PDA

View Full Version : It's come to this


Pages : 1 [2]

tomder55
Jan 3, 2013, 03:01 PM
Funny how he ran for over 8 years for the position he really didn't want.

Wondergirl
Jan 3, 2013, 03:09 PM
It was a cheap shot.
Cheap shot implies negativity. If I say he is left handed, and it turns out he is, is that a cheap shot too? "Asperger's" explains, but doesn't damn.


funny how he ran for over 8 years for the position he really didn't want.
I'm guessing he was being gently encouraged by history and certain individuals in his life but really hadn't thought it through at that point. Why did Tagg say what he did recently?

speechlesstx
Jan 3, 2013, 03:33 PM
Cheap shot implies negativity. If I say he is left handed, and it turns out he is, is that a cheap shot too? "Asperger's" explains, but doesn't damn.

You can't seriously believe that everything the media and Obama floated out there about Romney, from Seamus the dog, to Mormonism being weird to the possibility of having Asperger's was not intended to create doubt about his fitness for office. It most definitely was and he most definitely does not have Asperger so it was a cheap shot.

dontknownuthin
Jan 3, 2013, 03:34 PM
Asperger syndrome manifests in several ways.

One is that the individual is unable to understand how to interact socially. Mitt Romney has no difficulty whatsoever interacting socially. In fact, his career is marked by an unusual level of success in building consensus, bringing people together to resolve problems, building teams. He is staid and somewhat formal but this is to be expected of an individual who has been raised in a serious, formal, high-achieving family. His father was a public figure, he was educated in very conservative institutions and generally had a more serious upbringing than some of us. He then went to work in finance and business, which is a very conservative, staid environment where his formality is not only appropriate but absolutely expected. This is not a "clinical" condition - it's a typical personality trait for his profession and background.

A second typical characteristic is physical clumsiness and general difficulty with motor skills. Romney was an allstar athlete and has no difficulty whatsoever with motor skills. He is not known to break things, fall, trip, or to be physically awkward or clumsy at all. The opposite is true - he is quite athletic, particularly when you also factor in his age. He played college football, which demonstrates that not only is he not deficient in this area, he has better motor skills than most of us.

A third characteristic is extreme pre-occupation with limited interests - obsessions. Romney has a very well-balanced life. He is involved in his church, business, devoted to his wife, involved and close with his children and grandchildren - there is no evidence at all that he lives in a bubble with his limited interests. He has easily transferred skills from one area in business to another - for example, managing financial businesses, being a governor and then running the Olympics - all successfully. Someone with Asperger's limitations on interests and extreme focus in particular areas of interest would not have such a diverse career. They wouldn't even want it. A person with Aspergers will typically redirect conversation back to their area of obsessive interest, which often has nothing to do with the subject at hand. For example, they might be interested in robotics and will bring it up at the dinner table when the discussion is about an upcoming family wedding. Romney is always on topic and can speak authoritatively on a great many subjects. He is well read on a broad spectrum of subjects and if he's obsessed with anything in particular, it's not evident. If he had Aspbergers, there would at least be some very well known high-interest hobby or interest in his life above all others, which there isn't.

Additional markers of Aspergers include unusual, often repetitive speech patterns. He does not repeat himself and his speech patterns are normal.

Additional signs of Aspergers include repetitive behaviors - Romney doesn't demonstrate this ---a being "in their own world" to the extreme that they are inattentive to the concerns of others - certainly not a characteristic of Romney at all. In his business, he has always had to consider the needs of clients, colleagues and then as governor, many competing constituents.

There is this portrayal that Romey "can't understand" people who are not rich but that's based on a left agenda to portray Obama as "Mr. Main Street" and feed a campaign agenda to pretend that Romney as an elitist. It's baseless. Like all the arguing to get him to release his tax returns - for what purpose? To show that he gave his entire, sizeable family inheritance to charity so he could be his own self-made man? To demonstrate that he put his money in a blind trust, to meet the legal and ethical requirements of a man in his profession? To show that he has enough empathy for others that he routinely donates 1/3 of his income to charity... even though most of it does not help his tax consequences given that he goes way over the allowable deductions in this area?

Just because the left do not like him doesn't mean he has a "disorder".

speechlesstx
Jan 3, 2013, 03:37 PM
I'm guessing he was being gently encouraged by history and certain individuals in his life but really hadn't thought it through at that point. Why did Tagg say what he did recently?

You've never lost in something and didn't feel like trying again (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2012/president/2012/12/23/the-story-behind-mitt-romney-loss-the-presidential-campaign-president-obama/2QWkUB9pJgVIi1mAcIhQjL/story.html) at the moment? I


More than being reticent, Romney was at first far from sold on a second presidential run. Haunted by his 2008 loss, he initially told his family he would not do it. While candidates often try to portray themselves as reluctant, Tagg insisted his father's stance was genuine.

It's quite normal to suffer some defeat and be reluctant to try again.

Wondergirl
Jan 3, 2013, 03:38 PM
Asperger's is not a disorder. Different parts of the brain are at work while other parts are more dormant, thus different from neurotypical brain functioning -- not bad or dysfunctional, just different. And there are as many expressions of Asperger's as there are people who have it. Did he play anything other than football? From what I have read, he did more with managing sport groups than playing, and is noted in biographies as not being especially athletic.

dontknownuthin
Jan 3, 2013, 05:15 PM
The issue over the word "disorder" is semantics. He does not have clinically diagnosable condition - how's that?

Yes, each individual with aspergers is different. However, there are similar patterns which is how they are able to diagnose and identify it. It's not a boundless list of conditions. The manifestations I listed are from the most recent official definition of the Aspergers, before it was rolled into the autism spectrum.

Wondergirl
Jan 3, 2013, 05:19 PM
The manifestations I listed are from the most recent official definition of the Aspergers, before it was rolled into the autism spectrum.
And he fits it very nicely. Even his wife has said he is a terrible dance partner. I love you too dearly for your stellar and compassionate responses to people to continue to argue with you about this. Let's agree to disagree, okay?

dontknownuthin
Jan 3, 2013, 05:23 PM
Oh, lord! Bad dance partner? Every man I've ever dated must have Aspergers... who knew! (just kidding). I certainly agree that we disagree! Nothing personal, but I just don't believe in throwing out diagnosis about people... I've heard people accuse Obama of having a Narcissistic personality disorder too - I wouldn't be assigning him a "diagnosis" either.

paraclete
Jan 3, 2013, 05:31 PM
Why are we talking about this again, the man has had his chance and gone to wherever defeated presidential candidates go, writing his memoirs or something

speechlesstx
Jan 4, 2013, 07:26 AM
Asperger's is not a disorder. Different parts of the brain are at work while other parts are more dormant, thus different from neurotypical brain functioning -- not bad or dysfunctional, just different. And there are as many expressions of Asperger's as there are people who have it. Did he play anything other than football? From what I have read, he did more with managing sport groups than playing, and is noted in biographies as not being especially athletic.

Some manage, some play, and most men can't dance. Give it up, he doesn't have Asperger and it was a cheap shot.

talaniman
Jan 4, 2013, 08:49 AM
There were cheap shots on both sides so what's the debate about? Romney lost not because he couldn't sing or dance, or the cheap shots. He lost because nobody but the rich white guys liked him. Woman and minorities got together and voted against his ideas and policies he expressed.

The rest is history. Now let the loser fade back to his rich circle where he came from. Better luck next time.

speechlesstx
Jan 4, 2013, 09:12 AM
There were cheap shots on both sides so whats the debate about? Romney lost not because he couldn't sing or dance, or the cheap shots. He lost because nobody but the rich white guys liked him. Woman and minorities got together and voted against his ideas and policies he expressed.

The rest is history. Now let the loser fade back to his rich circle where he came from. Better luck next time.


Again, when the vast majority of the media is on your side - even as a debate 'moderator' - how can you lose?

NeedKarma
Jan 4, 2013, 09:23 AM
Ah yes, the worldwide media conspiracy...

speechlesstx
Jan 4, 2013, 09:29 AM
Ah yes, the worldwide media conspiracy ....

Says the guy suffering from Fox News Derangement Syndrome...

NeedKarma
Jan 4, 2013, 09:31 AM
Study Finds Obama Received "Unrelentingly Negative" Media Coverage

Study Finds Obama Received "Unrelentingly Negative" Media Coverage | Research | Media Matters for America (http://mediamatters.org/research/2011/10/17/study-finds-obama-received-unrelentingly-negati/183623)

excon
Jan 4, 2013, 09:32 AM
Hello again,

Of COURSE it's NOT your right wing message that's wrong. It's the messenger...

Look. If MY beliefs, had be so totally REPUDIATED by the last election, I'd blame ANYBODY and EVERYBODY, but myself.

Boy, you are going to get SOOOO smashed in 2014.

excon

speechlesstx
Jan 4, 2013, 09:48 AM
Study Finds Obama Received "Unrelentingly Negative" Media Coverage

Study Finds Obama Received "Unrelentingly Negative" Media Coverage | Research | Media Matters for America (http://mediamatters.org/research/2011/10/17/study-finds-obama-received-unrelentingly-negati/183623)

Not only do you suffer from Fox News Derangement Syndrome, you think the guy who the ailment is named for has credibility? You're too funny.

Inside Media Matters: Sources, memos reveal erratic behavior, close coordination with White House and news organizations (http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/12/inside-media-matters-sources-memos-reveal-erratic-behavior-close-coordination-with-white-house-and-news-organizations/#ixzz2H1ghl9uA)

speechlesstx
Jan 4, 2013, 09:49 AM
Hello again,

Of COURSE it's NOT your right wing message that's wrong. It's the messenger...

Look. If MY beliefs, had be so totally REPUDIATED by the last election, I'd blame ANYBODY and EVERYBODY, but myself.

Boy, you are gonna get SOOOO smashed in 2014.

excon

Your Alinsky ways won't faze me.

NeedKarma
Jan 4, 2013, 09:52 AM
Sources, memos reveal erratic behavior, close coordination with White House and news organizationsWhat's the problem with that? Does it invalidate the news source?

excon
Jan 4, 2013, 09:55 AM
Hello again, Steve:

I don't know who Alinsky is.. But, I see that I've whipped you, and you want to quit. I don't blame you.

excon

speechlesstx
Jan 4, 2013, 09:59 AM
Hello again, Steve:

I don't know who Alinsky is.. But, I see that I've whipped you, and you wanna quit. I don't blame you.

excon

Dude, I'm not discouraged and I'm not going anywhere. Well I'm going to the People's Republic of California in a couple of weeks, but...

speechlesstx
Jan 4, 2013, 10:01 AM
What's the problem with that? Does it invalidate the news source?

Yes. Yes it does.

NeedKarma
Jan 4, 2013, 10:02 AM
So exactly like Fox News then. We can dismiss that source.

speechlesstx
Jan 4, 2013, 10:08 AM
So exactly like Fox News then. We can dismiss that source.

No sir, facts still matter.

NeedKarma
Jan 4, 2013, 10:16 AM
The hypocrisy is strong with this one:

Fox News Channel controversies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies)

Roger Ailes' Secret Nixon-Era Blueprint for Fox News (http://gawker.com/5814150)

Fox News - SourceWatch (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fox_News)

speechlesstx
Jan 4, 2013, 10:27 AM
Obviously you still can't discern the difference between a conservative leaning media outlet (which still consistently airs both sides of the issues) and an alleged media 'watchdog' whose obsession is destroying Fox.


