Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Monkeyhawk on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- writerdog on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- CapnAmerica on ACORN stole election?
- DavidB on Health care reform would save state money
- writerdog on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
146 Comments
Once again more scientific evidence for the irrefutable fact of evolution. Creationists, avert your eyes or you may be exposed to facts.
Prehistoric Pelvis Offers Clues To Human Development
ScienceDaily (Nov. 13, 2008) — Discovery of the most intact female pelvis of Homo erectus may cause scientists to reevaluate how early humans evolved to successfully birth larger-brained babies.
“This is the most complete female Homo erectus pelvis ever found from this time period,” said Indiana University Bloomington paleoanthropologist Sileshi Semaw. “This discovery gives us more accurate information about the Homo erectus female pelvic inlet and therefore the size of their newborns.”
A reconstruction of the 1.2 million-year-old pelvis discovered in 2001 in the Gona Study Area at Afar, Ethiopia, that has led researchers to speculate early man was better equipped than first thought to produce larger-brained babies. The actual fossils remain in Ethiopia.
More real science, not creationist garbage at:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081113181152.htm
Don’t you know Maggot…that pelvis was placed there by God to test your faith!
What I find absolutly remarkable is the Hobbit bones they found on the Indonesian island…all those tiny little people hunting pigmie elephants…how cute can you get!
The only thing that I see in Maggie’s linked article is that scientists think that their previous speculation was wrong and now they are re-speculating. Speculation is not science, let alone proof.
maggot…do you really think that posting this every day for months has changed anyone’s mind?
Maybe you need a new hobby? Before you go ballistic, realize I am not disagreeing..but that has nothing to do with your posts. My views predate my participation on this blog.
Your obsession with this is no longer amusing, interesting, or informative.
Looks like your having an effect mp keep up the good work
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tren.htm
snip
At the present rates of change, Islam will become the dominant religion in the world before 2050 CE.
* At the present rate of change, most Americans would identify themselves as non-religious or non-Christian by the year 2035 CE.
* The numbers of “unchurched” people has increased rapidly in the U.S. These are individuals who have not attended church in recent months.
* Agnosticis, Atheists, secularists. and NOTAs (none of the above) are growing rapidly.
Raptor’s computer must be missing a scroll button…
Either that, or he’s out of mouse grease. If he’d stocked up on that instead of guns and ammunition, he wouldnt have to whiiiiiiiine about MP.
I can scroll right past the lunatics here.
After I’ve stopped laughing.
If Joe is the Blog’s Dumbest Poster, I think Raptor wins the title of Blog’s Biggest Whiner. BBW.
Who still has the keys to the waaaaaaambulance from election day?
Yes, the fastest growing religion is no religion. I think the internet has done a lot to push that along.
It would be interesting to see if the fundy/mega-church phenom is petering out.
Petering out like O’Rielly’s audience.
MP: It was reported a few weeks ago that the oldest rock ever found, dated at 4.3 billon years, was discoverd on the Eastern Shore of Hudsons Bay, part of the oldest rock formation on earth called The Precabrian Shield. I like your opening comment each day and just wanted to drop this pebble into you wellspring of fact finding. Keep it up, please.
I predict in a few decades republicans will be a the forefront of the “athiest rights movement.” Both sides would switch tomorrow, if they thought they’d win.
You are wrong beber. I cant fake believing a fairy tale. Christians excel at it!
Which came first, the pelvis or the leg?
Nathan,
As a gunny, could you tell me if the military has been using the .260 Rem?
interesting very interesting
http://www.theamericanchurch.org/facts/12.htm
annie-moose, that is an interesting site. Don’t know who the person is gathering the data, what his credentials are… I’m going to click around (did you see the “back,” and “next” buttons). Thanks for sharing!
Raptor
Posted November 14, 2008 at 7:51 am | Permalink
Your obsession with this is no longer amusing, interesting, or informative.
___________________________________________________
Rap, I would agree. And I would direct that to both sides. This constant cut and paste war is really getting old. If anybody thinks a cut and paste about evolution is anything but scroll over, you’re a moron.
Annie — those graphs would be in agreement with my denomination’s assessment of growth/decline in recent decades… in just OUR denomination…
.
That was weird… it only posted the period at the end of my comment… LOL TGIF!!
There’s talk that Hillary may be the next Sec. of State.
Yep… Hillary, or Richardson, or Kerry…. Nothing official, though…. Reporters love speculation…
Of those three, the only one imminently qualified is Bill Richardson
Reporters love speculation…
=============
Yes they do!
Raptor,
Where was your outrage when Hank was posting anti-GW cut & paste every day?
You’ll note that the counties in which church attendence increased have few people. Is religion a rural phenom? Certainly would dovetail in with red/blue political maps. Well, good riddance.
Linda,
I used the google to look at declining church attendance. Per yesterdays gay marriage thread, I was wondering who is more main stream now. Judging by church attendance and other trends it would seem evil liberal thought is becoming the norm.
annie — people are growing a bit tired of being told WHAT to believe… they want to think things through for themselves… and not feel “put down” for their freedom of thought… Even a number of “loosely” aligned Evangelical groups are coming to that point… Of course, the usual “Belief Police” groups are still a major force…
Then how does Gay Marriage continue to get voted down?
“it would seem evil liberal thought is becoming the norm.” — annie_moose
Well we can’t have that! I have been ABnormal my entire life and I don’t think I can give it up easily. And, I KNOW I’m not giving up being an eveeel libarul! ;-)
Gotta go for now… Outta here at 10:04 a.m.
There was no outrage, whining or anything else. I have an opinion and whether you like it or not, I am entitled to post it. I asked mp if he thinks his continual daily posting has changed anyone’s mind. He hasn’t answered.
the anti GW cut/pastes have seem to gone away, or haven’t you noticed that? I can understand passion for/against an issue–for a while. But continuing for months with no result is incomprehensible.
“Then how does Gay Marriage continue to get voted down?”
Bigotry and a desire to be “superior” to someone, anyone, NEVER goes out of fashion in america.
Some people will NEVER be happy with anyone being equal to them. They are ONLY happy with some artificial superiority.
I think we call them legends in their own minds.
