. Hasn't anyone noticed security at the embassy performed by Marines?

Yes the president has stated that operations in Afghanistan will end in 2014. Guess what? It isn't 2014 yet. Things can change. Afterall, look at how quickly he signed the EXECORD to close the prison at Gitmo. And when did it shut down?

And I may be nitpicking here, but we need to be aware of words we are using. The people in Afghanistan are Afghans. Their currency is Afghanis.

danabwoodley — September 3, 2012 at 7:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal



nailingit — September 3, 2012 at 4:31 p.m.

"Obama ended combat operations in Iraq two years ago"

We don't need the revisionist history. The troops were withdrawn from Iraq on Bush's timetable, Obama tried to extend it but Iraq wouldn't agree.

frobert — September 3, 2012 at 7:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal


crazytrain — September 3, 2012 at 8:32 p.m.

Amen. Hell I even need to show my ID to give my urine sample that allows me to earn my income. Figure that out.

danabwoodley — September 3, 2012 at 8:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**Obama Teams Up With Kal Penn In New Campaign Video (VIDEO)**

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/03/kal-penn-obama-video_n_1852809.html

nailingit — September 3, 2012 at 9:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**Inspirational!!**

**Gallup polling suggests RNC did nothing for Romney**

It’s still too early to say for sure whether the Republican National Convention rejuvenated Mitt Romney’s campaign, but at least according to Gallup numbers so far, it hasn’t moved the polls much.

Romney currently trails President Obama by an insignificant one-point margin, 47 percent to 46 percent. That’s a 7-day tracking poll running from last Monday through yesterday and therefore includes a full three days of polling after Romney’s Thursday night acceptance speech. If he were to have received a substantial bump, the tracking poll would have likely picked it up by now. In the last poll before the start of the RNC, running through last Monday, it was Romney who was edging out Obama by one point.

The evidence from the tracking poll that Romney received no bounce is also backed up by a three-day Gallup survey following the RNC, which found that while 40 percent of Americans said they were more likely to vote for Romney after his speech, 38 percent said they were less likely and it made no difference to 22 percent.

It’s hard to say, in other words, whether Romney’s message just isn’t resonating, or that we’ve entered an era in politics in which swing voters have largely begun to tune out conventions.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/gallup-polling-suggests-rnc-did-nothing-for-romney/article/2506735#.UEV_WRwU66a

nailingit — September 3, 2012 at 9:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal




Hell I even need to show my ID to give my urine sample that allows me to earn my income. Figure that out.

danabwoodley — September 3, 2012 at 8:50 p.m

What was it you said you do, again?

They don't trust you with a gun, do they?

putz!

hawkeye — September 3, 2012 at 9:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Really Hawk? Personal jabs?

A sign that you can't argue the validity of the point being made. And I am the putz?

danabwoodley — September 3, 2012 at 10:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**Michael Tomasky: Obama’s Simple Convention Task Is to Tell the Truth**

It’s conventional wisdom that Barack Obama and the Democrats have to use their convention to persuade swing voters. OK, but how? That’s the big question. It doesn’t seem at first blush that the famous Reagan question that’s resurfaced—“Are you better off than you were four years ago?”—will work to Obama’s benefit. But it’s possible that it can, as long as Obama and the other speakers weld it tightly to another question that needs to go something like, “And how well off do you think you’ll be four years from now?”

But first, let’s review last week quickly. It was not history’s most successful convention. The bounce appears to be minimal, and it seems unlikely that many swing voters were highly impressed with the case the Republicans made. They showcased some Latino talent, and Mitt Romney talked about women for six minutes. But the real centerpiece of the convention, chairs aside, was Paul Ryan, and while he tried to come off as reassuring to moderates, his speech was such a mansion of mistruths—a fact, I think, that the Democrats communicated pretty effectively over the course of the week—that most swing voters didn’t come away with Ryanmania, according to the numbers.

So the Democrats have a big opening. How to take advantage of it?

To begin with, Obama can certainly make the case that the country overall is better off than it was four years ago. The month he took office, the country lost 818,000 jobs. The next few months were similar. On the day he took office, the Dow Jones average stood at 7,950. It’s now above 13,000. That means a lot of retirement plans have come back to where they once were and then some. Of course there’s the auto bailout, which is relevant to all of us, but especially relevant in key states. And there are the positive effects of the stimulus, which as I noted over the weekend, he should not be afraid to tout.

Obviously he’s got to be careful about how he talks all this up. We still have 12.8 million people unemployed and looking for work. If Obama presses on this good-news accelerator with too heavy a foot, the engine will backfire in a big way. He has to throw in the expected caveats, of course, but he also has to regulate the rhetoric with great care. Remember: The day after the convention ends, we’re getting the August jobs numbers. The early indicators are decent, pointing toward 140,000 or so, which is a pretty encouraging number for him politically, but if he gets smacked with a five-digit number the day after a speech when he tries to talk up the economy, there goes his bounce.

I like that there’s something Rovian about this, or reverse-Rovian: turn weakness into strength. With the right set of facts, he can do it. But the real sale to swing voters will come with the second half of the equation.

>>>

nailingit — September 4, 2012 at 9:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal


This convention must be merciless on what the Republicans are going to do to this country economically. Attacks on Romney should have nothing to do with his personality or his hair or his preference for “quiet rooms” (well, a little of that) or his friends’ and supporters’ empty chairs. It should be almost all policy. That, to invert the famous line from Captain Renault in Casablanca about his heart, is Romney’s most vulnerable spot.

Campaign strategist David Axelrod defends Obama's record going into the DNC.
I hope and expect that this convention will pound away on tax cuts for the wealthy and cuts to Medicare, yes. But there’s more. There is Romney-Ryan’s stated plans to repeal Dodd-Frank and let the banks go wild again. The banks caused the problem in the first place, and the idea that they want to repeal Dodd-Frank should be enough to signal to swing voters that a Republican administration is blithely delighted to risk the same kind of crisis happening again. Something tells me that Bill Clinton (um, never mind that Glass-Steagall repeal) can really drive that point home.

Many moderate voters agree with Republican slogans. But once Democrats explain what those slogans will mean in practice, they can peel a sizeable number of those voters away.
The Democrats—Joe Biden, Clinton, Obama himself—have to talk some serious smack on GOP economic plans and fantasies and paint a lucid, stark, but completely fair and accurate picture of an opposing campaign that wants to be George W. Bush on steroids. I hope they’re not afraid to dig into some detail and explain how Romney’s plans to cap domestic spending, raise defense spending, slash taxes, and balance the budget all at same time just doesn’t come close to adding up, and will, as I’ve explained previously, lead to both massive domestic cuts and huge deficits.

When Democrats talk details, they win. Because the facts are on their side. When the conversation takes place at the level of banal generalities—Big government! Low taxes!—that’s when Republicans win. People—moderate people—agree with Republican slogans, but once you explain to them what those slogans are going to mean in practice, you peel a sizeable number of them away.

That’s the job this week. It is true that the undecided vote is small to start with, and there isn’t much room for a bounce. But the Democrats can get two or three points out of this week, which may be all they need, and, unlike the Republicans, all they have to do is tell the truth.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/04/michael-tomasky-obama-s-simple-convention-task-is-to-tell-the-truth.html

nailingit — September 4, 2012 at 9:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I hope this convention wakes a few up to what direction the GOP wants to take us. Some won't care. Some won't understand. Some aren't capable of understanding. I hope the few that are intellectually/emotionally stable will get a glimpse and vote with our country's best interest at heart, and not with some out of touch political/religious ideologies at the forefront.

OBAMA/BIDEN 2012

nailingit — September 4, 2012 at 9:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I see people on both sides posting articles and opinions about how bad it will be if one side or the other gets the Presidency this year. In reality it makes little difference, both sides stand for more war, less freedom, bailouts for corporations, raids on medical marijuana facilities and you and I paying for it. People need to wake up to the obvious, voting for either of these candidates is voting for more of the same failed policies that have plauged our country for years.

frobert — September 4, 2012 at 9:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I whole heartedly support Ron Paul/Libertarian/Confused&Bitter; supporters voting the Johnson ticket this November. May they flood the election polls this November.

http://www.politics1.com/p2012.htm

Quantify the Movement: The Case for Gary Johnson

http://www.dailypaul.com/252471/quantify-the-movement-the-case-for-gary-johnson

nailingit — September 4, 2012 at 10:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Why wasn't Hank booked for this year's RNC? Maybe next time.

**Hank Williams Jr. Blasts Obama Again, Says President Is Muslim, 'Hates Cowgirls,' 'Loves Gays'**

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/03/hank-williams-jr-obama-gays_n_1852739.html

nailingit — September 4, 2012 at 10:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal


MRD

Your comment about us still being in Afganistan is pretty accurate. I just had one of my sons return after his tour of duty. he not only saw the incomptenece of our milliatry leaders but a true lack of direction and leadership from above. He spent his entire time there as a Army Ranger Sniper and saw first hand the difficulty of our "mission" or lack there of...

Roger-
Yes I do agree though either go all in or don't go in at all..After listening to my son speak of the locals, not taliban they do want to live better lives and be rid of the Taliban, but they also know that this will not happen in their lifetime as there are so many and their beliefs so deeply rooted. This is something that will take a revolution from within the country is his belief. God bless he is now home safe ... One down one more to go...

vanwadreamer — September 4, 2012 at 10:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal


"Low intelligence and ill informed voters will be the destruction of this country."

You're certainly not implying everyone that doesn't see things your way is of low intellegence and ill-informed, are you?

mrd — September 4, 2012 at 1:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Clearly the Romney camp believes this issue is the one most damaging to them. They will go to any length to try and turn the tables on honesty. I hope folks are paying attention. Imagine the BS we would get fed if this vulture gets elected. They can't run on issues or a vision, so they resort to these types of tactics hoping to blur the lines. Shameful.

**EXCLUSIVE: Romney-Ryan Robocall Attacks Obama For ‘Changing Medicare Forever’**

Even though Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan want to transform Medicare from a guaranteed benefit to a voucher-based system, essentially phasing out the existing program, their campaign is running calls claiming that President Obama is “changing the program forever”:
Some think Obamacare is the same as free health care, but nothing is free. Obama is raiding $716 billion from Medicare, changing the program forever — taxing wheel chairs and pace makers, raising taxes on families making less than $120,000. Free health care comes at a very high price. The Romney-Ryan plan will restore Medicare funding, and protect and strengthen the program for the next generation.
Listen:

The Affordable Care Act actually extends the solvency of Medicare by reallocating $716 billion spent on the program. That money has gone to lowering Seniors’ co-pays, reducing fraud and abuse, and connecting reimbursements to economic productivity.
Should Romney and Ryan repeal these changes, Medicare would become insolvent eight years before it’s currently on track to. Their plan would also force future seniors would pay $60,000 more for their care.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/09/04/793031/romney-ryan-medicare-robocall/

nailingit — September 4, 2012 at 1:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal


danabwoodley — September 3, 2012 at 10:40 p.m

Ha! You were making a point?

The point is, you "work" for an organization that controls your every move be it urinating, walking from office to office, driving on base or posting on here. THEY CONTROL YOU.

You signed up for this fully knowing what your job entailed ***so you have no room to complain.*** It's kind of like moving in next to an airport and then complaining about the noise.

yea, putz!

hawkeye — September 4, 2012 at 1:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal



**Chart of the Day: Are You Better Off Than You Were 4 Years Ago?**

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/chart-of-the-day-are-you-better-off-than-you-were-4-years-ago/261938/

nailingit — September 4, 2012 at 4:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**Are We Better off Now than in 2008? You Betcha! [CHARTS]**

A reasonable question to ask in any election year is whether we are better off today than we were four years ago. This year, the question happens to be remarkably easy to answer. Yes, by almost any measure, we are better off now than we were in the fall of 2008. Today our economy is growing, but back then it was shrinking. Today we’re adding new jobs every month, but back then we were shedding them at an alarming and increasing rate. Today businesses are boasting record profits, but back then they were awash in red ink.

This is no accident. Over the past four years, aggressive actions taken by the federal government, including the economic stimulus package and the rescue of the auto industry, succeeded in turning our economy around and putting us back on the right economic path.
Much work needs to be done to ensure the current economic recovery gains better traction. But there is no doubt that the economy is on the right track and remarkably robust in the face of tremendous obstacles, among them the lingering European financial crisis, high oil prices, and continued massive household debt levels.

Contrast that with four years ago, the last year of President George W. Bush’s second term of office, when the consequences of the conservative economic policies of his administration were in full flower. The financial crisis sparked by rising home mortgage foreclosures in 2006 gained speed in 2007 and morphed into a serious recession in 2008. It is no exaggeration to say that by the fall of 2008, that recession threatened to turn into another full-fledged Great Depression as:

Mortgage foreclosures mounted swiftly
Job losses accelerated rapidly
Economic growth reversed course
Corporate profits fell precipitously
Household wealth declined sharply

In short, our economy and financial markets went into a tailspin in the second half of 2008 due to the consequences of conservative economic policies implemented aggressively by the Bush administration.
Fast forward to the summer of 2012. The U.S. economy has added jobs since February 2010, the economy has been growing since June 2009, corporate profits have risen sharply, foreclosures are finally falling, and household wealth is continuing to expand. Instead of a second Great Depression, the actions of the Obama administration resulted in our economy exiting what became known as the Great Recession of 2007–2009 within six months.
Are we better off today than in 2008? You betcha.

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/economy/news/2012/09/04/36357/are-we-better-off-now-than-in-2008-you-betcha/

nailingit — September 4, 2012 at 4:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Mobama's speaking tonight! Sometime after 7:00.

nailingit — September 4, 2012 at 5 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Has anybody noticed that Obama has maintained or expanded every civil liberties violation that he inherited from Bush, and the Liberals who were complaining about them 4 years ago are fine with them now?

frobert — September 4, 2012 at 5:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I'm liking CNN's coverage a bit better than MSNBC. You get to see more of the convention and less talking heads. I tried Fox & O'reilly kept yelling at his own news people that were on the convention floor when didn't like what he was hearing. How can anyone listen to this ridiculously rude blowhard is beyond me. Great convention so far. I hope people are watching. Tammy Duckworth gave a riveting speech!

nailingit — September 4, 2012 at 6:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Whoa, a lot of negative vibes around here.... Step away from Faux, fro. Just because your own Paul didn't make it... geeze.

crazy, you on the wrong train.

Hey nail, how's it going?

hawkeye — September 4, 2012 at 6:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye — September 4, 2012 at 6:11 p.m.

I don't watch Fox, but I would guess that they would not be pointing out civil liberties violations by republicans any more than MSNBC would democrats.

My statement was based on the facts, your response was based on...well nothing.

frobert — September 4, 2012 at 6:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal


"It makes no difference who you vote for - the two parties are really one party representing four percent of the people." Gore Vidal

Only thing worth arguing is his 4%. I think it's closer to 1%.

However, the D's do prefer our socialistic state to move some of the wealth downward, while the R's believe in total wealth distribution upwards to the "job creators" or "trickle down economics", both tried and truly failed notions. The R's strongly push corporate subsidies, capital gain tax reduction, carried interest for Mittens and his ilk, and generally lower tax rates for their earned income-as if they have any.

For our ruling elite, health care is a call to your private physician and if necessary, a back-door admittance to a very elite hospital, I doubt these folks experience waiting periods of 4-8 hours in the ER waiting room. No siree, these guys get top drawer service while the poor hack their guts out in the waiting room.

We have a two-tiered society, and the gap is growing. Read your history, such conditions lead to massive oppression or revolution. I see the first coming-quickly. It will be disguised as a security measure against some abstract foreign boogeyman, but in essence, it will be to protect the 1% as the masses wallow in the streets, looting Safeways because food is unaffordable. The only saving grace there is in the US, the average working/working poor stiff expends about 10% of their income on food. If prices soar-think drought and the fact a bushel of corn can be priced where speculators and what "experts" think the market will bear-look out. As with gasoline, we now export the refined product. The supply in the US of gasoline far exceeds demand. Why are we paying more for it than before? The law of supply and demand is an antiquated concept from my 9th grade civics class.

Rein in the big, too big to fail bastions of capitalism, the Wall St banks? Good luck. Clinton should get on his knees and beg forgiveness at the DNC for signing the repeal of Glass-Steagal. Hope I spelled that correctly and caught the right prez, but that's not important. What is important is the who's who list of bailout recipients/campaign donors to the Sinate Finance Committee. They're dang near identical. Put 2 and 2 together, and you got it! A couple of million dollars can get any law or regulation you want. The best democracy money can buy! Before you take on that last statement, please explain why the candidate's "war chest" of "donations" is so damn important to virtually every campaign. What trumps, money or the truth? DUH!!!


mrd — September 4, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Hey hawk, Great! Great convention!

nailingit — September 4, 2012 at 6:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal


"It's not accident that the chart uses only private-sector employment. Government jobs are shrinking quickly -- the government has fewer employees than it has for 45 years, and job losses in the public sector have been a consistent drag on the unemployment rate."

An excerpt from the link, courtesy of nailingit @4:46 pm AND theAtlantic.com.

It appears the chart presented doesn't carry the true data of jobs lost and the supposed recovery in America. Instead, it displays IN RED, the timeline when the world Depression hit the USA. This chart also does not state if the jobs were "living wages, part time, full time OR temporary." It also does not state the number of jobs "gained" by returning employees (those in construction or farming) whose employers hadn't let go permanently...just temporary layoffs. This chart is clearly intended to mislead the public.

Nailingit, shame on you. You should know better than that. Come on now...find data which isn't so off kilter and so far from the truth, would ya...before putting this on the forum!!!

goldenoldie — September 4, 2012 at 7:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mrd — September 4, 2012 at 6:30 p.m.

Glad to see someone else here on the forum is stepping up to the plate and saying what many are seeing while others like to scream "conspiracy." Guess others like to live with blinders and have convinced themselves that "it ain't gonna hap'n."

goldenoldie — September 4, 2012 at 7:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal


crazytrain — September 4, 2012 at 10:10 a.m.

Lemmings, perhaps???

goldenoldie — September 4, 2012 at 7:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Has anybody noticed that Obama has maintained or expanded every civil liberties violation that he inherited from Bush, and the Liberals who were complaining about them 4 years ago are fine with them now?

frobert — September 4, 2012 at 5:59 p.m.