The liberal group Media Matters has quietly transformed itself in preparation for what its founder, David Brock, described in an interview as an all-out campaign of “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” aimed at the Fox News Channel.

Read more: Media Matters' war against Fox - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51949.html#ixzz2H1qElIRZ)


Seriously NK, maybe you and Brock could use some Xanax.

NeedKarma
Jan 4, 2013, 10:31 AM
What's Xanax?

Wondergirl
Jan 4, 2013, 10:33 AM
What's Xanax?
It's an anti-anxiety drug, very addictive. You'd do better with Prozac. ;)

tomder55
Jan 4, 2013, 10:38 AM
What's the problem with that? Does it invalidate the news source?

It does invalidate any notion of objective journalism .

NeedKarma
Jan 4, 2013, 10:43 AM
it does invalidate any notion of objective journalism .I know, so we apply that same conclusion to Fox News.

NeedKarma
Jan 4, 2013, 10:44 AM
It's an anti-anxiety drug, very addictive. Thanks. Not sure why he recommends I take that. I don't have any anxiety. Oh well.

speechlesstx
Jan 4, 2013, 10:48 AM
I know, so we apply that same conclusion to Fox News.

Try the Xanax.

NeedKarma
Jan 4, 2013, 10:53 AM
I assume it's because you are familiar with it. How does it help you?

speechlesstx
Jan 4, 2013, 11:09 AM
I assume it's because you are familiar with it. How does it help you?

OK, try the Prozac.

NeedKarma
Jan 4, 2013, 11:31 AM
I don't take anything and I like it that way. :)
Rolling around with the kids in the snow after work and a few glasses of wine tonight does me fine. Maybe the wife will be randy tonight... :D

speechlesstx
Jan 4, 2013, 12:19 PM
Not only are they a hazard to clean up and not that eco-friendly, those CFL bulbs can cause skin cancer (http://commcgi.cc.stonybrook.edu/am2/publish/General_University_News_2/SBU_Study_Reveals_Harmful_Effects_of_CFL_Bulbs_to_ Skin.shtml).

Wondergirl
Jan 4, 2013, 12:19 PM
Maybe the wife will be randy tonight... :D
Hmmm, my brother in law is named Randy too.

NeedKarma
Jan 4, 2013, 12:24 PM
Oh dear... now I have to get that image out of my head. LOL

Well played. :)

NeedKarma
Jan 4, 2013, 12:27 PM
CFL bulbs can cause skin cancer.More exaggeration and hyperbole and FUD. Try reading the article.
BTW the sun can cause cancer too. Better never leave the indoors, you're safer there.

speechlesstx
Jan 4, 2013, 12:39 PM
More exaggeration and hyperbole and FUD. Try reading the article.
BTW the sun can cause cancer too. Better never leave the indoors, you're safer there.

Nope, just science. I thought you liked science.


At Stony Brook’s Advanced Energy Research and Technology Center (AERTC), the team took the same bulbs and studied the effects of exposure on healthy human skin tissue cells, including: fibroblasts, a type of cell found in connective tissue that produces collagen; and keratinocytes, an epidermal cell that produces keratin, the key structural material in the outer layer of human skin. Tests were repeated with incandescent light bulbs of the same intensity and with the introduction of Titanium Dioxide (TiO2) nanoparticles, which are found in personal care products normally used for UV absorption.

“Our study revealed that the response of healthy skin cells to UV emitted from CFL bulbs is consistent with damage from ultraviolet radiation,” said Professor Rafailovich. “Skin cell damage was further enhanced when low dosages of TiO2 nanoparticles were introduced to the skin cells prior to exposure.” Rafailovich added that incandescent light of the same intensity had no effect on healthy skin cells, with or without the presence of TiO2.

“Despite their large energy savings, consumers should be careful when using compact fluorescent light bulbs,” said Professor Rafailovich. “Our research shows that it is best to avoid using them at close distances and that they are safest when placed behind an additional glass cover.”

But hey, we're saving the planet from incandescents.

NeedKarma
Jan 4, 2013, 12:47 PM
Yea I love science and I'm smart enough to read the articles without knee-jerking. Apparently a glass cover (which most bulb use situations use) kills the risk. Wow, that's pretty intense stuff. It's the same as saying put on sunscreen on bare skin when in the bright sunlight... except in this case they don't mention any damaging results.

speechlesstx
Jan 4, 2013, 12:53 PM
Yea I love science and I'm smart enough to read the articles without knee-jerking. Apparently a glass cover (which most bulb use situations use) kills the risk. Wow, that's pretty intense stuff. It's the same as saying put on sunscreen on bare skin when in the bright sunlight...except in this case they don't mention any damaging results.

The only one who's knee is jerking today is yours in response to nearly every post I make. Find another obsession, something less creepy.

talaniman
Jan 4, 2013, 01:28 PM
I just checked and all my lamps have shades. They always did so I hope that can save me.

NeedKarma
Jan 4, 2013, 01:45 PM
But the sun doesn't have a shade!!

speechlesstx
Jan 4, 2013, 02:09 PM
I just checked and all my lamps have shades. They always did so I hope that can save me.

Just don't break one.

tomder55
Jan 4, 2013, 03:01 PM
Just don't break one.
And if you do I hope you know some good hazmat teams .


Here Is a simple Do it yourself clean up of a broken bulb :

How should I clean up a broken fluorescent bulb?
Because CFLs contain a small amount of mercury, EPA recommends the following clean-up and
Disposal guidelines:

1. Before Clean-up: Air Out the Room

• Have people and pets leave the room, and don't let anyone walk through the breakage
Area on their way out.
• Open a window and leave the room for 15 minutes or more.
• Shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system, if you have one.

2. Clean-Up Steps for Hard Surfaces

• Carefully scoop up glass fragments and powder using stiff paper or cardboard and place
Them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.
• Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass pieces and
Powder.
• Wipe the area clean with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place towels in the
Glass jar or plastic bag.
• Do not use a vacuum or broom to clean up the broken bulb on hard surfaces.

3. Clean-up Steps for Carpeting or Rug:

• Carefully pick up glass fragments and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a
Canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.
• Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and
Powder.
• If vacuuming is needed after all visible materials are removed, vacuum the area where
The bulb was broken.
• Remove the vacuum bag (or empty and wipe the canister), and put the bag or vacuum
Debris in a sealed plastic bag.

4. Clean-up Steps for Clothing, Bedding, etc.:

• If clothing or bedding materials come in direct contact with broken glass or mercury-
Containing powder from inside the bulb that may stick to the fabric, the clothing or
Bedding should be thrown away. Do not wash such clothing or bedding because mercury
Fragments in the clothing may contaminate the machine and/or pollute sewage.
• You can, however, wash clothing or other materials that have been exposed to the
Mercury vapor from a broken CFL, such as the clothing you are wearing when you
Cleaned up the broken CFL, as long as that clothing has not come into direct contact with
The materials from the broken bulb.
• If shoes come into direct contact with broken glass or mercury-containing powder from
The bulb, wipe them off with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place the
Towels or wipes in a glass jar or plastic bag for disposal.

5. Disposal of Clean-up Materials

• Immediately place all clean-up materials outdoors in a trash container or protected area
For the next normal trash pickup.
• Wash your hands after disposing of the jars or plastic bags containing clean-up materials.
• Check with your local or state government about disposal requirements in your specific
Area. Some states do not allow such trash disposal. Instead, they require that broken
And unbroken mercury-containing bulbs be taken to a local recycling center.

6. Future Cleaning of Carpeting or Rug: Air Out the Room During and After Vacuuming

• The next several times you vacuum, shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning
System and open a window before vacuuming.
• Keep the central heating/air conditioning system shut off and the window open for at least
15 minutes after vacuuming is completed

paraclete
Jan 4, 2013, 03:29 PM
My flouros have just fizzled without breaking, how should I dispose of these environmentally dangerous products?

speechlesstx
Jan 4, 2013, 03:51 PM
No problem.


Recycling and Disposal After a CFL Burns Out (http://www.epa.gov/cfl/cflrecycling.html)

EPA recommends that consumers take advantage of available local options for recycling CFLs, fluorescent bulbs and other bulbs that contain mercury, and all other household hazardous wastes, rather than disposing of them in regular household trash.

Why is Recycling CFLs Important?

Recycling prevents the release of mercury into the environment. CFLs and other fluorescent bulbs often break when thrown into a dumpster, trash can or compactor, or when they end up in a landfill or incinerator. Learn more about CFLs and mercury.

Other materials in the bulbs get reused. Recycling CFLs and other fluorescent bulbs allows the reuse of the glass, metals and other materials that make up fluorescent lights. Virtually all components of a fluorescent bulb can be recycled.

Your area may require recycling. Some states and local jurisdictions have more stringent regulations than U.S. EPA does, and may require that you recycle CFLs and other mercury-containing light bulbs. California, Maine, New Hampshire (PDF), Minnesota, Vermont and Massachusetts Exit EPA Disclaimer , for example, all prohibit mercury-containing lamps from being discarded into landfills. Visit Earth911.com Exit EPA Disclaimer to contact your local waste collection agency, which can tell you if such requirement exists in your state or locality.

How and Where Can I Recycle CFLs?

Waste collection agencies
Local retailers
Mail-back services

► Contact your local waste collection agency

Visit Earth911.com Exit EPA Disclaimer to find collection schedules in your area or drop-off locations if curbside collections are not available. Note that waste collection agencies:

provide services that are usually free, though some may charge a small fee.
sometimes collect household hazardous wastes only once or twice a year, so residents will have to hold on to their light bulbs until the collection takes place. Other collection agencies provide collection services throughout the year.

may also collect paints, pesticides, cleaning supplies or batteries.
usually accept waste only from residents, although some collection programs include small businesses as well.

► Visit your local retailers

Many hardware supply stores and other retailers offer in-store recycling. Visit Earth911.com Exit EPA Disclaimer to find stores in your area or check the list below. Make sure you check directly with the store before you go; not all stores in regional or nationwide chains may be equipped to recycle.


Ace Hardware store locator
Aubuchon Hardware store locations
Bartell Drugs
Home Depot’s CFL recycling program
IKEA store locations
Lowe's recycling program and store locator
Menards store locator
Orchard Supply store locator
TrueValue store locator
Retail and other locations in certain counties and states:
Dane County, Wisconsin
Massachusetts
Minnesota (PDF)
City of Napa and southern Napa County, California
San Francisco, California
San Mateo County, California
Vermont

► Find out about mail-back services

Some bulb manufacturers and other organizations sell pre-labeled recycling kits that allow you to mail used bulbs to recycling centers. The cost of each kit includes shipping charges to the recycling center. You fill up a kit with old bulbs, seal it, and bring it to the post office or leave for your postal carrier. Websites that provide more information about mail-back services



BakPak Mail-Back Recycling (NLR, Inc.)
EasyPak from Lamprecycling.com (AirCycle)
EcoLights
EverLights, Inc.
Heritage Lifecycle Mailback Services
Lampmaster
Osram Sylvania
RecycleKits from AERC Recycling Solutions
RecyclePak from Veolia Environmental Services
Simple Cycle (Lamp Environment Industries, Inc.)
Think Green From Home (Waste Management Inc.)
WasteSecure (Universal Recycling Technologies, LLC)


What If I Can't Recycle?