Or cowards. Take your pick.
That’s a great link annie.
I only hope to live so long as to see churches completely disappear from the map.
Only then will america live up to it’s promises.
Unfortunately, there are even some liberal churches that do not support Gay Marriage… they tend to favor the “civil union” designation (including full rights and privileges)
I only hope to live so long as to see churches completely disappear from the map.
================
Why do you want to put Chas out of a job?
Gay couples have the best of all possible worlds right now in states which recongnize civil unions. They can negotiate exactly the fudiciary and other relations they desire, without the necessity for civil divorces, etc, if things go awry. Gays want marriage because they want acceptance. Rewire the genome and redo evolution. For heterosexual couples there is only marriage, either common law or otherwise.
And I suspect, chickenlady, when it’s all said and done, as it will be someday, you’ll be as collectively misereable as you are now. Marriage is not going to solve your problems.
Yaaar, I’ve hoisted me another baby.
Just a thought, and well-said, I think. Reactions, anyone?
From another writer:
Liberals have a chronic blindspot: they see only the good they wish to bring about, and don’t understand that the power to compel good is indistinguishable, even in principle, from the power to do evil, and that this is why we’ve designed a government of limited, enumerated Powers.
http://geekwitha45.blogspot.com/2008_11_01_archive.html#1319829599219934033
—
Yup. And given human history, the tendancy to mischief and evil has always seemed to outstrip our tendancy go do good. Unfortunately, I don’t see that changing in the foreseeable future.
Unfortunately (again), any real limits of those limited, enumerated powers were effectively stripped away some 60+ years ago. Gov’t today is limited only by the political goodwill of those in power respecting those who elected them. We know that if power CAN be abused, it WILL be; that’s a given.
So – How long can a free society last in the face of a government with no effective limits on its authority?
Comments?
Where it goes dept: The average costs for a country with universal health coverage came out yesterday and here are a few snippets.
Hospitals 28% of total costs
Drugs 18% ”
Physcians 14% ”
Babies under 1 year $7,900 per annum
Aged 65 plus $6,000 ”
Aged 85 ” $22,000 ”
The biggest reason by far for hospital admissions/visits are interaction of drugs, mostly in seniors. All tests, ambulance emergercy measures and surgeries which are covered, along with uninsured costs such as dental care, eye care, home nursing, and pharma for those under 65 were not broken out.
“Gays want marriage because they want acceptance. ”
You are so stupid it makes my ears hurt. No wonder you are not farming anymore. Too stupid to succeed is my guess.
The federal government does not recognize gay civil unions. That means we do not have the benefits of marriage. They dont even recognize same sex MARRIAGES in Mass or Conn when it comes to survivor benefits, health insurance, pensions, etc.
You idiocy is only exceeded by your bigotry.
Just what DO you do for a living now that you dont farm. Suck off a government check?
““civil union” designation (including full rights and privileges)”
Without the repeal of DOMA, and federal legislation to recognize them, same sex “civil unions” will NOT carry the same rights and privileges of heterosexual marriage.
Is that just too hard for people to understand?
kfg….’beber’ posts only to get a reaction, in a juvenile and usually vulgar form of self entertainment. If anyone on this blog deserves to be ignored by everyone, it is that vile poster.
The benefits of marriage then are strictly fudiciary then chicken lady? I always thought that was your motive.
Right Craptor, as I whip you bloody every day.
“kfg….’beber’ posts only to get a reaction, in a juvenile and usually vulgar form of self entertainment”
Dont forget stew-pud.
He craves attention as much as anti…
I notice he’s not answering my questions.
“Right Craptor, as I whip you bloody every day.”
Where is THAT blog? Because it sure as hell isnt here.
A legend in his own mind. The black knight and all.
He craves attention as much as anti…
—————-
You wanna scratch my belly?
Look up the incidence of genital warts, chicken lady.
Let’s take a “just suppose” if gay couples are allowed to marry. Would they have to prove they are gay? Could non-gay same-sex couples “marry?”
If not, a 95-year-old man would “marry” his male second cousin, who has never held a job. The “spouse” would then be entitled to S.S. after the old man’s death. You think this wouldn’t happen? That’s because it would happen. Every scammer and schemer on the planet would turn fruit overnight. Call me stupid. Anyone who can’t understand that is stupid.
Now then, if you can prove that your gay partner is also your civil and domestic partner, and you’ve had a long-standing stable relationship, I’d be willing to accept that compromise. Then I’d say society would be benefitted. I’d be willing to accept the compromise that people could enter civil relationships to provide for the care of a survivor, as long as they have a long-term domestic relationship. But there has to be some kind of test.
‘Breaking: EPA Kills US Coal Plants
http://www.desmogblog.com/breaking-epa-kills-us-coal-plants
“Wow. A decision by the Environmental Protection Agency today has ruled that all new and proposed coal-fired power plants must have their carbon dioxide emissions regulated.
What this means is that 30 permits for new coal-fired power plants in the seven state directly regulated by the EPA’s permitting process, plus projects on all Indian Reservations will immediately die because of this ruling.
Joanna Spalding, the Sierra Club attorney who successfully argued the case, delivered this statement:
Today’s decision opens the way for meaningful action to fight global warming and is a major step in bringing about a clean energy economy. This is one more sign that we must begin repowering, refueling and rebuilding America. The EAB rejected every Bush Administration excuse for failing to regulate the largest source of greenhouse gases in the United States. This decision gives the Obama Administration a clean slate to begin building our clean energy economy for the 21st century.”
—————
Links to Sierra Club statement, official ruling, and more at link.
Maggotpunk,
That discovery said that scientist may reevaluate what they had thought before about how early humans evolved.
Just the other day, you said that Evolution was an irrefutable fact.
So I guess that part of Evolution which scientists thought was one way before this discovery was not quite so “irrefutable” after all.
Things change Nathaniel; that’s what the right can never grasp.
A study in tolerance
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sfl-chi1113tolerance-test,0,5764863.story
“If not, a 95-year-old man would “marry” his male second cousin, who has never held a job. The “spouse” would then be entitled to S.S. after the old man’s death.” — beber
———
Are there restrictions on receiving spousal benefits now? I really don’t know. The only experience I’ve had is my mother-in-law was widowed at the age of 59 and that was too young to draw widow’s benefits. Is there also a length of time married requirement? If so, would it matter what the sex of the partners?