Yep...we've noticed...along with the ever increasing debt, too!!!

goldenoldie — September 4, 2012 at 7:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal


What a barn burner speech Deval Patrick gave! Man what a difference from the RNC.

goldenoldie- yeah,,,uh sure goldenoldie!!! :)))

MObama to speak!!! Now!

nailingit — September 4, 2012 at 7:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal


What???? Nailing...you're at a loss for words after your rather lengthy posts??? Yer a slippin'!!!

Must be the man's mesmerized by our First Lady. DANG, I wish she'd run for president! She doesn't put up with ANY nonsense!

goldenoldie — September 4, 2012 at 7:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal


MObama just hit it out of the park! Incredible speech by an incredible first lady! Mobama ROCKS!!!

What a first day!

nailingit — September 4, 2012 at 8:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal


A million dollars in unpaid property taxes on the burned out motel? As if any government agency would give us working stiffs the same break. Lessee, $1M=about 500 years of property tax exemptions on my property. I'll settle for that.

Jeez, ain't 'merica great? We sure take good care of the mysterious job creators. I wonder how many minimum wage jobs this motel provided. A bunch, I'd figure. If it's good for corporate America, it must be good for us all. BS!!!!

mrd — September 4, 2012 at 8:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**Michelle Obama Media Reactions: Pundits Swoon Over First Lady's DNC Speech**

Members of the media immediately praised First Lady Michelle Obama's 2012 Democratic Convention speech on Tuesday night. Obama, who stunned in a custom Tracy Reese dress, took the stage just after 10:30 p.m. EST.

Across the cable news networks, pundits swooned over Obama's delivery. There seemed to be some mixed reviews over the strength of the speech itself, but the media seemed to agree that Obama nailed the performance.

Fox News' Chris Wallace called her delivery "masterful." Fox News' senior political analyst Brit Hume said that it was clear that Obama is an "extremely impressive and attractive woman." He added that her delivery was better than the speech itself, and that she "effectively vouched for her husband."

Fox News contributor Karl Rove also agreed that Obama's speech was "very well delivered," particularly when she spoke about personal moments. According to Rove, however, Obama did not do as well when she discussed the "political sphere."

Over at MSNBC, Rachel Maddow responded simply to Obama's speech. "Oh my god," she said, immediately following the first lady's remarks. MSNBC's Steve Schmidt said the speech was "brilliantly written and brilliantly delivered." Chuck Todd, who was reporting live from the convention floor, said, "Michelle Obama owned this convention in a way that no speaker owned the floor of the convention in Tampa."

CNN's Anderson Cooper tweeted that he has "never heard such a well delivered speech by a first lady ever." CNN's Wolf Blitzer echoed these sentiments, calling the speech "a grand slam." John King noted that Obama's speech was going to be "hard to top." CNN's Donna Brazile summed up the feeling in the convention center, tweeting "Love is in the air." Ari Fleischer, sounding a bum note said, "some speeches are much more effective in a hall of zealots."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/04/michelle-obama-media-reactions-dnc-speech_n_1856453.html

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

nailingit — September 4, 2012 at 10:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5M_pjkwqQY

A barn burner!

Thought to post a few highlights for those that missed them

nailingit — September 4, 2012 at 10:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal



**nobody** did it better. i was looking for this blusey, boozy small-venue tune, but couldnt find it...anything she did is a good substitute.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v;=dBJnoMP1Uyc

DeeLittle — September 5, 2012 at 2:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**GOLDIE**

don't know about you, but i've o.d'd on politics. watching old cop shows and murder shows. trying to record stuff to watch during the black-out times for conventions.

DeeLittle — September 5, 2012 at 2:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal


OBAMA: GO AWAY !!!

ROMNEY: STOP THE SLOGAN-ENGINEERING COMMERCIALS !!!

RYAN: STOP THE TALKING POINTS AND TALK *REALITIES* !!!

BIDEN: ENOUGH WITH THE DEM TALKING POINTS !!!

DeeLittle — September 5, 2012 at 2:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye — September 4, 2012 at 1:58 p.m.

So you want to just ignore the coversation that led to the comment I posted. You are right. I willingly joined an organization where certain of my liberties are limited. They are limited for the following reasons: a) ensuring the quality of output within the organization and b) to ensure the public doesn't view the orgainization as favoring one side of an issue over another.

There are a lot of details involved in this. I joined with my eyes wide open. I continue in the same way.

If it appeared as though I was complaining about drug testing I am obliged to provide a sample for, then I apologize for my misrepresentation. I have no problem with the testing, I have no reason to be concerned about the results returned in my sample.

I was trying to point out an additional item when one is required to present a valid photo ID. Like the many that were listed by crazy, including admittance to the DNC. But requiring an ID to vote is unreasonable?

So tell me hawk, who is controlling you?

danabwoodley — September 5, 2012 at 3:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*Today businesses are boasting record profits, but back then they were awash in red ink.*

Weren't we complaining about big corporations record profits back in '08?

*But there is no doubt that the economy is on the right track and remarkably robust in the face of tremendous obstacles, among them the lingering European financial crisis, high oil prices, and continued massive household debt levels.*

What about federal government debt levels? Not a reason for concern? And why are oil prices so high? How can they be brought down?

*...corporate profits have risen sharply...*

We aren't upset about record profits anymore?

Are we to believe that these accomplishments are to be creditted exclusively to the current administration? Only this president could have made this happen? It couldn't have happened if we had elected someone, anyone, else?

What about the not so successful ventures? Solyndra? Fisker's 100K electric car being manufactured in Europe? Fast and Furious? Do we ignore these debacles?

I am just saying, let's get some perspective here.

danabwoodley — September 5, 2012 at 3:22 a.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye — September 4, 2012 at 6:11 p.m.

Again, nothing substantial to say to fro's comments, so you go for making him sound ridiculous. But I am the putz.

One word.

Sycophant.

danabwoodley — September 5, 2012 at 3:26 a.m. ( | suggest removal


goldenoldie — September 4, 2012 at 7:14 p.m.

Another question to ask, GO...

How many of these "private sector" jobs are with companies contracted to provide to government entities? If someone is removed from a government position due to the government going to a contractor for that work to be done, a lot of the contract employees are the same people who did the work as a government employee. Same job, same office, same desk, different supervisor, different signature on the paycheck.

Sorry, no source to prove it. Just in a position to talk to the people this concept affects. But I guess I am not credible.

danabwoodley — September 5, 2012 at 4:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — September 4, 2012 at 10:01 p.m.

OK, so I haven't watched either of the conventions. I heard a lot about Eastwood at the RNC, but all of that was either praise for the comedy or derision over the content.

And now I get to hear about our First Lady's words. And from what I read in your post I can draw only one conclusion:

All flash, no substance.

danabwoodley — September 5, 2012 at 4:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I see that the police will be out looking for drivers in school zones speeding and not obeying other laws. I'm fine with that. I would also recommend that they look at the license plates of the vehicles dropping off the children. More and more I am seeing out of state plates.

I deliver children to two and sometimes three different schools. I can hardly believe that the people with Oregon plates drive all the way to Battleground to drop their kids at the school. Common sense tells me they live around there. Same goes for the parents at Fort of the ones I see at Walnut Grove. Come on man!!

This is the best time to collect info and fine them for not registering in Washington. I'm sure that this is just a tip of the iceberg.

JohnCasey — September 5, 2012 at 5:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal


It's funny that the police can do saturation patrols for problems around schools but can't answer calls about drug deals and use going down around the mall. I was told it's a manpower thing. I quit calling and won't be calling anytime soon. I will take pictures and send them to their web page instead. Maybe then they will see this is a major problem also. Riiiight!!

I know money is tight but to exclude a whole area of town for regular patrol and only go when called for is wrong. Everybody deserves the same amount of protection and not to do it because of money is stupid. Give the police what they need to do their job equally in all parts of town.

I was told about this problem by a cop on the street. He is just as frustrated as we are and it all comes down to the almighty buck, or lack of. Things like Loo-Rail are more important to fund than having a full staffed police department. We pay our taxes and they are not being used wisely. The leaders of our community are blinded by the shiny objects AGAIN.

JohnCasey — September 5, 2012 at 5:58 a.m. ( | suggest removal


JohnCasey — September 5, 2012 at 5:58 a.m.

**applauding profusely**

The police, locally, like the military, federally, is a function within the executive branch. It is apparently a common occurance these day for the executive to pick and choose which laws they want to enforce and dismiss others. The motivation boils down to one of two sources: money or votes.

danabwoodley — September 5, 2012 at 6:07 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mrd — September 4, 2012 at 6:30 p.m.

As I pointed out before. Elected office is the only occupation you can get away with convincing your potential/future employer (the people) to pay for all of your expenses in the attempt to get the job. And we fall for it every election.

(I say we as a collective population. I am in no way assuming anyone's individual donation habit to political campaigns)

danabwoodley — September 5, 2012 at 6:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal


"""But I guess I am not credible."""

Only to those with closed minds and their hands over their ears or eyes, Dana.

goldenoldie — September 5, 2012 at 6:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal


JohnCasey — September 5, 2012 at 5:58 a.m.

Don't give up, John. Document, document, document that activity. I cannot stress the importance of keeping records with past experiences. You just never know when those who are addicted will be looking for a new place to score something they could sell or trade for their addiction.

What is really sad is there is quite a number of those who have addictions which stem from prescriptions years back. After all, ya gotta keep Big Pharma in bi'ness ya know.

goldenoldie — September 5, 2012 at 6:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal


DeeLittle — September 5, 2012 at 2:32 a.m

I hear ya, Dee. I too refuse to watch the conventions. Ohh...if they would only bottle up all that hot air for heating homes in the winter!!!

All they're doing right now is cheerleading for their team. Not worth my time.

..

danabwoodley — September 5, 2012 at 4:34 a.m.

All flash, no substance???

Following in her husband's footsteps??? (oops, did I say that???) I see that hope and change thingy came true, though. We're still hoping for that change, you know. Now...it's "Forward???" Forward for what??? How about "Improvements NOW???"

I don't care what any politician says. Stimulus funding to encourage jobs sent monies overseas. It didn't encourage helping us here. Instead, in FOUR years of Obama Administration, the national debt had a larger increase than EIGHT years of ol' Georgie's tenure in office. And what do we have to show for it??? More debt, less jobs, starving families, record foreclosures and bankruptcies, failed banks, record medical insurance/medical care prices, higher suicide rates...

sigh.....

I should've known back then what I know now - When an attorney runs for office, always remember this. He's professionally trained to win the vote of the judge and jury...the jury of voters in this case. He knows exactly how to sway opinions in his favor through clever talking points. Very charismatic, smooth talker...

I only wish we had a better selection to choose from when it comes to the next four years.

goldenoldie — September 5, 2012 at 6:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal


"I should've known back then what I know now - When an attorney runs for office, always remember this. He's professionally trained to win the vote of the judge and jury...the jury of voters in this case. He knows exactly how to sway opinions in his favor through clever talking points. Very charismatic, smooth talker..."

er, GO, you, Clint, and Lyin' Ryan have one thing in common. None of you know or want to admit Romney has a degree from Harvard's law school (1975 cum laude no less) just like Obama. So I'm sorry to tell you, either way, you're going a have a lawyer in the White House. But at least there will only be one if Romney wins, as Michelle is a lawyer, but Ann was a stay at home mom. Not sure how much cleaning and cooking the wife of a multi-millionaire does but...

As for your take on the economy, laying all the blame on Obama is just silly. I do blame him and Congress mostly for not cleaning up the mess Bush left sooner.

mrd — September 5, 2012 at 7:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfXoRPlmYo8

Conservative journalists might not always agree with Tammy Duckworth’s politics, but a number of them applauded her speech Tuesday night at the Democratic National Convention.
The Democratic Illinois congressional candidate, an Iraq War veteran who lost both of her legs in the Iraq War, is running against Rep. Joe Walsh, (R-Ill.), a tea party candidate who has complained that Duckworth talks too much about her military service.

GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney was criticized for not mentioning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in his convention speech last week in Tampa.
Duckworth earned praise from journalists at outlets including The National Review, The American Spectator, NewsBusters and Townhall.com:

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/80703.html#ixzz25bcnO2Si

nailingit — September 5, 2012 at 7:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Bill Clinton speaks tonight. Looking forward to him framing the debt problems we face today with facts, not just some ill conceived hate for President Obama and/or the Democratic party.

**Bill Clinton Speech At Democratic Convention: GOP 'Built' National Debt**

But perhaps the main point of Clinton's speech was putting the blame for the national debt squarely at the GOP's doorstep.

He pointed to the giant national debt clock that Republicans had at their convention, saying, "You see that debt clock?"

"They built it!" shouted a man in the audience.

"Yeah, they built it. They built it," replied Clinton, to loud cheers and laughs from the audience.

Clinton also criticized Republicans for going after former President George H.W. Bush when he tried to reduce the national debt and told the crowd that President Obama is not responsible for most of the national debt:

*When the first President Bush really sucked it up and decided to do something about it by signing a bill the Democratic Congress passed to pay for things as you go along, and to have spending cuts and very modest tax increases, they made him apologize for it at the Republican convention. You remember that? At the time I was happy, because it helped me get elected. But it was sad because he did the right thing, and they made him apologize for it.
Then, I served for eight years, and we kept bringing the deficit down. We had four surplus budgets in a row. Then what happened? We put them [Republicans] back in -- or the Supreme Court did -- and they got rid of pay as you go, they [passed] the tax cuts and spent lots of money. ... We had a projected surplus of $5.7 trillion and turned it into a projected debt of $5.8 trillion over the next 10 years. We would have been out of debt by next year or the year after next. ...
The rules that we followed then that we should normally follow, do not apply now. The reason President Obama did that stimulus is, when interest rates are zero, and there is no private activity, if the government does not step in to put people to work and to help people get through the day, they won't make it.
So his contribution to that big ol' debt clock that you saw is the $800 billion stimulus. All those other trillions and trillions of dollars? He had nothing to do with that.*

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/04/bill-clinton-speech_n_1850525.html

nailingit — September 5, 2012 at 8:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal


#NASA faked the moon landing|Therefore (Climate) Science
is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world's climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scienti c evidence.
Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and in
uential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N> 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we nd that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r ' :80 between latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scienti c ndings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking
causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientifi c ndings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. **This provides empirical con rmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science.** Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists.

http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/documents/LskyetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf

mr_basil_seal — September 5, 2012 at 9:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal


[pg. 15] In closing, we consider briefly what “counter-measures” might be available to reduce
the influence and spread of conspiracy theories. Conspiracist ideation is, by definition,
difficult to correct because any evidence contrary to the conspiracy is itself considered
evidence of its existence (Bale, 2007; Sunstein & Vermeule, 2009). Thus, increasing global
temperatures are reinterpreted as being the result of “government agencies” selectively
removing thermometers that show a cooling trend and retaining only those that show the
“desired” warming trend.

mr_basil_seal- An uphill battle indeed! So many "professional" RW ideologues feed off those with low I.Q. and/or preconceived ideas relating to societal structure. What to do?

nailingit — September 5, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**Internet Speed In United States Lags Behind Many Countries, Highlighting Global Digital Divide**

For many low-income Americans, Internet access is a luxury they can't afford.

Too bad they don't live in South Korea.

By the end of this year, South Koreans will have access to Internet speeds that are more than 200 times faster than what most Americans have, and they can have it for just $27 a month, or slightly more than half the average price Americans pay.

South Korea is among several countries where people can find speedier and cheaper Internet access than in the United States, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). It's also a place where nearly everyone is online. More than 94 percent of South Koreans have high-speed connections -- compared with about 70 percent in the United States, according to the OECD.

As Democrats convene this week in Charlotte and outline their plan to jumpstart the economy, an important tool for implementing that strategy -- high-speed Internet connectivity -- is missing in the homes of millions of Americans. Many experts say a blueprint for expanding Internet access in America can be found abroad, where several countries have increased Internet adoption by regulating Internet service or declaring Internet access a legal right.

About 100 million people, or one third of the country, lack home access to broadband Internet, according to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). A fast, reliable Web connection has become a vital platform for finding jobs, starting a small business, accessing online education, and helping Americans compete in a global economy.

One of the biggest reasons people give for not subscribing to high-speed Internet is that it's too expensive. In 2010, the average monthly broadband bill was $40. That’s up from $34.50 in May 2008, according to surveys conducted by the FCC and Pew Research Center.

Internet providers say comparisons between the United States and other countries are flawed. But consumer groups argue that other countries offer better deals -- and have greater levels of Internet adoption -- because there is more competition in the market. Experts say the FCC should create policies which would ensure more companies compete to provide Internet service and keep prices low.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/05/internet-speed-united-states-digital-divide_n_1855054.html

nailingit — September 5, 2012 at 9:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal



nailingit — September 5, 2012 at 9:51 a.m.

Your article is comparing apples and oranges. The price in U.S. dollars is less than here but the per capita income is also half of here.

frobert — September 5, 2012 at 10:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal


danabwoodley — September 5, 2012 at 3:09 a.m.

You a funny guy dana. Who's controlling me? Mostly my Wife but she doesn't ask for picture ID. Also, she doesn't make me pee in a cup, she just asks that I hit the toilet and not the floor.

hawkeye — September 5, 2012 at 10:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mrd — September 5, 2012 at 7:17 a.m.

My fellow forum dweller, one question for you...

Would you explain to me why a president, who dedicates his entire campaign trash talking about what the other party has done, then runs up the national debt to record numbers rather than working to correct the problem??? 16 Trillion???

goldenoldie — September 5, 2012 at 10:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal


And mrd...show me where I put all the blame on Obama??? BTW, are you aware that it's about equal...R versus D...when it comes to people voting in attorneys to the presidential seat...all the way back to GW...George Washington, that is.

Nice try, but it didn't work.

goldenoldie — September 5, 2012 at 10:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Again, nothing substantial to say to fro's comments, so you go for making him sound ridiculous. But I am the putz.

One word.

Sycophant.

danabwoodley — September 5, 2012 at 3:26 a.m.

**Seriously, what do YOU care. If fro want's to ask me something, I'm sure he has the ability.**

BTW, do you know what a "sycophant" really is?

sycophant (ˈsɪkəfənt)

a person who uses flattery to win favour from individuals wielding influence; toady

You know, someone who kisses their bosses butt, kind of like you and your Captain.

hawkeye — September 5, 2012 at 10:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye @ 10:30 :)))

nailingit — September 5, 2012 at 10:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye — September 5, 2012 at 10:30 a.m.