If your state or local environmental regulatory agency permits you to put used or broken CFLs in the regular household trash, seal the bulb in a plastic bag and put it into the outside trash for the next normal trash collection.

Tuttyd
Jan 4, 2013, 05:25 PM
Try the Xanax.


NK. You can take that as a, yes. You can make the same conclusion about Fox News.

paraclete
Jan 4, 2013, 06:12 PM
Your area may require recycling. You nailed it in one, all we have are these compactor trucks that scrunch up all the recycables and a local tip where you can sort your waste and pay for the privilege of dumping it but I have never seen a receptacle for flouro's

speechlesstx
Jan 4, 2013, 06:18 PM
NK. You can take that as a, yes. You can make the same conclusion about Fox News.

I would have expected a more rational answer from you.

talaniman
Jan 5, 2013, 07:59 AM
LOL, you can pay for the privilege of bagging your own groceries too, but the prices for those groceries is going UP. You tell me where the savings is in not having a minimum wage bagger.

paraclete
Jan 5, 2013, 02:30 PM
You have people to bag your groceries?

NeedKarma
Jan 5, 2013, 02:45 PM
Only in the quick (15 items or less) checkouts in Canada. And in the U-Scan areas too of course.

paraclete
Jan 5, 2013, 02:48 PM
Only in the quick (15 items or less) checkouts in Canada. And in the U-Scan areas too of course.

That is certainly the reverse of the trend here

speechlesstx
Jan 8, 2013, 11:01 AM
Welcome back to the old birtherism... Ted Cruz, born in Canada to an American mother has been in Congress for a week and his eligibility to run for president is already being questioned.


Ted Cruz may have the aura of a future presidential contender, but is he even eligible to run (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=432EC83C-60D7-45F4-83C9-45F540964F0F)?

The newly sworn-in Texas senator and rising Republican star was born in Canada, to a mother who was born in Delaware and Cuban father. That’s triggered a debate about whether he’s eligible for the nation’s highest office — never mind that he’s been in Congress less than a week.

While there’s no legal precedent for Cruz’s situation, most constitutional scholars surveyed by POLITICO believe the 42-year-old tea party sensation would be OK. But there’s just enough gray area to stoke controversy, as Cruz learned during his campaign for Senate last year.

The U.S. Constitution states: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President…”

“The question ultimately is, What do we mean by a natural born citizen?” asked Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman.

“The problem is, no one knows what a natural born citizen is,” agreed University of Arizona professor Gabriel Chin, who argued in 2008 that Sen. John McCain was not eligible to be president.

I didn't know he was running, but I guess it's never too early for a preemptive strike. Better watch out though, he strikes back.

tomder55
Jan 8, 2013, 11:11 AM
Good thing I have this info archived . I thought I would not need to bring it up anymore.

Oh well :

Title 8 of the U.S. CodeSec 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth":

Anyone born inside the United States

Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. Does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe

Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S. as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.

Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. For at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. National

Any one born in a U.S. Possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. For at least one year

Any one found in the U.S. Under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21

Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. Who lived in the U.S. For at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)

talaniman
Jan 8, 2013, 11:16 AM
Boy you righties are really reaching for candidates for 2016 aren't you?

speechlesstx
Jan 8, 2013, 11:22 AM
Boy you righties are really reaching for candidates for 2016 aren't you?

So far the buzz is about Jeb I hear, but that's not the point. Suddenly birtherism is cool again.

tomder55
Jan 8, 2013, 11:27 AM
I've liked Cruz since he said he'd be willing to have a gvt shut down on the Sunday shows this week. I also like the idea that the Repubics won't raise the debt ceiling if Reid's do nothing Senate doesn't pass a budget. Hope it's not all idle threats .

talaniman
Jan 8, 2013, 11:37 AM
Third Bush is a charm right? I like him better than Romney, but he does have baggage and birtherism is never cool, never has been. I don't care who does it.

Not my cup of TEA!

(couldn't resist)

talaniman
Jan 8, 2013, 11:52 AM
I've liked Cruz since he said he'd be willing to have a gvt shut down on the Sunday shows this week. I also like the idea that the Repubics won't raise the debt ceiling if Reid's do nothing Senate doesn't pass a budget. Hope it's not all idle threats .

Republican Senator Calls For Repeat Of 1995 Government Shutdown: 'If We Hold Strong We Can Do That Again' | ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/01/07/1406011/cruz-calls-for-shutdown-default/)


In addition, a debt ceiling negotiation itself is costly; last time Republicans held it hostage in 2011, the debacle cost taxpayers $19 billion.

And a downgrade in credit rating AND the set up for the fiscal cliff. That was just with talk of a shutdown.


In his first week in Congress, Cruz is already earning a reputation as an unwavering firebrand. As he explained on Fox News Sunday this past weekend, “I don’t think what Washington needs is more compromise.”

You don't compromise on paying the bills you already have incurred. You pay them. More hostaging taking by the right wing loonies... on FOX(?).

speechlesstx
Jan 8, 2013, 11:53 AM
Third Bush is a charm right? I like him better than Romney, but he does have baggage and birtherism is never cool, never has been. I don't care who does it.

Not my cup of TEA!

(couldn't resist)

I refuse to speculate on candidates, although it's always fun imagining a Biden campaign.

talaniman
Jan 8, 2013, 12:37 PM
Yeah!!

tomder55
Jan 8, 2013, 12:49 PM
Just think about the money saved when 'non-essential ' personnel get furloughed . You don't compromise on paying the bills you already have incurred why not ? I did that when I negotiated a short sale on my home .
The problem is that so long as Reid doesn't pass a budget ;the past budget becomes the phoney base line that keeps on getting added to. This BS has to end . Maybe put Reid in jail if he doesn't do his job . The law mandates that a budget gets passed .

speechlesstx
Jan 8, 2013, 12:57 PM
just think about the money saved when 'non-essential ' personnel get furloughed . You don't compromise on paying the bills you already have incurred why not ? I did that when I negotiated a short sale on my home .
The problem is that so long as Reid doesn't pass a budget ;the past budget becomes the phoney base line that keeps on getting added to. This BS has to end . Maybe put Reid in jail if he doesn't do his job . The law mandates that a budget gets passed .

Oddly, the Dems are floating the idea of forcing Republicans to take them to court over the debt ceiling (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/275995-democrats-say-courts-should-resolve-debt-limit-standoff) while ignoring their lawful duty to pass a budget.

speechlesstx
Jan 28, 2013, 02:39 PM
Thanks to a decree by the Librarian of Congress it is now illegal to unlock your smartphone (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/01/the-most-ridiculous-law-of-2013-so-far-it-is-now-a-crime-to-unlock-your-smartphone/272552/). Who cares if you paid for it, you can't take it with you. The cost if you do? A $2500 civil penalty for individuals, a half million if you look to make money doing plus possible jail time.

Since when did we allow the Library of Congress to decree such things?

talaniman
Jan 28, 2013, 03:16 PM
Unlocking your new smartphone is now illegal: What you need to know | Digital Trends (http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/unlocking-your-new-smartphone-is-now-illegal-what-you-need-to-know/)


Every three years, the Librarian reviews the specific rules of the DMCA, and makes exemptions allowed under the law. In 2006, the Librarian decided that phone unlocking should be exempted under DMCA. But that changed in 2012.

Why did the rule change?

Because the Librarian was convinced, for a number of reasons, that allowing unlocking was no longer a necessary exemption.

The primary reason cited by the Librarian is, there are an increasing number of phones you can buy that come unlocked. Apple and its carrier partners sell the iPhone 5 unlocked, for example. Google's Nexus 4 also comes unlocked. T-Mobile has plans to offer more of its phones unlocked. And retailers like Best Buy offer all sorts of unlocked phones. In short, the Librarian decided that there's no reason to alter the DMCA to allow people to unlock any phone since people can easily buy an unlocked phone nowadays, if they choose to do so.

Furthermore, new court decisions have changed the interpretation of the law. In 2010, the Ninth Circuit court decided in Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc that we cell phone owners do not actually “own” the software running our phones. Instead, we are only “licensing” this software – a key difference – which means that we don't have a right to alter that software. This also played a role in the Librarian's decision.


Read more: Unlocking your new smartphone is now illegal: What you need to know | Digital Trends (http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/unlocking-your-new-smartphone-is-now-illegal-what-you-need-to-know/#ixzz2JJLKiIrG)
Follow us: @digitaltrends on Twitter | digitaltrendsftw on Facebook

NeedKarma
Jan 28, 2013, 03:26 PM
Apple and its carrier partners sell the iPhone 5 unlockedAnd you will pay a premium for that "benefit":
42575

The vast majority of phones are sold subsidized and locked, with a term plan.

speechlesstx
Jan 28, 2013, 03:35 PM
And you will pay a premium for that "benefit":
42575

The vast majority of phones are sold subsidized and locked, with a term plan.

Yes, but if I've fulfilled my contract I should be free to do what I want with my phone without fear of penalty. Plus I'm sure this new rule will lead to even more electronic waste.

talaniman
Jan 28, 2013, 03:39 PM
Or smarter buying habits.

speechlesstx
Jan 28, 2013, 03:47 PM
Or smarter buying habits.

Good luck with that.

NeedKarma
Jan 28, 2013, 04:09 PM
Yes, but if I've fulfilled my contract I should be free to do what I want with my phone without fear of penalty. I totally agree. Some 83 year old guy who likely has never owned a smartphone made that ruling.

talaniman
Jan 28, 2013, 09:56 PM
Or industry lobbyist, there are a million of those suckers around.

Tuttyd
Jan 29, 2013, 02:59 AM
Edit by user

NeedKarma
Jan 29, 2013, 03:37 AM
Or industry lobbyist, there are a million of those suckers around.There is absolutely no doubt. It's the only way that ruling makes any sense.

speechlesstx
Jan 29, 2013, 07:52 AM
Or industry lobbyist, there are a million of those suckers around.

I'm sure the lobbyists wanted this, all the more reason why an unelected bureaucrat should not have the power to unilaterally issue such a ruling.

NeedKarma
Jan 29, 2013, 09:41 AM
Meanwhile in Canada: Wireless fee, contract guidelines proposed by CRTC - Technology & Science - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2013/01/28/tech-wireless-code-of-conduct-draft-crtc.html)

Every once in a while we do things right. :)

paraclete
Jan 30, 2013, 01:40 AM
Yep very needed reforn in most telco markets

speechlesstx
Jan 30, 2013, 09:55 AM
Who wants to be a ‘death panelist’? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/28/who-wants-to-sit-in-the-hot-seat-on-a-federal-health-care-panel/)

NeedKarma
Jan 30, 2013, 10:37 AM
Why talk of non-existent Obamacare death panels won't die (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/09/why-talk-of-non-existent-obamacare-death-panels-wont-die/)

speechlesstx
Jan 30, 2013, 10:46 AM
Why talk of non-existent Obamacare death panels won’t die (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/09/why-talk-of-non-existent-obamacare-death-panels-wont-die/)

Interesting, on the 9th of January Sarah Kliff tells us "why talk of non-existent Obamacare death panels won’t die" - then talks about death panels 9 days later.