Thanks for sharing tha tlittlejohn! Good lesson, not just for those 8th graders, but all of us!
Another study in tolerance. This is an old one, but still a great one. This teacher went on to make this her life’s work and has opened a lot of eyes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8gCJ4K4tnE
Did you get my response email Linda?
I did. I haven’t YET done an update today. I’ll do that now.
ty
http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/14/news/economy/g20_powerplay/index.htm?postversion=2008111411
They just throw it in our faces.
Is anyone paying attention to the hearings on this bank heist?
Does anyone care?
Just gay marriage and global warming eh?
Oh well.
Here we go with this stupid postulation again… TWO Adult Humans…. NOT related… And yet, here comes along another poster throwing in a supposed “relation” marrying a “relatiion” to supposedly get money…
The money received would not BE IN FULL… it is sort of miniscule… as far as something to live on…. NO health benefits for Soc. Sec. survivors….
Just another damned stupid red herring….
Red herrings are ALL that those opposed to Same Gender Marriage have…. Nothing more… and a LOT less!!
And dont EVEN try that tired, worn out, NAMBLA BS…. Thats disgusting…. Doesnt have a thing to do with same gender marriage…
And…. furthermore…. why would a couple have to prove to be GAY, for a same gender marriage to occur???
See how people ADD to what isnt there to begin with??? Shameful!!!
Thanks Linda.
Unfortunately the computer I am on during the day has no sound card, so youtube links have to be looked at later. I will do it this evening.
littlejohn, here is a website with the info about the YouTube posted earlier (that you can’t listen to). Good read!
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/divided/etc/friday.html
“Now then, if you can prove that your gay partner is also your civil and domestic partner, and you’ve had a long-standing stable relationship, I’d be willing to accept that compromise.” [beber]
How about heterosexual couples?? Would they also have to prove a long-standing stable relationship in order to marry… or would it just be required for same gender couples??
Hmmmmm?????
You’re correct ms. Inks. My bad. But similar relationships would evolve quickly enough if an employer of one provides family health insurance or other benefits. Gay marriage is a beneifts smorgasborg. These are the “rights” they are talking about. What others are there. Anyway, just advance the age of my second cousin a bit, and presto, billions out the door.
beber —
Sme benefits as heterosexuals… And as for your aging “second cousin” bit, that is already LEGAL… Second cousins CAN marry second cousins NOW, if they are heterosexual…
As for benefits… the only survivor benefit available would be the Soc. Sec. money…. And not even that, if the younger one of the couple isnt OLD enough to get the benefit (like under age 62, and not disabled)….
Wanna rethink your postulation maybe??
Linda-
THanks. I suspected that was the subject. An old story, but meaninful nonetheless. Unfortunatelly, the dialog has become”
person a “All (fill in the blank) are prejuduced”
peson b “No they aren;t”
person a “Yes the are”
person b “Well maybe, but so is (fill in the blank)
person a “no they aren;t)
In fact, many older heterosexual couples simply dont GET married… because they can lose too much in existing benefits…
Please Charles do you want vegas wedding chapels for homosexuals. No couples and gay couples are not the same thing. It’s apples and oranges because hetero couples can produce children; so can female gay couples, but only with convolutions. At any rate, solve the whole damned thing by attaching the benefits of marriage to the issue of marriage.
Neither my wife nor myself can produce offspring either…. couldnt when we got married!! So, do we get left out too???
Your 95 yr. old second cousin routine would MOST LIKELY not be producing offspring either… WHY do you even bring that up??
Why not Vegas wedding chapels??? People use those things that have been married MULTIPLE times as it is….
Ummmm Male same gender couples can also produce offspring… with use of a surrogate mother (which is quite legal)…. So, what exactly is your point??
“In fact, many older heterosexual couples simply dont GET married… because they can lose too much in existing benefits…” — charles.
Then you agree with Chicken Lady. The entire issue of gay marriage boils down to fudiciary interests? If you are better off married, it’s a big deal and if not, it’s not a big deal. And exactly how do they lose benefits, charles. Now that’s a crock.
If both have health plans they continue to have them; if both receive social security, they continue to receive social security wheather they are married or not.
And if there are fed tax implications, then chicken lady is wrong. She said the feds didn’t recognize such.
That’s like the arugment we had the other day about whether the moon produces light Charles. Attach the benefits of marriage to the issue of marriage. Problem solved. Otherwise, treat all people the same.
“And exactly how do they lose benefits, charles. Now that’s a crock.”
I believe, one draws a percentage of the other… so, there would be a loss of some sort… Soc. Sec. is hardly a viable income as you were alluding to using your aged second cousin routine above…
The other loss of income for a couple would be if the female(hetero) or one partner (same gender) was receiving “alimony” payments….
If the one receiving alimony payments re-marries, then they would lose that payment…
Married filing joint(IRS) is different from Married filing separate…
I dont believe any difference would be had if they each have health insurance benefits… However, if ONE had health insurance benefits, that would cover a spouse, then that could be either a savings, or an increase… would depend on what kind of policy, and what age, etc.
You’ve made some points Charles, but the fact remains if gay marriage confers the exact same status and hetero marriage, it will cost much more in benefits, and no one has the money.
Also, I am not sure if the IRS would or would not accept a married filing jointly, for a same gender married couple… I suspect you could find that out by a phone call to H/R Block, or one of those types…
Ummmm…. please explain WHY the partners in same gender marriage would NOT be paying in to FICA the same way a hetero couple would?? Where would be the added expenses???
It’s not as if they ’suddenly’ become eligible when married…. Geez…
Charles a surviving spouse if age 60 when ‘widowed’ would draw 1/2 of her/his spouses monthly benefit. At age 62 or their full retirement age they then would switch over to their own benefit if larger or stay with the survivor benenit.
As for the IRS; if the law of the land says ssm is not recognized then neither would a combined filing.
One other thing if there were children under 18 then they would draw a stipend for each child until they reach that age.
