Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 20, 2014, 09:58:19 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83726 Posts in 2261 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 59 60 [61] 62 63 ... 85
3001  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: May 24, 2010, 05:51:49 PM
"I think you underestimate how addcited the Republicans in office right now are to spending our money and increasing government power, they are every bit as bad as the Dem's and they love playing helpless as the Dem's roll along."

Interesting comment.  Do you think they want to increase 'government' power or simply their own personal and/or party?

Sometimes I got the impression the Republicans were simply trying to compete with the Dems for votes by buying over more voters than the Dems themselves, and not necessarily a philosophical bent on expanding government.

For example, compassionate conservatism was a means to curry favor with some traditionally Dem voters.   

 
3002  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: May 24, 2010, 03:49:09 PM
And Rusmussan reports Bamster's (Rush's nickname for the phoney ONE) approval at 44% though this low level was reported before. grin smiley wink

If only the Cans can get their act together!?

Doug, I hope you are right and there is some sort of "Contract with America" again. 

I am hoping they are saving coming out with a contract list till closer to crunch time rather than give away their eggs now.  Yet in this day and age and as I have learned from the music business it is impossible to keep people for finding out one's ideas anyway.

That aside if the cans can come up with something a contract I think they can run away to *crushing* victory in Nov and not just win by default.

I believe A Lame Duck Bamster without his adoring majority in both houses will fold in the face of the opposition.

As for Contract with America, Newt appears to be planning a run.  Can he overcome previously terrible ratings though?  I dunno.
3003  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / disgusted in NJ on: May 23, 2010, 11:15:57 AM
On the AM talk show circuit I hear Paul being critiz=cized as radical because he questioned one small part of the Civil rights law and disabilities.  I don't think I can agree with him on the Civil rights point but I do on the Disability act.  Why do all of us have to pay for the minority of those with disabilities?

But this is certainly a lisoing poktical point anyway in a law that is already passed and entrenched.

What I cannot believe is the absolutely worthless defense Repblicans offer when asked about Paul's "radical agenda".

It is a no brainer to retort that it is less radical than the Obama, Pelosi radical agenda that haws expanded govevernment to the point of bankruptcy.

The cans just always fall into the defenseive mode.

Why can't they put a stop to the falicy that immigration is a civil rights issue when it is not?
Why can't they keep turning the point around to Obama and Democrats that they are the radical ones?
They always soind like a bunch of losers trying to defend themselves.
For goodness sakes I can do a better job of turningthe arguments right back around and putting the Dems on defense.

Are there any decent spokepeople out there?

Forget Sarah.  She sounds like a broken record.  She is a good attack dog but not inspiring beyond the angry base.  Every time I hear her I think well tell me something I don't already know. I know Bamster sucks.  So where do we need to go and how are we going to get there?

We need someone who can really talk of America as needing to wake up.  Needing for us to believe in ourselves.  Needing to accept the fact that we can't retire at 50, and expect government to take care of us our entire lives.  Contrast this to the bamster who has already resigned us to a dependency state and one of second class status.  He takes away our spirit, our confidence, our willingness to work hard.  Isn't that obvious with the his new world order?  All Americans have a stake in this.  He is giving OUR country away.
Black, White, Latiino, Asian.  It doesn't matter.  He is giving the dream away.

For example, we should be expanding the space program.  This is where we lead.  Why in the world shoudl we back off our leadership in space?  You wnat to stop nucs then use our lead to set up space based weapons that can defend against intercontinental missiles.  If we don't the Indians and Chinese will.

Where is the damn leadership?Huh

I am pissed and frustrated.  The cans are losers.



3004  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: May 22, 2010, 11:07:49 AM
He continues to hasten our decline.

By Michael D. Shear
Saturday, May 22, 2010; 11:45 AM

WEST POINT, N.Y. -- President Obama on Saturday pledged to shape a new "international order" as part of a national security strategy that emphasizes his belief in global institutions and America's role in promoting Democratic values around the world.

Speaking to the graduating class at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point -- the ninth wartime commencement in a row, he said -- the commander in chief who is leading two foreign wars expressed his faith in cooperation and partnerships to confront the economic, military and environmental challenges of the future.

"The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times,'" he said in prepared remarks. "Countering violent extremism and insurgency; stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials; combating a changing climate and sustaining global growth; helping countries feed themselves and care for their sick; preventing conflict and healing its wounds."

The administration is set to officially release the president's first national security strategy next week, and Obama's preview on Saturday suggests it will be far different than the first one offered by his predecessor in 2002. In that prior document, President George W. Bush formally called for a policy of preemptive war and a "distinctly American internationalism."

Obama has spoken frequently about shaping new alliances with the world, and of attempts to repair the U.S. image abroad after nearly a decade in which Bush's approach was viewed with suspicion in many quarters. In his commencement speech to the graduates, the president emphasized his beliefs in those alliances.

"Yes, we are clear-eyed about the shortfalls of our international system. But America has not succeeded by stepping outside the currents of international cooperation," he said. "We have succeeded by steering those currents in the direction of liberty and justice -- so nations thrive by meeting their responsibilities, and face consequences when they don't."


 Obama said the United States will pursue a strategy of "national renewal and global leadership."

And yet, even as he calls for global cooperation, Obama has intensified America's own war in Afghanistan. And his administration has repeatedly confronted the dangers of Islamic terrorism on U.S. soil, including unsuccessful attempts to down a Detroit-bound airliner and to explode a car bomb in New York's Times Square.

To the men and women in the hall, many of whom are headed to Afghanistan because of the expansion of the war he announced here six months ago, Obama pledged "the full support of a proud and grateful nation."

The president expressed confidence in the military's ability to succeed in Afghanistan, but warned of a "tough fight" ahead as the United States helps the Afghan people to rebuild its civil institutions and its security system so they can battle the Taliban and other extremists on their own.

"We have brought hope to the Afghan people; now we must see that their country does not fall prey to our common enemies," he said. "There will be difficult days ahead. But we will adapt, we will persist, and I have no doubt that together with our Afghan and international partners, we will succeed in Afghanistan."

In Iraq, he said, the United States is "poised" to end its combat operations this summer, leaving behind "an Iraq that provides no safe haven to terrorists; a democratic Iraq that is sovereign, stable and self-reliant."

"You, and all who wear America's uniform, remain the cornerstone of our national defense and the anchor of global security," he said. "And through a period when too many of our institutions have acted irresponsibly, the American military has set a standard of service and sacrifice that is as great as any in this nation's history."

But he said civilians must answer the call of service as well, by securing America's economic future, educating its children and confronting the challenges of poverty and climate change. He said the country must always pursue what he called the "universal rights" rooted in the Constitution.

"We will promote these values above all by living them -- through our fidelity to the rule of law and our Constitution, even when it's hard; and through our commitment to forever pursue a more perfect union," he said.

To the cadets themselves, he praised their pursuit of being "soldier-scholars" and lauded the records of academic excellence the Class of 2010 has set. He also took note of the fact that the class's top two graduates this year are both women, reflecting, he said, the "indispensable role" that women play in the modern military.

As they become commissioned officers in the Army, Obama told the graduates of West Point that the country owes them a debt of gratitude.

"Here in the quiet of these hills, you have come together to prepare for the most difficult tests of our time'" Obama said. "You signed up knowing your service would send you into harm's way, and did so long after the first drums of war were sounded. In you we see the commitment of our country, and timeless virtues that have served our nation well."
3005  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Walter Williams on immigration on: May 21, 2010, 12:22:22 PM
I agree with his logic except to his "nutshell" conclusion which suddenly makes less sense.  I don't think it that heart-wrenching to send people here illegal packing home.
Why we can't stop being a nation of dupes?  I don't know why we must make immigration more streamlined or easier.  Why can't we simply enforce our laws, stop hiring illegals and allowing them to come here and have babies at our expense?  Why is this so hard?
 
****Wednesday, May 19, 2010
 Immigration and Liberty
by Walter E. Williams
 My sentiments on immigration are expressed by the welcoming words of poet Emma Lazarus' that grace the base of our Statue of Liberty: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." Those sentiments are probably shared by most Americans and for sure by my libertarian fellow travelers, but their vision of immigration has some blind spots. This has become painfully obvious in the wake Arizona's law that cracks down on illegal immigration. Let's look at the immigration issue step by step.

There are close to 7 billion people on our planet. I'd like to know how the libertarians answer this question: Does each individual on the planet have a natural or God-given right to live in the U.S.? Unless one wishes to obfuscate, I believe that a yes or no can be given to that question just as a yes or no answer can be given to the question whether Williams has a right to live in the U.S.

I believe most people, even my open-borders libertarian friends, would not say that everyone on the planet had a right to live in the U.S. That being the case suggests there will be conditions that a person must meet to live in the U.S. Then the question emerges: Who gets to set those conditions? Should it be the United Nations, the European Union, the Japanese Diet or the Moscow City Duma? I can't be absolutely sure, but I believe that most Americans would recoil at the suggestion that somebody other than Americans should be allowed to set the conditions for people to live in the U.S.

What those conditions should be is one thing and whether a person has a right to ignore them is another. People become illegal immigrants in one of three ways: entering without authorization or inspection, staying beyond the authorized period after legal entry or by violating the terms of legal entry. Most of those who risk prosecution under Arizona's new law fit the first category -- entering without authorization or inspection.

Probably, the overwhelming majority of Mexican illegal immigrants are hardworking, honest and otherwise law-abiding members of the communities in which they reside. It would surely be a heart-wrenching scenario for such a person to be stopped for a driving infraction, have his illegal immigrant status discovered and face deportation proceedings. Regardless of the hardship suffered, being in the U.S. without authorization is a crime.

When crimes are committed, what should be done? Some people recommend amnesia, which turns out to be the root word for amnesty. But surely they don't propose it as a general response to crime where criminals confess their crime, pay some fine and apply to have their crimes overlooked. Amnesty supporters probably wish amnesty to apply to only illegal immigrants. That being the case, one wonders whether they wish it to apply to illegals past, present and future, regardless of race, ethnicity or country of origin.

Various estimates put the illegal immigrant population in the U.S. between 10 and 20 million. One argument says we can't round up and deport all those people. That argument differs little from one that says since we can't catch every burglar, we should grant burglars amnesty. Catching and imprisoning some burglars sends a message to would-be burglars that there might be a price to pay. Similarly, imprisoning some illegal immigrants and then deporting them after their sentences were served would send a signal to others who are here illegally or who are contemplating illegal entry that there's a price to pay.