I think you missed the point of the first column. I'm guessing because you didn't actually read it.

NeedKarma
Jan 30, 2013, 10:54 AM
It's the other way around - you obviously didn't read your article, nor the other one I posted. :D

speechlesstx
Jan 30, 2013, 11:08 AM
It's the other way around - you obviously didn't read your article, nor the other one I posted. :D

Dude, the obvious went right over your head. I feel sorry for you.

NeedKarma
Jan 30, 2013, 01:24 PM
I feel sorry for you.Don't, I'm a happy guy that took a day off to be with my kids on this storm day. We're having fun.

Tell me what you get from this excerpt:

Nyhan had 948 survey participants read an article from 2009 about Palin’s statement on death panels. Some had favorable opinions of the former governor of Alaska; others did not. The respondents ran the gamut in their knowledge of current politics.
All read a story about Palin’s 2009 statement, which brought death panels into the mainstream debate. Some had this correction appended to the end of the story:

Nonpartisan health care experts have concluded that Palin is wrong. The bill in the House of Representatives would require Medicare to pay for voluntary end-of-life counseling sessions, but there is no panel in any of the health care bills in Congress that judges a person’s “level of productivity in society” to determine whether they are “worthy” of health care.

For Palin supporters and opponents alike, low-information voters’ belief in the death panels decreased after reading this correction.

But something different happened among high information voters. Those with cold feelings towards Palin acted like the low information voters, with their belief in death panels dropping.
For high information Palin supporters though, the correction backfired: They appeared more likely to believe in death panels after reading the appended information, and have less favorable opinions of the Affordable Care Act.

speechlesstx
Jan 30, 2013, 02:15 PM
Don't, I'm a happy guy that took a day off to be with my kids on this storm day. We're having fun.

Tell me what you get from this excerpt:

I feel exactly as before, it was irrelevant to my post other than the same writer explained why death panels won't die them discussed death panels... and why no one wants the job.

Wondergirl
Jan 30, 2013, 02:50 PM
I should be able to round up 14 more people (besides myself) to serve on the Independent Payment Advisory Board.

speechlesstx
Jan 30, 2013, 03:09 PM
I should be able to round up 14 more people (besides myself) to serve on the Independent Payment Advisory Board.

No offense, but that's kind of scary. ;)

Wondergirl
Jan 30, 2013, 03:11 PM
No offense, but that's kinda scary. ;)
I'll promise that half of us will be Republican (i.e. team of rivals). How's that?

speechlesstx
Jan 30, 2013, 03:17 PM
Only if you promise to get nothing done.

tomder55
Jan 30, 2013, 03:19 PM
What's scary is the government having the FINAL word on your right to live. Don't tell me the insurance company has that power... no it doesn't... If I was denied care from them ,I'd seek other options. With Obamacare ,I'd probably be forced to look overseas .

paraclete
Jan 30, 2013, 03:21 PM
. With Obamacare ,I'd probably be forced to look overseas .

Perhaps that's the point, your bloated medical system has become too expensive,

Wondergirl
Jan 30, 2013, 03:23 PM
what's scary is the government having the FINAL word on your right to live. Don't tell me the insurance company has that power ...no it doesn't .... If I was denied care from them ,I'd seek other options. With Obamacare ,I'd probably be forced to look overseas .
My insurance company doesn't say I can't have it, but just that they won't pay for it. Same will be with Obamacare.

Tuttyd
Jan 30, 2013, 03:34 PM
I think you missed the point of the first column. I'm guessing because you didn't actually read it.


I missed it as well. Could you tells us in your own words.

speechlesstx
Jan 30, 2013, 03:44 PM
Post by Tuttyd;
I missed it as well. Could you tells us in your own words.

Did you read the column?

tomder55
Jan 30, 2013, 03:46 PM
Government bureaucrats should not be making the health decisions that impact millions of Americans. End of story... or maybe you are happy with the government panel (the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force... a panel that reviews and makes recommendations for preventive services) that decided that women in their 40s should not have annual mammograms and older women should reduce the use of this screening device. That was clearly, and only, a cost cutting decision. What if it costs a couple more women's lives in the process ?The odds favored their decision because there were a few false positives that resulted in follow up testing .

What is this rumor I hear that Rhambo wants to dump Chi-town employees onto the state exchange to save the city the cost of the municipal union's over priced benefits ?

Wondergirl
Jan 30, 2013, 03:55 PM
Government bureaucrats should not be making the health decisions that impact millions of Americans.
Nor should insurance companies.

Tuttyd
Jan 30, 2013, 03:55 PM
[QUOTE=Tuttyd;3383623]I missed it as well. Could you tells us in your own words.[/QUOTE

Did you read the column?


I did. The point of the article seemed to be the unattractiveness of serving on the panel. Several reasons seemed to be outlined. Namely, low pay for qualifications. Suitably qualified people are more likely to go for other higher pay jobs. There was also the problem of the job being too political.

Unless you are referring to the social stigma attached to the job.

" The board has drawn heavy criticism since it became part of the health-care law, with detractors drawing fire from the Obama administration and the the act's other supporters for referring to the board as a "death panel" that would ration seniors' care"

The journalist responsible has come up with a pretty clumsy sentence in this instance.

speechlesstx
Jan 30, 2013, 05:11 PM
[QUOTE=speechlesstx;3383630]


I did. The point of the article seemed to be the unattractiveness of serving on the panel. Several reasons seemed to be outlined. Namely, low pay for qualifications. Suitably qualified people are more likely to go for other higher pay jobs. There was also the problem of the job being too political.

Unless you are referring to the social stigma attached to the job.

" The board has drawn heavy criticism since it became part of the health-care law, with detractors drawing fire from the Obama administration and the the act's other supporters for referring to the board as a "death panel" that would ration seniors' care"

The journalist responsible has come up with a pretty clumsy sentence in this instance.

I would only add that settling for second best is troubling for such a critical role. Who could have seen that coming?

tomder55
Jan 30, 2013, 05:14 PM
perhaps that's the point, your bloated medical system has become too expensive,

And in true lib fashion ;they are tripling the costs and destroying the best health care system in the world .

Tuttyd
Jan 30, 2013, 05:17 PM
and in true lib fashion ;they are tripling the costs and destroying the best health care system in the world .

The best health care system in the world for those who can afford it.

speechlesstx
Jan 30, 2013, 05:22 PM
The best health care system in the world for those who can afford it.

When they specifically tax medical devices to pay for it that says a lot.

Tuttyd
Jan 30, 2013, 05:26 PM
When they specifically tax medical devices to pay for it that says a lot.

Are we talking about the 'previous system' or the system in transition?

tomder55
Jan 30, 2013, 05:36 PM
The best health care system in the world for those who can afford it.

And there was already a system in place for those who couldn't . What the Dems want is for our system to devolve to the lowest common denominator (except for Congress and the Prez. They are exempt) .

Tuttyd
Jan 30, 2013, 05:50 PM
and there was already a system in place for those who couldn't . What the Dems want is for our system to devolve to the lowest common denominator (except for Congress and the Prez. They are exempt) .

Do you mean these people?

ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/07/21/gvl10721.html

paraclete
Jan 30, 2013, 06:01 PM
Tom means all those other people, you know; the freeloaders he doesn't want to pay for. Tom hasn't quite got the concept of insurance being a pool

Tuttyd
Jan 30, 2013, 06:15 PM
Had trouble with the American Medical Association link, but I think I fixed it up. Makes interesting reading.

paraclete
Jan 30, 2013, 07:12 PM
Had trouble with the American Medical Association link, but I think I fixed it up. Makes interesting reading.

I think all that demonstrates is the system is flawed, broken even, and of course it will be while ever insurers can pick the benefits they provide

talaniman
Jan 30, 2013, 07:26 PM
The report was also in 2008 before all this new stuff got started but it shows the system was broken already.

Tuttyd
Jan 30, 2013, 11:53 PM
The report was also in 2008 before all this new stuff got started but it shows the system was broken already.

Yes, this is pretty much the point I was making. When it starts to fail middle income earners then you have major problems.

speechlesstx
Jan 31, 2013, 07:14 AM
Are we talking about the 'previous system' or the system in transition?

We're talking Obamacare, taxing medical devices to help pay for it.

Obamacare's Medical-Device Tax Kills Patients, Not Just Jobs (http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/06/06/obamacares-medical-device-tax-kills-patients-not-just-jobs/)

talaniman
Jan 31, 2013, 07:22 AM
No, we were talking about middle class citizens having problems affording the rising cost of health care since before Obama Care. Tuts link was from 2008, before the global meltdown and job losses.

Insurance industry has done quite well through out this period, and even with taxes going up in the health industry. Given your own experiences even you should be able to recognize the problems the middle class is having and the poor even more, and this was way before this president took office.

NeedKarma
Jan 31, 2013, 08:10 AM
No, we were talking about middle class citizens having problems affording the rising cost of health care since before Obama Care.Thanks for keeping the discussion on track.

Tuttyd
Jan 31, 2013, 08:16 AM
We're talking Obamacare, taxing medical devices to help pay for it.

Obamacare's Medical-Device Tax Kills Patients, Not Just Jobs (http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/06/06/obamacares-medical-device-tax-kills-patients-not-just-jobs/)

Not really. No one is being killed per se. This is because the article is talking about the statistical prediction of future deaths. This is nothing new because such a upward statistical trend was evident under the 'previous system'

speechlesstx
Jan 31, 2013, 08:36 AM
Not really. No one is being killed per se. This is because the article is talking about the statistical prediction of future deaths. This is nothing new because such a upward statistical trend was evident under the 'previous system'

It was just the first column I came to to answer your question, we're now taxing medical devices, i.e. making healthcare more expensive to help pay for cheaper healthcare.

speechlesstx
Jan 31, 2013, 08:40 AM
Thanks for keeping the discussion on track.

I started this discussion and really don't need anyone to keep it on track. The topic is absurdities.

Tuttyd
Jan 31, 2013, 09:01 AM
It was just the first column I came to to answer your question, we're now taxing medical devices, i.e. making healthcare more expensive to help pay for cheaper healthcare.

Yes, you have answered that part of the question. Will jobs be lost? Probably. Will taxing medical devices make health care more expensive? Probably. The bottom line is I don't really know, nor does anyone else. All anyone can do is make predictions.

It is for this reason that I have a problem with the misleading headline of the Forbes article:

Obama's Medical Device Tax Kills Patients, Not just Jobs.

The only way the truth of falsity of the headline can be determined is by future trends. In other words, will Obama Care arrest the already evident trend to a decrease in life expectancy, or will it add to an increase in this particular statistic?

talaniman
Jan 31, 2013, 09:03 AM
It was just the first column I came to to answer your question, we're now taxing medical devices, i.e. making healthcare more expensive to help pay for cheaper healthcare.

Doctors and insurance companies, well any business has always passed the cost of doing business onto consumers. Why is this different than the price of food going up.

Tax or not, the price goes up. But don't expect costs to stabalize until after 2014. Expect an upward push as companies prepare to NOT be able to raise the prices as much as they had planned to do forever.