And then it occurred to me, the real argument, or fact. Gays say they want the same rights as heterosexual couples. They have them. They can marry anyone of the opposite sex (with a few limits, you have to qualify everything in a blog). Marrying someone of the same sex is an additional right and it does affect my life. It will affect Social Security and health plans.
And here I thought Chas was concerned about gay rights because of love and passion.
Turns out that he is only concerned about he almighty dollar and whose name is on the Will.
Nathan, are you still around?
Regular, I am merely addressing the stupidity… beber… it is not an Extra or a Special Right… It does NOT effect Soc. Sec. and it has no effect on health plans…
Okie, I do believe the 9th and 10th amendments have something to say as far as ssm, and the Fed are concerned… Might want to check those out…
Regular, as you should know, ANY name can appear on a Will… married or not…
Okie, I am well aware of the children under 18…. My daughters got a portion of the benefits of their step father, when their mother re-married… and it ends at age 18.
beber, you started off with a somewhat stretching the limit scenario, of a 95 year old, marrying a much younger Second Cousin… which is perfectly legal in the hetero world… You made the false assumption that the Younger cousin (2nd cousin) would then qualify for 1/2 or some such figure of the 95 yr. old’s benefits…
And, as I said, that would be incorrect. UNLESS the older partner died, and the younger partner was a minimum of 60, in which case there would be a half… If the widowed partner was 62+, it would be a choice of the younger’s benefit (which would be at best miniscule) or the continued benefit of the older, deceased partner…
I have yet to see how this would increase any benefit…. And you have shown none…
Thus, I called that a Red Herring…. I could be wrong, it could be trollish…. OR, it could just be a straw man, without any straw….
Why can’t we just get along? Does it really affect me if some people want to have a relationship that is contrary to nature? No, it doesn’t. That’s their business. And when they, because of their choice to live contrary to nature, brings them a deadly disease, don’t expect me to pay for the cure.
What does affect me and I find very objectionable is when those deviants try to force their choice of an unnatural lifestyle into the mainstream of society. It is what it is, a deviant choice of life. If it were the norm, the issue of same-sex marriage would be moot.
Own_Man —-
WHO says it is deviant?? Is being left-handed deviant?? Is having eyes of different colors deviant?? Is owning 17 mansions, and driving 37 different varieties of luxury cars deviant??
WHO decides what is deviant??
WHO says it is deviant??
===========================
I do.
And who has made ANTI an authority on anything of value?? LOL
You asked Chas, I answered.
#
Chas
Posted November 14, 2008 at 3:22 pm | Permalink
Own_Man —-
WHO says it is deviant?? Is being left-handed deviant?? Is having eyes of different colors deviant?? Is owning 17 mansions, and driving 37 different varieties of luxury cars deviant??
WHO decides what is deviant??
—————-
Driving the old checkered cab into the waste disposal unit is not exactly normal.
Not even cute, Regular… does that come from residual damage of your recent illness??
rear end collision specialists – we’ll fix it no matter what the impact…
“The only authorities I know of are my commanding officer Colonel Nathan Jessup and the Lord Our God.”
-A Few Good Men
Extra 2 inches around waist means 17% higher mortality risk.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/11/12/healthmag.waist.death.risk/index.html
Own_Man, Regular, ANTI —-
What PERCENTAGE of marrige is made up of sexual relations?? One clue: it isnt over 30% tops!!
Some abdomen exercises.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/belly-fat/WO00128
#
Chas
Posted November 14, 2008 at 3:56 pm | Permalink
Own_Man, Regular, ANTI —-
What PERCENTAGE of marrige is made up of sexual relations?? One clue: it isnt over 30% tops!!
———————
I don’t know what Chinese dynasty you come from, but if there is a marriage between a man and a woman, there better be an almost 100 percent guarantee of some ‘trim’ being negotiated in the transaction.
http://www.milwaukeemagazine.com/currentIssue/full_feature_story.asp?NewMessageID=24046&pf=yes
Insider Spills Beans on How HATE Radio Works
worked for three years as news director, and then, in 1998, gained the additional title of assistant program director, a role I held until leaving the station in July 2006. From that position, I worked closely with our talk show hosts and became intimately familiar with how they appeal to listeners and shape their vision of the world. Let me tell you some of the lessons I learned.
To begin with, talk show hosts such as Charlie Sykes – one of the best in the business – are popular and powerful because they appeal to a segment of the population that feels disenfranchised and even victimized by the media. These people believe the media are predominantly staffed by and consistently reflect the views of social liberals. This view is by now so long-held and deep-rooted, it has evolved into part of virtually every conservative’s DNA.
To succeed, a talk show host must perpetuate the notion that his or her listeners are victims, and the host is the vehicle by which they can become empowered. The host frames virtually every issue in us-versus-them terms. There has to be a bad guy against whom the host will emphatically defend those loyal listeners.
This enemy can be a politician – either a Democratic officeholder or, in rare cases where no Democrat is convenient to blame, it can be a “RINO” (a “Republican In Name Only,” who is deemed not conservative enough). It can be the cold, cruel government bureaucracy. More often than not, however, the enemy is the “mainstream media” – local or national, print or broadcast.
Sometimes, it can even be their own station’s news director. One year, Charlie targeted me because I had instructed my midday news anchor to report the Wimbledon tennis results, even though the matches wouldn’t be telecast until much later in the day. Charlie gave out my phone number and e-mail address on the air. I was flooded with hate mail, nasty messages, and even one death threat from a federal law enforcement agent whom I knew to be a big Charlie fan.
In the talk radio business, this concept, which must be mastered to be successful, is called “differentiating” yourself from the rest of the media. It is a brilliant marketing tactic that has also helped Fox News Channel thrive. “We report, you decide” and “Fair and Balanced” are more than just savvy slogans. They are code words signaling that only Fox will report the news in a way conservatives see as objective and truthful.
Forget any notion, however, that radio talk shows are supposed to be fair, evenhanded discussions featuring a diversity of opinions. The Fairness Doctrine, which required this, was repealed 20 years ago. So talk shows can be, and are, all about the host’s opinions, analyses and general worldview. Programmers learned long ago that benign conversations led by hosts who present all sides of an issue don’t attract large audiences. That’s why Kathleen Dunn was forced out at WTMJ in the early ’90s and why Jim and Andee were replaced in the mid-’90s by Dr. Laura. Pointed and provocative are what win.