So hawkeye...a few questions for you.

When you bought your car...did you buy tags? Insurance? Did you pay tax?

How about when you took your vehicle on the road for the first time. Did you spin your tires and fly out of there like a screaming banshee or did you follow the traffic laws???

Any time you're driving down the roadway and you see one of those electronic street signs monitoring the speed you're driving...do you find you're going the right speed or driving too fast and take your foot off the gas???

If you have a truck and take trips to the dump, do you secure your load?

Do you drink and drive?

Do you pay your taxes?

Is your house completely off the grid?

Do you grow your own food...all of it? Do you manufacture your own fuel for your vehicles? Do you make your own TP? Grow your own cotton to make your own denim jeans?

Did you buy most of your household items in Oregon? Did you know you were paying tax which was embedded in the cost of the items you have purchased?

How about goin' Fishing??? Or Camping??? Or Hunting??? Did you buy a license or tag for any of those? Do you have a Discovery Pass?

Let's talk about your health for a couple of moments, here. Are you on any medications? You don't have to answer me, but if you are...you are under control by the US Government...right down to aspirin or indigestion relief tablets. Are you aware of that???

You're on the internet...controlled by the FCC and DHS...remember???

You use a credit or debit card???

Get my point? You are controlled by the government whether you wish to believe it or not.

goldenoldie — September 5, 2012 at 10:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert- Since you take exception with the article, please break down each country listed therein with regards to affordability based on your reasoning, to include factoring internet speed. Thanks.

Japan

Finland

S. Korea

Sweden

France

nailingit — September 5, 2012 at 11:07 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Book em n' Tax em Danno

**Washington Churches Warned Not To Collect Funds For Gay Marriage Fight**

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/30/washington-churches-gay-marriage-funds_n_1844194.html?utm_hp_ref=religion

nailingit — September 5, 2012 at 11:22 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Well it sure sounded as though you were placing the blame on the current prez. And after rereading your post, it still does. But there's plenty of blame to go around which is why I said hanging the whole mess on Obama is silly.

"Nice try, but it didn't work"

What do you think I was trying? I was just pointing out, because your post seemed to be about Obama, that people saying no lawyers in the White House don't seem to realize they're getting one either way. I've read and heard that several times since the conventions started and it surprises me it gets any traction. And I don't expect the Romney camp to straighten out the "confusion".

mrd — September 5, 2012 at 11:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal


goldenoldie — September 5, 2012 at 10:48 a.m.

So are you and everybody else in this country. What's your point? I know you think you aren't free but compared to most other countries, you are free as a bird.

Can you drive across country without stopping at every border and showing your ID?

Can you decide what TV stations you want to watch?

Are there armed soldiers standing around everywhere checking up on everyone?

Can you eat whatever you want?

How about fishing, camping, hunting, are you not free to do those even though you have to buy a permit that pays for those programs?

You know what, if you don't like it here and the price we pay for our freedoms, and if you think they are so out of line, maybe you should go to Greece or Canada or Mexico.

So, your point is?

hawkeye — September 5, 2012 at 12:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal


My favorite speech from The American President;

America isn’t easy. America is advanced citizenship. You’ve gotta want it bad, ’cause it’s gonna put up a fight. It’s gonna say, “You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.” You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms.

We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you Mitt Romney is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things, and two things only: making you afraid of it, and telling you who’s to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections.

OK, maybe I updated it a little.

hawkeye — September 5, 2012 at 12:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Nail = Dillusional ...Better off than 4 years ago really...You are smoking the good stuff.....Put the Bong down....Put away the "HUFF POST """"Lets just say are we better off since Obama instituted his policies???? What were they, Oh yeah bailouts which haven't nor will most likely ever be paid back in "our" lifetime..GM.... failed attempts to stimulate private sector business. Health care reform which will saddle the middle class with a tax they don't realize will cost them every year...or again be paid off in our lifetime...Unemployement still over 9% in most states, more on government assistance than ever before , oh that means us tax paying folks paying for...

Just some things to think about

vanwadreamer — September 5, 2012 at 12:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal


goota have some fun with this one-really just fun.

Can you drive across country without stopping at every border and showing your ID? SO FAR

Can you decide what TV stations you want to watch? IF THE CONTENT IS FCC APPROVED

Are there armed soldiers standing around everywhere checking up on everyone? NOT YET, DRONES MAYBE.

Can you eat whatever you want? NOT IN NYC-THE BIG GULPS ARE A NO-NO

How about fishing, camping, hunting, are you not free to do those even though you have to buy a permit that pays for those programs? SURE, AS LONG AS I DO IT HOW, WHEN, AND WHERE THE GOV'T SAYS I CAN.

mrd — September 5, 2012 at 12:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal


gotta have some fun with this one-really just fun.

Can you drive across country without stopping at every border and showing your ID? SO FAR

Can you decide what TV stations you want to watch? IF THE CONTENT IS FCC APPROVED

Are there armed soldiers standing around everywhere checking up on everyone? NOT YET, DRONES MAYBE.

Can you eat whatever you want? NOT IN NYC-THE BIG GULPS ARE A NO-NO

How about fishing, camping, hunting, are you not free to do those even though you have to buy a permit that pays for those programs? SURE, AS LONG AS I DO IT HOW, WHEN, AND WHERE THE GOV'T SAYS I CAN.

mrd — September 5, 2012 at 12:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mrd — September 5, 2012 at 12:37 p.m.

mrd — September 5, 2012 at 12:40 p.m

Drive across country... OK, I wasn't including Arizona

TV, I heard them say "sh**" on TNT the other night

Drones, I thought those were government paid for shotgun targets

No big gulps? Who can drink one of those all at once anyway?

I only fish in the ocean anymore and I don't do that much, don't camp or hunt. Don't care.

hawkeye — September 5, 2012 at 1:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mrd — September 5, 2012 at 12:40 p.m.

I have to disagree with you on the "armed soldiers" the Government has militarized the police to the point that they are armed soldiers. Police have become the "standing army" that the founders were so afraid of.

frobert — September 5, 2012 at 1:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — September 5, 2012 at 1:04 p.m

Fro, I have to disagree with you on that one. I believe it's the Police that have "militarized" themselves into armed soldiers. Reference the armored SUV that the County just bought. A "standing army" they aren't, that is unless you are paranoid.

hawkeye — September 5, 2012 at 2:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**BUBBA'S BACK!** Last night's speeches will be hard to beat. But tonight offers a really great line-up, to include Bubba Bill!

Tonight, though, Clinton will speak for himself in a speech that will also formally nominate Obama for a second term; a roll call vote of the delegates gathered in Charlotte is set to immediately follow Clinton’s speech, around 11 p.m. ET.

Clinton is sure to take an aggressive tack against Romney, something the evening’s earlier scheduled speakers are expected to do, too. Day one of the Democratic National Convention featured

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/05/13685356-clinton-takes-center-stage-on-day-two-of-dnc?lite

nailingit — September 5, 2012 at 2:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye — September 5, 2012 at 12:11 p.m.

Hawk, you are batting *Zeeeero* today. Did you hear me complain about the fact that Big Brother is in our lives? Nope. You sure as heck didn't. In fact, much of what I listed does help all of us. You see Hawk, there's a reason for laws. There's a reason for taxes. I don't know about you, but I'd rather pay the taxes to keep folks such as Dana and other fighting brave who have stepped up to the plate and are doing what they can to protect us...the same group who works together as "ONE. " I'd rather pay the taxes to keep our roads drivable and our streets safe. I'd rather pay the taxes to protect our forests, to keep the waters clean, to help those who need emergency services.

The problem isn't the fact that we have our fair share to pay and that we have a government controlling the people. The problem is the abuse of those privileges by those we have elected, will probably elect and the wasted spending we are witnessing, not only by Obama...but from previous presidents as well. It is the fact that more taxes, tolls, fees and whatever else they want to call it is being added on as those who abuse their privileges to make their lives easier and fatten their retirement while you struggle with yours. In the meantime, our "fair" taxes are being abused left and right, top and bottom, inside and out. I don't need to point out the problems...it's all there in the news for you to read...just make sure it's a reputable, nonpartisan website you get your facts from.

BTW, you can also include just about any other elected official in the US on that list as well as entities...CRC for example...onto the list of privilege abuse.

Greed is definitely showing it's ugly face.

goldenoldie — September 5, 2012 at 2:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Here is the line-up for tonight's speakers. Notice our own Patty Murray is on the list!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/05/dnc-schedule_n_1856580.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012

nailingit — September 5, 2012 at 2:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I believe we'll have to check out C-SPAN for Patty given the time. Channel 24 on Comcast.

nailingit — September 5, 2012 at 3:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal


"""Notice our own Patty Murray is on the list!"""

And we're supposed to be excited? Oh yeah, yeah...um, er...
hooray??? yawwwwwwn!!!

goldenoldie — September 5, 2012 at 3:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Patty LIVE now!

nailingit — September 5, 2012 at 3:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Dr. Phil LIVE now!!!

goldenoldie — September 5, 2012 at 3:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Strong speech Patty! Patty Murray strong on Veteran's benefits, Healthcare, Women's rights, and Medicare. Great speech Patty. They should have put you in prime time!

nailingit — September 5, 2012 at 3:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Strong Speech, huh! Veteran's benefits, healthcare, women's rights and medicare??? Hmm...is this the same Patty they're talking about in this video???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cxxye4...

goldenoldie — September 5, 2012 at 3:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal


What??? My comment at 3:26 pm hasn't been removed yet??? Why is that? Do the facts hurt???

goldenoldie — September 5, 2012 at 3:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Anybody hear the rumor that Ancestry. com states that Barack, GW and Mittster are all related??? Apparently it's on BHO's mother's side.

goldenoldie — September 5, 2012 at 3:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**Patty Murray Speech Invokes Seamus At Democratic National Convention**

WASHINGTON -- The head of the Democrats' Senate campaign operation invoked Mitt Romney's infamous treatment of the family dog on a long ago vacation Wednesday night to illustrate how she thinks a Romney administration would treat the middle class and the vulnerable in America.

Romney has taken no end of grief over the tale he once told the Boston Globe of putting his dog, Seamus, in a crate on the roof of the family car for a hundreds-mile drive to Canada. The pet suffered diarrhea on the journey, and the Romneys had to hose down the car.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who has hit Romney before over Seamus, used that tale as a punchline for a litany of ills she predicted Romney and his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) would carry out if they win and the the GOP takes back the Senate.

"They would end Medicare's guaranteed benefits and repeal health care reform," said Murray.

"So on day one, millions of young people on their parents' policies would lose their coverage. They would take away a woman's right to make decisions about her own pregnancy and decimate Planned Parenthood, where millions of women get basic health care services." said Murray, chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

"They would sell out our middle class to cut taxes for millionaires, billionaires and big corporations," she said, teeing up her zinger. "Simply, with a Republican Congress sitting shotgun, Mitt Romney will put the middle class on the roof and take us for a long, painful ride."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/05/patty-murray-speech-_n_1859314.html

nailingit — September 5, 2012 at 4:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — September 5, 2012 at 3:21 p.m.

Strong on healthcare? Didn't she vote to outlaw lifesaving over the counter asthma inhalers?

frobert — September 5, 2012 at 4:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal


*Didn't she vote to outlaw lifesaving over the counter asthma inhalers?*

I don't know frobert, did she and what was her reasoning if so? I remember you used to exhaust arguments regarding the inhaler issue with another poster (mr_basil_seal?). I never claimed Patty Murray is some sort of perfect God. Overall from my perspective she is a good hard working U.S Senator with Washington States residents best interests in mind, accompanied with an admirable track record. I suggest you E-mail or call her office with any concerns you might have. I've dealt with her office on another matter and found her to be quite responsive.

nailingit — September 5, 2012 at 5:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Arizona 2, Feds 0.

"The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton clears the way for police to carry out the 2010 law's requirement that officers, while enforcing other laws, question the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country without documents."

The part that gets me is that the judge believes any racial profiling claims are unsubstantiated, in that the police have been given training that will help them avoid this.

Let's see them papers, Paco.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/05/arizona-immigration-law-ruling_n_1859525.html

roger — September 5, 2012 at 5:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — September 5, 2012 at 5:24 p.m.

I did contact her office prior to the vote on epinephrine inhalers, and got a "canned" response that it is best for the environment that these be banned. I guess poor people that depend on these inhalers to live don't donate enough to her. How can anybody claim to follow the tenants of either major party and than vote to allow people to die?

frobert — September 5, 2012 at 6:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal


roger — September 5, 2012 at 5:49 p.m.

The American southwest has had major illegal alien problems dating back 150 years. If the white settlers from the east had not illegally settled there, it would still be part of Mexico. Then there is the illegal imigration problem in Roswell, in the 1940's.

frobert — September 5, 2012 at 7:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal


goldenoldie — September 5, 2012 at 2:50 p.m.

Well goldie if I'm batting 0, you are batting 1000 on the goldie wack-o-meter. First post you are sounding like you're complaining about taxes and fees and the government in your pants and the next thing you know, you're in bed with the IRS. You've been listening to Willard too much, can you say flip flop? I knew you could.

hawkeye — September 5, 2012 at 7:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Elvis taking the stage! :)))

Obama's in the house also. Will he speak? Rock on Bill Obama! :)))

nailingit — September 5, 2012 at 7:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Hawkeye, I believe it was you who in jest, pointed out to Dana at 10:30am, that about the only person who controls you in your life is your wife. I merely pointed out to you that the government controls us more than we sometimes realize. I wasn't complaining about that, sir. What I was complaining is the runaway spending by our elected leadership which has shown little to no results and a debt of 16 trillion which I found no reaction. Does that surprise me with those who hang left of the center line? Not really. Nice try.

BTW...Willard who???

goldenoldie — September 5, 2012 at 7:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Hey Frobert!!! Don't ya just love those canned responses??? Any time...yes, ANY TIME I've ever tried to contact Murray from day one, it's been a canned response. So personable of her, don't you think??? Guess you have to kiss up to some of them these days to get a REAL response...NOT!!! They're too elite to listen to us measly little voters.

Danged career politicians! If some of them only knew just how disconnected they are from the people who hired them to do their jobs...and to do their jobs right and be able to live with the decisions they have made!!!

goldenoldie — September 5, 2012 at 7:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Speaking about talking to our elected officials, I have in the past sent a few emails to Jamie with some of my concerns. In doing so, she needs your name, address, phone number and email address. (I'm surprised that I don't have to scan my driver's license and send that along) So, the funny thing about that is, she sends me stuff in the mail about how she is single-handily saving the forests and patting herself on the back. Now, today, I found out she gave my name to Willard's people and now he's sending me mail asking for money. He even has a "survey" about how much do I hate Obama.

Fun times.

hawkeye — September 5, 2012 at 7:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal


BTW...Willard who???

goldenoldie — September 5, 2012 at 7:51 p.m.

Seriously?

Willard Milton "Mitt" Romney

hawkeye — September 5, 2012 at 8:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Great Clinton speech! He broke down policy, the economy, went into detail on so many tough issues. If anyone really cares about this election you owe it to yourself to watch this speech. At least it will give you a better, well informed platform to do so.

Great job Bill! Extraordinary!

nailingit — September 5, 2012 at 8:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal


fro-
As the police are a government entity, that's who signs their checks, they are the government by proxy-established to carry out the government's policies be it local, state, or federal. The state has armed and seriously protected itself from within. And we, as citizens, have embraced it. Going with you on this one, we ain't got a chance. But the state will be good to us, right? Yea, right.

mrd — September 5, 2012 at 8:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye — September 5, 2012 at 10:30 a.m.

OK, so you aren't asked for some things, but you admit that you have willingly relinquished control to someone. But you chide me?

danabwoodley — September 5, 2012 at 8:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye — September 5, 2012 at 10:37 a.m.

Making assumptions again. I don't work with any Captains right now.

danabwoodley — September 5, 2012 at 9:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye — September 5, 2012 at 12:28 p.m.

Not going to argue, but will ask this:

Hasn't the current president consistently blamed others? If he doesn't claim it, then he isn't as invested in solving it.

danabwoodley — September 5, 2012 at 9:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nzy5TuwcLc

A treat for Catholic forum dwellers!

A treat for humanity!

Sister Simone Campbell!

nailingit — September 5, 2012 at 9:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal


*No big gulps? Who can drink one of those all at once anyway?*

Anything to justify taking away liberties, right?

danabwoodley — September 5, 2012 at 9:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal


A few years ago, I was having some difficulties. With nowhere else to turn, I attempted to go through my representatives in DC for assistance in getting resolution. I contacted Ms. Murray, Ms. Cantwell, and Mr. Baird's offices. This was in 2008.

I am still waiting for all three offices to get back with me.

Anyone care to guess my stance on Ms. Murray? Guess if I am supporting Ms. Cantwell's reelection bid this year?

danabwoodley — September 5, 2012 at 9:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal



My experience with Patty Murray/Office had to do with some real nuts & bolts that involved her acting as a liaison & advocate on a personal level. Sorry if some of you had a negative experience. Hard to imagine so many even had dealings with her in a personal way. It was the first time in my life I had a need for a United States Senator to become involved in my life.

Patty Murray & office staff conducted themselves in a very professional/personal/expeditious manner, and I'll always be grateful.

Methinks some of you just like to hear yourself gripe. :)

nailingit — September 5, 2012 at 9:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal


danabwoodley — September 5, 2012 at 9:12 p.m.

You know what, I think he blames those that deserve the blame. I think we hear it more often because it's repeated often by those that are against him.

hawkeye — September 5, 2012 at 10:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal


No big gulps? Who can drink one of those all at once anyway?

Anything to justify taking away liberties, right?

danabwoodley — September 5, 2012 at 9:16 p.m

*Really? You can't tell when I'm joking? Sorry, no more jokes for you.*

hawkeye — September 5, 2012 at 10:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Making assumptions again. I don't work with any Captains right now.

danabwoodley — September 5, 2012 at 9:01 p.m.

I really don't care if it's a captain or not. The definition of sycophant is what it is. If they are in charge of you and you kiss their butt, tag---- you're it.

hawkeye — September 5, 2012 at 10:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l26Itn...

If you're voting this November, you owe it to yourself to watch this historic speech.