That's capitalism, my friend, and business doesn't care whether you have money and can afford services since for now you have no choices, or options that are good ones, and they know it.

speechlesstx
Jan 31, 2013, 09:18 AM
Doctors and insurance companies, well any business has always passed the cost of doing business onto consumers. Why is this different than the price of food going up.

Tax or not, the price goes up. But don't expect costs to stabalize until after 2014. Expect an upward push as companies prepare to NOT be able to raise the prices as much as they had planned to do forever.

Thats capitalism, my friend, and business doesn't care whether you have money and can afford services since for now you have no choices, or options that are good ones, and they know it.

Apparently I'm the only who sees the absurdity of making healthcare more expensive to make it cheaper. That's liberalism, not capitalism.

Tuttyd
Jan 31, 2013, 09:25 AM
Apparently I'm the only who sees the absurdity of making healthcare more expensive to make it cheaper. That's liberalism, not capitalism.


No, you are not the only one. Didn't I also point out this possibility in my previous post?

I would say that it is both liberalism and capitalism at work.

talaniman
Jan 31, 2013, 09:38 AM
Liberalism has nothing to do with the business model of the capitalist, and I submit to you that looming caps and restriction that business knows is coming, is making them prepare now while the rest of us wait and see.

To put capitalism in the same context of either conservative or liberal is to miss the point its NIETHER. Its PROFITS, but unfortunately it influences politics, and policy no matter the name you put on beneficiaries, victims.

speechlesstx
Jan 31, 2013, 09:51 AM
Liberalism has nothing to do with the business model of the capitalist, and I submit to you that looming caps and restriction that business knows is coming, is making them prepare now while the rest of us wait and see.

To put capitalism in the same context of either conservative or liberal is to miss the point its NIETHER. Its PROFITS, but unfortunately it influences politics, and policy no matter the name you put on beneficiaries, victims.

It was libs that made healthcare more expensive to make it cheaper. It's also libs that keep expressing shock at the "unforeseen" consequences of Obamacare. Last week it was college professors getting pushed to part time, this week unions are unhappy about the cost of health insurance and demanding subsidies (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/unions-grow-wary-health-law-034700539.html?l=1).

Who would've seen that coming??

talaniman
Jan 31, 2013, 10:14 AM
I did because I have seen this same dynamic before, MANY times before. From the grocery store, to the price of gas, to doctor visits, to buying school supplies for the kids, to medicine, to electric bills, to car insurance, to mortgages, to... etc.

What? Is this your first experience with the realities of life in America, or have you been sleep for... 30 years? Cost goes up no matter who is running Washington, but your paycheck doesn't go up as fast.

LOL, you freaked over Obama Care, I freaked over Reaganomics.

speechlesstx
Jan 31, 2013, 10:29 AM
I did because I have seen this same dynamic before, MANY times before. From the grocery store, to the price of gas, to doctor visits, to buying school supplies for the kids, to medicine, to electric bills, to car insurance, to mortgages, to......................etc.

What?? Is this your first experience with the realities of life in America, or have you been sleep for ..............30 years? Cost goes up no matter who is running Washington, but your paycheck doesn't go up as fast.

LOL, you freaked over Obama Care, I freaked over Reaganomics.

Please, the condescension is unnecessary. Explaining the irony of liberals freaking over the consequences we warned of before Obamacare was rammed through apparently is.

excon
Jan 31, 2013, 10:37 AM
Hello again, Steve:

If Obama didn't try to cater to the right wing, who weren't ABOUT to be catered to, the law would be a lot simpler... So, it needs some tweaking.. MOST large bills need a little tweaking. But, your side ain't going to be included in the conversation... What? We should believe that you'll contribute??

Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

speechlesstx
Jan 31, 2013, 11:10 AM
Hello again, Steve:

If Obama didn't try to cater to the right wing, who weren't ABOUT to be catered to, the law would be a lot simpler... So, it needs some tweaking.. MOST large bills need a little tweaking. But, your side ain't gonna be included in the conversation... What? We should believe that you'll contribute???

Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

Obama catering to the right wing? Now that's funny.We weren't included in the conversation at all. In fact you know Mimi Pelosi told us (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU) we didn't need to know nuthin', just pass the damn thing so we could know what's in it.

You libs really think we were born yesterday don't you?

paraclete
Jan 31, 2013, 01:35 PM
You libs really think we were born yesterday don't you?

On the evidence, yes

speechlesstx
Jan 31, 2013, 02:10 PM
On the evidence, yes

What evidence would that be Clete?

paraclete
Jan 31, 2013, 02:11 PM
What evidence would that be Clete?

Well speech we could start with Romney's 47% remark

speechlesstx
Feb 1, 2013, 07:38 AM
Well speech we could start with Romney's 47% remark

Right, a guy that was governor of Massachusetts, ran the Olympics successfully and made a fortune on his own - not his daddy's money - was born yesterday.He was more qualified to be president by the time he was the thirty than the current oaf has today.

speechlesstx
Feb 1, 2013, 08:13 AM
It's come to this...


Majority Says the Federal Government Threatens Their Personal Rights (http://www.people-press.org/2013/01/31/majority-says-the-federal-government-threatens-their-personal-rights/)

As Barack Obama begins his second term in office, trust in the federal government remains mired near a historic low, while frustration with government remains high. And for the first time, a majority of the public says that the federal government threatens their personal rights and freedoms.

Maybe because they are threatening our rights and freedoms?

Wondergirl
Feb 1, 2013, 08:18 AM
It's come to this...Maybe because they are threatening our rights and freedoms?
Only 1,502 people were surveyed -- a random sample? -- because "just 16% [of Democrats in that sample] view it as a major threat." As for unhappiness with the government, "Views of Congress: Problem Lies with Members, Not the System."

talaniman
Feb 1, 2013, 08:42 AM
The most interesting point in your survey speech was that its more likely that conservatives view the government as a major threat than anyone.


Roughly three-quarters (76%) of conservative Republicans say that the government threatens their personal rights, and most (54%) say the government poses a major threat, by far the highest percentage of any ideological group.


Among moderate and liberal Republicans, 57% view the federal government as a threat to personal rights and freedoms and just 32% say it is a major threat. These opinions, like those among Democrats and independents, are little changed from March 2010.

This isn't news, even in such a small sampling, but it does point to whomever is not in power, is the most dissatisfied.

speechlesstx
Feb 1, 2013, 08:59 AM
The most interesting point in your survey speech was that its more likely that conservatives view the government as a major threat than anyone.





This isn't news, even in such a small sampling, but it does point to whomever is not in power, is the most dissatisfied.

You missed the part about this being a first time majority. It's not about your alleged hissy fits over being out of power, it's trying to force religious to violate their beliefs, the looming healthcare disaster, our second amendment rights, regulatory overreach, the imperial presidency...

excon
Feb 1, 2013, 09:04 AM
Hello again, Steve:


it's trying to force religious to violate their beliefs, the looming healthcare disaster, our second amendment rights, regulatory overreach, the imperial presidency...
Obama approval rating hits three-year high at 60 percent. (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/280025-poll-six-in-10-approve-of-obama-highest-since-first-year-in-office) Yeah, they're really pissed out there.

Bwa, ha ha ha.

Excon

speechlesstx
Feb 1, 2013, 09:05 AM
It's come to this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/playground-fight-fairfax-county-schools-place-new-apparatus-off-limits-to-kids/2013/01/31/b95b0176-5a6c-11e2-88d0-c4cf65c3ad15_story.html)...


The playground structure is brand new and a child’s dream: Soaring metal beams and a tantalizing spiderweb of climbing net. It sits outside Stratford Landing Elementary School, but all the students can do is stare at it from afar.

Behind the yellow caution tape fettering the apparatus is what parents describe as reams of bureaucratic red tape threatening the equipment, which was built with $35,000 from countless Parent Teacher Association silent auctions and bake sales.

Although parents worked with the Fairfax County Public Schools facilities department, purchased the equipment, hired a contractor and had the playground ready for recess, the school system suddenly deemed the play equipment too dangerous. Since Nov. 30 it has been off-limits, say parents.

Never mind that the same equipment is installed at more than 1,200 parks and schools across the country, including a public park in Fairfax County.

“We have $35,000 wrapped up in caution tape,” said Eleanor Whitaker, mother of second- and sixth-graders at Stratford Landing, in the Alexandria section of Fairfax County, near Mount Vernon.

What would Michelle say, doesn't she want the children to play? Let's just wrap them all up like Randy in A Christmas Story and be done with it.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Fwk4yX-xCX8/TT-FkMRDSXI/AAAAAAAAAHw/M5qU5WIGaZE/s320/randy-snow-suit-a-christmas-story-2-1.jpg

Wondergirl
Feb 1, 2013, 09:12 AM
What would Michelle say, doesn't she want the children to play?
Michelle has nothing to do with this one: "While parents say the kids just want to have fun, officials say the school system wants to avoid potential lawsuits should a child be injured on the equipment."

speechlesstx
Feb 1, 2013, 09:13 AM
Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, they're really pissed out there.

Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

I'm having a hard time finding the sampling there, could you point out to me exactly who is represented in that survey?

speechlesstx
Feb 1, 2013, 09:16 AM
Michelle has nothing to do with this one: "While parents say the kids just want to have fun, officials say the school system wants to avoid potential lawsuits should a child be injured on the equipment."

SMH...

"Although parents worked with the Fairfax County Public Schools facilities department..." How could the school system, knowing what they were doing not put a stop to it before the parents had all those bake sales and spent the money to do it?

Wondergirl
Feb 1, 2013, 09:19 AM
I'm having a hard time finding the sampling there, could you point out to me exactly who is represented in that survey?
"METHODOLOGY - This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by landline and cell phone Jan. 23-27, 2013, among a random national sample of 1,022 adults. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points. The survey was produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates of New York, N.Y., with sampling, data collection and tabulation by SSRS/Social Science Research Solutions of Media, Pa." (Obama's Favorability Best Since '09 - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/obamas-favorability-best-since-09-2-1-approval-120105859--abc-news-politics.html))

Wondergirl
Feb 1, 2013, 09:25 AM
SMH...

"Although parents worked with the Fairfax County Public Schools facilities department..." How could the school system, knowing what they were doing not put a stop to it before the parents had all those bake sales and spent the money to do it?
"Although parents worked with the Fairfax County Public Schools facilities department, purchased the equipment, hired a contractor and had the playground ready for recess, the school system suddenly deemed the play equipment too dangerous.

Stratford Landing’s principal did not return calls seeking comment. County school officials said the equipment doesn’t meet strict requirements." (from the same Post article)

talaniman
Feb 1, 2013, 09:28 AM
According to the rest of the article you cite,


In a written report, the inspector found that among other safety issues, parts of the structure were too tall. One part of the obstacle is 94 inches above the ground, 10 inches higher than the school system allows. The report said that deviating from the school system's playground protocols “places users at an increased life-safety risk” and that the Evos system could lead to head injuries and neck entrapment. “The equipment should be removed from the property,” according to the report.


Tistadt said that historically, the school system is “pretty risk averse,” especially when student safety is concerned.

“This is a litigious society,” Tistadt said. “If someone gets hurt using this equipment, the PTAs aren't getting sued, we are. They seem to be emotionally invested into this apparatus and they think we are being overly bureaucratic and overly intractable and overly cautious, but they aren't the ones who would be in court and they don't have the same safety expertise as we do.”