More at link
HEE HEE HEE HEEEEEEEE!
Bigotbox was scared of JR and cowered out of his meetup with him.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.
And he wanted ME to drive to Wichita and meet with him? And this is supposed to be some kind of lesson for JR?
Nope. It’s a lesson for the entire blog. He’s a sock puppet who was banned last week. A liar and a coward.
Hehehehehehehehehheehehhehehehehheheehhehe…..
Dishonor, thy name is…
Russian Lawmakers Approve Presidential Term Extension
MOSCOW — Russian lawmakers moved to lengthen the presidential term from four to six years on Friday with a vote that opponents called a step toward Vladimir Putin’s return to power.
The change means that the powerful prime minister could serve a total of 20 years as president if he returns to the position as many expect.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,451985,00.html
Hee hee hee heeeee!
I’m willing to bet the lying bigotbox will NEVER show his sorry face around here again.
How could he? He’ll be laughed off the blog!
I cant wait to hear what his wife thinks about this little stunt!
This is how filthy rich financiers (you know, the “most productive Americans” HAHAHAHA!) screw everybody else without de-regulation.
http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2008/11/11/The-End-of-Wall-Streets-Boom#page3
The funny thing, looking back on it, is how long it took for even someone who predicted the disaster [of subprime mortgages] to grasp its root causes. They were learning about this on the fly, shorting the bonds and then trying to figure out what they had done. Eisman knew subprime lenders could be scumbags. What he underestimated was the total unabashed complicity of the upper class of American capitalism. For instance, he knew that the big Wall Street investment banks took huge piles of loans that in and of themselves might be rated BBB, threw them into a trust, carved the trust into tranches, and wound up with 60 percent of the new total being rated AAA.
“You have to understand this,” he says. “This was the engine of doom.” Then he draws a picture of several towers of debt. The first tower is made of the original subprime loans that had been piled together. At the top of this tower is the AAA tranche, just below it the AA tranche, and so on down to the riskiest, the BBB tranche—the bonds Eisman had shorted. But Wall Street had used these BBB tranches—the worst of the worst—to build yet another tower of bonds: a “particularly egregious” C.D.O. [collaterized debt obligation].
The reason they did this was that the rating agencies, presented with the pile of bonds backed by dubious loans, would pronounce most of them AAA. These bonds could then be sold to investors—pension funds, insurance companies—who were allowed to invest only in highly rated securities. “I cannot f***ing believe this is allowed—I must have said that a thousand times in the past two years,” Eisman says.
Whatever rising anger Eisman felt was offset by the man’s genial disposition. Not only did he not mind that Eisman took a dim view of his C.D.O.’s; he saw it as a basis for friendship. “Then he said something that blew my mind,” Eisman tells me. “He says, ‘I love guys like you who short my market. Without you, I don’t have anything to buy.’?”
That’s when Eisman finally got it. Here he’d been making these side bets with Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank on the fate of the BBB tranche without fully understanding why those firms were so eager to make the bets. Now he saw. There weren’t enough Americans with s!htty credit taking out loans to satisfy investors’ appetite for the end product.
The firms used Eisman’s bet to synthesize more of them. Here, then, was the difference between fantasy finance and fantasy football: When a fantasy player drafts Peyton Manning, he doesn’t create a second Peyton Manning to inflate the league’s stats.
But when Eisman bought a credit-default swap, he enabled Deutsche Bank to create another bond identical in every respect but one to the original. The only difference was that there was no actual homebuyer or borrower. The only assets backing the bonds were the side bets Eisman and others made with firms like Goldman Sachs. Eisman, in effect, was paying to Goldman the interest on a subprime mortgage.
In fact, there was no mortgage at all. “They weren’t satisfied getting lots of unqualified borrowers to borrow money to buy a house they couldn’t afford,” Eisman says. “They were creating them out of whole cloth. One hundred times over! That’s why the losses are so much greater than the loans. But that’s when I realized they needed us to keep the machine running. I was like, This is allowed?”
******
THE FED CAN’T BUY UP “BAD LOANS” BECAUSE THEY DON’T EXIST.
The de-regulated financiers had simply created a huge Ponzi scheme based on people betting on bonds.
The March of Dimes gave the USofA a “D” for not stemming the increase in premature births. The have abandoned their previous straw-clutching finger-pointing at poor economic conditions as causing the increase, and are now frivolously attempting to blame smoking mothers.
The March of Dimes still refuses to make any mention of the proven major risk factor of abortion that is causing later miscarriages and premature births, and consequently more medical problems in newborns and a higher infant mortality during the first year of life, as more and more mothers of child-bearing age have been scarred at some time in their life by abortion.
The black community, targeted by Planned Parenthood and other racist abortion mills, suffers an abortion rate and premature birth rate 3 times higher.
- – -
Andrew Anthony Guerrero, 23, pleaded guilty to shooting his former wife, Nicolette Lyons-Reed, 23, and her 8-month-old daughter, Leah Lyons-Reed in her Kansas City, KS home in February, crimes he planned weeks in advance. Guerrero pleaded guilty to two capital murder counts, plus first-degree murder of Lyon-Reed’s unborn child in exchange for the death penalty being taken off the table. He will be sentenced on February 15, though justice for surviving family members and friends, particularly the 3-year-old boy Seth, who did not understand what happened to his mother and baby sister, will be lacking.
This was the first time Alexa’s Law was applied in Wyandotte County, KS.
Homicide is the leading cause of death of pregnant mothers.
- – -
A newborn girl was found dead in a bag of clothing inside a Turlock, CA shopping center garbage bin Saturday, her umbilical cord still attached, her tiny blue body still warm to the touch.
Captain, try explaining that to Franklin, no, it’s fannie, freddie, ACORN!
Practicing school choice
OPINION: The Obamas can choose to put their children first and send them to private school, a choice denied to many other Americans
Cal Thomas
President-elect Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, came to town and did what people with young children usually do before moving. They looked at their new house and then Mrs. Obama checked out the school choices for their two young daughters.