Bubba dissects the issues and lays them bare for you to decide.

nailingit — September 5, 2012 at 11:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Michelle hit it out of the stadium, Bill hit it out of the city, no doubt Barack will hit it into orbit tomorrow night.

**Bubba is back — off script but on message, according to TV pundits of all stripes.**

Former President Bill Clinton’s nearly 50-minute speech Wednesday night at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte was praised by panelists and reporters on all three major cable-news networks.

“I’ve been watching this former president of the United States going back to 1992 when I was CNN’s White House correspondent, and I have to tell you, this may be the best speech I have ever heard Bill Clinton deliver over all of these years, and I listened to so many of his speeches during his eight years as president,” CNN’s Wolf Blitzer said.

“Affable. Effective. As a Democrat it doesn’t get any better,” MSNBC’s Ed Schultz said. “I’m sitting here and I’m giddy. This is exactly what [President] Barack Obama needed.”
GOP political adviser Steve Schmidt said Clinton’s political prowess is unmatched on either side of the isle.

“I wish to God as a Republican we had someone on our side who had the ability to do that,” Schmidt said on MSNBC. “We don’t. It would be great if we did.”

Fox News’ Brit Hume raved, “I’ve always said if I were ever in trouble and if I were guilty, especially if I were guilty, I would want Bill Clinton there to defend me. Nobody does it better. He’s the most talented politician I ever covered and the most charming man I’ve ever met. And no one in my view can mount an argument more effectively than he can.”
Then Hume tempered his praise.
“That doesn’t mean everything he said was true,” he said, later adding, “It was a little self-indulgent, and it was about 30 percent too long.”

GOP commentator Alex Castellanos said on CNN that Clinton’s speech may have sealed Obama’s reelection.

“Lock the doors, you don’t have to come back tomorrow. This convention is done. This will be the moment that probably reelected Barack Obama,” he said. “Bill Clinton saved the Democratic Party once. It was going too far left, he came in as the new Democrat and took it to the center. He did it again tonight.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/80813.html#ixzz25fPpqJip

nailingit — September 5, 2012 at 11:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal



question for the basement:

why do you keep defending "your side" when there's not a nickel's-worth of lobbyist money between the two?

there's no " 'a' is best and 'b' is every evil in the world". there's only honorable people and sellouts.

open your eyes and minds. if, that is, you want things to get better.

DeeLittle — September 6, 2012 at 1:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye — September 5, 2012 at 8:06 p.m.

Actually, hawkeye...I'm not all that impressed with Romney and recognize him only by his nickname of Mitt. I care about his true first name about the same way I say potatoes or tomatoes. See what you can learn about people, especially when you throw a nasty note in their face???

FYI...

Other Willards in the world...Willard Scott, Willard (the rat), Frances Willard, Willard Libby, Fred Willard, Archibald M. Willard, Emma Willard...

goldenoldie — September 6, 2012 at 6:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogical_relationships_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

Interesting family connections, though I might have to do a little genealogical research to satisfy my curiosity. Either way, you'd be surprised as to just who is related in DC.

goldenoldie — September 6, 2012 at 6:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — September 5, 2012 at 9:52 p.m.

Methinks you haven't a clue as to why some of us contacted Sen. Murray, Cantwell AND Baird and got no response or a canned response. As usual...judging by assumption.

Glad you're not sitting behind the bench in a courtroom!

goldenoldie — September 6, 2012 at 6:45 a.m. ( | suggest removal


"In a story ignored by the national media, in April a Tunica County, Miss., jury convicted NAACP official Lessadolla Sowers on 10 counts of fraudulently casting absentee ballots."

notice absentee ballouts were fraudulent. Nothing photo voter ID would have prevented.

mrd — September 6, 2012 at 7:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**Mitt Romney Tax Return Theft Allegation Investigated By Secret Service** [excerpts]

FRANKLIN, Tenn. -- The Secret Service said Wednesday it is investigating the reported theft of copies of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's federal tax records during a break-in at an accounting office in Franklin. Someone claiming responsibility demanded $1 million not to make them public.

The building does not restrict access during business hours and has no guard. After-hours access to the doors and elevators appear to be controlled by keycard. A spokeswoman for the building manager, Spectrum Properties, said the company would not speculate on the burglary claim.

"All of the tenants operate independently and the building is highly secured," the spokeswoman, Beth Courtney, said.

The data theft was claimed in letters left with political party offices in Franklin and disclosed in several Tennessee-area newspapers. Jean Barwick, the executive director of the Williamson County Republican Party, said employees in the GOP office found a small package on Friday with a hand-written address. The package contained a letter and a computer flash drive, she said.

Peter Burr, the chairman of the county's Democratic Party, said he received a version of the letter and a thumb drive on Aug. 27.

"I have no way of knowing this is real or not," he said. "I doubt it is, but I suppose it's conceivable."

An anonymous posting on a file-sharing website said the returns were stolen Aug. 25 from the accounting firm's office. After "all available 1040 tax forms for Romney were copied," the posting said, flash drives containing encrypted copies of his pre-2010 tax records were sent to the firm and to Republican and Democratic party offices.

The group threatened to divulge the tax files by late September unless it was paid $1 million.

Barwick and Burr said they turned over the materials to the Secret Service.

"The agents said there wasn't a whole lot they could say, but they agreed that bizarre stuff during campaign season isn't exactly unusual," Burr said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/05/mitt-romney-tax-return-theft_n_1859464.html

nailingit — September 6, 2012 at 8:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Noland Hoshino's tweets from the convention, as a WA delegate, are great. Check them out. I actually saw him cheering wildly on TV last night at the end of Clinton's speech. Just google Noland Hoshino twitter.

David Corn has penned a fantastic piece today: A Tale of Two Conventions:

[link text][1]

[1]: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/comparing-republican-democratic-conventions-tampa-charlotte

manthou — September 6, 2012 at 11:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal


crazytrain — September 6, 2012 at 1:37 p.m

Oooooooo

So what, he was still involved.

hawkeye — September 6, 2012 at 2:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal


crazy, I'm reading your post over and over and it still says "David Foster was supposedly one of those former employees on the convention schedule."

Whoever said that he was an ex-employee made a mistake. Actually, I would think that since he was involved on the union side of things, he was more than qualified to relate his experiences.

Oh, and all that crap you said.... you said it, not me.

hawkeye — September 6, 2012 at 3:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal


manthou! Good to see you. Good Corn article and captures the the diff between the conventions well. What do you think of the Conventions so far? Gabby Giffords just led the pledge, wow! What an inspiration!

That's what Tampa/Republicans lack, any kind of inspiration to put them in touch with America.

nailingit — September 6, 2012 at 5:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal


manthou! manthou! you have been missed. welcome back.

soapbox4u — September 6, 2012 at 5:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I don't think you're making a lot of sense with the David Foster thing, crazy.

Heh, typing that was kind'a weird...

Real weeeeird.

Drift — September 6, 2012 at 5:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Looks like somebody needs new fishing hooks, that or his bait is a wreck.

soapbox4u — September 6, 2012 at 5:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal


John Kerry just gave a great speech centered in foreign policy and provided the line of the night.

"Ask Osama Bin Laden if he's better off now than he was four years ago!"

nailingit — September 6, 2012 at 5:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal


What a great tribute tonight (and continuing) to our Armed Forces! A subject Mitt Romney decided not to lend care/conversation to at the RNC. We need Obama for another four years on so many levels.

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


**Nasdaq Reaches Highest Level Since 2000 On Major ECB Decision**

NEW YORK, Sept 6 (Reuters) - The S&P; 500 jumped to a more than four-year high on Thursday as a new bond-buying program in Europe was hailed as an effective way to contain the region's debt crisis.

Positive sentiment was also lifted by bullish data on the U.S. services sector and labor market, the latter especially notable ahead of Friday's non-farm payrolls report.

U.S. companies added staff in August at the fastest clip in five months, according to the better-than-expected ADP report, while a gauge of employment in the service sector also improved more than had been anticipated. Another report showed new claims for jobless benefits fell last week to the lowest level in a month.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/06/sp-500-ecb-europe-stocks-nasdaq_n_1862256.html

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



Vice President Biden just hit a home run! The Prez will speak within the half hour. What an exciting convention, filled with fact, emotion, vision and patriotism!

nailingit — September 6, 2012 at 7:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Everybody lies and everybody makes mistakes - some just have trouble accepting responsibility for it.

soapbox4u — September 6, 2012 at 7:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Incredible speech PREZ OBAMA! 4 MORE YEARS!!

nailingit — September 6, 2012 at 8:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I'm curious as to what a few dwellers who care, follow & understand today's politics thought of the two conventions if they watched. .i.e.

manthou? luvit? woosker? roger? hawk? mrd? mr_basil_seal? others?

nailingit — September 6, 2012 at 8:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nail, I didn't watch. I can't watch. It makes me crazy. I've seen them before and I tire of the glad handing and back slapping. Also, as crazy pointed out, the out and out lies. Seriously, it's the worst part of politics to me. I wish they would spend all that money on something worth while.

hawkeye — September 6, 2012 at 9:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal


There is almost nothing distinguishing these two parties, their goals are the same. More war, less personal liberties, more surveillance of citizens, corporate bailouts, assassination of citizens, crushing debt and an insane drug policy. Why would any thinking person waste their valuable time watching either convention?

frobert — September 6, 2012 at 9:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Thanks for your honesty hawk! One does have to roll up the sleeves sometimes and get to the nitty gritty of matters. The pay off is great if one has the patience.

frobert- Johnson for Prez 2012! Get out the vote!

nailingit — September 6, 2012 at 9:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Well Nail, since you asked me...

I pretty much do like Hawk and skip most of the two love fests. I did not skip Clinton's speech which I consider his best in 20 years. While I often have to agree with Fro on a few fronts, I also have to disagree with him. I see a very clear distinction between the parties and their platforms. The Republicans lost me when they became radicals on social issues and when they think the military should get even more money, when they want to go back to what got us into the mess in the first time.

I am a firm believer in the middle class and its pivotal role in building this country. This Republican party -in my opinion - does not believe the same. Voting them back in is repeating the same stupidity. And what happened to the jobs they all promised to deliver in 2010 elections?

Just my take. Obama 12!

luvithere — September 6, 2012 at 9:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal


crazytrain — September 6, 2012 at 8:17 p.m.

Anyone remember the words "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"?

Not a lot was said about that, and he is still a star attraction at the convention.

But a decision was made to take military action in Iraq based upon intelligence estimates. The information appeared to has been incorrect (still debatable) and that man is marked as a liar?

Lies and mistakes. Slippery slopes indeed.

danabwoodley — September 6, 2012 at 9:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal


luvithere — September 6, 2012 at 9:29 p.m.

Why aren't you asking where the jobs that the democrats promised us in 2008? They had both houses and the White House.

frobert — September 6, 2012 at 9:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**"...If you believe in a country where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules, then I need you to vote this November." -- President Barack Obama**

I believe that people get a fair shot, if they are willing to work and do what it takes to achieve their goal. Look at the president as an example. Look at the accomplishment of his life. He began at what is considered a disadvantage. But he set a goal, found how to achieve, and went for it. Agree with his politics or not, you have to admit that his is a success story on what an American can do.

Same rules? Not sure. If any of us take an action, whatever the motivation, and things go wrong, we are called to the carpet. We have to show that we had a sound plan, and intention without exception. So how did that Fast and Furious thing go? Show us about the plan and intention. What is this about executive privilege?

Fair share? I got it, the wealthiest of us take all sorts of deductions and lower their tax bill when the are already taking in an insane amount of money (that means you too Mr.'s Soros and Buffet). But at the same time we have a lot of folks that are paying no income taxes, and in some cases get more back from the IRS than they took in. How is this fair?

Luvit is right. The middle class is playing a pivotal role. But our backs are getting weak. Not just because of what the wealthy aren't paying, but also what the lower incomes aren't paying. And the politicians as well (certain US government officials are exempt from paying into Social Security even when they collect benefits, and some have served in office 30+ years)

Both sides are making some good points, and both sides have some lousy ideas. There has to be a middle ground. Unfortunately we are mired in a partisan divide that isn't allowing for any compromise. To make it even more fun is that each side is blaming the other for the divide and lack of compromise.

How about we all grow up, and start working these things out? Let's work together on this and stop the freaking blame game.

danabwoodley — September 6, 2012 at 9:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I agree luvit. Incredible speech by Bubba! It's amazing that while Republicans preach against "big government", they advocate politicians dictating women's health care issues. I'm glad Clinton brought out the huge disparity that exists between the two parties with regards to growing jobs and government spending.

OBAMA/BIDEN 2012!

nailingit — September 6, 2012 at 9:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Nail-

Conservatives aren't trying to dictate womens health issues. We merely believe that no one should be forced to cover an elective treatment/procedure. Mammograms? Certainly. Pap smear? No problem. Birth control? Buy your own.

danabwoodley — September 6, 2012 at 10:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal


DBW- This article lays it out pretty well. One of countless on this subject.

**Republicans vs. Women**

A new Republican spending proposal revives some of the more extreme attacks on women’s health and freedom that were blocked by the Senate earlier in this Congress. The resurrection is part of an alarming national crusade that goes beyond abortion rights and strikes broadly at women’s health in general.

These setbacks are recycled from the Congressional trash bin in the fiscal 2013 spending bill for federal health, labor and education programs approved by a House appropriations subcommittee on July 18 over loud objections from Democratic members to these and other provisions.

The measure would bar Planned Parenthood’s network of clinics, which serve millions of women across the country, from receiving any federal money unless the health group agreed to no longer offer abortion services for which it uses no federal dollars — a patently unconstitutional provision. It would also eliminate financing for Title X, the effective federal family-planning program for low-income women that provides birth control, breast and cervical cancer screenings, and testing for sexually-transmitted diseases. Without this program, some women would die, and unintended pregnancies would rise, resulting in some 400,000 more abortions a year and increases in Medicaid-related costs, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a leading authority on reproductive health.

On top of that, the bill would prevent implementation of most of the Affordable Care Act, wiping out its numerous advances for women’s health. It would seriously weaken the requirement that employee insurance plans cover birth control and other preventive health services by allowing any employer to opt out based on personal religious beliefs or moral objections.

Pushed by the subcommittee’s chairman, Denny Rehberg, a Montana Republican, the budget plan stands little chance of being passed in its current form. Congress is about to leave on its August break, and, without explanation, the full Appropriations Committee’s consideration of the bill has been postponed indefinitely. It may be that Speaker John Boehner wants to avoid a controversy heading toward November that shifts focus from the economy.

Even so, the subcommittee’s anti-woman work product is a statement of Republican policy. It is endorsed by the full committee chairman, Harold Rogers, and will be a starting point for negotiations on a budget deal with the Senate. Furthermore, when Congress puts forth bad ideas to curtail birth control and abortion access, they tend to spread, helping to inspire copycat bills in the states. Since House Republicans first tried to defund Planned Parenthood, for example, similar attacks have been enacted in six states, most recently in North Carolina earlier this month.

Read more @

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/republicans-vs-women.html?_r=0

nailingit — September 6, 2012 at 11:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal




*The measure would bar Planned Parenthood’s network of clinics, which serve millions of women across the country, from receiving any federal money unless the health group agreed to no longer offer abortion services for which it uses no federal dollars*

I am still trying to find where PP has established two separate accounts, one exclusively for publicly provided funds. If I understand it correctly, if somehow the other account runs dry, and there are abortions wanted, PP turns them away because funds aren't available? How is it managed that we have this gaurantee that taxpayer funds provided to PP are, beyond all doubt, not used to fund abortions.

*It would also eliminate financing for Title X, the effective federal family-planning program for low-income women that provides birth control, breast and cervical cancer screenings, and testing for sexually-transmitted diseases. Without this program, some women would die*

But, doesn't the ACA require every citizen to have a health insurance policy? The "penalty" involved for not having one was ruled a "tax" by SCOTUS, right? So all of these women should be covered to go to see a doctor for all of these services, right?

*It would seriously weaken the requirement that employee insurance plans cover birth control and other preventive health services by allowing any employer to opt out based on personal religious beliefs or moral objections.*

What other preventive health services? And is it really unreasonable to expect for someone to pay for their own birth control? It isn't really a prevention of any health hazard (STDs yes, but there is a much more effective way of preventing those that doesn't require any purchace), and completely elective (some exceptions I know, and those can be provided for).

*It may be that Speaker John Boehner wants to avoid a controversy heading toward November that shifts focus from the economy.*

I know, Democrats never use that tactic, right?

*Even so, the subcommittee’s anti-woman work product is a statement of Republican policy*

So wanting to ensure policy is followed (public funds and abortion) and for people to take personal responsibility (buy your own birth control) is anti woman?

But what do I know, I have been covertly accused of the same thing.

danabwoodley — September 7, 2012 at 12:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Someone please tell me how a priest can sit across from an admitted pedophile and tell him he's sending the guy to a safe haven and to stay away from kids.

LISTEN UP !!!

Your duty is to the flock first. You should have turned his happy butt in to the police. Do not send him somewhere safe. That clown should have got a few years in jail. NOT probation.

JohnCasey — September 7, 2012 at 5:21 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Nailingit, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. Deception isn't typical of you and your posts. Then again...

Sir, you're showing your true colors and you know EXACTLY what I'm speaking of. Naughty, naughty you! Dirty politics even in our little ol' forum...and by someone who posts in style typical of a news editor, too...especially unsupported links with no comments. Hmm...deception??? news editor??? Is there a correlation forming here???

"OBAMA/BIDEN 2012 :)"
nailingit — September 3, 2012 at 4:31 p.m.

"OBAMA/BIDEN 2012"
nailingit — September 4, 2012 at 9:28 a.m.

"Incredible speech PREZ OBAMA! 4 MORE YEARS!!"
nailingit — September 6, 2012 at 8:42 p.m.

*"frobert- Johnson for Prez 2012! Get out the vote!"
nailingit — September 6, 2012 at 9:14 p.m.*

"OBAMA/BIDEN 2012!"
nailingit — September 6, 2012 at 9:58 p.m.

goldenoldie — September 7, 2012 at 6 a.m. ( | suggest removal


danabwoodley — September 6, 2012 at 9:36 p.m.

Laughing Out Loud over and over again. All that went through my mind when I watched the news and Uncle Billy reared his mug on the screen was..."Where's Monica?" Kinda funny that Uncle Billy's own wife was quoted as stating she had the written transcript of what was to be said and she wanted to compare it with what her other half actually said. Still no trust, Hil???