Why is this a big deal? All they have to do is raise the ground 10 inches and it meets safety standards. Or put bean bags or foam matting under it. Bureaucrats!!

speechlesstx
Feb 1, 2013, 09:46 AM
"METHODOLOGY - This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by landline and cell phone Jan. 23-27, 2013, among a random national sample of 1,022 adults. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points. The survey was produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates of New York, N.Y., with sampling, data collection and tabulation by SSRS/Social Science Research Solutions of Media, Pa." (Obama's Favorability Best Since '09 - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/obamas-favorability-best-since-09-2-1-approval-120105859--abc-news-politics.html))

That doesn't tell me the sample, i.e. how many Republicans/Democrats/Indies.

excon
Feb 1, 2013, 10:01 AM
Hello again, Steve:

Look.. It's POLL.. WINGERS don't believe polls, unless they agree with the outcome... I understand. But, since we live in a center LEFT country, I'm sure MOST of the respondents were Democrats.

excon

speechlesstx
Feb 1, 2013, 10:13 AM
Hello again, Steve:

Look.. It's POLL.. WINGERS don't believe polls, unless they agree with the outcome... I understand. But, since we live in a center LEFT country, I'm sure MOST of the respondents were Democrats.

excon

It's real simple ex, it's curious that they didn't tell us who was sampled. I don't buy that center left crap either, we still hold one house and 30 governorships.

speechlesstx
Feb 7, 2013, 04:03 PM
It's always for the children, right? Back in 2009 the LA Unified School District held a news conference replete with images of hungry children and begging for more money to help pay for student meals. Said they...


Los Angeles— Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Superintendent Ramon Cortines joined by State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell, Assembly Member Tom Torlakson, and other LAUSD officials announced today the District may run out of the money needed to feed hungry children. For many LAUSD students, the free and reduced priced breakfasts and lunches eaten at school are their only nutritious meals of the day.

“School children cannot learn when they are hungry,” said Superintendent Cortines. “We have several actions currently underway to drive costs down but, at some point, we could face impacts to the program itself. We may eventually be forced to replace fresh fruits and vegetables with less expensive frozen ones and offer fewer whole grain products although they are healthier than the alternative.”

It turns out that LAUSD and other California schools were diverting lunch money to other areas, like lawn sprinklers to the tune of some $170 million (http://sooo.senate.ca.gov/sites/sooo.senate.ca.gov/files/Food%20Fight%202%206%2013.pdf). Nothing like the schools stealing the kids lunch money.

speechlesstx
Feb 12, 2013, 11:43 AM
So not only did the lamestream media have a really difficult time noting the hypocrisy of The Goracle selling his network to a bunch of big oil guys, they're so quick to jump on Sarah Palin they can't recognize parody. Suzi Parker of WaPo reported (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2013/02/12/sarah-palins-plan-to-reach-millions-of-devoutly-religious-people-through-al-jazeera/)Palin was joining Al Jazeera because
"they reach millions of devoutly religious people."


Washington Post falls for hoax report that Sarah Palin will work for al-Jazeera
(http://www.humanevents.com/2013/02/12/washington-post-falls-for-hoax-report-that-sarah-palin-will-work-for-al-jazeera/)
By: John Hayward
2/12/2013 11:10 AM

Suzi Parker at the Washington Post wrote on Tuesday morning, “The Sarah Palin Story is a cautionary tale about what can happen when politics and celebrity meet.”

There follow several hundred words of rambling non-news about how Palin is “trying to find ways to stay relevant while her 15 minutes faces into the political history books,” after parting ways with Fox News. Parker artfully juxtaposes some factoids about Palin’s popularity in Alaska, and unsupported speculation that she’s been ruined by exposure to reality TV, with an account of Palin’s attendance at the memorial for murdered Navy SEAL Chris Kyle – the implication being that Palin only attended the service to draw attention to herself.

But the marquee element of Parker’s post – the entire reason she wrote the silly, contemptuous piece – was the revelation that Palin would become a contributor for the TV network al-Jazeera bought from al-Gore. Supposedly Palin hoped to use her new perch at al-Jazeera to “reach millions of devoutly religious people.”

It’s a blockbuster revelation that turned out to be based entirely on a hoax… which Parker fell for hook, line, and sinker, apparently making no effort whatsoever to substantiate it, not even through the minimal practice of searching for a single corroborating source online. Parker’s sole source was an obvious parody site, the Daily Currant. She probably didn’t even bother to visit the site, instead building her story around a cut-and-paste of something she received via social media. At the time of this writing, the top story on the Daily Currant is “Catholic Church Considering Jerry Sandusky as Next Pope.”

Parker’s embarrassing piece now begins with one of the funniest “corrections” in journalistic history: “An earlier version of this post incorrectly reported that Sarah Palin planned to contribute to the Al Jazeera America news network.” The bogus material has been carefully clipped out, and the piece has been reworded to conceal how prominently it once figured in Parker’s writing, but here’s what it used to say:


Late last week Al Jazeera America announced the former vice-presidential candidate would be joining their news network.

“As you all know, I’m not a big fan of newspapers, journalists, news anchors and the liberal media in general,” Palin told the Web site The Daily Currant. “But I met with the folks at Al-Jazeera and they told me they reach millions of devoutly religious people who don’t watch CBS or CNN. That tells me they don’t have a liberal bias.”[

OK, so how smart does one have to be to at least question Sarah Palin going to Al Jazeera?

NeedKarma
Feb 12, 2013, 11:47 AM
Hahahahahahahahhahaahhaha!!

paraclete
Feb 12, 2013, 02:29 PM
OK, so how smart does one have to be to at least question Sarah Palin going to Al Jazeera?

You really don't want an answer to that question?

speechlesstx
Feb 12, 2013, 03:24 PM
You really don't want an answer to that question?

It was a rhetorical question.

speechlesstx
Feb 13, 2013, 09:32 AM
I drank fracking fluid, says (Democratic) Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/feb/12/colorado-gov-hickenlooper-i-drank-fracking-fluid/#.URqUq39uhQo.twitter)


The first-term Democrat and former Denver mayor told a Senate committee on Tuesday that he actually drank a glass of fracking fluid produced by oilfield services giant Halliburton.

The fluid is made entirely “of ingredients sourced from the food industry,” the company says, making it safe for Mr. Hickenlooper and others to imbibe.

(SEE RELATED: Fracking’s rise in U.S. inspires the world)

“You can drink it. We did drink it around the table, almost rituallike, in a funny way,” he told the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. “It was a demonstration. … they’ve invested millions of dollars in what is a benign fluid in every sense.”

Sen. Al Franken, Minnesota Democrat, found humor in the governor’s admission and asked if the experience was part of some bizarre occult practice.

“No, there were no religious overtures,” Mr. Hickenlooper responded.

While some laughed at the governor’s statement, he brought up the incident to make a serious point: that oil and gas companies have taken major steps forward in fracking technology.

paraclete
Feb 13, 2013, 03:45 PM
Speech, you know some people will do anything for a vote

speechlesstx
Feb 13, 2013, 04:03 PM
speech, you know some people will do anything for a vote

I think you missed the point there Clete, a Democratic governor of one of the most liberal states in the nation with probably more earth worshipers per capita than anywhere else having something good to say about fracking? Amazing.

paraclete
Feb 13, 2013, 08:39 PM
I think you missed the point there Clete, a Democratic governor of one of the most liberal states in the nation with probably more earth worshipers per capita than anywhere else having something good to say about fracking? Amazing.

Yes I thought it AMAZING too, I wonder when will that wonder juice be exported to the industry here. I expect it will be after the little red fox tastes it

tomder55
Feb 14, 2013, 03:02 AM
Our town supervisor has promised to drink a glass of the sewage treatment discharge when the new plant is completed.

paraclete
Feb 14, 2013, 05:38 AM
You mean to say you don't get potable water from sewerage yet, what a backward nation

tomder55
Feb 14, 2013, 05:44 AM
Not backward... semi-rural . We don't have sewers yet.. there was never any need until recently... septic systems leach clean water back into the aquifer until population overwhelms it .

speechlesstx
Feb 15, 2013, 09:03 AM
It's come to this, again, and again and again lately... we don't have a spending problem, dang it! Take it away Sen, Tom Harkin (D-IA)...


First of all, I want to disagree with those who say we have a spending problem. Everyone keeps saying we have a spending problem. And when they talk about that, it’s like there’s an assumption that somehow we as a nation are broke. We can’t afford these things any longer. We’re too broke to invest in education and housing and things like that. Well look at it this way, we’re the richest nation in the history of the world. We are now the richest nation in the world. We have the highest per capita income of any major nation. That kind of begs the question, doesn’t it? If we’re so rich, why are we so broke? Is it a spending problem? No.”

It's a bit odd for a Dem to be talking American exceptionalism and high per capita incomes these days, but I digress. Since when is $3.5 trillion a year not a spending problem?

And the man whose budgets have been DOA even for Democrats gives us this squirelly non-pledge, “let me repeat: Nothing I’m proposing tonight should increase our deficit by a single dime."

Are Americans believing that? Are you falling for it?

talaniman
Feb 15, 2013, 09:37 AM
Why do companies get tax breaks for shipping jobs,and factories overseas?

Fact Check: Tax Breaks for Shipping Jobs Overseas | Communications Workers of America (http://www.cwa-union.org/blog/entry/fact_check_tax_breaks_for_shipping_jobs_overseas/)


In fact, Senate Republicans recently blocked a Democratic bill that would have provided a tax credit to companies that move jobs back to the United States and ended a tax break for companies moving operations overseas.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2008-03-20-corporate-tax-offshoring_N.htm


Whatever the employment impact, the deferral provision is costing the U.S. government money. A new study published in Tax Notes this month concludes that multinationals shifted almost $50 billion in income to low-tax countries in 2004, depriving the government of $17.4 billion in tax revenue. To recoup some of the lost cash, Congress in 2004 allowed corporations a one-time opportunity to repatriate profits at a special 5.25% tax rate. In 2006, corporations paid $354 billion in federal taxes.

So far, the Democrats have been alone in targeting for change the foreign income deferral. Presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona has called for a cut in the corporate tax rate to 25% but has not mentioned deferral.

tomder55
Feb 15, 2013, 10:44 AM
Companies can deduct the expenses associated with moving their operations overseas, but they can do so only because "ordinary and necessary" business expenses;including closing and opening plants ;are tax deductible for ALL businesses . Instead of closing loopholes the President really means he wants to add more incentives into the tax code. I for one ;as you are aware of by now ,favor closing all loopholes and expenses in exchange for lower rates and simpler codes. But no ;there are NO specific tax credits or incentives for moving a company overseas . Romney was right .

talaniman
Feb 15, 2013, 11:01 AM
Its an old law that needs updating, badly.

speechlesstx
Feb 15, 2013, 11:54 AM
But there apparently exemptions for unions from stalking laws...


Why do unions seek exemption from anti-stalking laws?

Valentine’s Day is a time when couples go out for romantic dinners and exchange gifts, while singles meet up in bars, hoping to make some bad decisions. Valentine’s Day is also a day when people with crazy ex-boyfriends or -girlfriends are reminded of how thankful they are for anti-stalking laws.