The schools Mrs. Obama visited were private, not public. While no decision has yet been made, it seems obvious the girls enjoy their private school in Chicago and have flourished in it. Would the Obamas, in order to pander to the teachers unions, place their daughters in one of Washington, D.C.’s miserable public schools? Let’s hope not. That would be a form of intellectual and social child abuse.
Should they choose either Sidwell Friends School (where Chelsea Clinton attended) or Georgetown Day School—Mrs. Obama visited both—or a public school, the Obamas have the ability to make a choice for their children, a choice the president-elect would deny to every other American who cannot afford to pay private school tuition. This is not the vaunted fairness for which Obama campaigned. This is not spreading the educational and intellectual wealth around.
During the campaign, Obama praised D.C. School Superintendent Michelle Rhee for her commendable attempts to improve the Washington public school system, but the schools still have a long way to go and continue to underperform the rest of the country. Surely the Obamas care more about their daughters than the teachers unions and will place them in private schools.
Parents who put their children first are to be admired and emulated. Politicians who are parents and who have the power to let others make the choices they can make, but refuse to do so, are inconsistent at best and hypocrites at worst.
Throughout the campaign, Obama presented himself as a champion of the poor and middle class. Poor and middle-class parents do not love their children any less than the Obamas love their daughters. They want their kids to have a good education, realizing it is their ticket to a better life. But liberal politicians deny them that right. Is that fair?
This year, 1,900 D.C. schoolchildren were allowed to attend private schools, thanks to congressional vouchers. With Democrats about to be in charge of all three branches of government, will Obama and his fellow Democrats send them back to failed schools? D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton has suggested as much. Parents interviewed by Washington TV stations overwhelmingly want their children to remain where they are. Is it not cruel to force them back into a broken system?
Many Members of Congress choose private schools for their children. Sens. Edward Kennedy and Hillary Clinton have been outspoken opponents of school choice yet have sent their children to private schools. According to a 2007 Heritage Foundation survey, “… 37 percent of representatives and 45 percent of senators in the 110th Congress sent their children to private schools—almost four times the rate of the general population.” Yet many of them vote against letting the rest of us have the same choice.
In its recently released annual report, the privately underwritten Children’s Scholarship Fund outlines the assistance it is offering parents of disadvantaged poor and minority students. It isn’t welfare, because parents contribute to the cost of their child’s education. As the annual report states, after 10 years “the lives of 96,000 children across the United States have been changed for the better by CSF scholarships worth $315 million.”
What do the children think? Fatouma D., a CSF sixth-grader says, “I love my school so much. We have so many programs. The best part is the fun never stops until 6 o’clock.” Here’s Jonathan C., a second-grader: “When I grow up I want to be a Marine so I can save people trapped in water.” And Madysen D., a first-grader, “I can’t wait to start working on fractions.”
If Obama and his fellow Democrats won’t “let our people go,” the rest of us have options. We can send our children and grandchildren to private schools—or home school them—and act compassionately toward the less fortunate by contributing to the Children’s Scholarship Fund (8 West 38th Street, 9th Floor, New York, N.Y. 10018).
This will offer children trapped in bad schools the brighter future they deserve and the country will get the better educated citizenry it desperately needs.
© 2008 Tribune Media Services Inc.
http://www.worldmag.com/webextra/14673
If we’d had any kind of regulatory control their actions probably would’ve been illegal.
They need to get rid of those side transactions after they are once removed from the initial transaction, or maybe even before that.
Ya know parkay, all those things are done by STRAIGHT people.
I dont think they should be allowed to marry and/or have children since you have posted so many HORRIFYING acts by straight people.
And you think WE are bad parents?
heheheh AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
Marry. Cry. Rejoice. Buy.
And do politics as though you were not doing politics | John Piper
Politics is like marrying and crying and laughing and buying. We should do it, but only as though not doing it. Here is a strange text:
The appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away (1 Corinthians 7:29-31).
This sounds bizarre. First it says: Don’t flee the world. Marry. Cry. Rejoice. Buy. Deal. But then: Do it all as if you weren’t doing it. So with politics. How does this work?
“Let those who have wives live as though they had none.” If she is exquisitely desirable, beware of desiring her more than Christ. If she is deeply disappointing, beware of being hurt too much. This is temporary—only a brief lifetime. Then comes the never-disappointing life. Marriage—good or bad—is for making much of Christ.
So it is with politics. Its outcomes are not our greatest joy when they go our way, and not demoralizing when they don’t. Political life is for making much of Christ whether the world falls apart or holds together.
Let those who mourn do so as though they were not mourning. Our losses do not incapacitate us. They do not blind us to the truth that for Christians the best is always yet to come. Always. The Lord gives and takes away. But He remains. And we remain hopeful in our mourning.
So it is with politics. We win or lose. Either way our expectations and frustrations are modest. The best this world can offer is short and small. In the long run Jesus wins.
Let those who rejoice do so as though they were not rejoicing. Christians rejoice in a thousand created things. But none of them satisfies the soul. Even the surest sights of glory now are in a mirror dimly. Such delights will soon be as though they were not. They will be replaced by a vastly better joy.
So it is with politics. There may be happy victories. But the best government we get is a foreshadowing. Peace and justice are approximated now. They will be perfect when Christ comes. So our joy is modest. Our triumphs are short-lived and shot through with imperfection.
Let those who buy do it as though they had no goods. Christians earn, give, spend, and buy. But our treasure is in heaven. Car, house, books, computers, heirlooms—we possess them with a loose grip. If they are taken away, we feel that in a sense we did not have them. We are not here to possess the world. We are here to show, by how we use the world, that Christ is more precious than the world.
So it is with politics. It does not have ultimate weight for us. It is one more stage for acting out the truth that Christ, and not politics, is supreme.
Let those who deal with the world do it as though they had no dealings with it. Yes, we deal with the world. But there are unseen things that are vastly more precious than the world. The full passions of our heart are attached to something greater—God and His purposes. We will inherit the world soon enough. For now we deal with it to show that Christ, not the world, is our treasure.