And that hug at the beginning with the current Prez... You'd think they were kissin' cousins or something. Ew! Heck...why didn't they just do the shoulder bump that's all too popular with men, lately.

Hmmm...according to several websites I've checked...they do have ancestors which tie them together.

goldenoldie — September 7, 2012 at 6:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal


"""Incredible speech PREZ OBAMA! 4 MORE YEARS!!"""
nailingit — September 6, 2012 at 8:42 p.m.

Actions speak louder than words, Nailingit. I think the 200,000 families who lost their homes to foreclosure along with the families whose living-wage earners are still out of work, the families of war-torn soldiers who have nowhere to turn but the food banks and the countless scores homeless might disagree.

goldenoldie — September 7, 2012 at 6:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal


JohnCasey — September 7, 2012 at 5:21 a.m.

John, before I react to this and jump to the wrong conclusion...would you please direct me to the information regarding this incident? It would be greatly appreciated.

goldenoldie — September 7, 2012 at 6:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Some excerpts...looking over some nagging comments this def helped me to understand a bit more. I added (she) (her) to be inclusive and .. appropriate. Sock puppets to compliment a trolls argument is a story saved for another time, though often experienced here :(. Solid gold!

**Internet Troll / Forum Troll**
"Netiquette Guidelines"

What is an Internet Troll/ Forum troll?

An "Internet troll" or "Forum Troll" or "Message Board Troll" is a person who posts outrageous message to bait people to answer. Forum Troll delights in sowing discord on the forums. A troll is someone who inspires flaming rhetoric, someone who is purposely provoking and pulling people into flaming discussion. Flaming discussions usually end with name calling and a flame war.

A troll is trying to make us believe that he (she) is a genuine skeptic with no hidden agenda. He (she) is divisive and argumentative with need-to-be-right attitude, "searching for the truth", flaming discussion, and sometimes insulting people or provoking people to insult him (her). Troll is usually an expert in reusing the same words of its opponents and in turning it against them.

While sometimes, he (she) may sound like a stupid, uninformed, ignorant poster, do not be deceived! Most trolls are highly intelligent people trying to hide behind a mask of stupidity and/or ignorance! They usually have an agenda.

A Troll is generally a person who is extremely skeptical of the main forum subject.
He (she) is generally interested to make other forum members look stupid. A troll will sometimes use insults to provoke other people to insult him (her). Then, he (she) will complain to moderators of being insulted and will request that his (her) opponents get banned from further discussion.

nailingit — September 7, 2012 at 7:27 a.m. ( | suggest removal


He (she) in 90% of cases tries to start arguments and upset people.

Sometimes, he (she) is skeptical, trying to scare people, trying to plant fear in their hearts.

Sometimes, Internet troll is trying to spin conflicting information, is questioning in an insincere manner, flaming discussion, insulting people, turning people against each other, harassing forum members, ignoring warnings from forum moderators.

Trolls create a paranoid environment, such that a casual criticism by a new arrival can elicit a ferocious and inappropriate backlash.

The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction and not to respond to trolling messages. It is well known that most people don't read messages that nobody responds to, while 99% of forum visitors first read the longest and the largest threads with the most answers.

Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility.

It would be nice if everybody was so easy-going, but the sad fact is that trolls do discourage people. Established posters may leave a message board because of the arguments that trolls ignite, and lurkers (people who read but do not post) may decide that they do not want to expose themselves to abuse and thus never get involved.

Another problem is that the negative emotions stirred up by trolls leak over into other discussions. Normally affable people can become bitter after reading an angry interchange between a troll and his victims, and this can poison previously friendly interactions between long-time users.

When trolls are ignored they step up their attacks, desperately seeking the attention they crave. Their messages become more and more foul, and they post ever more of them. Alternatively, they may protest that their right to free speech is being curtailed.

When trolls find that their efforts are being successfully resisted, they often complain that their right to free speech is being infringed.

When a troll attacks a message board, he (she) generally posts a lot of messages. Even if his (her) messages are not particularly inflammatory, they can be so numerous that they drown out the regular conversations (this is known as 'flooding'). Needless to say, no one person's opinions can be allowed to monopolize a channel.

The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls.

By posting such a message, you let the troll know that you know what he (she) is, and that you are not going to get dragged into his (her) twisted little hobby.

Read whole article:
http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm

nailingit — September 7, 2012 at 7:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — September 7, 2012 at 7:27 a.m.

Sounds like some on here for certain.

Also certain that some see me in that way as well.

danabwoodley — September 7, 2012 at 7:31 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Online anonymity not guaranteed, especially when comments defame.

From the First Amendment Center:

[link text][1]

[1]: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/anonymous-libelers-you-may-be-exposed

manthou — September 7, 2012 at 8:15 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**Letter: Vote down attempt to legalize pot**
(Sandra S. Bennett, La Center)

http://www.dare.com/home/tertiary/default474a.asp?n=tertiary&s;=8

I do wish these people would do a bit of research before opening their pie holes. Sheesh.

Drift — September 7, 2012 at 8:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Drift — September 7, 2012 at 8:29 a.m.

Somebody watched Reefer madness.

frobert — September 7, 2012 at 8:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Drift: the above opinion was posted on the DARE website, wasn't it?

D.A.R.E (what some of my students affectionately nicknamed "Drugs Are Really Expensive") was apparently dropped from a list of government-approved drug education programs because there was no evidence that its techniques worked on young people.

When was the last time anyone ever saw a D.A.R.E. presentation in a public school?

manthou — September 7, 2012 at 8:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal


It's been proven D.A.R.E. is worse than useless. Sandra has a LttE over on the facebook side. I recognized her name from a previous LttE. I'm thinking I wrote a rebuttal to it.

Her letter is baseless junk. I offered the D.A.R.E. link because it proves her ignorance.

IIRC Sandra lost a child to an O.D. ...a most unfortunate tragedy. What is also unfortunate is many times events like that blind a person to reality. So much so that their blind efforts are actually detrimental to what it is they wish to accomplish.

The only way to get pot out of the schools (mostly, anyway) is through regulation through legalization. Sometime take a look at the alcohol drinking rates of adolescents - during prohibition.

Drift — September 7, 2012 at 9:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal


JohnCasey @ 5:21 Assuming you were referring to this case. I guess passing the buck pays off for some. At least it's a conviction. Let's hope sentences for these types of crimes not only get much harsher, but the public outcry becomes even stronger.

**Bishop Robert Finn Convicted For Failing To Report Priest Suspected Of Child Abuse**

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — The first American bishop criminally charged in the clergy sex abuse scandal was found guilty Thursday of a misdemeanor count of failing to report suspected child abuse, a conviction that extends the struggle of Roman Catholic leaders to restore trust in the church.

Bishop Robert Finn was acquitted on a second count. He received two years of probation, but that sentence was suspended and will be wiped from his record if he adheres to a set of conditions that include mandatory abuse reporting training, setting aside $10,000 in diocese money for abuse victim counseling, and instructing all diocesan agents to report suspected criminal activity involving minors.

Finn and the Catholic Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph were each charged with two misdemeanor counts of failing to report suspected child abuse to the state. Prosecutors said they dropped charges against the diocese, and the judge is expected to sign off on that Friday.

...

The charges stemmed from the child pornography case of the Rev. Shawn Ratigan, in which Finn and other church officials knew about photos on the priest's computer but didn't turn him in for six months. Finn initially was charged with one misdemeanor count, but a second was added to acknowledge two separate time periods in which he failed to report suspected abuse.

On Thursday, the bishop was acquitted of a charge spanning Dec. 17, 2010, to Feb. 10, 2011, because Jackson County Judge John M. Torrence said there was no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Finn knew about the pornographic photos.

The charge on which Finn was convicted involved a period from Feb. 11 to May 11, 2011. Finn sent Ratigan to stay at a convent in Independence, Mo., during that time and ordered him to stay away from children and avoid taking photos. Prosecutors said that showed Finn knew about accusations against Ratigan, and Judge Torrence agreed.

Finn argued he should not face charges because he was not the diocese's mandated reporter under the law. At the time, the responsibility rested mainly with Vicar General Robert Murphy.

A computer technician found child pornography on Ratigan's laptop in December 2010 and reported it to the diocese. Of the hundreds of images found, many focused on the crotch areas of clothed children and one series showed the exposed genitals of a girl believed to be 3 or 4 years old.

Read more @

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/07/bishop-finn-guilty-child-abuse-reporting_n_1864360.html

nailingit — September 7, 2012 at 9:15 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Drift: Very tragic circumstances, as the sad example you cite above, can lead people to advocate for positions based on emotion, not fact. Their stories elicit great sympathy, but they would carry more credibility if evidence supported their arguments, as well.

I agree with you that prohibition does not equal abstinence and does not protect our youth. It will be very interesting to see what happens when WA passes the pot legalization/regulation measure in November.

Do you expect the Feds to come out in full force, battling against it?

manthou — September 7, 2012 at 9:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal


crazytrain — September 7, 2012 at 8:07 a.m.

Isn't it amazing how some people come out of their shell and publicly express themselves lately!!!

goldenoldie — September 7, 2012 at 9:26 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*How is it managed that we have this gaurantee that taxpayer funds provided to PP are, beyond all doubt, not used to fund abortions.*

danabwoodley — September 7, 2012 at 12:03 a.m.

Beyond the fact that you want to have some level of control on basic healthcare decisions, we see yet more concern trolling.

mr_basil_seal — September 7, 2012 at 10:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Do you expect the Feds to come out in full force, battling against it? manthou — September 7, 2012 at 9:20 a.m

If it does pass I think it'll be somewhat symbolic. Many in the med-weed community oppose I-502 due to the 5ng/ml cut off for DUII. It's complicated... I won't go into it at this time.

Another issue is, those who'd engage in the "business" (cultivation, sales, etc) are required to be finger printed and entered into a data base. Man, talk about low hanging fruit!

Yeah, if it passes I'd expect the feds to take it to court. Wouldn't it be interesting if Washington, Colorado and Oregon all passed their "legalization" laws?

I have to wonder how the DEA and DOJ can keep their heads buried in the sand.

Drift — September 7, 2012 at 10:11 a.m. ( | suggest removal


#The Relativity of Wrong

But confusing your over-4 hours, a perfectly respectable time to cover a marathon if nothing to brag about for an open class man, for sub-3 -- a time that entitles you to some bragging (as a friend worked to earn the right to) and is achievable only with some serious training and talent -- is not an accident.

http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-relativity-of-wrong.html

The political side of this, well, not so very interesting. Except for the fact, perhaps, that Ryan is supposed to be a leading light for Republican number-crunching. Number types are even less likely to make a mistake like that. At least as a mistake.

More interesting, and perhaps useful, to the local purpose is to look some at how to assess the relativity of wrong...

mr_basil_seal — September 7, 2012 at 10:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Drift — September 7, 2012 at 10:11 a.m.

Seems the 5ng/ml/DUI bit could be changed after far more easily than doing the same whole campaign thing again.

The registering would also be viewed as 'in your (fed) face' ; with all the issues around alcohol and driving, hard drug effects and efforts to eliminate, rw terrorism, etc there would be quite the outcry when a 45 plant producer got busted....

mr_basil_seal — September 7, 2012 at 10:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**Cleaning Up the Economy**

And here’s the good news: The forces that have been holding the economy back seem likely to fade away in the years ahead. Housing starts have been at extremely low levels for years, so the overhang of excess construction from the bubble years is long past — and it looks as if a housing recovery has already begun. Household debt is still high by historical standards, but the ratio of debt to G.D.P. is way down from its peak, setting the stage for stronger consumer demand looking forward.

And what about business investment? It has actually been recovering rapidly since late 2009, and there’s every reason to expect it to keep rising as businesses see rising demand for their products.

Read more @

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/07/opinion/krugman-cleaning-up-the-economy.html?_r=2&partner;=rss&emc;=rss

nailingit — September 7, 2012 at 11:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30fyy6...

It just doesn't get any better. Enjoy.

nailingit — September 7, 2012 at 11:36 a.m. ( | suggest removal


nail: Going to see Crosby, Stills and Nash on the 12th. I enjoy the political banter they provide along with their extraordinary tunes!

The local economy seems to be getting better. New businesses downtown and uptown and houses in these areas just don't stay on the market very long now.

manthou — September 7, 2012 at 11:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal


soap: Hi backatcha! Post more and lurk less. :)

manthou — September 7, 2012 at 11:42 a.m. ( | suggest removal



I see many complaints that the 5ng/ml threshold is arbitrary, but the .08 BAC is arbitrary and nobody seems to be complaining about it. The .08 standard is a minimum that someone may be impaired, most people are not impaired until .11. The simple fact is the people have already given up the right to be proved impaired, in the name of false security.

frobert — September 7, 2012 at 11:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal


manthou-*The local economy seems to be getting better. New businesses downtown and uptown and houses in these areas just don't stay on the market very long now.*

That's great to hear manthou. I think we're on the right track. Let's hope the train doesn't get derailed this November.

nailingit — September 7, 2012 at 11:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I could be mistaken, fro, but I thought .08 was evidence. I thought impairment still had to be shown. I don't know it to be fact, but I've heard of DUI convictions with -less- than a .08 BAC. The 5ng/ml is per se - guilty, no defense.

Basil, where did you get 45 plants from?

Drift — September 7, 2012 at 12:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — September 7, 2012 at 11:52 a.m.

Wow, walk us through how you know: ".. the .08 BAC is arbitrary ..."

mr_basil_seal — September 7, 2012 at 12:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal


*Basil, where did you get 45 plants from?*

Drift — September 7, 2012 at 12:06 p.m.

Mostly a random number. I was thinking of small producers, maybe growing for a couple /few MM users.

The basic idea was how bad it would look to the general public's eye to see fed efforts / resources going to 'eradicating' something that has been locally acknowledged as harmless/beneficial.

mr_basil_seal — September 7, 2012 at 12:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Drift — September 7, 2012 at 12:06 p.m.

RCW 46.61.502
Driving under the influence.

(1) A person is guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug if the person drives a vehicle within this state:

(a) And the person has, within two hours after driving, an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher as shown by analysis of the person's breath or blood made under RCW 46.61.506; or

Notice the "or" indicating that .08 in itself proves guilt.

frobert — September 7, 2012 at 12:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — September 7, 2012 at 12:13 p.m.

I think it would be more fitting for you to walk us through the political propaganda that there is a "magic" cutoff for all people. Alcohol, marijuana or any other drug affect different people differently. Any limit is arbitrary unless a baseline is established for each and every person.

frobert — September 7, 2012 at 12:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — September 7, 2012 at 12:30 p.m

So, you have proof that when the law was written / debated that the number was just pulled out of someone's hat?

Or are you working with a different definition of "arbitrary"?

frobert — September 7, 2012 at 12:35 p.m.

Before going down that path, I'd suggest reading up on stats and chem and the research.....

mr_basil_seal — September 7, 2012 at 12:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal


hey manthou, Wish it was lurking, it's been more demanding working as of late, you know how it goes.

nailingit, true true on the troll post, perhaps a hand held against her ear would keeps it from passing through so aimlessly.

soapbox4u — September 7, 2012 at 12:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal


RCW 46.61.502 Driving under the influence.

Your cut and paste got cut off. I went and read it myself. Yep. It looks like you're right.

*1) A person is guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug if the person drives a vehicle within this state:
(a) And the person has, within two hours after driving, an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher as shown by analysis of the person's breath or blood made under RCW 46.61.506;*

Drift — September 7, 2012 at 1:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Drift — September 7, 2012 at 1:06 p.m.

Sorry about that. I believe that the law must be worded that way in order for the state to get 100% of their highway funds.

frobert — September 7, 2012 at 1:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I guess the party of family values doesn't think single women belong in bars.

A sexual assault victim who was groped by an off-duty police officer is demanding an apology from an Arizona judge who during a sentencing hearing for the defendant told her: "If you wouldn’t have been there that night, none of this would have happened to you.”

Coconino County Superior Court Judge Jacqueline Hatch.

Hatch, a Republican appointed by Gov. Jan Brewer in June 2010, did not return a telephone call from NBC News seeking comment. The woman's name was withheld because she is a victim of a sexual crime.

According to the Arizona Daily Sun, a jury convicted 43-year-old Robb Gary Evans of a felony charge of sexual abuse on July 2. Prosecutors said Evans walked up behind the victim in a Flagstaff bar, put his hand up her skirt and groped her last summer. The former Arizona Department of Public Safety officer had been facing a maximum sentence of up to 2 ½ years in prison, but received two years of probation, community service and treatment. He was fired after his conviction.

mrd — September 7, 2012 at 3:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal


August Jobs Report in...and it's not looking so sweet...AGAIN. It's dropped at least 45,000 from July. Talk about a roller coaster ride!!!

That hope and change thing we've all been counting on is truly struggling. Guess it's true more people are hoping for a change...

...in a direction that keeps them afloat. I hope this doesn't spark yet another round of foreclosures, lost jobs...more people in dire need of help like we've seen in the past several years...unless that's the original plan by those who have spearheaded this idea from the beginning...maybe as far back as WW-II or post Great Depression, possibly???

It doesn't help that the price of just about everything is about to go up on top of everything else...except for wages for the average American.

goldenoldie — September 7, 2012 at 3:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal


"put his hand up her skirt and groped her last summer"

First I've heard *that* euphemism.

What?

Drift — September 7, 2012 at 3:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Unhappy with how things are in America? Get off your duff, get out and volunteer, make a difference. Want to change things? Be pro-active not reactive. You are of no use if you sit here all day long and go on and on about the negative things happening in the world. Geez get a clue.

soapbox4u — September 7, 2012 at 5:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal


manthou — September 7, 2012 at 8:43 a.m.

Interesting that you ask when the last time anyone has seen a DARE presentation in a school. I was getting off I205 at Gher/112th Ave yesterday afternoon, and was mildly surprised to see a large DARE truck getting on to SR 500 east. I thought they were history; haven't seen or heard from them in ages.

roger — September 7, 2012 at 6:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal


soapbox4u @ 5:49- Great advice soap! Not to wax too political :), but your statement reminded me a bit of President Obama's speech last night. To quote...