Every state has made stalking a crime. These laws help protect people who might otherwise live in fear. Yet labor unions have successfully, and disconcertingly, lobbied to be exempt from anti-stalking laws in at least four states – California, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Nevada.

“The most glaring examples of union favoritism under state laws,” notes a 2012 U.S. Chamber of Commerce report, “tend to occur in criminal statutes and allow individuals who engage in truly objectionable behavior to avoid prosecution solely because they are participating in some form of labor activity.”

Pennsylvania unions now enjoy a loophole that the state’s anti-stalking law “shall not apply to conduct by a party to a labor dispute.” In Illinois, anti-stalking laws exempt “any controversy concerning wages, salaries, hours, working conditions or benefits … the making of collective bargaining agreements.”

These exemptions prove that organizing tactics used by unions can have something in common with those of stalkers – and can perhaps inflict similar emotional distress.

While a number of states have exemptions that have allowed union members to intimidate and harass, California is by far the worst actor. As in other states, it is a crime in California to interfere with a lawful business through physical obstruction or intimidation of workers or customers.

Yet California has exempted unions from this law. The negative effects were clear in 2008, when United Food and Commercial Workers Union members picketed a new Ralph’s grocery store in Fresno. They went beyond traditional picketing, harassing customers and instigating confrontations with employees on store property. When store workers finally called the police, authorities refused to come and put a stop to the union’s disruptive behavior.

So much for fairness, union thugs and bullies are apparently above the law. Say, is that why libs want gun control, so they don't have to fear that guy packing while being stalked and harassed legally?

talaniman
Feb 15, 2013, 12:13 PM
So union activity is like a stalker? You have got to be kidding!

Freedom of assembly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_assembly)


Freedom of assembly is often used in the context of the right to protest, while freedom of association is used in the context of labor rights and the Constitution of the United States, is interpreted to mean both the freedom to assemble and the freedom to join an association.[2][not in citation given]

The United States Constitution explicitly provides for 'the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances'" in the First Amendment.

Without a union your boss would pay you non union employees minimum wage, no benefits, and reduced hours.

tomder55
Feb 15, 2013, 12:27 PM
Here is some freedom of assembly for you
Goon City - Jillian Kay Melchior - National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/340272/goon-city-jillian-kay-melchior)

speechlesstx
Feb 15, 2013, 12:39 PM
So union activity is like a stalker? You have got to be kidding!

I have nothing against peaceful protest, but if what happened at Ralph's were instead someone protesting an abortion clinic you'd be screaming bloody murder, they'd be going to jail. Union bullies get a pass. Even you should be able to see there's something wrong with that picture.


Without a union your boss would pay you non union employees minimum wage, no benefits, and reduced hours.

Dude, and you guys talk about us living in the past. We've progressed way beyond that BS.

Wondergirl
Feb 15, 2013, 12:46 PM
Dude, and you guys talk about us living in the past. We've progressed way beyond that BS.
Guess you haven't worked in a non-union public library with low pay not compensating the work done, crummy benefits, and few full-time jobs that can easily be reduced to something slightly more than part-time. Only love for the profession keeps us there.

speechlesstx
Feb 15, 2013, 01:05 PM
Like all those union teachers do it for the children...

Wondergirl
Feb 15, 2013, 01:09 PM
Like all those union teachers do it for the children...
And the non-union ones do too. It's all those administrators that are the problem and money-sucker-uppers.

Wondergirl
Feb 15, 2013, 01:38 PM
Interesting article just out --

Patrick Ruffini, up-and-coming GOP strategist, attends RootsCamp, watches Democratic organizers share tactics and lessons learned from the 2012 campaign, and tells [Robert] Draper that “the thing I was struck by at RootsCamp was that in many ways, the Democratic technology ecosystem has embraced the free market — whereas the Republican one sort of runs on socialism, with the R.N.C. being the overlord.”

Ben Domenech, a founder of the RedState blog, explaining why there's a perception that, as Draper puts it, “technological innovation runs at cross-purposes with the [GOP's] corporate rigidity,” says that “there are always elders at the top who say, 'That's not important.' And that's where the left has beaten us, by giving smart people the space and trusting them to have success. It's a fundamentally anti-entrepreneurial model we've embraced.”

Why technology loves Obama - Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/2013/02/15/why_technology_loves_obama/?source=newsletter)

speechlesstx
Feb 15, 2013, 02:58 PM
And the non-union ones do too. It's all those administrators that are the problem and money-sucker-uppers.

No, teachers that do it for the children don't skip class with fake doctor's notes to protest.

Wondergirl
Feb 15, 2013, 03:02 PM
No, teachers that do it for the children don't skip class with fake doctor's notes to protest.
In which school?

speechlesstx
Feb 15, 2013, 03:19 PM
Wisconsin.

Wondergirl
Feb 15, 2013, 03:23 PM
Wisconsin.
All of the schools or one in particular?

tomder55
Feb 15, 2013, 03:35 PM
Here is all you need to know about what is wrong with teacher's unions

EXCLUSIVE: Perv music teacher Aryeh Eller, who only worked one year full time, has collected $1 million for 13 years in rubber room - NYPOST.com (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/queens/rubber_roomer_seat_OWvruBRA85C3E6mmIEiPTM)

Wondergirl
Feb 15, 2013, 03:39 PM
here is all you need to know about what is wrong with teacher's unions -- teacher Aryeh Eller, who only worked one year full time, has collected $1 million for 13 years in rubber room - NYPOST.com
One out of how many honest ones?

Like the Dixon, IL, comptroller who stole $54M from the village since 1991 to care for her 400+ quarter horses? ALL village/city comptrollers are dishonest and evil!! Beware!!

tomder55
Feb 15, 2013, 03:41 PM
Why are there ANY teachers retained who cannot be trusted in the class room ? I'll answer that for you... union rules.

Edit there are many more teachers in the NYC system that sit in 'rubber rooms ' getting paid for nothing

Wondergirl
Feb 15, 2013, 03:41 PM
why are there ANY teachers retained who cannot be trusted in the class room ? I'll answer that for you ... union rules.
NONE can be trusted?

speechlesstx
Feb 15, 2013, 03:44 PM
Is everything all or nothing with you?

Wondergirl
Feb 15, 2013, 04:01 PM
Is everything all or nothing with you?
It obviously is with you.

talaniman
Feb 15, 2013, 05:05 PM
So workers have no rights, and should be glad to have a job, and shut up, and do as they or told or get another job. That's your position?

No you haven't progressed beyond union shops keeping the pay scale for non union members, you still benefit from it, without paying dues.

And yes I rail against loony righties who destroy clinics and kill doctors but I also am against union memebers who think its okay to do the same thing.

speechlesstx
Feb 16, 2013, 08:15 AM
It obviously is with you.

That makes no sense, I'm not the one builds that ridiculous straw man of opposition to something is opposition to everything.

Wondergirl
Feb 16, 2013, 08:17 AM
That makes no sense, I'm not the one builds that ridiculous straw man of opposition to something is opposition to everything.
You said no union teachers can be trusted to do right by their students.

speechlesstx
Feb 16, 2013, 08:25 AM
You said no union teachers can be trusted to do right by their students.

Case in point, no, I did not say any such thing. But feel free to provide the exact quote where I disqualified them all.

Wondergirl
Feb 16, 2013, 08:32 AM
Case in point, no, I did not say any such thing. But feel free to provide the exact quote where I disqualified them all.
Oooops, sorry --it was tomder who disqualified them all. I guess I figured you were on the same page.

speechlesstx
Feb 16, 2013, 08:51 AM
Ok, where's the quote from tom?

tomder55
Feb 16, 2013, 10:42 AM
I'd be interested to see where I said that too.

Wondergirl
Feb 16, 2013, 10:56 AM
why are there ANY teachers retained who cannot be trusted in the class room ? I'll answer that for you ... union rules.
Maybe it's how it's worded, a mix of negs and positives... sounds negative. i.e. no teacher can be trusted because of union rules.

tomder55
Feb 16, 2013, 11:12 AM
I was commenting specifically on teachers who spend a good part of their career in so called 'rubber rooms' where rules prevent them from being fired ,even though they are incompetent ;and in some cases predators. But you knew what I meant already because saying that there were no competent teachers would've been an absurd proposition. So you were just nit picking . I neither spell check nor grammar check my contributions to this site.

Wondergirl
Feb 16, 2013, 11:26 AM
I neither spell check nor grammar check my contributions to this site.
That's scary.

tomder55
Feb 16, 2013, 12:16 PM
It's come to this, again, and again and again lately...we don't have a spending problem, dang it! Take it away Sen, Tom Harkin (D-IA) ...



It's a bit odd for a Dem to be talking American exceptionalism and high per capita incomes these days, but I digress. Since when is $3.5 trillion a year not a spending problem?

And the man whose budgets have been DOA even for Democrats gives us this squirelly non-pledge, “let me repeat: Nothing I’m proposing tonight should increase our deficit by a single dime."

Are Americans believing that? Are you falling for it?

Yeah the Dems have no problem spending... it's the paying back they don't get .

paraclete
Feb 16, 2013, 02:36 PM
yeah the Dems have no problem spending ... it's the paying back they don't get .

I don't think they have that alone Tom

Tuttyd
Feb 16, 2013, 06:03 PM
Maybe it's how it's worded, a mix of negs and positives...sounds neg. i.e., no teacher can be trusted because of union rules.

Your pretty close to the mark. A universal negative proposition (E) can be obverted into a universal affirmative (A} proposition. Consider the following:

No teachers are trustworthy because of union rules.

All teachers are non-trustworthy because of union rules.

In other words, the two propositions are saying the same thing

Tut

paraclete
Feb 16, 2013, 06:32 PM
Your pretty close to the mark. A universal negative proposition (E) can be obverted into a universal affirmative (A} proposition. Consider the following:

No teachers are trustworthy because of union rules.

All teachers are non-trustworthy because of union rules.

In other words, the two propositions are saying the same thing

Tut

In what way is that positive excepting to those who want to exploit the political idelogy of negativity

Tuttyd
Feb 16, 2013, 07:14 PM
in what way is that positive excepting to those who want to exploit the political idelogy of negativity

That would depend on the way propositions are used. We can always deny the validity of the propositions being used, but we can never deny that a universal negative proposition can be obverted into a universal affirmative proposition.


I am not sure if this answers your question.

paraclete
Feb 16, 2013, 07:16 PM
In your example neither proposition is affirmative

Tuttyd
Feb 16, 2013, 07:33 PM
in your example neither proposition is affirmative


I think I see what you are getting at. Declarative propositions can be divided into those which the predicate denies something of the subject or affirms something of the subject. In other words, we can have 'affirmative' or 'negative' propositions.

I think you are asking if we can change negative propositions into affirmative propositions.


Tut

tomder55
Feb 16, 2013, 07:56 PM
Screw the grammar lessons!!

Tuttyd
Feb 16, 2013, 09:07 PM
screw the grammar lessons !!!!!!!!!


It isn't grammar. Nonetheless,I can see that my efforts are not appreciated. So on that note a shall retire from the site. Have fun in the future with it.

Tut

Wondergirl
Feb 16, 2013, 09:36 PM
It isn't grammar. Nonetheless,I can see that my efforts are not appreciated. So on that note a shall retire from the site. Have fun in the future with it.