So it is with politics. We deal with the system, the news, the candidates, the issues, the outcomes. But they are not the great thing in our lives. Christ is. And Christ will be ruling over His people with perfect supremacy after every election and after the vanishing of every nation.
So we do not revel or retreat. Our reward is in heaven. Our comforts are great. Our task is clear. Make much of Christ, not Caesar.
Copyright © 2008 WORLD Magazine
November 15, 2008, Vol. 23, No. 23
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/14639
Um, yeah. Because religions always belongs in politics? I always find solutions for real problems in fairy tales…
Can any of you imagine the absolute nightmare that would be created by having the Obama kids attending a Public School?? The entire school would have to be secured by Secret Service folks… My guess is that the public schools would breathe a sigh of relief that the girls WOULD go to a private school….
Not to mention there are no LAWS stopping any other kid from attending a private school… The way the RW act, you would think the Obamas cant afford a private school… Can anybody name a President’s kid who DID attend public school?? Hmmm???
Somebody mentioned Ted Kennedy’s kids… I cant evne remember for certain that his kids ever LIVED in D. C.
Hi Chas,
You don’t think the SS won’t be at a private school with the same issues?
Is there something wrong with the public schools that they would not want to send their girls there?
Hi ksfarmgrrl,
What he meant was that everyone gets involved with politics at some level, whether they vote or not, or campaign, or blog otr talk about it, not by what you are implying, that they are elected to an office.
The Secret Service knows what to do.. leave it to his private militia!!! WHAHAHAHAHAHA
Hey DavidB,
How goes it, man!
As I recall, Amy Carter attended public schools during her father’s presidency.
And I think the Obama kids attended the Chicago University lab school… with top educators in charge and the best of the best college students dealing with a lot of the day to day.
I’ve read there’s a magnet or charter school close to the White House and that it’s in the mix.
The most important consideration for the parents, I would think, is that Malia and Sasha don’t stick out from the crowd every day. Perhaps in a school with the children of Senators and ambassadors and media celebrities, that goal would be easier to attain in a private school. I dunno.
And as soon as the Obama girls enroll in a public charter or magnet school, Faux News will seek out the poor child who was bumped out.
No matter the decision, the Bill O’Reillys and Sean Hannitys and Rush Limbaughs will try to spin it into something political which it absolutely isn’t. It’s a couple of parents trying to find the best educational option for their kids.
MH – don’t forget that as a Muslim president Osama has been the target of a lot of hate (sarcasm intended) – such as that from Holick the Heretic here in Wichita. I would think that security will have to be an issue.
The Myths Of Clintonomics
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, November 14, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Fiscal Policy: President-elect Obama says he’s modeling his recovery plan on Clintonomics because it pulled the economy out of a ditch last decade. But that’s an old myth — and a dangerous one at that.
“I’ve got an economic plan similar to Bill Clinton’s,” Obama has said, including tax hikes on the rich and Keynesian pump-priming, among other new government spending.
He rationalizes that Clinton raised taxes during a recession, and look what happened — average wages went up, along with economic growth and the stock market. And eventually the Treasury reported surpluses after decades of deficits.
Obama is even recycling Clinton’s old economic team. Standing behind him at his first press conference were old Clinton hands Bob Reich, Laura Tyson, Larry Summers and Bob Rubin. The show of support was designed to calm the markets after the post-election stock sell-off.
But it hasn’t worked, probably because Wall Street knows that Obama is also recycling myths about the Clinton years.
For starters, Clinton didn’t turn the economy around. The recovery had already begun before he took office. In fact, the mild recession ended in 1991 — long before he was even elected.
Of course, that didn’t stop candidate Clinton from trashing the “Republican economy” as “the worst in 50 years.” Obama has echoed the demagoguery, calling this “the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.” (He changed his gloomy mantra to worst “in a century” for his victory speech.)
Clinton blamed the 1990-91 recession on 12 years of “trickle-down economics” started under the Reagan administration. But the recession was caused in part by the first President Bush reneging on his pledge not to raise taxes, which among other things amounted to a repeal of Reaganomics.
And the economic growth that began in late 1991 was reignited by entrepreneurial incentives left over in the system from Reagan’s slashing of marginal tax rates.
The media assume the Clinton tax hikes somehow stimulated the economy, and are cheering on Obama’s plan.
Obama would raise the top rate “back to where Bill Clinton had it at the time of the greatest bull market, the greatest economic growth in the history of the country,” Best Life editor Jack Otter told CNN. “Bill Clinton’s tax rate was not a punitive tax rate. It didn’t harm the economy.”
In fact, the economy grew in spite of, not because of, the Clinton tax hikes.
The bull market took off precisely when then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan took his foot off the brakes and hit the gas in 1995. It was also then that Republicans took control of Congress — further blunting the effects of the Clinton tax torpedo that had taken effect the previous year.
Clinton also benefitted from innovations long in the making, including the Pentium chip released in March 1993 and Microsoft’s Windows program released in August 1995. These together made the Internet boom possible.
As for the budget surpluses, they came as a complete surprise to Clinton economic forecasters, whose static models only predicted their tax hikes on the rich would narrow the budget gap, not get it into the black.
Their “deficit-reduction plan” didn’t create the surpluses at all. They were a direct result of a tidal wave of capital-gains revenues generated by the GOP-led stock boom.
Relieved that Washington would no longer threaten to take over 14% of the economy by socializing medicine or raise taxes even higher, the market took off like a shot at that point. And capital gains tax receipts exploded, flooding federal coffers.
Clinton’s own long-term budgets predicted no surpluses of any kind during his administration and beyond.
In 1993, Clinton made his first five-year budget projections based on the new tax and spending programs he was proposing. He forecast a budget deficit of $202 billion in fiscal year 2000. In fact, the Treasury produced a record surplus that year of $236 billion.
That’s a swing of more than $400 billion. So much for central planning.
Clinton either must admit to some of the worst forecasting in history or acknowledge that some other factors besides his record tax hike closed the budget gap. But he’s copped to neither.
Let’s hope Obama will recognize these other factors and think twice about dusting off Clinton’s tax-heavy economic plan.