*"We know that churches and charities can often make more of a difference than a poverty program alone. We don't want handouts for people who refuse to help themselves, and we don't want bailouts for banks that break the rules. We don't think government can solve all our problems. But we don't think that government is the source of all our problems – any more than are welfare recipients, or corporations, or unions, or immigrants, or gays, or any other group we're told to blame for our troubles.*

*Because we understand that this democracy is ours.*

*We, the People, recognize that we have responsibilities as well as rights; that our destinies are bound together; that a freedom which only asks what's in it for me, a freedom without a commitment to others, a freedom without love or charity or duty or patriotism, is unworthy of our founding ideals, and those who died in their defense.*

*As citizens, we understand that America is not about what can be done for us. It's about what can be done by us, together, through the hard and frustrating but necessary work of self-government.*

*So you see, the election four years ago wasn't about me. It was about you. My fellow citizens – you were the change."*

A little bit like...

*And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.*

*My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.*

*Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.* JFK

nailingit — September 7, 2012 at 6:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal


"I'm curious as to what a few dwellers who care, follow & understand today's politics thought of the two conventions if they watched." -- nailingit — September 6, 2012 at 8:54 p.m.

Well, I'm somewhat curious of your choice of desired respondents, in that you neglected to mention the conservative posters to this site.

But to answer your question, the differences were obvious.

The Dems were very optimistic, and had mostly extremely effective speakers. I even enjoyed Joe Biden! Bill Clinton was great- better than everyone else at either convention. And he provided real facts and numbers to mull over; something sorely lacking with most speakers.

The Repubs were mostly boring - other than Condy Rice, who delivered an upbeat and positive speech.

The deal is, the Dems said things aren't where we want them, but they're slowly moving. The Repubs said things suck, but offered nothing whatsoever in the way of how to do better. They've got a bad habit of relying on this - Dino Rossi should have beaten Chris Gregoire last election, but failed to provide one single example of how he could do better. Sorry, but I can't see voting for someone who runs on this kind of a platform.

So, to summarize, I believe the Dem convention was a mild success, whereas the Repub one was a total waste of time and energy.

roger — September 7, 2012 at 6:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal


"But a decision was made to take military action in Iraq based upon intelligence estimates. The information appeared to has been incorrect (still debatable) and that man is marked as a liar?" -- danabwoodley — September 6, 2012 at 9:36 p.m.

For starters, not too many people really care about Billy Bob and the chubby girl.

You ought to read George Tenet's book, "At The Center of The Storm" - it might change your thinking on using WMD as the excuse to go into Iraq. He makes it clear that CIA briefed repeatedly that there was no evidence anything still existed in Iraq. This wasn't what Cheney and Rummy wanted to hear, however.

And, interesting enough, now that Colin Powell admits the invasion was based on faulty intelligence, he's chosen to focus on the failure of CIA, the Pentagon and others to warn him of the unreliability of the key informant the Administration was relying on - "Curveball" Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi. Tenet claims he didn't know CB was a liar until 2 years after the invasion. To make the story even more entertaining, CB himself says the Germans knew he was a liar in 2000, and that he was a bit surprised to hear he was being used as the source in Powell's speech to the UN Security Council in 2003.

So, in my opinion, there's a world of difference between diddling darling Monica and subsequently lying about it, and our going into Iraq, using the flimsiest evidence as an excuse, to pursue an agenda that we still haven't heard the real truth over.

And yes - I had several friends die or sustain crippling injuries there, and really would like to know why. Pres Bush proclaiming Bin Laden was unimportant, after we managed to let him escape at Tora Bora, tells me he had other motivations. Whatever the real agenda, he showed he was more than willing to gamble our military and our economy to pursue it.

roger — September 7, 2012 at 6:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Hawkeye,

I'm taken aback by the hatred of the military you've been putting out in your exchanges with Dana B. Maybe I'm getting forgetful, but weren't you a Vietnam era draftee? Perhaps that experience affects how you think about the military today?

Anyhow, to make statements that those in uniform are little more than unthinking automatons is highly unfair. Today's military is all volunteer - and as a group are smarter and more highly educated than the average of our population. (Which probably isn't that high a hurdle to clear, but....) People who are there chose to serve. The deal is, we take (or took) an oath to follow the orders of the Pres and the officers appointed over us. The one exception is if an order is clearly illegal. There is no loophole for deciding something is immoral - that's a value judgment. We (I'm retired, but still say we) have opinions that are across the spectrum, and frequently voice them. I was vocally opposed to Iraq from Day 1, and made no bones about it. Much of my time was spent in Central and South America - what came out with Ollie and Iran Contra barely scratches the surface. There was a lot I didn't like, to include the invasion of Panama. But guess what - I followed orders, and looking back today can see where some of what I believed then just may have been wrong. Whatever.

If you've got a problem with Dana B and his frequent gamesmanship, please focus on that and not all military people.

Oh - something I've been meaning to mention. Quite a while back the Army started issuing laptops with full internet access to all the troops. Facebook was authorized. The general idea was (and I presume still is) that deployed soldiers can keep in regular contact with their families, can take on line college courses, and a few other things. So, Dana B, choosing to use his free time to discuss the world as he sees it with us, is perfectly legit. (As long as he doesn't divulge anything considered sensitive.)

roger — September 7, 2012 at 7:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal


soapbox4u — September 7, 2012 at 5:49 p.m.

Soapbox.... *Sweetie*....

You stated *"Unhappy with how things are in America? Get off your duff, get out and volunteer, make a difference. Want to change things? Be pro-active not reactive. You are of no use if you sit here all day long and go on and on about the negative things happening in the world. Geez get a clue."*

Care to explain how you know what each and every one of us are doing in the course of the day? the week? the month? the year? Just because some of us don't make public what we're doing in our private lives, doesn't mean we aren't being proactive.

goldenoldie — September 7, 2012 at 7:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal


roger-*Well, I'm somewhat curious of your choice of desired respondents, in that you neglected to mention the conservative posters to this site.*

Hey, nobody's perfect. :) Having said that I thought the choice of names were fairly well rounded. Kind of. I asked those I thought would be watching.

manthou? (left leaning) luvit? (left leaning) woosker? (right leaning) roger? (independent) hawk? (left leaning) mrd? (independent) mr_basil_seal? (left leaning) others? (a mix for anyone)

Just names off the top of my head. I did think of libertarian leaning dwellers I'm fond of, kn_d & fro, but given their philosophy of limited to no government, I figured they didn't watch and would say both sucked anyway, again, based on their ideology.

Although I respect others opinions (i.e. soapbox, Drift, JohnCasey) they have stated, (at least I think) they're not that political and I figured most likely didn't watch.

And a few others who are known not to pay much attention to politics but are quite boisterous, I figure would respond anyway. They didn't disappoint! :)

Again, names off the top of my head at the moment and not meant to be all inclusive. That's why... others? (a mix for anyone) Hope I didn't leave anyone out this time but most likely did.

I'm getting much too in depth for my tastes...

amen

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


roger — September 7, 2012 at 7:29 p.m

Roger, my apologies.

I never meant to say anything against the military and I fully support those in and out of uniform.

My heartburn is with DWB and his inabilities to view the world in a reasonable manor.

Yes, I was a Vietnam draftee but that was a long time ago and it has no bearing on today. Things have changed.

Sorry if you misunderstood but I have no hatred for the military. Again, I apologize.

That being said, I believe the reason "we" went into Iraq was because George I didn't finish his business and George II was in it to bail daddy out.

hawkeye — September 7, 2012 at 8:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Roger, you judge for yourself. I believe this was what started the whole thing. It seems he's complaining, to me.

Amen. Hell I even need to show my ID to give my urine sample that allows me to earn my income. Figure that out.

danabwoodley — September 3, 2012 at 8:50 p.m

That was the post I responded to.

hawkeye — September 7, 2012 at 8:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal


roger-*So, to summarize, I believe the Dem convention was a mild success, whereas the Repub one was a total waste of time and energy.*

I agree somewhat. I think the Dems were a bit more than a mild success, in that they energized their base, dissected the issues (Bubba in particular) and received a bump in the polls. How much sustaining energy they produced time will tell. MObama was awesome and no doubt gave the best 1st Lady speech in our history. Biden was so heartfelt as others, a quality republicans lack sorely this election.

The RNC comparatively was a flop. No energy, no direction, and the only shared enthusiasm was a hate for President Obama. From Lyin' Ryan to Mythical Mitt, nothing substantive or anything honorable was produced. Rubio wasn't bad. I missed Condi's speech but I've heard her neo-conservative rhetoric many times, but she is charming. Interesting the right wants to keep their prior 8 year admin in the dark except for Condi. No Delay (is he out on appeal?), Scooter (he's been released from prison), Cheaney, Bush, Rumsfeld etc. General Shinseki spoke for the Dems but I missed it and will have to look it up.

The message of, we screwed things up and the Dems didn't fix it quick enough isn't to inspiring, let alone forward thinking.

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


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

Breaking News!

nailingit — September 7, 2012 at 11:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal



mr_basil_seal — September 7, 2012 at 10:04 a.m.

Concern trolling?

Basil, if you can provide me the source that I can see that we have this gaurantee, fine. If not, then don't try to discount my concerns. Or tell me why this isn't a valid question to ask.

danabwoodley — September 7, 2012 at 11:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal


***personal thoughts...skip if not interested.***

9/11 was a BIG thing in my life. was actively involved in politics @ that time, couldn't watch any coverage or anything recorded in 2001....i was *deeply* affected.

thought that eleven years were enough to put distance between me and ... that... so i watched a 9/11 special program. biiiig error.

when bush came back to the wh, gave his address to the people on tv, **ALL** of america was united. we were ONE PEOPLE UNDER GOD, and we acted accordingly.

but since then, we've allowed ourselves to be enticed away from unity. by economic differences. by "party" differences. by class differences. by people who have an agenda that is NOT to protect our freedoms. don't agree? that's fine; just as i respect your opinion, i expect you to respect *mine*.

we are one people, the UNITED states of america. we're NOT african-americans, latin-americans, asian-americans, we're AMERICANS. *there IS NO HYPHEN IN AMERICAN!*

we fought one of the worst wars in our history to enforce that. NO **AMERICAN** is a slave. ALL ARE EQUAL. and our constitution protects individual freedoms, individual RIGHTS the government **CANNOT** abridge.

we are free. free to achieve. free to fail. but can we keep that?

i implore all of you; think carefully before voting. think of the repercussions to our future. think of the **REAL** changes we are making to the very **foundation** of our country.

you want the changes? then your choice is clear. but consider the after-effects of that vote: do you really want the end of all that came before? to be replace by what? is that the country you want to leave to your children? the all-powerful government deciding every issue in your life, what you eat, what you keep of the value of your own initiative and daring, how far you can rise in business, what you are allowed to believe in or NOT believe in publicly, what you can teach your children about your own values and beliefs?

or do you revere the constitution as i do; refuse to follow the enticing rhetoric that ends a constitutional protection?

**IS** the constitution a "living document", or is it as it stands, a clear line drawn between what WE THE PEOPLE will allow and what we won't? just *WHO **OWNS** THE GOVERNMENT, ANYWAY??*

this election is so much more than just another four-year vote for president: it is a vote for the future of our children.

if you don't like who we are, demand we be more like other countries, then your choice is clear.

but if you want to protect what the constitution has provided us, you **MUST** act.

DeeLittle — September 7, 2012 at 11:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye — September 7, 2012 at 8:18 p.m.

Some may consider your view of the world unreasonable.

I am fully aware some of my ideas and opinions run counter to how others believe, even before I put them here for all to see. That is the point to the forum, right? To share views and opinions?

My views are unpopular, I know that. But this is me. If you think I am unreasonable, I can't change your mind. There are many things I find unreasonable from others, and I believe I have thoroughly made that clear in some instances.

I believe one thing I have done that was a mistake was to cross into name calling. Specifically when saying sycophant. That is something for which I wish to apologize, and make an effort to avoid in the future.

danabwoodley — September 8, 2012 at 12:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal


DeeLittle — September 7, 2012 at 11:49 p.m.

Well stated.

I must agree vehemently with your comments of our being united. We have allowed ourselves to be divided. These divisions are perpetuated by the news media (all networks, newpapers and online sources), individual politicians (everyone goes to stump with an organization that focuses on a particular group such as NAACP or La Raza), and our government itself (various observances to specific groups).

Why can we not let these things go? Can we really move forward before we do?

danabwoodley — September 8, 2012 at 12:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**Romney endorses the Immigrants are like dogs guy**

King's harsh stance and comments on immigration have also frequently arisen as a point of contention. During a debate with Democratic challenger Christie Vilsack on Thursday, King claimed that his past comparison of immigrants to dogs was, in fact, a compliment. This argument was perhaps made more confusing considering King's prior breathless defense of dog-fighting enthusiasts.

Controversy over King's statements also extends to issues of race. He once charged that Obama "favors the black person" and has established himself as an unabashed opponent of cultural diversity.

Regardless of King's past, the congressman appeared eager to initiate his newly formed partnership with Romney by vouching for the presidential candidate's religious conservative
credentials.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/07/steve-king-mitt-romney-endorsement_n_1865734.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

nailingit — September 8, 2012 at 12:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**DANA**

if we don't, we're lost. personally, i pray. every night. for HIS will.

**REMEMBER 9/11 !! REMEMBER OUR COUNTRY AS A UNITED, "ONE COUNTRY UNDER GOD", WHETHER YOU BELIEVE OUR NOT!**

this election is far more than just another four-year vote on the currejnt administration: it's a *FUNDIMENTAL CHANGE* of what this country **IS** and **STANDS FOR**.

you're not voting for bennie's, you're voting for the future if what the united states **IS**. and **if** the constitution will continue to define our government's limits, or if it's absolved and we're no longer what we were.

DeeLittle — September 8, 2012 at 12:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**nail**

sources like huff-po are just propaganda. THINK FOR YOURSELF.

does this assertion jibe with what you see happening? PLEASE!

we need to disconnect from koolaid-laced blind support. THINK FOR YOURSELF!

do you REALLY want the changes that will occur if your side gains power?

DeeLittle — September 8, 2012 at 1:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal



**nail**

what do **YOU** believe, and why:? i'm not interested in in people who's job it is to give the followers talking points.

DeeLittle — September 8, 2012 at 1:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal


OFF TOPIC:

Orange County Register is hiring loads of news staff (including 3 investigative reporter positions) when most traditional newspapers are cutting back (think Seattle Times).

I figure those of us who cling to the Forum do so because we value print journalism over digital media. Or at least we want it to continue, healthy and strong, with all the other new-fangled ways to get our daily dose of information.

I am following this and predict this newspaper's business plan will be watched by newspapers across the country:

http://insideocr.ocregister.com/2012/08/30/o-c-register-on-hiring-spree/7533/

Carry on.............

manthou — September 8, 2012 at 5:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal


GO, there's a little blurb in today's front section. My point was that in a previous article it was written to portray him as someone who put his flock second. In my opinion he did. He should have gone right to the police with the information. In this country that's how we are supposed to do it.

To me there is no more serious crime against a child than molestation. They can't defend themselves and as parents we have a mission to protect them from that. There is NO middle ground or gray area. If you don't report it ASAP then you are just as guilty as the molester.

In my extended family there have been two incidents involving this crime. My B-I-L's and I would have gone to prison for life if we had caught him.

Some of this guy's flock don't think he should be punished and others think he should resign. I would seriously question the thinking process that comes to a conclusion that he should not be punished.

If you violate a trust then in my opinion he should look for other work. I am not one of those who thinks forgive and forget. In today's society there is no more time for it. Our moral compass has gone wacky and the only way to reset it is to take a much harder stance on crimes like this.

JohnCasey — September 8, 2012 at 5:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal


DeeLittle — September 8, 2012 at 12:52 a.m.

We are not and never have been "one nation under god". The Founders took great pains to assure that we would be a secular nation. The "under god" abomination was not added until 1954, and should be removed. The treaty of Tripoli stated quite clearly that we are not a Christian nation, the Constitution does not mention God or Christianity at all, and under the supremacy clause, the next supreme law would be treaties.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"

frobert — September 8, 2012 at 7:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Morning all. In middle of house painting and waiting for Sears to fix the NEW wash machine, I partook of my morning coffee and the cellar.
Dee, hope all is well with you. I read your posts. Now, take out the 'nation under God', and I can agree with it all. However, in my OPINION, it can be equally applied to the other side. If I want the country run by a multinational business with only their own interests in mind, hell bend on making us all little servants, I can vote for Romney. If I believe otherwise, I will stick to Obama.

See, both ways. Maybe we can agree that both sides include decent people deeply concerned about the nation, ready to support it, then maybe we can move ahead and fix things.

See, it can apply both ways.

luvithere — September 8, 2012 at 7:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal


luvithere and frobert: Excellent points for so early in the morning! How can I get some of your coffee? :)

I read a very good piece by blogger Phil Zuckerman this week about the "nation under God" issue. I quote this professor of sociology here:

"There are countless values that are far more important than having faith in an invisible, invertebrate, unknowable deity. Valuing education, for example. Valuing democracy. Valuing human rights. Valuing free speech. Valuing trees, mountains, valleys, lakes, rivers and the ozone layer. Valuing affordable healthcare. Valuing nutritious school lunches. Valuing one's spouse, one's friends, one's neighbors. It is far more important to value and love one another, and to act on that love, than to have faith in a god. "

I would imagine that these values he describes so well are shared by folks from diverse political view points.

Read his post in its entirety here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phil-zuckerman/one-nation-under-god-not_b_1858165.html

manthou — September 8, 2012 at 8:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I might add this, if I may:

We get into trouble when we place a higher value to one particular point of view over another.

Dee believes we are a nation under God and we would be a better nation, that we would all get along if we all embraced this concept as the only truth.

Might we not be a better nation if we learn to respect each other's values and beliefs without needing to change each other? Celebrate diversity of opinion and lifestyle and the strengths that uniting can bring?

manthou — September 8, 2012 at 8:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal


just WHO OWNS THE GOVERNMENT, ANYWAY??

Wall St, corporate America, the military/industrial complex, super PACS, lobbyists, ie. MONEY!!

Mr. Smith ain't in Washington anymore. He's just a quaint memory of a time long gone.

Consider this. In the past 12 years the voters have voted in the full range of the political spectrum. Neither party has done anything but throw bandaids and smokescreens at serious structural problems in the system as a whole. We've been entertained for almost 2 years by the biggest smokescreen of them all, a presidential campaign.