Here's Williams' suggestion in a nutshell. Start strict enforcement of immigration law, as Arizona has begun. Strictly enforce border security. Most importantly, modernize and streamline our cumbersome immigration laws so that people can more easily migrate to our country.
 
3006  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / "This is not just an America in decline.This is an America in retreat" on: May 21, 2010, 09:40:39 AM

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, May 21, 2010

It is perfectly obvious that Iran's latest uranium maneuver, brokered by Brazil and Turkey, is a ruse. Iran retains more than enough enriched uranium to make a bomb. And it continues enriching at an accelerated pace and to a greater purity (20 percent). Which is why the French foreign ministry immediately declared that the trumpeted temporary shipping of some Iranian uranium to Turkey will do nothing to halt Iran's nuclear program.

It will, however, make meaningful sanctions more difficult. America's proposed Security Council resolution is already laughably weak -- no blacklisting of Iran's central bank, no sanctions against Iran's oil and gas industry, no nonconsensual inspections on the high seas. Yet Turkey and Brazil -- both current members of the Security Council -- are so opposed to sanctions that they will not even discuss the resolution. And China will now have a new excuse to weaken it further.

But the deeper meaning of the uranium-export stunt is the brazenness with which Brazil and Turkey gave cover to the mullahs' nuclear ambitions and deliberately undermined U.S. efforts to curb Iran's program.

The real news is that already notorious photo: the president of Brazil, our largest ally in Latin America, and the prime minister of Turkey, for more than half a century the Muslim anchor of NATO, raising hands together with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the most virulently anti-American leader in the world.

That picture -- a defiant, triumphant take-that-Uncle-Sam -- is a crushing verdict on the Obama foreign policy. It demonstrates how rising powers, traditional American allies, having watched this administration in action, have decided that there's no cost in lining up with America's enemies and no profit in lining up with a U.S. president given to apologies and appeasement.

They've watched President Obama's humiliating attempts to appease Iran, as every rejected overture is met with abjectly renewed U.S. negotiating offers. American acquiescence reached such a point that the president was late, hesitant and flaccid in expressing even rhetorical support for democracy demonstrators who were being brutally suppressed and whose call for regime change offered the potential for the most significant U.S. strategic advance in the region in 30 years.


 They've watched America acquiesce to Russia's re-exerting sway over Eastern Europe, over Ukraine (pressured by Russia last month into extending for 25 years its lease of the Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol) and over Georgia (Russia's de facto annexation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is no longer an issue under the Obama "reset" policy).

They've watched our appeasement of Syria, Iran's agent in the Arab Levant -- sending our ambassador back to Syria even as it tightens its grip on Lebanon, supplies Hezbollah with Scuds and intensifies its role as the pivot of the Iran-Hezbollah-Hamas alliance. The price for this ostentatious flouting of the United States and its interests? Ever more eager U.S. "engagement."

They've observed the administration's gratuitous slap at Britain over the Falklands, its contemptuous treatment of Israel, its undercutting of the Czech Republic and Poland, and its indifference to Lebanon and Georgia. And in Latin America, they see not just U.S. passivity as Venezuela's Hugo Chávez organizes his anti-American "Bolivarian" coalition while deepening military and commercial ties with Iran and Russia. They saw active U.S. support in Honduras for a pro-Chávez would-be dictator seeking unconstitutional powers in defiance of the democratic institutions of that country.

This is not just an America in decline. This is an America in retreat -- accepting, ratifying and declaring its decline, and inviting rising powers to fill the vacuum.

Nor is this retreat by inadvertence. This is retreat by design and, indeed, on principle. It's the perfect fulfillment of Obama's adopted Third World narrative of American misdeeds, disrespect and domination from which he has come to redeem us and the world. Hence his foundational declaration at the U.N. General Assembly last September that "No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation" (guess who's been the dominant nation for the last two decades?) and his dismissal of any "world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another." (NATO? The West?)

Given Obama's policies and principles, Turkey and Brazil are acting rationally. Why not give cover to Ahmadinejad and his nuclear ambitions? As the United States retreats in the face of Iran, China, Russia and Venezuela, why not hedge your bets? There's nothing to fear from Obama, and everything to gain by ingratiating yourself with America's rising adversaries. After all, they actually believe in helping one's friends and punishing one's enemies.

3007  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: May 21, 2010, 09:34:37 AM
"Just keeping up the Paul family tradition"

GM,

It is errie how the son looks, speaks, thinks EXACTLY like his father.  Maybe HE is the first clone baby.
I agree with Crafty that the point is "sound" but politically he just gave the Dems the rally cry they have been looking for.
Now they will go nuts on every one of their main stream media outlets tying the Tea Party to the party that is "against Civil Rights".
Did anyone else see Paul on Rachal Madcow's show?  She couldn't stop from drooling and giggling with tingle on her leg over sticking this point to him.
His response was weak and defensive even if logical.   
3008  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / morris making sense of elections on: May 20, 2010, 03:33:29 PM
 By Dick Morris 05.19.2010 The message of the May 18th primaries is that it is open season on incumbents. In Pennsylvania, Senator Arlen Specter (D-Pa) lost decisively to Congressman Joe Sestak (D-Pa)in his primary contest while Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark) limped into the runoff in the Democratic primary by 44-42 over Lt. Gov. Bill Halter. There can be little doubt that Lincoln will lose the runoff having scored so far under 50% of the vote. The fact is that 56% of the Democrats in Arkansas decided to vote against Lincoln.

Both Specter and Lincoln are now reaping the harvest of their votes for health care, a fate soon to be shared by Senators Harry Reid (D-NV), Barbara Boxer (D-Cal.), Michael Bennet (D Col.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY). And the liability of incumbency was also vividly on display a week ago when long time Democratic incumbent Congressman Alan Mollohan (D-W Va.) was upended in his primary contest.


Lest the Democrats take comfort in their new standard bearers in Pennsylvania and Arkansas, it is obvious that Sestak and Halter will be easier to defeat than their far better known incumbent rivals would have been. The new Senator from Pennsylvania will be Republican nominee Pat Toomey and from Arkansas it will be Congressman John Boozman (R-Ark.).

With the defeat of Specter, the likely demise of Lincoln, and the recent loss of Senator Bob Bennett (R-Utah), the new Senate class of 2011 will have at least 14 new members…with more to come.

Democrats are taking satisfaction from their victory in Pennsylvania 12 where they held onto the seat of deceased Congressman John Murtha. But the obvious reason for their success is that Democratic turnout was boosted by a ferocious statewide Senate primary which drew out 1,050,000 voters while the Republican contest — never seriously contested 00 brought a paltry 800,000 to the polls. With no statewide reason to vote, local PA-12 Republicans stayed home while their Democratic neighbors flocked to the polls to vote against Specter (a joy not to be missed).

The Democratic victory in PA-12 also underscores a more fundamental point which is that incumbency is a huge liability in 2010. It is simply better to come from nowhere to run this year than to seek to keep a seat in this totally discredited Congress.

Rand Paul´s success in Kentucky in toppling establishment Senate candidate Trey Grayson in the Republican primary — along with the Bennett defeat in Utah — shows that this anti-politician sentiment cuts across party lines.

The harsh verdict on incumbents stems not so much from party preferences as from revulsion at the legislative process itself. The by-product of violating Bismark´s maxim that the public should never see sausage being made or a law being passed is that those who do the latter in full public view are doomed to end their legislative careers in defeat. The unseemly bargaining, machinations, and overt buying and selling of votes that characterized the health care debate of 2009-2010 has left so sour a taste in voter mouths that they understandably dismiss those incumbents from office whenever they can.

The fact that President Obama let the Congress write the two thousand page bill in public and that Reid and Pelosi negotiated for votes in front of the media, has amplified voter anger at Congress. Watching the deals being hatched and votes switching proved too much for the electorate to stomach. Now it is expressing its discontent with the legislative shenanigans it has had to watch.

This year is not just an anti-Democrat year. It is an anti-incumbent year.


3009  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: May 18, 2010, 10:28:13 AM
***The bottom line: Defensive business arrangements designed to blunt ObamaCare's economic impacts will mean less patient choice.***

This is an understatement.  The goal is NO choice for us.  The goal is Donald Berwick and his Harvard buddies and the Dem politicians will decide EVERYTHING.
3010  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Bamster and crew: Star Wars fans on: May 18, 2010, 10:24:16 AM
Remember how the left mocked and derided Reagan's quest for an anti-missle defense capability and came up with the name "star wars"?

Here is the guy who the Bamster has as his weapons aquisitions Czar mocking Reagan in 1984.  Of course the Bamster is now expecting Israeli's to put their lives on the line by relying on technology all started by Reagan in 2010.

Now Bamster and his crew are in charge and now it is a good thing.


****Obama "weapons Czar" said Reagan's Star Wars a pipe dream
PA Times | 9/4/09 | Pissant

Posted on Friday, September 04, 2009 6:12:30 PM by pissant

In a Tom Wicker NY Times story reprinted in the St Petersberg Times on May 12, 1984 (1), Obama's pencil necked Weapons Czar, Ashton Carter, is quoted as declaring that Reagan's "Star Wars" (SDI) was nothing but a pipe dream. Apparently, Mr. Carter - the man with the oh so appropriate last name - was the author of a report during his stint at MIT that sought to put the kabosh on Reagan's plans for missile defenses.

The Democrats in the house cooked up a group called the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment that issued a scathing report denouncing the efficacy of missile defenses, basing their conclusions on Carter's work.

In his report, Carter stated: "A consensus of the informed members of the defense technical community that the prospect of a successful missile defense was so remote that it should not serve as the basis for public expectation or national policy".

Of course, unlike Reagan, idiots like Ashton Carter did not know that Reagan intended to bankrupt the USSR in a race for missile defenses as well as lay the groundwork for fully functional systems.

But surely Mr. Carter was fully cured of his naivete by the time he was hired on as under secretary of Defense by Slick Willie? Well it turns out that he also was one of the prime architects for the deal with the North Korean commies to halt their nuclear programs in 1994 (2).

So it looks like Obama's czar is batting .000.