Clinton got lucky. His tax torpedo was absorbed by an already expanding economy, while Republicans deflected other torpedoes he’d planned to launch. Obama’s tax torpedoes, on the other hand, would be a direct hit on an already sinking economy.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=311558492117605
So answer my question, Moneyhawk or bth,
What is wrong with public education and why shouldn’t the Obamas send their girls there?
Dare to answer the question?
“American” posted –
“So answer my question, Moneyhawk or bth,
What is wrong with public education and why shouldn’t the Obamas send their girls there?
Dare to answer the question?”
I think I addressed that issue in the post above.
Reread it or ask a grown-up to help you with the big words.
So you have no cogent answer to my question.
Hence I will assume that public education, in your view, is the best that there is to offer.
Having said that, why wouldn’t the Obamas send their girls to normal, best that there is , public schools, like everybody else?
Where is the reinforcement of “The Change We Need”, and the “Yes We Can” spirit?
I answered it too but will do so again. It will be easier to establish the kind of security needed in a small (probably private) school than in a public school. With terrorist threats already having been oncovered against President-elect Obama it would seem logical that his family might also be vulnerable.
I have to be honest – I would not want his children to be in the same school as my grandchildren. The reason – terrorists such as those aprehended recently don’t care how much ‘collateral damage’ there is. That is a rather sad statement – normally I would love to have them in school together.
Consider this happening in a public school:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks
Although the terrorists behind these attacks tried to make it look like Islamists were behind them the attacks against ‘liberal’ targets came from local domestic terrorists.
After 12 years of Liberal government, Kiwis just threw them out in favor of Conservatives who campaigned on, amongst other things, the traditonial conjugal relationships in New Zealand. That is One man and…….One sheep.
‘Behind The Scenes: Newsweek On McCain In The Dark, Obama Threats, And More’
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/05/obama-we-cant-solve-globa_n_141358.html
“– The Obama campaign was provided with reports from the Secret Service showing a sharp and very disturbing increase in threats to Obama in September and early October, at the same time that the crowds at Palin rallies became more frenzied. Michelle Obama was shaken by the vituperative crowds and the hot rhetoric from the GOP candidates.
“Why would they try to make people hate us?” Michelle Obama said to a top campaign aide.”
I heard that gun sales are way up and prices skyrocketing. I also heard that ammunition sales are depleting available stocks.
Scary.
Wiley says the Secret Service did not begin looking into the matter until press reports, namely Dana Milbank’s article in the Washington Post, surfaced today, because no agents at the event heard anything. “The Secret Service did not hear any threatening statements directed at targets under its protection and no threatening statements were reported to us by law enforcement or citizens at the event,” Wiley told Radar. Also unclear: whether the remark was directed at Obama or Ayers if the words were actually “kill” and “him.”
————————-
Recycled old news Cosmos. No one but Dana Milbank who refused to be interviewed heard anything like this. The secret service was there they didn’t hear it. It was dismissed only to be resurrected by Newsweek and The Huffington Post.
The libtards are really pathetic. Try finding something that has a possibility of being real news. This other krap is getting old.
The party of personal destruction. Do you ever get tired of this garbage.
shhhh,
be vewy vewy quiet…
Lib inbreeding season has begun…
good night; good luck; god bless —-
whatever you conceive god to be!!
blessings ALL!!
blessings on Regular’s “recovery”
so mote it be!!
…on such a winter’s day…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wI6uAOHzvo
Regular,
HEre is my throwaway email:
netthrowaway@gmail.com
Shoot me an email sometime.
Just get a room, boy.
“Regular” will show up.
“After 12 years of Liberal government, Kiwis just threw them out in favor of Conservatives who campaigned on, amongst other things, the traditonial conjugal relationships in New Zealand. That is One man and…….One sheep.” — sumrum
Must everything you write be incorrect. New Zealand is a polygamous society. It’s one man, several sheep. BTW: not a liberal gvmt, a labor gvmt. and the prime minster served for many terms, and saw N. Z. through a period of huge economic growth.
The decline in the N.Z. economy has more to do with the American meltdown than with anything the N.Z. labor gvmt. did wrong.
beber: You are right, but labor-led-left-of-centre coaliton SOUNDED Liberal to me. Labor makes me think of Clement Atlee et al. Liberal makes me think of Canada (OK, so it’s now Conservative…..)
“I heard that gun sales are way up and prices skyrocketing. I also heard that ammunition sales are depleting available stocks.”
Havent you heard? The queers are stocking up…
hehehehehehehehehehehhehehehheheheh
okobserver posted November 14, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Wiley says the Secret Service did not begin looking into the matter until press reports, namely Dana Milbank’s article in the Washington Post, surfaced today, because no agents at the event heard anything. “The Secret Service did not hear any threatening statements directed at targets under its protection and no threatening statements were reported to us by law enforcement or citizens at the event,” Wiley told Radar. Also unclear: whether the remark was directed at Obama or Ayers if the words were actually “kill” and “him.”
————————-
Recycled old news Cosmos. No one but Dana Milbank who refused to be interviewed heard anything like this. The secret service was there they didn’t hear it. It was dismissed only to be resurrected by Newsweek and The Huffington Post.
The libtards are really pathetic. Try finding something that has a possibility of being real news. This other krap is getting old.
The party of personal destruction. Do you ever get tired of this garbage.
———————————–
okobserver,
Are you really claiming the Secret Service did not have an increase in the number of threats, simply because a reported public threat at ONE event seemed to be incorrect?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/167581/page/2
“- The Obama campaign was provided with reports from the Secret Service showing a sharp and disturbing increase in threats to Obama in September and early October, at the same time that many crowds at Palin rallies became more frenzied. Michelle Obama was shaken by the vituperative crowds and the hot rhetoric from the GOP candidates.
“Why would they try to make people hate us?” Michelle asked a top campaign aide.
————–
okobserver, are you claiming that the Secret Service reported NO increase in threats? Link please.
Did Michelle Obama not say what was reported?
And look at the facts. Sarah Palin and others DID attempt to link Obama to Ayers, at rallies and elsewhere.
McCain took the microphone away from an old woman, after she said she didn’t trust Obama because he was an Arab.