With Congress' approval ratings down to single digits, will 85% of the incumbents keep their job as usual? Why does it border on the impossible to remove an incumbent in the primaries? Why are the leadership positions in Congress allocated based, for the most part, on how much money a politician can raise? Why does the amount of money being raised by Obama and Romney such a newsworthy item? Does money factor that strongly into winning an election, running the country, controlling the economy? Yup, it does.

Excuse me, I hear Nero warming up his fiddle.

mrd — September 8, 2012 at 9:39 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Damn downright inspirational talk this morning! If the same common sense and reasonability could be condensed into a pill, and a hit given to all our DC reps all would be fixed.

nailingit — September 8, 2012 at 9:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal


DeeLittle — September 7, 2012 at 11:49 p.m.

"when bush came back to the wh, gave his address to the people on tv, ALL of america was united. we were ONE PEOPLE UNDER GOD, and we acted accordingly."

Sorry, Dee, but God had nothing to do with this. We were a people united against those who dared attack our homeland.

If anything, 9/11 and many other "issues" wouldn't have happened if not for the "Our God is the only right god" mentality of the religious zealots who we allow to lead us there.

roger — September 8, 2012 at 9:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Hawkeye - Thanks for the clarification. Kind of what I figured, but it was getting a bit hostile there, so thought I'd ask.

roger — September 8, 2012 at 9:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Yes, we would be, Manthou. We can never all agree on the same thing, so why not respect others' opinions a bit more? I might think these opinions are wrong (and mine are always right), but hatred as seen during the past few years, directed at each other) will not get us anywhere new. A bit of civility and a bit more rational discussion might.

But then I look at the history of mankind and I weep...

luvithere — September 8, 2012 at 10:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Dee,

"I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that is not the guide in expounding it, there may be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers. If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shape and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense." -- James Madison

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." -- Thomas Jefferson

These quotes lead me to believe the intent was a document that expresses core principles that will remain unchanged. However, details can and should be changed over time. For example, we vote for those who serve us. Over time, those who can vote expanded to include nonwhites, women, and those who don't own property.

I also believe the creation of the Amendment process shows how they envisioned the changes would happen - through the desires of the people and initiated either through a legislative supermajority or through the referendum process.

roger — September 8, 2012 at 10:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Roger, a very well put together, well reasoned argument for seeing the Constitution as an ever-changing document, leaving the original basic, underlying principles intact.

On target as always. Thank you!
I never could understand why some folks see it as a document written in stone that cannot ever be adjusted for changing times. I see, however, how they often use the argument when arguing against anything they do not like.

luvithere — September 8, 2012 at 11 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I hope DG doesn't throw his usual round of Republican softballs tomorrow. This used to be a great hard hitting show. Getting Romney to speak away from Fox makes me think they (MR, DG) settled on some pre-ordained questioning. Chuck Todd would be a better moderator imo.

**Interviewing Mitt Romney: Is David Gregory Up to the Challenge?**

[excerpt] What will Gregory do?

Regrettably, probably nothing. He will dutifully ask Romney the same question a few times and relent, but probably will not do that on many subjects. Then, he will throw Romney a few softballs, such as "was Ann pleased with how her horse performed at the Olympics?" and that will be that.

What could Gregory do if he had the skills, and the gumption?

A lot. Recognizing that Romney knows exactly what Gregory will do, and that Romney will repeat his talking points ad nauseam, Gregory has to do it very differently than Romney expects. To do that, he needs to structure his questions so that, if Romney adopts his "don't move off the talking point" strategy, then that alone "answers" the questions, or give him questions that are out of the realm of any talking point.

For example, instead of asking him why he is not releasing more taxes, ask him this: "Did you receive an amnesty from the IRS?" A non-answer of any kind to this question is a "yes." So, if Romney says "no," Gregory can say, "Well, Ronald Reagan said, 'trust but verify,'" and ask Romney if he is willing to have that verified by a third party, such as the IRS commissioner or a neutral accountant?

As a second example: "Are programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid consistent with Republican philosophy and principles of government?"

As a third example: "Morally, is healthcare a right, or should it be based on each person's ability to pay?"

As a fourth example: "Regardless of whether you did it or not, is it morally right for owners to saddle a company with debt and then use the money raised by that debt to be bought out, leaving the company with a large debt burden? Do you feel it is right for you to have made millions of dollars from doing that?"

Or, just to conclude: "The Blunt amendment, that you support, says that not just churches, but corporate CEOs, can deny a woman insurance coverage for contraceptives. Why should the CEO's "conscience" take precedence over the woman's?"

I am not holding my breath.

Read more @

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/interviewing-mitt-romney-_b_1866894.html

nailingit — September 8, 2012 at 11:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal


roger- Great points & quotes concerning our constitution! So much is read into it, and so much is always left out. I'm in no way an expert, but some things are obvious to those who don't share a religious agenda.

frobert @ 7:17 Great input. I wish we had political leaders with the hair to denounce over the top God injection into our political structure, to include our Prez. At least some Dems made their voices known concerning the change in platform at this years DNC.

nailingit — September 8, 2012 at 11:26 a.m. ( | suggest removal


btw Romney interview will be taped. I would much rather like to see him live.

The first Presidential debate October 03. Can't wait!

nailingit — September 8, 2012 at 11:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — September 8, 2012 at 11:51 a.m.

How can two people who agree on just about everything debate?

frobert — September 8, 2012 at noon ( | suggest removal


To continue the saga of US companies and their sucky customer service. (Sears in particular and specifically). Repair appointment between eight and Noon today. Guess who is not here yet? "Kevin" from India was sooo helpful when I called the 800-number, sending a message to the repair tech, asking where he is. And then proceeded to tell me the repair tech would call me before he shows up. Considering the fact he was already supposed to be here, I take this as added insult.
I am currently on a Sears rampage. Will never buy another thing from that store.

luvithere — September 8, 2012 at 12:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert- Mostly a few but important directionally driven domestic policy issues such as health care, (to include abortion, contraception, payment structure, coverage, etc) financing for Medicare/Medicaid, tax structure, equality pay, immigration, education to include pell grants, funding for the arts & science, banking regulation and a few more that aren't coming to mind. I get where you are coming from, but there is much disparity to be debated.

nailingit — September 8, 2012 at 12:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal


luvithere — September 8, 2012 at 12:09 p.m.

Sorry to hear this. I've had Sears maintenance out 3 times in the bit over a year since I bought my washer from them. One of those Kenmore high efficiency, low water, etc, models. I bought an extended warranty because I was worried about it being computerized - problems have actually been related to the high speed spin causing parts to loosen. At any rate, the service techs have been on time every time. Also very willing to talk about what they're doing and why. (Washers aren't complicated, but the technology with these models is a bit different - I plan on doing my own repairs when the warranty expires.) Sears sends a follow-on evaluation, and these guys (who are independents contracting with Sears for the business) don't get work if we're not happy with the service.

Hope by now your washer is up again.

roger — September 8, 2012 at 1:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Hey Roger, the washer is not yet up as I am still waiting for the repair guy. Considering that our riding lawn mower had a cracked block and therefore a rotten engine after 99 hours after paying >3k for it, then hearing it was our fault as we had no oil in it (after we did the oil change), and now this -nope, Sears is done with us. And trust me-they will hear about it in many ways. Honestly, I think I will go find my appliances and tools at the local shop from now on. I can always find them!

luvithere — September 8, 2012 at 1:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — September 8, 2012 at 12:42 p.m.

None of the issues you mentioned fall within the power of the President, with the possible exception of immigration. Issues we should be discussing are undeclared wars, domestic spying, assassination of citizens, unrestricted drone warfare, insane drug policy and unwarranted searches, just to name a few.

frobert — September 8, 2012 at 1:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Well Fro, if the prez has nothing to do with most anything, then it doesn't matter that Ron Paul did not get the nod, right? Even as prez, he would have been - what? doing nothing?

I am actually not being sarcastic, I am asking.
On 7th captcha try-ridiculous.

luvithere — September 8, 2012 at 1:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal


luvithere — September 8, 2012 at 1:43 p.m.

In matters of executive decision Ron Paul or Gary Johnson would make a big difference. They understand that the President does not have the authority to wage war or pass executive orders that affect private citizens. They also understand that the President does have the power to change drug scheduling. One of our biggest problem is Presidents(both D and R) that have overstepped their Constitutional authority.

frobert — September 8, 2012 at 2:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert @ 1:24-Your comment seems off target. It's important to keep context. Remember the premise of the matter being discussed, nationally televised debates. All the issues mentioned are important policy driven issues to most Americans, and per your comment @ noon I listed those involving a disparity gap between the two candidates.

nailingit — September 8, 2012 at 2:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**A True American! :))**

**Larry Flynt Offering $1 Million For Mitt Romney's Tax Returns**

http://www.adweek.com/news/press/larry-flynt-offers-1m-reward-mitt-romney-tax-returns-143474

nailingit — September 8, 2012 at 2:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Given the views mainstream Christianity has about Mormonism, I guess the Devil is in the details!

**Mitt Romney's Virginia speech heavy on religion**

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. – Mitt Romney wants to be clear: He’s not taking “God” off the nation’s money or out of his party’s platform.

In a not-so-veiled attack on President Barack Obama, Romney on Saturday delivered a speech thick with religious overtones and heavy on promises to increase military spending.

While Romney never argued that Obama was trying to remove God from the nation’s currency, he argued that the election is the only way to ensure the words remain.
The Republican presidential nominee recited the Pledge of Allegiance and said he would not remove God from the nation’s conversation.
“The pledge says ‘under God.’ I will not take God out of the name of our platform. I will not take God off our coins and I will not take God out of my heart,” Romney said to loud cheers. “We’re a nation that’s bestowed by God.”

Republicans have heavily criticized Democrats after the word “God” was left out of the party platform and then returned during this week’s national convention. Obama has never proposed taking “God” off the nation’s currency.

**Adding to the event’s religious theme, controversial television minister Pat Robertson was seated on stage directly behind Romney.**

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/80947.html#ixzz25uunaKW3

nailingit — September 8, 2012 at 2:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal


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

Finally an answer to light rail.

nailingit — September 8, 2012 at 3:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal


sooo on 4th call with Sears- now I hear that there was an error, no tech today. Meaning I was lied to on 4 calls.
I sure got my frustration out over phone though. I yelled loud enough for all to hear me.
Yep, Roger, I predict the demise of Sears. I will be actively working on it for sure.

luvithere — September 8, 2012 at 3:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal


luvit- And I thought it was thunder I was hearing! :)

nailingit — September 8, 2012 at 3:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal


luvithere — September 8, 2012 at 3:26 p.m.

And lightning!!! You go luv.

Nail, that's funny stuff about Willard, Barack never said anything about taking God out of anything but Willard is going to save us all. Now, riddle me this, is the Mormon God the same as the Catholic God or the Jewish God or the Hindu God? Since "we" are all not of one "God", just who will rule?

hawkeye — September 8, 2012 at 4:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye-*Now, riddle me this, is the Mormon God the same as the Catholic God or the Jewish God or the Hindu God? Since "we" are all not of one "God", just who will rule?*

Interesting question! Considering Mormon theology teaches that Mormons themselves shall attain Godhood someday, (wasn't there a serpent in a well known garden that promised the same?) your question proposes quite the conundrum!

Imagine Harry Reid & Mitt Romney becoming Gods. God would command God to reveal God's tax returns. God would then say no to God's request from God. This would then require God to intervene to enact judgement on God who says we should not judge one another. No doubt Mormon Glenn Beck (or God) would cast Godly judgement by working it out on a .. whiteboard while asking other Gods for donations so God may fulfill his Godly duty.

so be it! (not to be confused with so vi et)

*19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, ...Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; ...and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, ...and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.
20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.
21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory.
22 For strait is the gate, and narrow the way that leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the lives, and few there be that find it, because ye receive me not in the world neither do ye know me.* (Doctrine and Covenants 132:19-22)

nailingit — September 8, 2012 at 5:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Drift: I saw this in The Stranger's blog today and thought you might be interested:

Nine former DEA chiefs have written Eric Holder, asking the Feds to intervene against the pot legalization attempts in Oregon, Washington, and Colorado.

The blog post and link to a scanned copy of the letter is here:

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/09/08/retired-dea-heads-tell-obama-to-stop-pot-legalization-initiatives
ypenir

manthou — September 8, 2012 at 5:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal


manthou — September 8, 2012 at 5:39 p.m.

Interesting article.

On the one hand, they're probably correct - these laws (if passed) will be in violation of federal law, which has been upheld by the Court invoking interstate commerce.

But I suspect their true opposition is due to not wanting to admit the (probable) high points of their careers was a complete waste of time.

roger — September 8, 2012 at 6:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal


roger — September 8, 2012 at 6:59 p.m

BUT!!! If the substance never crosses state lines, how does ICC laws come into play?

I agree, I imagine it is about career justification.

hawkeye — September 8, 2012 at 7:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — September 8, 2012 at 5:28 p.m.

Seriously, ***WHAT?***

hawkeye — September 8, 2012 at 7:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye — September 8, 2012 at 7:09 p.m.

"BUT!!! If the substance never crosses state lines, how does ICC laws come into play?"

Your argument was valid and consistently upheld until FDR intimidated the supreme court.

frobert — September 8, 2012 at 7:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal


roger — September 8, 2012 at 6:59 p.m.

If the voters of the State pass marijuana legalization, Federal prosecution will be irrelevant, they still need to get a Washington jury to convict. Civil forfeiture however is another story, they don't answer to anybody on that.

frobert — September 8, 2012 at 7:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mrd — September 8, 2012 at 9:39 a.m.

The reason why all those incumbents keep there jobs is they spend their entire time rallying their base. Just enough true independents get out to put one of them over the edge.

Many citizens elligible to vote are disenfranchised. Not over any law that makes it difficult for them to vote, but because they don't feel anything would be different with any candidate.

What is needed are:

1) to get the citizenry rallied to reject the business as usual politicians that are using their ability to take in money, and charismatic speeches, and debt to special interests as a stepping stone to push personal agendas onto all of us.

2) get some candidates that will not even seek donations for campaign funding, nor pursue party affiliations to get hired, but will instead get out, talk to people and garner true support of the citizens they hope to serve, and gain a personal investment in what they are supposed to be doing in office

3)send a clear message to the party system that their way will not work for us anymore.

danabwoodley — September 8, 2012 at 7:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal



***....ah, the joys and frustrations of written conversations....***

*"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" frobert*

i beg to disagree. i will agree on the facts: there were religious AND non-religious thinkers who crafted the rules of our existence. i can agree to disagree here: i know that zealots exist in all strong beliefs. they do not necessarily represent their respective ideologies. for every mother teresa, there's a madelyn murry o'hare. for every taliban, there's the westboro baptist church. catholics vs. protestants in ireland.

the evil of this comes when we seek to destroy anyone with whom we disagree. *I* can live with the conflict: can you...?

*See, both ways. Maybe we can agree that both sides include decent people deeply concerned about the nation, ready to support it, then maybe we can move ahead and fix things. luvithere — September 8, 2012 at 7:23 a.m.*

*We can never all agree on the same thing, so why not respect others' opinions a bit more? I might think these opinions are wrong (and mine are always right), but hatred as seen during the past few years, directed at each other) will not get us anywhere new. A bit of civility and a bit more rational discussion might. luvit September 8, 2012 at 10:14 a.m*

i see decent people on all sides. honest. sincere. committed. the problem comes when we *judge* the confilcting opinions: it's a short hop from that to 'destroy'. according to my beliefs, the original break with God occured when humans decided to ignore God's warning and obtained 'the knowledge of right and wrong'. ever since then, there are those of us who will gladly see others die for their beliefs.

DeeLittle — September 8, 2012 at 10:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal



When I sing, I feel like when you're first in love. It's more than sex. It's that point two people can get to they call love, when you really touch someone for the first time, but it's gigantic, multiplied by the whole audience. I feel chills.

~Janis Joplin~

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju9yFA...

nailingit — September 8, 2012 at 11:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal


DeeLittle — September 8, 2012 at 10:50 p.m.

You are right, the problems aren't with a majority that are a part of whatever group. The problem lies on the ones who take extreme measures to impose their beliefs on others (such as the Taliban). Also unfortunate is the ones on the extreme end of any belief are so vocal, that many see that as the standard for anyone who proclaims a belief in a similar strain (general Christianity vs. Westboro).

Whether anyone wants to believe it or not, though we may not have been founded as a religious nation, religious principles are the foundation of our society. These principles aren't exclusive to any one religion either. How do we view certain things in our society such as:

Murder

Stealing

Rape

If we, as the human animal, lived only as animals, would we have societal standards such as we do? No. Our higher conscious thinking leads to the society we have. Religious beliefs lay a foundation for a persons moral values as to whether engage in these or similar activities. These are the principles upon which our founding documents were drafted.

The first ammendment doesn't specifically call for the separation of church and state. It merely states that our government will not establish a state religion, and allows the people to practice/believe as they will. Nothing stating freedom from religion.

This is a really complex issue, and I am certain that if anyone takes the time, they can spin everything to support their view of it. What I am offering here is merely my 2 cents.

danabwoodley — September 8, 2012 at 11:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sC0DLYpbgFY

When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.

~Jimi Hendrix~

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcZKkZO7CTI

nailingit — September 8, 2012 at 11:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**nail**

loved the links. janis was REAL. i value reality.

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


Cool! It truly doesn't get any better than Jimi & Janis. Salve for the soul...

“There is one thing one has to have: either a soul that is cheerful by nature, or a soul made cheerful by work, love, art, and knowledge.”

~Friedrich Nietzsche~

nailingit — September 9, 2012 at 12:11 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**....written conversations cont'd...**

*Dee believes we are a nation under God and we would be a better nation, that we would all get along if we all embraced this concept as the only truth.*

*t 8:43 a.m*

partially true. *of course* i believe that all problems would be wiped away if everyone believed as i do. but i'm a fan of reality; i acknowledge this ain't gonna happen.

my beliefs include an obligation to my brother....to make sure he has been informed and offered the 'forgiveness'...the way back to God. Jesus himself told us to 'bring the truth to our brothers'. if he refuses to believe, we don't exterminate him, we 'shake the sand from (our) sandals and move on'.