At laest one positive thing came from Mr. Carter's supposed expertise. It convinced Walter Mondale to run on a platform opposing SDI (3). ROFL.****



3011  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: May 18, 2010, 09:26:32 AM
"a junior at New College of Florida, a tiny liberal arts college in Sarasota"

And that is the problem.  What does a kid like this know about the world beyond the coombaya nature of her classroom and her facebook?
Perhaps her older relatives are paying her bills?
3012  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Harvard's plans control of ALL US health care on: May 17, 2010, 11:23:32 AM
Finally we are beginning the hear in the media what the academics at Harvard and a few other liberal ivory towers have in store for us as they have planned for decades.  Please recall how I have said these are the handful of people who are pushing for government controlled socialized medicine.  Now that this guy is pushed out there as the new leader of the radical overhaul of our health care system in the US we are finally seeing him scrutinized.  The goal certainly is single payer, no choice, government controlled and dictated care to all of us.  No execptions.  Is it finally clear to the nay sayers yet or not?   

****Donald Berwick’s Radical Agendaby Ben Domenech

President Obama’s nomination of Donald Berwick as the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is a gathering far less attention than a certain other nominee — but it will be getting more attention in the weeks to come, given his particularly radical agenda when it comes to health policy.

Berwick is a leading Ivy League academic and technocrat – he’s graduated from Harvard not once, but three times – and is the founder of a Cambridge-based think-tank, the Institute for Health Care Improvement. Yet the job of running CMS is hardly the same as running a small think tank or talking in broad terms about the nature of health care – CMS is essentially the world’s second largest insurance company after the United Kingdom’s NHS, covering over 98 million people and overseeing roughly $800 billion annually in taxpayer-funded health care expenditures.

Berwick is a great fan of the NHS, and worked as a consultant on the project under Tony Blair. Berwick will have the opportunity to apply the ideas he gained through that experience with the power of the CMS position, which means that his nomination holds massive ramifications for Medicare and Medicaid recipients, hospitals and doctors and, under Obama’s law, all Americans.

Berwick: Health Care Must Redistribute Wealth

Key to understanding Berwick’s views on the NHS is a speech he gave as part of a presentation offered two years ago, in which he shared his thoughts on the NHS and health care generally. You can watch the full speech here, which is excerpted above. The full video shows several lines from Berwick that are notable. He decries private sector solutions to health care problems, dismissing the “invisible hand of the market” as an “unaccountable system.” He also states:

“I am romantic about the NHS; I love it. All I need to do to rediscover the romance is to look at health care in my own country.”

And more disturbingly, in the clip above:

“Any health care funding plan that is just equitable civilized and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional.”

Berwick’s Views on Why the US Should Be More Like the UK

Robert Goldberg, vice president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, writes on Berwick’s views expressed in 2008 at length in this piece at the American Spectator:

“Berwick complained the American health system runs in the ‘darkness of private enterprise,’ unlike Britain’s ‘politically accountable system.’ The NHS is ‘universal, accessible, excellent, and free at the point of care – a health system that is, at its core, like the world we wish we had: generous, hopeful, confident, joyous, and just’; America’s health system is ‘toxic,’ ‘fragmented,’ because of its dependence on consumer choice. He told his UK audience: ‘I cannot believe that the individual health care consumer can enforce through choice the proper configurations of a system as massive and complex as health care. That is for leaders to do.’”

But as Goldberg points out:

“It may not be joyous or just or configured correctly, but for nearly every disease, particularly cancer, stroke, and heart attacks, Americans live longer and healthier than the English because of better care.”

Indeed, the UK has a terrible record on heart attacks, cancer, and more. A recent piece in the Telegraph runs down the OECD numbers concerning Britain’s actual outcomes from the system Berwick supports so much:

“Britain also languishes near the bottom of the breast cancer league table, with a survival rate of 78.5 per cent. The OECD-wide average is 81.2 per cent. Heart attack victims in Britain are also more likely to die after entering hospital than in most other developed nations. Around 6.3 per cent of patients who have suffered a heart attack have passed away within 30 days of entering a British hospital – significantly higher than the 4.3 per cent average. The figures also show that British life expectancy is much lower than our nearest neighbours. Men in this country can expect to live to 79 years and six months, against 81 years in France. While the report’s authors identified some successes in British healthcare – we have among the best records in Europe for screening women for breast and cervical cancer – the survey indicates that Labour’s much-trumpeted NHS investment has failed to raise standards in key areas.”

The fact is that the UK system is designed for a very different population than ours, with a very different culture — one with far fewer guns, auto accidents, better diets, and fewer young people doing dangerous things. Yet America still has advantages in dealing with these key diseases. While there are many statistics to trumpet on this point, perhaps the best example is that American life expectancy at age 65 is actually higher than Britain.

 Berwick: Best System is Ration-Based Single Payer

Berwick is not so much an ideologue as a true believer in governmental efficiency over the ability of the marketplace and the consumer to direct their health care. In a recent piece in Health Affairs, written along with two colleagues, Berwick details his position on the ideal nature of health care:

“If we could ever find the political nerve, we strongly suspect that financing and competitive dynamics such as the following, purveyed by governments and payers, would accelerate interest in [our policy ideal] and progress toward it: (1) global budget caps on total health care spending for designated populations, (2) measurement of and fixed accountability for the health status and health needs of designated populations, (3) improved standardized measures of care and per capita costs across sites and through time that are transparent, (4) changes in payment such that the financial gains from reduction of per capita costs are shared among those who pay for care and those who can and should invest in further improvements, and (5) changes in professional education accreditation to ensure that clinicians are capable of changing and improving their processes of care. With some risk, we note that the simplest way to establish many of these environmental conditions is a single-payer system, hiring integrators with prospective, global budgets to take care of the health needs of a defined population, without permission to exclude any member of the population.”

As the eloquent Avik Roy wrote recently, there are serious flaws in Berwick’s approach (emphasis mine):

“First off, as William Schambra observed in National Affairs, it assumes that politicians — and politics — play no role in forming health-care policy. Even if you believe that technocrats could better organize our health-care system, Berwick’s approach only works if the narrow interests of Congressmen, labor unions, general hospitals, the AARP, etc., have no influence on the writing of law. No one who watched Democrats make the Obamacare sausage can harbor any illusions on this score.

“Secondly, as Friedrich Hayek pointed out back in 1945, the command approach is doomed to fail because its commanders do not gain accurate information about what is happening on the ground. Technocrats may believe they can marshal statistics and analysis to optimize the health-care system, but they are not omniscient. Their analyses rely on too many assumptions and on unreliable data. This is why government programs always result in colossal amounts of waste, fraud, and abuse. On the other hand, a truly free market for health insurance could efficiently allocate health-care resources to those therapies and tests that patients and doctors most need.”

Yet Berwick is not particularly ideological in his endorsement: he simply believes that the single payer model is the most efficient, and the most easily managed, approach to health care. In large part, this is because he believes in government-directed rationing of care.

In an interview on Comparative Effectiveness Research, Berwick supported an agency which would rationing health care. He particularly focused on what he perceives as the benefits of the UK’s National Institute for Clinical Health and Excellence: As Dr. Berwick said:

“NICE is extremely effective and a conscientious, valuable, and — importantly — knowledge-building system [which has] developed very good and very disciplined, scientifically grounded, policy-connected models for the evaluation of medical treatments from which we ought to learn.”

The interviewer pointed out: “Critics of CER have said that it will lead to the rationing of health care.” To which Berwick replied: “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care. The decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”

Here are just some of the horror stories from NICE over the past several years. Under Donald Berwick’s authority as the head of CMS, get ready to see stories like these in the pages of American papers in the years to come.*****

3013  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Maybe not a bad thing on: May 17, 2010, 11:13:22 AM
"This situation has the potential for exploding into something much larger."

Radio host Savage was saying how he is happy about all this.  It is about time we have this fight and stop suppressing it.
He is ready for the fight and it is about time.  I can't say I don't feel the same way.  I don't see why citizens and other legal residents (who got in line and did it the legal way) have to keep taking this abuse.
We are being stepped on and I am tired of it.
3014  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Obama Phenomena on: May 17, 2010, 09:55:59 AM
Doug and Crafty,
Two good posts that sum it all up.
Yet his approval ratings continue to stay at around 48%.
As long as the 48% see him as taking from tax payers to pay for *their* benefits it doesn't appear these approval ratings will change much.
It is a sad state of affairs.
The only way I can think of is that we have to convince the 48% that big government is not the long term solution for them as well as for those who work to pay for all this stuff.  Many of them won't care in the least.  Perhaps a few forward thinkers among them might see the light. 
In the health field I see all day long people gaiming the system.  Government can and will always be "gamed".
There is always talk amongst the liberal crowd how the wealthy and the corporations game the system.  One never hears a peep from them about those on the dole who are doing the same thing.  Doesnt that say it all that they will not say anything about this because this is where they get their power from?
They don't want a lot of peopel off welfare, they don't want people to not be tied to food stamps, government sponsored loans, medicaid, unemployment etc.

Intellectually honest academics would be the first to point out that if you spoil people with freebies at others expense, you only serve to encourage the same behavior.  Psychology 101.

So we must first convince Americans to believe in themselves and private opportunities - not government.  Is it doable?  Hopefully, it is for enough voters to get this guy kicked out of office for good.

3015  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Machismo on: May 15, 2010, 12:57:07 PM
“I never thought that I’d be caught up in this messed-up system,” Ms. Colotl said Friday at a news conference after being released on $2,500 bail. “I was treated like a criminal, like a threat to the nation.”

“This is a civil rights disaster,” said Ms. Bauer, who called the county’s application of the law “mean-spirited and very probably illegal. We call on the Obama administration to end 287(g),” she said.

What can I say?   Simply mind boggling is it not?

If only these people were not mostly Democrats - I guarantee this problem would not exist.

Isn't part of  the concept of machismo about repect?  Yet we get disrespected daily in our own country.

3016  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Wireless networks = public networks on: May 15, 2010, 09:23:28 AM
There is no question they did this purposely.  This is all the new corporate crime going on.  And no one is looking, no one is doing anything about it.  They pay people to snoop like this  They have been doing this to Katherine and I for years and we can't stop it.  Everything is wireless or wireless capable now.  You get this stuff sold to you as though it is some sort of upgrade.  "Oh we will throw this in there too...."

They often hire ex cons to do this.  MSFT does it all the time. They have departments that do this. This is by and away how the entertainment industry gets their material - by watching others and stealing it.

Until the gov. gets serious and enforces laws and puts people away - this kind of stuff will continue to grow.

****TECHNOLOGY MAY 14, 2010, 7:54 P.M. ET Google Says It Mistakenly Collected Data on Web Usage By JESSICA E. VASCELLARO
Google Inc. said an internal investigation has discovered that the roving vans the company uses to create its online mapping services were mistakenly collecting data about websites people were visiting over wireless networks.