Tut
Hey! I was cheering you on from the Peanut Gallery!

paraclete
Feb 17, 2013, 01:01 AM
Hey! I was cheering you on from the Peanut Gallery!

Don't enourage him

tomder55
Feb 17, 2013, 03:15 AM
It isn't grammar. Nonetheless,I can see that my efforts are not appreciated. So on that note a shall retire from the site. Have fun in the future with it.

Tut

Hasta la vista... for the record ;I neither said "No teachers are trustworthy because of union rules."
Or
"All teachers are non-trustworthy because of union rules."

Tuttyd
Feb 17, 2013, 04:32 AM
hasta la vista ... for the record ;I neither said "No teachers are trustworthy because of union rules."
or
"All teachers are non-trustworthy because of union rules."


Just for the record I didn't say your did. Just for the record I didn't imply you did.Just for the record I was answering a question from Wondergirl. Find the post that disputes these claims.

NeedKarma
Feb 17, 2013, 04:47 AM
Stay around Tutty, I have no problem with you or anyone setting grammar issues straight, I'm always in learning mode.
Cheers.

tomder55
Feb 17, 2013, 04:51 AM
Just for the record I didn't say your did. Just for the record I didn't imply you did.Just for the record I was answering a question from Wondergirl. Find the post that disputes these claims.I suggest you instead find my post that she cherry picked to make her observation .

Stay around Tutty, I have no problem with you or anyone setting grammar issues straight, I'm always in learning mode.
Cheers.
Reply

But unlike you ,Tut is not an ankle biting troll . His posts in the past contributed to the discussion rather than nit picking details .

NeedKarma
Feb 17, 2013, 05:10 AM
But unlike you ,Tut is not an ankle biting troll Ad hominem?
A troll is not someone who points out inaccuracies in the content of your posts.

speechlesstx
Feb 17, 2013, 07:06 AM
Ad hominem?
A troll is not someone who points out inaccuracies in the content of your posts.

Creeper would more accurate.

speechlesstx
Feb 17, 2013, 07:08 AM
That's scary.

You thinking that's scary us what's scary.

NeedKarma
Feb 17, 2013, 07:11 AM
Creeper would more accurate.I watch you sleep at night.


You thinking that's scary us what's scary.English?

speechlesstx
Feb 17, 2013, 07:28 AM
I watch you sleep at night.

No, Molly would eat you and I have guns.


English?

Tablet keyboard.

speechlesstx
Feb 18, 2013, 07:38 AM
Protesters show support for Christopher Dorner (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02/protesters-show-support-for-christopher-dorner.html)

talaniman
Feb 18, 2013, 08:11 AM
What?? You thought the freaks only came out at night?

tomder55
Feb 18, 2013, 08:39 AM
They look a lot like the Occupy crowd to me;maybe it's the Guy Fawkes mask.

speechlesstx
Feb 18, 2013, 08:40 AM
What??? You thought the freaks only came out at night?

No, you thought the freaks only came out from the right.

speechlesstx
Feb 19, 2013, 03:40 PM
I reported last week on Richard Windsor, aka EPA administrator Lisa Jackson using an alias email account. Turns out it's more widespread than that in this most pernicious, dictatorial agency run amok...


New Richard Windsor Emails Show EPA’s Transparency Problem More Widespread (http://www.vitter.senate.gov/newsroom/press/vitter-new-richard-windsor-emails-show-epas-transparency-problem-more-widespread)
New emails show acting Administrator Perciasepe used non-official email to conduct official business. EPA Region 8 Administrator, who is resigning this week, is being investigated for the same problem.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013

(Washington, D.C.) – U.S. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), the top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW), today released findings from the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) second tranche of Richard Windsor emails. The release shows that acting Administrator Bob Perciasepe used a private email account to conduct official business, similar to Region 8 Administrator, James Martin, who is the subject of an ongoing investigation launched by Vitter and U.S. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee (OGR) Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.).

Sen. Vitter also announced today that he has learned Martin is resigning this week, less than two weeks after hiring legal counsel and following a letter from Vitter and Issa. Read more about Vitter and Issa’s investigation into Martin here. (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=872aba41-b894-3fb4-45da-a85dc30a87b3&Region_id=&Issue_id=&CFID=3308800&CFTOKEN=78691086)

“Region 8 Administrator Martin is likely resigning this week in part because of the open investigation about his use of a non-official email account to conduct official business,” said Vitter. “Now we know that Lisa Jackson’s acting replacement, Bob Perciasepe, appears to have been doing the same thing to dodge the agency's mandatory recordkeeping policy. EPA owes us all some answers about their absolute disregard for transparency, especially from their acting administrator or any potential nominee to be administrator.”

I'm sure it's just another witch hunt on the most transparent administration ever (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=A22E8106-D4AF-436E-84DB-77354D107AA4)!

speechlesstx
Feb 27, 2013, 09:42 AM
Idiotic idea of the day. Courtesy of California Rep. Barbara Lee...


California Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee has introduced legislation to create a federal Department of Peacebuilding that would cultivate peace and take on the causes of violence and conflict.

Lee’s legislation H.R. 808 “Department of Peacebuilding Act of 2013″ also would create a Cabinet-level Secretary of Peacebuilding focused on creating peace and preventing violence.

Read more: House Democrats propose Department of Peacebuilding | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/26/house-democrats-propose-department-of-peacebuilding/#ixzz2M7LuTnzd)

Here's the bill (http://thehill.com/images/stories/blogs/flooraction/jan2013/hr808.pdf). I have no words...

NeedKarma
Feb 27, 2013, 09:47 AM
Stupid people wanting peace, what a$$holes.

speechlesstx
Feb 27, 2013, 10:08 AM
Stupid people wanting peace, what a$$holes.

As if I didn't see that coming. Um, I think we're pretty much all pro-peace. I am not for another useless cabinet level government bureaucracy to nanny us, and this one on virtually every level.

P.S. I believe "peace building" was what the UN was for, how's that working out so far?

speechlesstx
Mar 1, 2013, 12:34 PM
It's come to this... the Harvard Crimson warning conservatives:


Warning: Do Not Enroll (http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/2/28/do-not-enroll/)
If you might want to insult Harvard down the line, go elsewhere

Ah, don't you love the smell of liberal tolerance and appreciation for free speech?

Seems after Ted Cruz criticized them that was too much, stay away conservatives - you aren't welcome at that bastion of open mindedness, Harvard.

David French explains (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/341905/ted-cruz-and-how-left-whitewashes-its-own-radicalism-david-french)how it's really the left whitewashing their own radicalism:




I know, I know — the whole “Ted Cruz is Joseph McCarthy” meme is so five days ago (or maybe not), but I’m just now catching up. As a contemporary of Ted Cruz at HLS, I simply can’t let the Left get away with its response to now-senator Cruz’s allegedly-McCarthyite 2010 luncheon speech in Austin, Texas. Here’s what The New Yorker’s Jane Meyer reports he said:


He then went on to assert that Obama, who attended Harvard Law School four years ahead of him, “would have made a perfect president of Harvard Law School.” The reason, said Cruz, was that, “There were fewer declared Republicans in the faculty when we were there than Communists! There was one Republican. But there were twelve who would say they were Marxists who believed in the Communists overthrowing the United States government.”

Shock! Outrage! Echoes of a dark and dangerous past!

To be clear, the people he’s describing — the “crits” or practitioners of “critical legal studies” — were not members of the Communist party. They were, however, Marxist-influenced, highly-authoritarian, radical-redistributionist, anti-capitalists who thoroughly outnumbered conservative faculty and openly loathed America. (I’d say calling them small “c” communists is pretty darn accurate). Even worse from an academic standpoint, many of them were so full of venom and rage that they worked to shut down discourse on campus, and encouraged student followers who shouted down conservatives and even sometimes tried to sabotage conservatives’ future job prospects (radical students organized efforts to call judges and law firms to pressure them to revoke job offers). Protests rocked the campus when “crits” weren’t hired, and students repeatedly stormed the administration building in support of their favorite radical professors.

My 1L year — just before Ted Cruz arrived — the climate was so toxic that my first effort at pro-life advocacy (informing students they had a right to a refund of the portion of their health services fee that funded elective abortions) prompted some of my leftist classmates to write to me directly: “Why don’t you go die, you f**king fascist.” Or, more directly: “Die.” When a member of the Federalist Society wrote an “offensive” article about gay rights, students pasted his face on gay porn and posted pictures across campus.

All class, those future leaders of America.

Radical professors cultivated their radical students, and they’d often travel in packs — like a rapper and his worshipful “crew.” I once experienced the exquisite joy of a “crit” professor responding to rather civil point I made in class (that I’d prefer that she not call an unborn child “a clump of cells”) with a loud shriek rather than an informed response — a shriek that was soon echoed by her student cheering section.

How radical was HLS in those days? So radical that even liberal GQ magazine wrote an article called “Beirut on the Charles” highlighting the prevalence of wild-eyed extremism on campus. So radical that Elena Kagan’s subsequent tenure as dean represented a breath of moderating fresh air — so moderating that many HLS conservative alumni have real effection for her.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is how the Left whitewashes its history. The Left has a shameful recent history at HLS — a history of intolerance, repression, and character assassination. In fact, HLS’s current relative moderation and civility represents a tacit admission from those holdovers from the 1990s that they went too far. Yet rather than deal with this history honestly, the Left describes its instigators as mere “social democrats” (as if we were dealing with François Hollande-on-the-Charles), while Senator Cruz is dangerous for condemning anti-American radicalism.

Up is down. Black is white. Right is wrong. And Ted Cruz is a McCarthyite.


The irony is the staff at the Crimson obviously miss the fact that their column demonstrates their oversensitivity and hostility to conservatives.

speechlesstx
Mar 25, 2013, 12:38 PM
It's come to this...

As U.S. tightens rules on lead emissions, battery recycling has moved to Mexico

Read more here: As U.S. tightens rules on lead emissions, battery recycling has moved to Mexico | McClatchy (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/03/25/186693/as-us-tightens-rules-on-lead-emissions.html#storylink=cpy)

Yes, we're shipping our pollution and jobs to Mexico thanks to stricter EPA rules. Consequences...

paraclete
Mar 25, 2013, 01:18 PM
Yes, we're shipping our pollution and jobs to Mexico thanks to stricter EPA rules. Consequences...
And you complain about jobs going offshore. The only reason you have reduced emissions is you have moved jobs offshore. You see that pollution in China, that's yours

speechlesstx
Mar 25, 2013, 01:36 PM
and you complain about jobs going offshore. the only reason you have reduced emissions is you have moved jobs offshore. You see that pollution in China, that's yours

I don't complain about jobs going overseas, I note the consequences of liberal policies. If they want us to drive electric vehicles they have to deal with the environmental and economical consequences. That's the problem with the left, they do all these feel good things without thinking it through.

And it's not my pollution, I have a relatively small carbon footprint and the wind generally carries it to Oklahoma.

paraclete
Mar 25, 2013, 01:54 PM
Electric vehicles are a cop out, they just mean more base load power stations belshing carbon into the atmosphere and the production of batteries is an extremely polluting process.

speechlesstx
Mar 25, 2013, 02:01 PM
Exactly