*"There are countless values that are far more important than having faith in an invisible, invertebrate, unknowable deity. Valuing education, for example. Valuing democracy. Valuing human rights. Valuing free speech. Valuing trees, mountains, valleys, lakes, rivers and the ozone layer. Valuing affordable healthcare. Valuing nutritious school lunches. Valuing one's spouse, one's friends, one's neighbors. It is far more important to value and love one another, and to act on that love, than to have faith in a god." manthou — September 8, 2012 at 8:33 a.m*

we can agree on the values. i attribute them to God; you do not. i'm fine with that. are you?

DeeLittle — September 9, 2012 at 12:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Nail&Dee-;

Everyone, except maybe the Taliban, can appreciate are in any form. Painting, music, theatre, the list goes on.

Some do have different tastes though.

For me, a rousing score from an orchestra may be what I need now, but later I will want to hear some '80s hair metal.

Today, I would love to go see a Sheakespear performance, tomorrow I will want to watch *Nightmare on Elm Street* (the original of course, you can't replace Robert Englund in that role).

Though we do have a lot of amenities available to us here, there are some things I don't have access to until at home. I missed a performance by Joan Jett since I have been here.

I suppose I am not really making a point here. Just trying to chime in on topic.

danabwoodley — September 9, 2012 at 12:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal


The shots of Mama Cass during the breathtaking performance at Monterey are priceless. Not too many folks had seen or heard about Janis before Monterey, most were experiencing her for the first time. What an awesome talent and by all accounts a gentle and loving soul.

She made the world a better place, and still does.

nailingit — September 9, 2012 at 12:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*I suppose I am not really making a point here.*

You did and I can dig it!

nailingit — September 9, 2012 at 12:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal


This is almost scary.

I made a statement Nail won't disagree with.

danabwoodley — September 9, 2012 at 2:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*"when bush came back to the wh, gave his address to the people on tv, ALL of america was united. we were ONE PEOPLE UNDER GOD, and we acted accordingly."*

*Sorry, Dee, but God had nothing to do with this. We were a people united against those who dared attack our homeland.*

*These quotes lead me to believe the intent was a document that expresses core principles that will remain unchanged. However, details can and should be changed over time. For example, we vote for those who serve us. Over time, those who can vote expanded to include nonwhites, women, and those who don't own property. I also believe the creation of the Amendment process shows how they envisioned the changes would happen - through the desires of the people and initiated either through a legislative supermajority or through the referendum process **roger** — September 8, 2012 at 10:38 a.m.*

disagree on 9/11. those of us who believe in God and His will were absolutely *UNITED* with the president . iit's soooo much more than just 'retaliation'....

as for the 'living document' issue, i agree. the Founders realized they were *NOT* the final word on public will, but that this will shall change depending on future circumstances. so far, i haven't seen an issue that cancels the wisdom of The Founders. i support our constitution AS WRITTEN, w/o any 'interpretation' to reflect current circumstances.

DeeLittle — September 9, 2012 at 4:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Dee speaks truth.

If circumstances change that require a change in the document, re-interpretation isn't the way to do it. An ammendment process was include for that reason. We are already up to 27, and I am sure there are others still floating around that either haven't been appropriately ratified, or waiting for someone willing to introduce them. I can think of a few good ones for certain.

First, how about repealing elected officials immunity from prosecution?

danabwoodley — September 9, 2012 at 5:26 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**DANA**

and repeal their immunity against insider trading for starters.

there's much the congress has to account for. starting with designing a two-tier class system.

DeeLittle — September 9, 2012 at 6:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal


The interstate commerce thing was brought up in Gonzales v. Raich.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales...

I stated previously I believe passage of the iniative(s) will be a symbolic act. The feds will be all over them like stink on poo. Though I've heard the sponsors of OCTA (Oregon) state their initiative was written to withstand a battle.

The thing is, citizens in droves have had quite enough of the current arcane cannabis laws. For 75 years the government has lied to us, incarcerated us, and withheld science and fact.

Near 17 million Americans smoke cannabis at least monthly. 800,000 are arrested and charged with a crime annually.

Enough.

Myself, I'd like to see states react the way LaGuardia did back during alcohol prohibition. To summarize, basically he said New York was under no obligation to enforce federal law. If the feds wanted to come in and bust booze peddlers, fine and dandy. The state, however, would not enforce prohibition.

-That- is not in conflict with federal law and cannot be taken to court.

Drift — September 9, 2012 at 8:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal


First, how about repealing elected officials immunity from prosecution

and repeal their immunity against insider trading for starters

there's much the congress has to account for. starting with designing a two-tier class system.

good, better, and best.

then take away ALL campaign donations, take a few bucks from each filer's tax returns, split it up equally, and throw any politician in federal prison if they cheat. If they want to get elected, they'll have to inspire folks to get out and campaign for them on the the volunteer's own time. Or something like that anyway, but get money out of the elections.

mrd — September 9, 2012 at 8:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**To me, this seems like a flip or a flop. That's not what he said before.**

Mitt Romney rejected claims by President Barack Obama that he would sign off on more tax breaks for the wealthy if elected president, but again declined to offer specifics on how exactly he would accomplish his goal of lowering taxes for other Americans while also balancing the budget.

In an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press," Romney said he would offset his proposed 20 percent tax cut for all Americans by eliminating loopholes and deductions for high-income earners. He argued that his plan would in effect lower taxes for middle class Americans while keeping tax rates the same for wealthy Americans.

"People at the high end, high income taxpayers, are going to have fewer deductions and exemptions. Those numbers are going to come down. Otherwise they'd get a tax break," Romney told NBC. "And I want to make sure people understand, despite what the Democrats said at their convention, I am not reducing taxes on high income taxpayers."

Romney argued that limiting deductions and exceptions would keep government revenues up and "encourage more hiring" and "encourage growth" in the economy. He said he wants to "makes sure we don't put any bigger burden on middle income people."

But asked about "the specifics of how you get into this math," Romney declined to offer any additional details, suggesting the "principals" of his plan should be enough for Americans to judge his tax proposals.

hawkeye — September 9, 2012 at 9:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Drift — September 9, 2012 at 8:12 a.m.

The new deal case that brought personal consumption products under the commerce clause was Wickard v. Filburn, concerning wheat for personal on farm use. Prior to that case the federal government had no authority in personal growing or using any plant.

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


mrd — September 9, 2012 at 8:23 a.m

100% behind you on this one but what about personal money? Couldn't Romney do it without donations? Or would that be "out" too?

hawkeye — September 9, 2012 at 9:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*I suppose I am not really making a point here.*

*This is almost scary.* *I made a statement Nail won't disagree with.*

I've agreed many times with your, *I suppose I am not really making a point here.* statement! :)))

nailingit — September 9, 2012 at 10:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal


no personal money. can you imagine a plumber becoming president? what would the ruling elite do without total control of everything? Then I woke up......

mrd — September 9, 2012 at 10:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I'm hip to the case, fro. It's the basic premise of Gonzales v. Raich. It goes back to the Agricultural Adjustement Act of '38. The district Court sided with Filburn. The feds took the case to the SCOTUS. There, Roscoe got burnt. The SCOTUS reasoned if Filburn hadn't overgrown (wheat) then he would have had to purchse some, thereby effecting interstate commerce.

That little ruling has been a heavy player in medicinal cannabis. See, also, U.S. v. Lopez ('95).

Drift — September 9, 2012 at 10:26 a.m. ( | suggest removal


"If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, wouldn't it be a Merry Christmas?" ~Don Meredith~

It'll take a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. At least most Dems to include the President have vocally expressed support for doing so. The Republicans are hard line about keeping C.U. So if one is really passionate about getting $$$ out of politics, then who should one vote for? Otherwise it's all blather about fairy dust, candy & nuts.

---

I was waiting for David Gregory to wipe the saliva from his chin before asking Mittens for his autograph. Worst suck up interview ever. It's no wonder this one time great show's ratings are in the gutter.

---

*disagree on 9/11. those of us who believe in God and His will were absolutely UNITED with the president . iit's soooo much more than just 'retaliation'....* DeeLittle — September 9, 2012 at 4:41 a.m

Striking comment. An unjust war mixed with the fervor of uncompromising religious zealots.

It speaks to everything wrong about Republican foreign policy, and a war we should have never been involved in.

nailingit — September 9, 2012 at 10:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Dee, there were many people united with the president after 9/11, including NON Christians and atheists. I rather not make a distinction here that only christians were behind the prez and the united in grief. I know you did not mean it but I am a bit offended by that. Do you think non christians are less patriotic? Lesser citizens? Less inclined to feel the grief, anger, hurt over 9/11? I really don't think you meant that.

And I have to say-the retaliation that we got last year felt very very good. I am most certainly not a violent person - but if anybody ever deserved to be taken out, it was that head of the snake Bin Laden. Should have been done ten years ago-before we went into IRAQ with a bunch of lies. Might have avoided a few more unpleasant happenings as it would have severely weakened and psychologically crippled that organization of insane murderers. We put down rabid animals, so....

But it's Sunday, day of rest or whatever, not here to start an argument. Everybody enjoying the cooler weather? Doing a birthday dinner cruise on the Spirit of Portland this evening, wish it was still sunny, warm, and starry skies tonight.

luvithere — September 9, 2012 at 11:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Drift — September 9, 2012 at 8:12 a.m.

If the citizens of Washington stand behind the law, the federal law doesn't matter. They still need a jury from the jurisdiction where the "crime" took place. Jury nullification does overrule federal law.

frobert — September 9, 2012 at 12:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal


*Well worth a look. It helps bring clarity to those often blurred lines.*

**Secularists are not atheists**

Secularism is about separating church and state, not disbelief. Mixing it up with atheism
This article is excerpted from "How to Be Secular," available Sept. 11 from Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Secularism leaves the mystery of deity to the chartered imagination of man, and does not attempt to close the door of the future, but holds that the desert of another existence belongs only to those who engage in the service of man in this life. —George Jacob Holyoake, “English Secularism”

American secularism has lost control of its identity and image. That’s because the equation secularism = atheism is rapidly gaining market share. It is increasingly employed in popular usage, political analysis, and even scholarly discourse. This formula is muscling out an infinitely more accurate understanding of secularism as a political philosophy about how the state should relate to organized religion. If this association prevails, if secularism simply becomes a synonym for atheism, then secularism in the United States will go out of business.

Which is fine by the Revivalists and which may account for why they perpetuate this confusion. In these circles secularism has become another word for godlessness. As one journalist perceptively observes, “secular” is a “code in conservative Christian circles for ‘atheist’ or even ‘God-hating’ . . . conjur[ing], in a fresh way, all the demons Christian conservatives have been fighting for more than 30 years: liberalism, sexual permissiveness, and moral lassitude.”

Not only foes draw this link, but friends as well. The website of the Secular Coalition for America describes the group as “a 501(c)4 advocacy organization whose purpose is to amplify the diverse and growing voice of the nontheistic community in the United States.” This community, it points out, is comprised of “atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers, and other nontheistic Americans.” An affiliated organization, the Secular Student Alliance, refers to its mission as “to organize and empower nonreligious students around the country.”

Why must so-called secular organizations be focused exclusively on nonbelievers? After all, just a few decades back, in secularism’s mild separationist golden age, all sorts of religious believers could have been categorized as secularists. The term could refer to a Baptist, a Jew, a progressive Catholic, a Unitarian, and so on. Also, there were secular identities that didn’t make any reference to a person’s religious belief or lack thereof. A secularist might just as likely have been a public school teacher, a journalist, a civil rights activist, a professor, a Hollywood mogul, a civil libertarian, a pornographer, and so forth.

Read more @

http://www.salon.com/2012/09/09/secularists_are_not_atheists/

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


The Founding Fathers were mostly Deists - they believed in God, but despised the organized religions of the day. Our Nation was founded on a moral code that can be found in Christianity, among other sources. This does not make us a Christian nation. And, as Ben Franklin noted (paraphrased here) - God doesn't really care about how or if you worship him; rather, he cares about how you live your life.

"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes." --- John Adams, letter to John Taylor

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." --- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." --- James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785

"Here it is that the religion of Deism is superior to the Christian Religion. It is free from all those invented and torturing articles that shock our reason or injure our humanity, and with which the Christian religion abounds. Its creed is pure, and sublimely simple. It believes in God, and there it rests." --- Thomas Paine, "Of The Religion Of Deism Compared With The Christian Religion"

roger — September 9, 2012 at 12:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Crazytrain,

From the CMS website, it appears this is an 18 month test of two different approaches to determine the ability to deliver quality care to a limited population of dual eligibles (both Medicaid and Medicare) at a lesser cost to the taxpayer. As near as I understand the problem, people eligible for both tend to have billing bounce back and forth between the two plans and different providers, thus making it next to impossible to determine an overall treatment approach.

http://www.cms.gov/Medicare-Medicaid-Coordination/Medicare-and-Medicaid-Coordination/Medicare-Medicaid-Coordination-Office/FinancialModelstoSupportStatesEffortsinCareCoordination.html

"A longstanding barrier to coordinating care for Medicare-Medicaid enrollees has been the financial misalignment between Medicare and Medicaid. To begin to address this issue, CMS will test two models for States to better align the financing of these two programs and integrate primary, acute, behavioral health and long term services and supports for their Medicare-Medicaid enrollees.

These two models include:

Capitated Model: A State, CMS, and a health plan enter into a three-way contract, and the plan receives a prospective blended payment to provide comprehensive, coordinated care.
Managed Fee-for-Service Model: A State and CMS enter into an agreement by which the State would be eligible to benefit from savings resulting from initiatives designed to improve quality and reduce costs for both Medicare and Medicaid."

Washington State has submitted a proposal to be one of the states selected for the test - looks like we want to play.

http://www.cms.gov/Medicare-Medicaid-Coordination/Medicare-and-Medicaid-Coordination/Medicare-Medicaid-Coordination-Office/Downloads/WashingtonProposal.pdf

I briefly scanned the 112 page WA proposal, and then was struck with a thought. Jim Moeller is routinely involved in projects like this, and he's all about spending our money to ensure those who don't have get. So I'm going to presume this idea, if implemented, will ensure acceptable levels of care at a (hopefully) reduced cost. And if things work out as they normally do, people will come here from elsewhere to take advantage of the trend that WA will provide a higher level of care to them than their home state does.

roger — September 9, 2012 at 1:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal


"The president believes as much that God should be taken off a coin as he does that aliens will attack Florida."

That's the response from Obama campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki to Mitt Romney's apparent suggestion at a Virginia Beach, Va., rally on Saturday that Democrats hope to take "In God We Trust" off American money. There is no such effort.

"I will not take God off our coins and I will not take God out of my heart. We're a nation that's bestowed by God," the Republican standard-bearer said.

"Look, this is nothing more than a desperate attack based on a false premise by the Romney team, and it's sad that the debate has been driven to this level of discourse," said Psaki. "It's an absurd question to be raised."

(White House press secretary Jay Carney piled on, saying that, in presidential campaigns, "there's a period when the argument is not going your way… and you begin to see random issues thrown up like spaghetti against the wall to see if anything can stick.")

hawkeye — September 9, 2012 at 1:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-5V2Z...

Breaking news for gun owners.

It's about time!

nailingit — September 9, 2012 at 2:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Obama & Biden, I'd love to sit and down a brew with these guys. We tend not to think of politicians as real people, and stories/pics like these are a good reminder. It's no wonder Obama is well ahead in the likability column!

Obama Picked Up By Scott Van Duzer, Florida Pizza Place Owner (PHOTO, VIDEO)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/09/obama-picked-up-photo_n_1868870.html

Joe Biden Cruisers Diner Appearance: Ohio Voters See VP's Softer Side (PHOTO)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/09/joe-biden-cruisers-diner-_n_1869063.html

nailingit — September 9, 2012 at 3:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal



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

Check out this interview today. Ryan refuses to give any details about anything. For example three minutes in he's questioned continually about what tax loopholes he would close to make their deficit reduction numbers work and refuses to answer time & time again!

Romney refused to answer on same subject earlier on MTP. No numbers. No specifics. How can anyone vote for these guys.

Some polls suggest people think Ryan/Romney would be better with the economy. It's the only reason I can think of as to how these two think they're going to get away with this "plan" of obfuscation & deceit. Even people in their own party are starting to complain.

Two and a half months to go. I can't imagine they'll continue to do this if the polls change regarding this issue. Kinda like the tax return matter. They plan to wait it out and hope for the best.

These guys are a total sham!!

nailingit — September 9, 2012 at 6:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal



roger — September 9, 2012 at 7:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal



mrd — September 9, 2012 at 8:23 a.m.

Applauding profusely.

That is campaign finance reform I can support.

danabwoodley — September 9, 2012 at 7:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal


This is REAL rock 'n' roll - from the greatest concert band ever!!! Damn - summer of 1970 - in college and living on pennies a day - and I was screaming the lyrics along with Daltrey near the stage in the Philly Spectrum. I suppose I'm now the person I was complaining about back then?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJCXpFy0E5s

roger — September 9, 2012 at 8 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Funny you should mention nullification, fro. I've had this fantasy of sitting out front of the court house with a sign and information relating to such.

But I just don't get out like I used to.

So I just sit here and type. If things go as I hope, what I've recently typed will become public domain.

Stay tuned ;^)

Drift — September 9, 2012 at 8:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Late summer of '74 - A friend from the college I used to go to (Mansfield PA) called and said come up for a concert - thought he said Blue Oyster Cult, so I was out the door. Turned out he meant some unknown band that was opening for BOC on tour. I was pissed (was a big BOC fan), so I decided not to think much of the band. Guess I called that one wrong!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vB6sRQ...

roger — September 9, 2012 at 8:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Real comedy - not the crap we get on prime time TV.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkykJ5...

roger — September 9, 2012 at 8:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal


We were having a discussion before about purchases by government agencies being American products. I just read something very interesting in this regard:

on 18 Aug, in Monterrey, CA, a charity auction was held to raise funds for the Fisher house organization. For those who don't know, the Fisher house works the same way as the Ronald McDonald house, but is geared towards housing families of wounded Service Members near the treatment location. Speaking at the auction were Jay Leno, SECDEF Leon Panetta, and Army Chief of Staff GEN Ordierno. Auctioned off was a Fiat 500 Prima Edizione.

So the government didn't buy the car, as we had discussed prior, but it is still a little irksome that this would involve an imported product.

danabwoodley — September 9, 2012 at 11:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal


danabwoodley — September 9, 2012 at 11:14 p.m.

You do realize that Fiat owns Chrysler, don't you?

hawkeye — September 10, 2012 at 7:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Forum Login