The Internet giant said it would stop collecting Wi-Fi data from its StreetView vans, which workers drive to capture street images and to locate Wi-Fi networks. The company said it would dispose of the data it had accidentally collected.

Alan Eustace, senior vice president of engineering and research for Google, wrote in a blog post that the company uncovered the mistake while responding to a German data-protection agency's request for it to audit the Wi-Fi data, amid mounting concerns that Google's practices violated users' privacy.

The camera of a German Google Street View car looms over the car next to the Google logo at the Google stand at the CeBIT Technology Fair on March 3, 2010 in Hannover, Germany.
Journal Community
Vote: From an end to online sales of Nexus One to privacy concerns over StreetView's WiFi surveys, will the setbacks hurt Google's momentum? Google had previously said it was collecting the location of Wi-Fi hot spots from its StreetView vehicles, but not the information being transmitted over those networks by users.

"It's now clear that we have been mistakenly collecting samples of payload data from open (i.e. non-password-protected) Wi-Fi networks, even though we never used that data in any Google products," wrote Mr. Eustace. "We are profoundly sorry for this error and are determined to learn all the lessons we can from our mistake."

Google said it has been collecting and keeping the data since around 2007. At that time, the team building the software to gather the location of Wi-Fi hot spots mistakenly included some experimental software that sampled all categories of publicly broadcast Wi-Fi data.

"It is another example of the how the company hasn't effectively grappled with the massive amount of information it collects," said Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy.

Experience WSJ professional Editors' Deep Dive: Google, Others Struggle With PrivacyTR DAILY
Privacy Can Exist With Innovation, Symposium Speakers SayDow Jones News Service
Facebook Bolsters D.C. PresenceComputerworld (Australia)
Privacy groups target Google Street ViewAccess thousands of business sources not available on the free web. Learn More Due to the mistake, Google could have collected information about which websites people were accessing, from online videos they were watching to emails they were sending.

But Google would only have collected data if the website and the Wi-Fi connection weren't secured. Many major websites that carry personal information, such as financial-services sites, are encrypted so no data from such services were collected, a Google spokesman said. Mr. Eustace wrote that Google only had "fragments" of data, since its cars were on the move.

Google uses the Wi-Fi data to improve its location-based services. By having a database of Wi-Fi hot spots, Google can identify a mobile user's approximate location based on cell towers and Wi-Fi access points that are visible to their device. A Google spokesman said the company would continue to offer those products.

The disclosure comes as Google's collection of Wi-Fi data—along with other real-life imagery it uses in its mapping services—have come under intense scrutiny from some privacy advocates, specifically in Europe. In April, Google moved to defend the service and what it collects in a lengthy blog post in which it said it did not collect or store payload data.

Write to Jessica E. Vascellaro at jessica.vascellaro@wsj.com

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved****

3017  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: May 14, 2010, 11:13:57 AM
Doug, Agreed by far Latinos make up the largest proportion of illegals.
But my point is not just on principal.
IMO opinion it is quite the contrary.  It is political.
IF we keep making this about Mexcans and other Southern Americans coming here and not about ALL illegals those opposed to doing anything about it, primarily Latinos and their liberal buddies will continue to keep making this about "race".  It isn't as you know but they can continue to rile up the Hispanics who have the nerve to walk accorss th border illegally and than lecture us about rights, humane treament, dignity and all the rest of the crap while they take advantage of the political correct crowd whose ONLY concern is more Demcocrat voters.  Could you imagine the Bama crowd if these people voted for Republicans??

It is all about politics.
3018  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Morris:repubs look poised to retake Congress on: May 14, 2010, 11:08:07 AM
By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann 05.12.2010 Behind the scenes, the chances of a GOP takeover of the US Senate increased in the past two weeks with key developments in pivotal states.

Already, Republican candidates are ahead in eight states now represented by Democrats: Delaware, North Dakota, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Colorado, Arkansas and Nevada. And, in California, Senator Barbara Boxer is polling in the low 40s just barely ahead of her Republican challengers.

But nine seats won’t give us control since Biden would break the tie for the Democrats. We need ten.


Enter Washington State where a large field of Republican candidates have failed to dent the lead of three term incumbent Senator Patty Murray. But now it appears that Dino Rossi, the former Republican candidate for Governor, is likely to get into the race. Rossi, in fact, won the election for governor in Washington only to have it stolen from him by 200 votes after multiple recounts. Rossi trails Murray by only 48-46 even though he has yet to announce his candidacy. The vital tenth seat may well be Washington.

Or will it be Wisconsin where Democratic incumbent Russ Feingold is seeking re-election. Feingold is so far left that he wouldn’t find any district this side of Havana safe. And he has now drawn two top tier Republican opponents: Beer mogul Richard Leinenkugel and conservative activist Ron Johnson. Feingold scores below 50% of the vote in trial matchups, a sure indication of vulnerability.

Leinenkugel has good credentials for a race having served as state Commerce Secretary albeit in the current Democratic Administration of Governor Doyle. Johnson brings a compelling speaking style and solid conservative credentials — and a boatload of dough — to the race. Feingold won’t sleep well tonight.

And bear in mind New York where three good candidates — David Malpass, Joe DioGuardia, and Bruce Blakeman — are vying to take on vulnerable appointed incumbent Kristen Gillibrand. Read our book, 2010: Take Back America: A Battle Plan, to see how weak Gillibrand is.

And Connecticut where Democratic Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has slipped to 52% of the vote against Republican challenger Rob Simmons (he leads by 52-38). Blumenthal runs stronger against Linda McMahon of wrestling fame (he beats her, according to Rasmussen, by 55-35). If Simmons wins the primary, he has a good chance of knocking off Blumenthal.

So among Washington, Wisconsin, New York, and Connecticut, we are looking increasingly likely to find a tenth Republican victory.

3019  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Why can't the dumb Cans stop making this about Latinos??? on: May 14, 2010, 09:43:21 AM
Will there ever by outrage from the mainstream media?

I still say Republicans can blunt the racial thing by clearly pointing out that we will not tolerate illegal immigration from any country not just the Mexicans and the southern border.

When Hannity had it pointed out to him from Juan Williams (whom I like) that there are 50,000 illegal Irish in NYC he ignored the comment.  Well what does anyone expect then when he is silent over this yet screaming talking points that are clearly geared towards Latinos?Huh

My question is why is there and why do we tolerate 50K illegal Irish in NYC?  Why is this not as outrageous as the Latinos coming here illegally?  What is the difference?  Illegal is illegal.  Juan Williams has a point.
3020  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Humor/WTF on: May 10, 2010, 12:23:44 PM
After the entire context of the joke was made more clear I didn't find it to be big deal actually.  It didn't instill a desire in me to strap a bomb on my person and walk into a Federal building and take out as many people as possible. 
 wink grin
3021  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / pbs documentary on American Jews on: May 10, 2010, 12:18:47 PM
I am not sure what thread this would go under.  It could be immigration (legal and Jewish), anti semitism (to a small extent), Israel, etc.

I saw one episode last night of a three part documentary of Jews in America.  For those with an interest one get see the broadcast schedule here. 

http://www.pbs.org/jewishamericans/about/watch.html
3022  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Jews: looking for another One. on: May 10, 2010, 11:17:30 AM
The polls don't follow through and ask that if Jews would consider voting for someone else would they consider a Republican.  It is a big leap to expect "someone" else to be from another party.  I doubt most liberal  Jews would even dream of this.  I wonder if the Kagan nomination is a bone for the Jews to placate them.

****Poll: Obama has Lost Almost Half of his US Jewish Support
 
by Gil Ronen
Follow Israel news on  and .


United States President Barack Obama has lost nearly half of his support among American Jews, a poll by the McLaughlin Group has shown.

The US Jews polled were asked whether they would: (a) vote to re-elect Obama, or (b) consider voting for someone else. 42% said they would vote for Obama and 46%, a plurality, preferred the second answer. 12% said they did not know or refused to answer.   

In the Presidential elections of 2008, 78% of Jewish voters, or close to 8 out of 10, chose Obama. The McLaughlin poll held nearly 18 months later, in April 2010, appears to show that support down to around 4 out of 10. 

The poll showed that key voter segments including Orthodox/Hassidic voters, Conservative voters, voters who have friends and family in Israel and those who have been to Israel, are all more likely to consider voting for someone other than Obama.

Among Orthodox/Hassidic voters, 69% marked 'someone else' vs. 17% who marked 're-elect.' Among Conservative-affiliated voters the proportion was 50% to 38%. Among Reform Jews, a slim majority of 52% still supported Obama while 36% indicated they would consider someone else. Among Jews with family in Israel and those who had been to Israel, about 50% said they would consider someone else, while 41%-42% supported Obama.

Fifty percent of the Jewish voters polled said they approved of the job Obama is doing handling US relations with Israel. Thirty-nine percent said they disapproved. “This rating is not good for a group of voters who are 59% Democratic to only 16% Republican,” the poll's analysis noted.

A majority of 52% said they disapproved of the idea of the Obama Administration supporting a plan to recognize a Palestinian state within two years. 62% said that if given a state, “the Palestinians would continue their campaign of terror to destroy Israel.” Only 19% thought they would live peacefully with Israel.     

As Obama loses support among members of the influential Jewish voter bloc, possible Republican candidate Sarah Palin seems to be doing her best to woo them to her****
3023  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: May 10, 2010, 09:27:33 AM
OK.  Lets stop illegal immigration at all our borders including NYC, Canada and everywhere else.
Then we stop hiring illegals.
Then we stop allowing illegals to utilize public services except for emergencies.
WE change the thing where you are born here from illegal parents you are an automatic citizen.

Viola  - problem reduced by probably 90%.

Simple.

The real problem is we have cowards for politicans.
3024  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Who works for who? on: May 08, 2010, 11:32:05 AM
Here in NJ is huge fight between Governor Christie and teachers unions.  I have many patients who are teachers, ex teachers, even a close family memeber who is one.
What Christie is asking of the teachers is clearly NOT unreasonable.  He requests they put of their *annual* 4 to 5 % pay raise (does anyone know of any private sector job that has that?), and contribute 1.5% towards their health care.  The grand total is around $1500 per year.  Teachers union wages are $730/year.
This in the state with the highest porperty taxes in the nation.

Yet the power of the teachers union and how they literally control politicians is on display to amaze all.  They run ads the Christie is ruining education, harming our children and the teachers even have brainwashed out students into going out and marching for them.

I even had a retired teacher tell me she can't stand Christie and how "he is going after teachers". 

I simply don't get this.  They are outraged?  With all their benefits, pensions, health care, reasonably good salaries for a job of 9 months a year and a milliion days off?
It is not like they are facing huge pay cuts.  They think they are entitled to 4-5 % pay raises in economies with 10% unempolyment?

Quite the opposite.  The outrage is not with them.  Can Christie break this?  I sure hope so.  Thank God we have a governor who stands up to this crap. Yet he is sinking in the polls I've heard.  Well they say 1/3 of Jersey residents are on some form of dole.  I guess it is no wonder why teachers forget who works for who.   It is time they be reminded. 

****By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann 05.6.2010 A perfect storm is brewing for the nation’s schools and the teachers’ unions that have them in a stranglehold. Voter anger at the socialist, big government solutions of the Obama Administration and its Democratic lookalikes in state capitals throughout the country is about to combine with massive education funding shortfalls brought on by the unions’ waste of taxpayer money.


These forces will combine in November, 2010 to force gigantic changes in school financing and governance, leading to the prospect of genuine school choice for the poor and middle class as the rich have always had.

Just as a Republican landslide in November will engulf and extinguish Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, so it will sweep away the party’s power at the state level. State houses in at least ten states are likely to change parties and dozens of legislative chambers will see Republican majorities, many for the first time in decades. The teachers union will be swept from power along with its Democratic allies.

Just as this earthquake is making its way through state capitals, governors will be casting about for ways to meet revenue shortfalls without tax hikes. Top on their list will be the elimination of layers of bureaucracy and of privileges enjoyed by the teacher unions. As a result more and more of the education budget will be spent in the classroom and vastly more will be channeled into education choice programs.

The number of charter schools will likely grow exponentially and programs for vouchers, scholarships, and tax credits for private and parochial schools will be passed in state after state. Given a chance to provide good education for $7,000 per student in alternative schools rather than pay $10,000 per student in dysfunctional public schools, government officials will move rapidly to expand school choice.

To learn more about this coming revolution in education, GO HERE NOW.

Now is the time for every parent and taxpayer to get involved and to push for seismic shifts in education funding and policy. Perfect storms like this don’t come along every year and not even in every lifetime.****





3025  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: May 08, 2010, 11:14:59 AM
"'Machete,'"

And of course it will be up for some kind of an award.  Probably not oscar but some film festival award which are mostly PACs for pushing liberal agendas.

"As you know, illegal Americans are being forced out of our country at an alarming rate," says the contractor. "For the good of both our people, the senator must die."

*Real* Americans should boycott everyone associated with this movie.
3026  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for the American Creed on: May 08, 2010, 11:05:45 AM
It seems most Blacks will never listen to Whites so if there are more Blacks in the "other" party maybe more will reconsider and we can break the Dem stranglehold on minorities.  It doesn't seem this can happen overnight.
3027  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / For Republicans: great news on: May 05, 2010, 05:32:29 PM
I was looking for this guy but could not find him till now.  I heard him speak on cable and he wowed me:   Allen West in Florida.


****Among the many reverberations of President Obama’s election, here is one he probably never anticipated: at least 32 African-Americans are running for Congress this year as Republicans, the biggest surge since Reconstruction, according to party officials.

 
Barbara P. Fernandez for The New York Times
Allen West, running in Florida, says the notion of racism in the Tea Party movement has been made up by the news media.

Princella Smith, in Arkansas, says she disagrees with President Obama but is proud of the country for electing him.
The House has not had a black Republican since 2003, when J. C. Watts of Oklahoma left after eight years.

But now black Republicans are running across the country — from a largely white swath of beach communities in Florida to the suburbs of Phoenix, where an African-American candidate has raised more money than all but two of his nine (white) Republican competitors in the primary.

Party officials and the candidates themselves acknowledge that they still have uphill fights in both the primaries and the general elections, but they say that black Republicans are running with a confidence they have never had before. They credit the marriage of two factors: dissatisfaction with the Obama administration, and the proof, as provided by Mr. Obama, that blacks can get elected.

“I ran in 2008 and raised half a million dollars, and the state party didn’t support me and the national party didn’t support me,” said Allen West, who is running for Congress in Florida and is one of roughly five black candidates the party believes could win. “But we came back and we’re running and things are looking great.”

But interviews with many of the candidates suggest that they felt empowered by Mr. Obama’s election, that it made them realize that what had once seemed impossible — for a black candidate to win election with substantial white support — was not.

“There is no denying that one of the things that came out of the election of Obama was that you have a lot of African-Americans running in both parties now,” said Vernon Parker, who is running for an open seat in Arizona’s Third District. His competition in the Aug. 24 primary includes the son of former Vice President Dan Quayle, Ben Quayle.

Princella Smith, who is running for an open seat in Arkansas, said she viewed the president’s victory through both the lens of history and partisan politics. “Aside from the fact that I disagree fundamentally with all his views, I am proud of my nation for proving that we have the ability to do something like that,” Ms. Smith said.

State and national party officials say that this year’s cast of black Republicans is far more experienced than the more fringy players of yore, and include elected officials, former military personnel and candidates who have run before.

Mr. Parker is the mayor of Paradise Valley, Ariz. Ryan Frazier is a councilman in Aurora, Colo., one of four at-large members who represent the whole city. And Tim Scott is the only black Republican elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives since Reconstruction.

“These are not just people pulled out of the hole,” said Timothy F. Johnson, chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation, a black conservative group. That is “the nice thing about being on this side of history,” he said.

He added that the candidates might be helped by the presence of Michael Steele, the chairman of the Republican National Committee who is black and ran for the Senate himself in 2006.

“Party affiliation is not a barrier to inspiration,” Mr. Steele said in an e-mail message. “Certainly, the president’s election was and remains an inspiration to many.”

But Democrats and other political experts express skepticism about black Republicans’ chances in November. “In 1994 and 2000, there were 24 black G.O.P. nominees,” said Donna Brazile, a Democratic political strategist who ran Al Gore’s presidential campaign and who is black. “And you didn’t see many of them win their elections.”

Tavis Smiley, a prominent black talk show host who has repeatedly criticized Republicans for not doing more to court black voters, said, “It’s worth remembering that the last time it was declared the ‘Year of the Black Republican,’ it fizzled out.”

In many ways, this subset of Republicans is latching on to the basic themes propelling most of their party’s campaigns this year — the call for smaller government, less spending and stronger national security — rather than building platforms around social conservatism.

“Things have evolved,” said Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, who is heavily involved in recruiting Republican candidates. “I think partly the level of hostility to Obama, Pelosi and Reid makes a lot of people pragmatically more open to a coalition from the standpoint of being a long-term majority party.”

Many of the candidates are trying to align themselves with the Tea Partiers, insisting that the racial dynamics of that movement have been overblown. Videos taken at some Tea Party rallies show some participants holding up signs with racially inflammatory language.

A recent New York Times/CBS News poll found that 25 percent of self-identified Tea Party supporters think that the Obama administration favors blacks over whites, compared with 11 percent of the general public.

The black candidates interviewed overwhelmingly called the racist narrative a news media fiction. “I have been to these rallies, and there are hot dogs and banjos,” said Mr. West, the candidate in Florida, a retired lieutenant colonel in the Army. “There is no violence or racism there.”

There is also some evidence that black voters rally around specific conservative causes. A case in point was a 2008 ballot initiative in California outlawing same-sex marriage that passed in large part because of support from black voters in Southern California.

Still, black Republicans face a double hurdle: black Democrats who are disinclined to back them in a general election, and incongruity with white Republicans, who sometimes do not welcome the blacks whom party officials claim to covet as new members.

This spring, Gov. Robert F. McDonnell of Virginia was roundly attacked for not mentioning slavery in his Confederate History Month proclamation, which he later said was a “major omission.” Black candidates said these types of gaffes posed problems in drawing African-Americans to their party, but also underscored their need to be there.

“I think what the governor failed to do was to recognize the pain and the emotion that was really sparked by the institution of slavery,” said Mr. Frazier of Colorado. “As a Republican, I think I have a responsibility to continue to work within my party to avoid those types of barriers. The key for the Republican Party is to engage every community on the issues they care about and not act as if they don’t exist.”****

3028  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Energy Politics & Science on: May 04, 2010, 11:29:08 AM
From Department of the Interior.  Notice "response" plan.  Stand up comedy must be part of the response.  I am glad to note Kim Kardashian and Jessica Simpson were so entertained.

Also good to see our government "on top of it from day one":

http://www.mms.gov/regcompliance/MOU/PDFs/MOU-MMSUSGS-OilDischargeMOAMay232007.pdf
3029  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: May 03, 2010, 09:48:19 AM
Crafty,
The link you posted shows what enforcing the law could accomplish.

If done on a national level our problems would be partially solved.  The other half of the equation is not allowing people in the US to knowingly hire illegals - not just those coming accorss the borders, but those in all states whether it be in NYC or Indianapolis, Indiana.  Whether they be Israeli, Irish, Chinese, etc.  WE have to put as stop to the argument that this is about Mexicans.

We must ammend the law that people born here are automatic citizens even if both parents are illegal (or if not one of them is a citizen). If one or both are here legally but not citizens I don't know what we should do but if both are illegal why can't we use common sense? Think of the benefit.  You could put yourself up for hire to Shakira types and offer your hand in marriage and have their baby for a fee.  If they want their baby to be a US citizen they would have to do it with you, not the Chicanos.

Personally I don't want Shakira types speaking for me or my country.  We are dumbed down enough.
3030  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: May 01, 2010, 09:53:13 AM
Humping chairs, the floor, gyrating hips across a stage and claiming one wrote stolen songs certainly qualifies her to discuss immigration issues.  Yet she obviously brings in ratings with her looks so FOX and all the rest give her a platform.

Meantime her record sales go up, she pretends she is such a good heart and the rest of us are suckers and stuck being lectured to by the likes of her.

Well for the record, my opinion is shut the hell up and if you don't like our laws you are free to return to beloved Columbia.

Use your free speech and I will use mine.
3031  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: May 01, 2010, 09:38:35 AM
Hopefully she saved the dress (or night gown or panties):

OBAMA CHEATING SCANDAL: SHOCKING NEW REPORTS
 

Photo by: splash news online Reports out of Washington, DC:  PRESIDENT OBAMA has been caught in a shocking cheating scandal after being caught in a Washington, DC Hotel with a former campaign aide.

And now, a hush-hush security video that shows everything could topple both Obama's presidency and marriage to Michelle!

A confidential investigation has learned that Obama first became close to gorgeous 35 year-old VERA BAKER in 2004 when she worked tirelessly to get him elected to the US Senate, raising millions in campaign contributions.

While Baker has insisted in the past that "nothing happened" between them, reports reveal that top anti-Obama operatives are offering more than $1 million to witnesses to reveal what they know about the alleged hush-hush affair.

Among those being offered money is a limo driver who says that he took Vera to a secret hotel rendezvous where the President was staying.

On the condition of anonymity, the limo driver said he took Baker "from a friend's home in the DC area to the Hotel George where I learned later that Obama would be spending the night."

The driver recalled that he "waited in the lobby while she went to change her outfit. 

"But to the best of my knowledge she did not have a room at the hotel and she was not staying there so I thought that it was a bit odd."

The driver said he then picked up Obama at the airport and drove both he and Baker to various locations while he was campaigning for funds.  Vera accompanied him to each meeting.

"About 10:30 PM, I drove them to the hotel and they went in together!"

"My services for the evening were done - and there was no indication she was going to leave the hotel that night."

Analyzing the reports, a top DC insider said the driver's account had been independently corroborated by investigators who believe the couple spent the night together at the hotel.

On-site hotel surveillance video camera footage may provide indisputable evidence.

"Investigators are attempting to obtain a tape from the hotel (that) shows Vera and Barack together," the DC insider confided. 

"If the tape surfaces, it will explode the scandal."
3032  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: April 30, 2010, 02:21:53 PM
Seeing Shakira giving advise to America about Arizona's immigration law is a double insult to me.  First she is another one singing and claiming lyrics on a couple of songs that were in my veiw stolen from Katherine.  I guess one could say she didn't know they were stolen but she surely knows she didn't write them.  Yea right.  She comes off the boat, can barely speak English when she gets here and suddenly she wirtes hit lyrics IN ENGLISH!

That said I don't know why they put her on all the talk shows telling us about humanitarism and all.  "I don't know anything about the Constitution" she says with the accent but goes on to tell us about how the law hurts children and all the rest.  I don't know why the Latin community would necessarily want her as a spokesperson.  It would like me wanting Madanno or Streisand going over to other counties telling them what to do on my behalf.

As alluded to in David Hansons piece, one could ask why she doesn't go back to Columbia and give them all the advice they can handle.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100430/D9FDA9JG0.html
3033  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: April 28, 2010, 06:36:11 PM
Doug,
legal and illegal issue are IMHO co-mingled all the time.  This isn't just me doing it.

How many times have you heard this or its equivalent, "I am not against immigration, and indeed support higher levels of 'legal' immigration. I am simply not for illegal immigration".  Every time a talking head starts to open his mouth about the illegal problem he/she feels they are oblgated to play the political correct card so as to not offend anyone and point this or its equivalent out.  We are all so trained to be terrifed of the "bigot label" we can't even discuss the reality of the scope of the problem at hand.  (Ironically we have our President saying he wants all the Black, Latino, and women votes and yet no one calls him on this racist comment.  I don't know why?  Does this not say it all? But that is another story.)

If these are inseparable issues as you and Crafty point out then why everytime the TV personalities discuss the illegal situation they have to bring up the legal immigration issues. 

We're protecting our country from an invasion.  I think increasing levels of legal immigration is NOT part of the answer.  And yes just my opinion.  Unless of course there are millions of world class geniuses who want to emigrate here.  Or, if we have determined our present legal residents/citizens are so hopeless that we need the help of those from other countries who appear ready and willing to work far harder in order to keep this country afloat.

3034  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: April 28, 2010, 10:38:09 AM
Europe may have a declining population but I don't think this is true about immigration to Europe.
All we hear is that we are turning into Europe with staggering entitlements and debt.
Our Western culture appears to have been turned into a giant Ponzi scheme which will at some point collapse like all Ponzi schemes do.
I just came out of Dunkin Donuts.  Every empolyee in there appears to be Mexican, Guatamalen, Honduran or from somewhere south of our border.  Of course I don't know if they are legal or not.  Dunkin Donuts for sure doesn't know, does not ask, maybe by law can't even ask.  The only ones benefiting from this is Dunkin Donuts.  How does this help the average citizen?  Because I have a person who can hand me a cup of coffee and bagel?  Because Americans youth or seniors are too lazy or expect their entitlements they refuse to work in a Dunkin Donuts?

We can't keep having people coming here in droves in numbers akin to the population of New York State every ten years.  For goodness sakes there are what 40 million people in California.  And look at the state. 

I say we stop this mess and leave the levels of legal immigration where they are and stop allowing employers to look the other way, stop the old thing where if you are born here you are automatically a citizen even if both parents are illegal (for Godsake this is crazy),
and start making sure everyone has some form of ID verifying they are here legally.  Yes these IDs can be forged and there will be fraudulant obtaining of them but this is a start.

The country is bankrupt and getting worse.  Even the phoney one admits it now with his debt  commision.  "We need to get the debt down now.  It can't wait".  Well no kidding!  And coming from the guy who by himself quadrupled it.  The gaul, the nerve the chuztpah of this guy!!  And the mainstream media doesn't even call him on it. 

The laugh is on the legal hardworking tax paying citizens of this country.
3035  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / 2009 green cards issued on: April 27, 2010, 02:10:51 PM
Doug and Crafty,
I hear your points of view and from what I read many do feel the same way.  It is one thing if we bring in Werner Von Braun or someone like the ex CEO of Avanex (I can't recall his name).  It is another if they are doctors, IT professionals (thousands in NJ), and quite another still if they are uneducated low wage.

Yes, I don't mind bringing geniuses into the US.  Otherwise I don't think more is helpful. 

In general, I am not for increasing legal immigration numbers.  I think it is crazy.  Suppose we double the numbers to 2 million.  In ten years another 20 million people?  We already have over 300 million.  Why is expanding out population without endless resources, space, but endless entitlements good.  To continue a ponzi scheme wherein we bring in more people to work and pay for those on the dole? 

*****APThe Department of Homeland Security has just reported that during 2009, they issued 1,130,818 new Green Cards to foreign nationals, allowing them to work legally in this country. That number represents the fourth highest number of cards issued in one year.

750,000 of the new Green Cards were given to the families of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents.

The top four recipient nations are as follows:

-Mexico…164,920
-China…receiving 64,238
-Philippines…60,029
-India…57,304*****
 
3036  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: April 26, 2010, 07:02:24 PM
"I think everyone is qualifying or tempering their being against illegals by"


I didn't literally mean everyone such as Doug or Crafty.  I typed this on the fly this AM but I meant many of the talking pundits on cable.

"Bright, hard working, educated people who want to become Americans are a big net plus for America."

In Liberty and Tyranny I believe by Levin's research illegals use 30% more in services than they provide.
I would be the first to admit it must be difficult to measure this. I am not sure if this applies to legals.

As for the educated immigrants they may be a net plus.  But how many is a good thing?  I guess the answer is the market could decide.  Health care is a special case in point. 

I mentioned before how some Indians are saying life is better for doctors in India now than here.  One Indian told me "they keep coming here" but more recently updated it with two that he knows who came here to learn medicine and did not like practice here and then went back to India.

I guess one could argue that it is good for say Indians to come and open or maintain old motels (I've heard one third of all motels in the South are Indian operated.)

When the market no longer can sustain more motels I guess they will stop coming.  Is that good for America?  Maybe.  No one is stopping those born here from getting into the motel business.

I don't think most Mexicans who come here are very educated.  Yet some work hard.  Does that qualify?  Just wondering out loud.

Do we require one has an advanced degree?  How about High school?  How about they are coming here to get an advanced degree?

How do we define the criteria besides just saying not criminals?

 
3037  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: April 26, 2010, 04:32:46 PM
"I am for legal immigration and I don't think it is an excuse"

Do we really need to raise the limits on how many immigrants are legal?

Don't we have enough now?

I think everyone is qualifying or tempering their being against illegals by saying "I think we should raise the number of legal immigrants allowed on a yearly basis as though they have to protect against being called a bigot or biased in some way. 

Or like saying I am not bigoted and love to have more people from everywhere around the globe move here just do it "legally'.

Well I am not bigoted so now that I did my duty saying that I still think we have enough people coming here legally without having to raise any limits. 

We didn't have doles a hundred years ago.  People came here and only got what they worked for not also what they qualify for.

Enough already.
3038  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: April 24, 2010, 12:05:42 PM
I notice a lot of conservatives playing it safe and extolling how they are for raising the "legal" immigration levels as an excuse to say they are against illegal immigration.  I don't know why.  I am not for more legal or illegal immigration period.  In any case my or the majority of most citizens wishes are going to be ignored as again those who pay taxes have less rights than everyone else.

****Rasmussen Poll Says 70% of Arizona Residents Support Illegal Immigration Bill
Thursday, April 22, 2010, 11:18 AM EDT - posted on NumbersUSA

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer
A new Rasmussen poll reveals that 70% of likely voters in Arizona support the new illegal immigration bill passed by the State Legislature. Only 23% oppose the bill. If signed into law, the bill would make it a crime to be in the state of Arizona illegally.

A majority of Arizona likely voters (53%), however, did express concern about if the bill will cause racial profiling. Forty-six percent expressed no concern.

The poll also asked likely voters how immigration will impact their decision at the polls, and 83% of Arizona residents said a candidate's position on immigration issues is important. Seventy-three percent of respondents also said that it's more important that Congress secure the border than offer an amnesty for the nation's 12 million illegal aliens.

The majority of Republicans, Independents and Democrats all support the bill. Although, Democrats were more concerned than the other two groups on potential civil rights violations the bill may have.

The bill awaits signature by Gov. Jan Brewer, but reports show signs that the Governor will sign the bill into law.****

3039  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Lets have a toast in China to the One on: April 22, 2010, 03:58:36 PM
And why wouldn't they want to celebrate and offer a toast to the one who wants to give it all away to our competitors and enemies?   
We are so screwed (at least half the country is).

****Party animal? Obama nightclub opens next week in China
By: Nikki Schwab and Tara Palmeri
Washington Examiner
04/21/10 6:00 PM EDT
 
Screen shot of the Obama club's logo. Don't they know the administration is known for its bare arms and not legs?
While his poll numbers in the states aren't what they used to be, some Chinese entrepreneurs must be hoping the "Obama brand" holds strong internationally.

A nightclub named after the American president, the Obama Entertainment Club, opens Monday in Shanghai, China. Details about how exactly the club is Obama-themed still are scarce, though promotional materials found by the blog Shanghaiist tout that the club "will bring international glamour, excitement and refined luxury to the Shanghai entertainment scene."****

3040  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Glen Beck on: April 20, 2010, 10:14:51 AM
Nothing.  And for people who want to tune in that is their privilege.

What I am concerned about is our political system and the encroachment of government.

If I want to pray I'll go to temple.

There is just something goofy about Beck.

I don't know.

I certainly agree with much of his politics but he just is hard for me to stomach for more than ten minutes.

I prefer Sarah P. more but she just seems a bit short on something too, I don't know.
3041  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Glen Beck on: April 20, 2010, 09:56:59 AM
On the way to the office today I turn on Beck radio and the first thing I hear is him discussing how shortly after his staff comes in in the morning they have a prayer session.

I am not kidding.

He sounds like he is giving us the spiritual stuff from alcoholics anonymous twelve step program.

He really sounds like a cult leader.

It is creepy.

And I appreciate the religious right and feel Jews have more in common with them than liberal Jews would think but I don't want the tea party to be hyjacked by Christian conservatives.   Their voice should be heard but they don't control an entire political party as for me.

I sincerely hope I don't offend my Christian friends here.
3042  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: April 19, 2010, 12:01:46 PM
Never Again Should We Be Silent

By Ed Koch

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | President Obama's abysmal attitude toward the State of Israel and his humiliating treatment of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is shocking. In the Washington Post on March 24th, Jackson Diehl wrote, "Obama has added more poison to a U.S.-Israeli relationship that already was at its lowest point in two decades. Tuesday night the White House refused to allow non-official photographers record the president's meeting with Netanyahu; no statement was issued afterward. Netanyahu is being treated as if he were an unsavory Third World dictator, needed for strategic reasons but conspicuously held at arms length. That is something the rest of the world will be quick to notice and respond to."

I have not heard or read statements criticizing the president by New York Senators Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand or many other supporters of Israel for his blatantly hostile attitude toward Israel and his discourtesy displayed at the White House. President Obama orchestrated the hostile statements of Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, voiced by Biden in Israel and by Clinton in a 43-minute telephone call to Bibi Netanyahu, and then invited the latter to the White House to further berate him. He then left Prime Minister Netanyahu to have dinner at the White House with his family, conveying he would only be available to meet again if Netanyahu had further information — read concessions — to impart.

It is unimaginable that the President would treat any of our NATO allies, large or small, in such a degrading fashion. That there are policy differences between the U.S. and the Netanyahu government is no excuse. Allies often disagree, but remain respectful.

In portraying Israel as the cause of the lack of progress in the peace process, President Obama ignores the numerous offers and concessions that Israel has made over the years for the sake of peace, and the Palestinians' repeated rejections of those offers. Not only have Israel's peace proposals, which include ceding virtually the entire West Bank and parts of Jerusalem to the Palestinians, been rejected, but each Israeli concession has been met with even greater demands, no reciprocity, and frequently horrific violence directed at Israeli civilians. Thus, Prime Minister Netanyahu's agreement to suspend construction on the West Bank — a move heralded by Secretary of State Clinton as unprecedented by an Israeli government — has now led to a demand that Israel also halt all construction in East Jerusalem, which is part of Israel's capital. Meanwhile, Palestinians are upping the ante, with violent protests in Jerusalem and elsewhere. And the Obama administration's request that our Arab allies make some conciliatory gesture towards Israel has fallen on deaf ears.

Prior American presidents, beginning with Truman who recognized the State of Israel in 1948, have valued Israel as a close ally and have often come to its rescue. For example, it was Richard Nixon during the 1973 war, who resupplied Israel with arms, making it possible for it to snatch victory from a potentially devastating defeat at the hands of a coalition of Arab countries including Egypt and Syria.

President George W. Bush made it a point of protecting Israel at the United Nations and the Security Council wielding the U.S. veto against the unfair actions and sanctions that Arab countries sought to impose to cripple and, if possible, destroy, the one Jewish nation in the world. Now, in my opinion, based on the actions and statements by President Obama and members of his administration, there is grave doubt among supporters of Israel that President Obama can be counted on to do what presidents before him did — protect our ally, Israel. The Arabs can lose countless wars and still come back because of their numbers. If Israel were to lose one, it would cease to exist.

To its credit, Congress, according to the Daily News, has acted differently towards Prime Minister Netanyahu than President Obama. Reporter Richard Sisk wrote on March 24th, "Congress put on a rare show of bipartisanship for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday — a sharp contrast to his chilly reception at the White House. 'We in Congress stand by Israel,' House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told a beaming Netanyahu, who has refused to budge on White House and State Department demands to freeze settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank."

But Congress does not make foreign policy. It can prevent military arms from going to Israel, but cannot send them. Congress has no role in determining U.S. policy at the U.N. Security Council. The President of the United States determines our foreign policy — nearly unilaterally — under our Constitution. So those Congressional bipartisan wishes of support, while welcome, will not protect Israel in these areas, only the President can do that. Based on his actions to date, I have serious doubts.

In the 1930s, the Jewish community and its leadership, with few exceptions, were silent when their coreligionists were being attacked, hunted down, incarcerated and slaughtered. Ultimately 6 million Jews were exterminated in the Holocaust. The feeling in the U.S. apparently was that Jews who criticized our country's actions and inactions that endangered the lives of other Jews would be considered disloyal, unpatriotic and displaying dual loyalty, so many Jews stayed mute. Never again should we allow that to occur. We have every right to be concerned about the fate of the only Jewish nation in the world, which if it had existed during the 1930s and thereafter, would have given sanctuary to any Jew escaping the Nazi holocaust and taken whatever military action it could to save Jews not yet in the clutches of the Nazis. We who have learned the lessons of silence, Jews and Christians alike, must speak up now before it is too late.

So I ask again, where are our Senators, Schumer and Gillibrand? And, where are the voices, not only of the 31 members of the House and 14 Senators who are Jewish, but the Christian members of the House and Senate who support the State of Israel? Where are the peoples' voices? Remember the words of Pastor Niemoller, so familiar that I will not recite them, except for the last line, "Then they came for me, and by that time, there was no one left to speak up."

Supporters of Israel who gave their votes to candidate Obama — 78 percent of the Jewish community did — believing he would provide the same support as John McCain, this is the time to speak out and tell the President of your disappointment in him. It seems to me particularly appropriate to do so on the eve of the Passover. It is one thing to disagree with certain policies of the Israeli government. It is quite another to treat Israel and its prime minister as pariahs, which only emboldens Israel's enemies and makes the prospect of peace even more remote.


3043  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / New age preacher? on: April 19, 2010, 10:27:22 AM
Crafty,

I don't know about Beck.  While agree with much of what he says when it comes to politics and encroaching government et al. I have a hard time listening to him for more than ten minutes.  He is really starting to sound like a televangilist.  Today on the way to work he starts talking about some woman whose father died on Easter and she thought it was a blessing that that is when he died and then goes on talking about not to let name calling bother one and it sounds so religious and preacher like.

I think he is going off the wall and his success is going to his his head.  I have to say he sounds a bit nuts giving the left some fodder.

Even Hannity who has this car salesman quality about him is much preferable to me.  Beck sound like a cult leader like Jim Jones or something.

I much prefer Marc Levin or even Savage.
3044  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: April 18, 2010, 09:04:17 AM
"If Republicans can win 25%  of Jewish"

Agreed and I hope so.  I remember one of my uncles who I thought was a die hard Democrat suprising me when he came out at a family gathering as voraciously anti-Clinton. 

My uncle a WW2 vet, on the only allied ship that was sunk during D day would describe how he just couldn't get over the fact that a person like Clinton could be commander-in-chief.

I don't know what he thinks about Obama per se, but I could guess what he thought about the "Obama go around the World apologizing for America tour".
3045  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Clinton, ever the BS artist. on: April 17, 2010, 09:41:03 AM
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100416/D9F4EPUO0.html

Does anyone remember the vehement anti-government rhetoric of the "flower" children of Clinton's generation of the 60's?

How about Bama's friend Ayers who planned to bomb the Pentagon?  Why doesn't Clinton mention this in the same sentence as he mentions Tim McVey and the Tea Party.

How about the shooting of student protestors at Kent State that became the Alamo of the left back then; the same left who rionically are *in control* of government.

Now these same people who were so opposed to government back then are suddenly telling us how good government is for us.

Strange how they change their tune once they are in charge.  No?

I don't fear the right paramilitaries.  I fear another Kent state where our own leftist government starts shooting us, robbing us, threatening us, and controlling every aspect of our lives.
3046  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: April 17, 2010, 09:30:35 AM
Well no President in my lifetime has done more to hurt the image of Israel then the present guy.

Yes I remember a few anti semitic remarks from the likes of James Baker etc. He certainly is an anti-semite.

 But it was never like this where the US policy gives the world an even greater opportunity to pour its disdain and dislike for the Jews of Israel.

There is simply no getting around it.

Israel is facing the threat of extermination now more than ever and Bama has done all he can to put the blame of lack of peace in the Middle East squarely on the Israelis.

Are you or anyone saying the Jews brought this on themselves because of some housing starts in some disputed lands??

Well that is what the Phoney one is saying.

3047  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Never on: April 16, 2010, 12:02:03 PM
Doug I don't know if you saw my post on the Israel thread on this topic a few days ago.  In heavily Jewish populated Palm Beach County Florida's Congressional district where Wexler secretly and very queitly pulled out and resigned after it was made public he didn't even live there and was using a fraudulent front address the Jews were happy to re-elect by *large* margins another liberal Democrat.

So the answer to your question, "But I wonder how many of those among the 46 percent would consider voting for an actual Republican", is very few.

The liberal Jews will not change their minds to vote Republican.  Only a few would. Most will NEVER vote for a Republican- ever! They will simply not vote.  It won't surpirse me if they start to puch for Hillary redux.


*****  Some Jews are finally wisening up
« Reply #797 on: April 14, 2010, 09:35:45 AM » 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, it seems more based on seniors concern about their health care benefits but not the socialist agenda or the 'one's' throwing Netenyahu under the bus (the latter which I must say is astounding to me).

When push comes to shove though most Jews will still vote the Dem party line.  Look at "Toojay country" in Fla. wherein a demcorat won by huge margins in Wexler's old fraudulent seat.  For God's sake Wexler didn't even live in the community he was representing.  He was using a front address.  And what do my fellow Jews do.  Vote the next in line liberal crat right back in.  Again to liberal Jews, Republicans are worse then Nazis.  I had one Jewish patient complain to me the other day that Fox news was on the cable TV in the office waiting room.  I didn't know it was on.  I come in through the back door and never had any input to what station is on.  Another patient must have put it on I guess.  I share the office with another group.  He used the opportunity to go after Bush, state that the health care bill was needed etc. If we didn't go into Iraq we would have plenty of cash to pay for health care etc etc.

I avoided confrontation and rarely discuss politics with patients.  Occasionally pts do bring up topics I agree with and only then will say I do agree.  We are surely a divided country - it seems to be getting worse not better.

****Obama struggling with Jews, but not on Israel
By Ron Kampeas · April 12, 2010

Photos  1 out of 1
Other Media
This question, in the American Jewish Committee's new survey, asked: "Do you approve or disapprove of the Obama Administration's handling of the Iran nuclear issue?" (AJC) Related LinksSenate letter urging tensions tamp-down gets 76 signatures WASHINGTON (JTA) -- A new survey shows President Obama struggling with American Jews -- but not on Israel-related matters.

The American Jewish Committee poll of U.S. Jews found that Obama's approval rating is at 57 percent, with 38 percent disapproving. That's down from the stratospheric 79 percent approval rating among Jews that Obama enjoyed about a year ago, in May 2009. The AJC poll was conducted March 2-23 and surveyed 800 self-identifying Jewish respondents selected from a consumer mail panel.

Obama's advantage among Jews versus the rest of the population appears to be eroding. The latest Gallup polling shows Obama with a national approval rating of 48, nine points below Jewish polling. Last May, general polling earned him 63 percent approval, 16 points below Jewish polling.

Despite the drop -- and weeks of tensions with the Netanyahu government -- Obama still polls solidly on foreign policy, with a steady majority backing his handling of U.S.-Israel relations, according to the AJC poll.

It is on domestic issues that the president appears to be facing more unhappiness.

Jewish voters are statistically split on how Obama has handled health care reform, with 50 percent approving and 48 disapproving. On the economy he fares slightly better. Jewish voters who favor his policies stand at 55 percent, while 42 percent disapprove.

The last AJC poll on the views of American Jews, released last September, did not address domestic issues, so there's no measure to assess any change in support on the specific issues of health and the economy. Indeed, this is the first poll in at least 10 years in which the AJC has attempted to assess views on the economy and health care. However, Jewish voters in solid majorities describe themselves as Democrats and as liberal to moderate in their views, and traditionally list the economy and health care as their two top concerns in the voting booth.

Matt Brooks, who directs the Republican Jewish Coalition, said the relatively low score on domestic issues underscored what he said was a steady decline in Democratic support among Jewish voters.

"This indicates a serious erosion of support," he said. "It's a huge drop. There's no silver lining" for Democrats.

Ira Forman, the director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, countered that the poll did not account for Jewish voters who might be disappointed with

Obama from a more liberal perspective -- for instance, over his dropping from the reform bill of the so-called public option, which would have allowed for government-run health care.

Additionally, much of the AJC polling took place before Obama's come-from-behind victory on March 21, when the U.S. House of Representatives passed health care reform, Forman said. Since then, Democrats have said they see a turnaround in the president's political fortunes. "The narrative was the president was in the tank," Forman said. "This was when it was thought his initiative was dead."

Obama fares strongly with Jews on homeland security, with 62 percent approving and 33 percent disapproving -- a sign that Republican attempts to cast Obama as weak on protecting the nation have had little impact in the Jewish community.

He also scores 55 percent approval on how he handles U.S.-Israel relations, which is virtually unchanged since last September, when his handling of the relationship scored 54 percent approval. At that juncture, the tensions between Washington and Jerusalem were kept at a low bubble and were confined to U.S. insistence on a total freeze of Israeli settlement, and the Netanyahu administration's reluctance to concede.

The latest questions, however, coincided almost exactly with the period when U.S. officials accused the Netanyahu government of "insulting" the United States by announcing a new building start in eastern Jerusalem while Vice President Joe Biden was visiting, and when the president refused to make public gestures of friendship during Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's subsequent visit to Washington.

A question on Obama's handling of Iran's nuclear capability showed a statistical dead heat on the approval side between last September -- 49 percent -- and now, at 47 percent. However, disapproval ratings rose moderately, apparently borrowing from the "uncertain" column: Back in September 35 percent disapproved; now 42 percent give a thumbs down.

The marks compared favorably, however, with Bush administration figures. Bush scored 33 percent approval ratings on Iran in 2006, the most recent year that AJC asked the question.

Support for U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran to keep it from making a nuclear bomb appeared to drop slightly. Asked about a U.S. strike, 53 percent said they would support one, and 42 percent were opposed, as opposed to 56 percent and 36 percent last September. On an Israeli strike, 62 percent supported and 33 percent opposed, as opposed to 66 and 28 percent in September.

The only other question in the most recent survey directly addressing Obama's foreign policy also showed strong support for the president: 62 percent of respondents agreed with Obama's decision to deploy an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. This contrasts with the consistently negative Jewish assessments of Bush's handling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, except in the period immediately following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

Approval of Obama's foreign policies contrasts with increasing uneasiness in the Jewish establishment with the administration’s approach. Several influential pro-Israel organizations have spent months, to little avail, pleading with the administration to confine its disagreements to back rooms.

A handful of prominent Jewish backers of candidate Obama also appear to have had second thoughts. Most pointedly, in a New York Daily News column Monday, Ed Koch, the former New York City mayor and a supporter of Obama during the 2008 general election, said he was "weeping" because the president had "abandoned" Israel.

And Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), perhaps the most influential member of the Senate's Jewish caucus, on Sunday pointedly avoided answering a question on ABC's "This Week" about whether he agreed with a Netanyahu confidante who said Obama was a "strategic disaster" for Israel.
Brooks predicted a tide of defections. "You'll have a number of candidates" in areas with a strong Jewish presence "asking him not to campaign for them," he said.

David Harris, AJC's executive director, cautioned that low approval ratings did not necessarily translate into electoral losses.

Brooks said that he would advise GOP candidates to hammer Democrats hard on foreign policy, particularly in tight races in Illinois, Pennsylvania and Florida, where Jewish voters trended less liberal than on the coasts. "If Republican candidates are smart, they will make Democratic candidates in these races answerable to whether they support Obama's policies of pressuring Israel," the head of the Republican Jewish Coalition said.

Jewish Democrats are already preparing a response strategy of arguing that the relationship remains close on defense cooperation and other matters, despite heightened rhetoric on settlement differences.

Harris suggested that the polling showed that the American Jewish public would prefer to imagine a closeness rather than deal with tensions. Obama and Netanyahu scored similar solid majorities -- 55 percent and 57 percent, respectively -- on how they handled the relationship.

American Jews "don't want to be forced to choose," Harris said. "They would rather say a blessing on both your houses than a pox on both your houses."

According to the survey, 64 percent of Jews think Israel should, as part of a peace deal with the Palestinians, be willing to remove at least some of the settlements in the West Bank. But 61 percent rejected the idea that Israel should be willing to "compromise on the status of Jerusalem as a united city under Israeli jurisdiction."

The poll had a margin of error of plus/minus 3 percentage points. Interviews were conducted by the firm Synovate, formerly Market Facts.****

 
3048  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: April 15, 2010, 01:03:44 PM
Well there is a lot of fear amongst doctors of "going out of business" and having to lay people off.  I am surprised at what I am hearing.  Of course not all areas of the country are like the NYC metropolitan area which has had plenty of doctors.

A cardiologist today told of taking a pay cut from his group and of another one being let go.

I am a bit surpirsed in view of how much they have made for years.

As for me I have gotten nothing for years and expect nothing.  I am not holding my breath for "saving primary care".

In fact the plan as I see it is simply to replace us with nurses though few are coming out and saying that now till after as many elections as they can put this off for.

All I can say for certain if seniors want to bitch about the cost of their medicines prior to W's part D plan that went into effect, and then complain still about thier Rx costs that fall into the "donut holes", then just wait till Bama and his ideological policy makers (who are drooling at the thought of getting control, power and making plenty of dough) get done with them.

The "greatest" generation that now expects to sit back and let us pay may be the biggest bunch of crab apples pretty soon.

Then comes the "boomers" getting into the Medicare slots (which I guess I am one) and need I say more?



3049  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Some Jews are finally wisening up on: April 14, 2010, 11:35:45 AM
Unfortunately, it seems more based on seniors concern about their health care benefits but not the socialist agenda or the 'one's' throwing Netenyahu under the bus (the latter which I must say is astounding to me).

When push comes to shove though most Jews will still vote the Dem party line.  Look at "Toojay country" in Fla. wherein a demcorat won by huge margins in Wexler's old fraudulent seat.  For God's sake Wexler didn't even live in the community he was representing.  He was using a front address.  And what do my fellow Jews do.  Vote the next in line liberal crat right back in.  Again to liberal Jews, Republicans are worse then Nazis.  I had one Jewish patient complain to me the other day that Fox news was on the cable TV in the office waiting room.  I didn't know it was on.  I come in through the back door and never had any input to what station is on.  Another patient must have put it on I guess.  I share the office with another group.  He used the opportunity to go after Bush, state that the health care bill was needed etc. If we didn't go into Iraq we would have plenty of cash to pay for health care etc etc.

I avoided confrontation and rarely discuss politics with patients.  Occasionally pts do bring up topics I agree with and only then will say I do agree.  We are surely a divided country - it seems to be getting worse not better.

****Obama struggling with Jews, but not on Israel
By Ron Kampeas · April 12, 2010

Photos  1 out of 1
Other Media
This question, in the American Jewish Committee's new survey, asked: "Do you approve or disapprove of the Obama Administration's handling of the Iran nuclear issue?" (AJC) Related LinksSenate letter urging tensions tamp-down gets 76 signatures WASHINGTON (JTA) -- A new survey shows President Obama struggling with American Jews -- but not on Israel-related matters.

The American Jewish Committee poll of U.S. Jews found that Obama's approval rating is at 57 percent, with 38 percent disapproving. That's down from the stratospheric 79 percent approval rating among Jews that Obama enjoyed about a year ago, in May 2009. The AJC poll was conducted March 2-23 and surveyed 800 self-identifying Jewish respondents selected from a consumer mail panel.

Obama's advantage among Jews versus the rest of the population appears to be eroding. The latest Gallup polling shows Obama with a national approval rating of 48, nine points below Jewish polling. Last May, general polling earned him 63 percent approval, 16 points below Jewish polling.

Despite the drop -- and weeks of tensions with the Netanyahu government -- Obama still polls solidly on foreign policy, with a steady majority backing his handling of U.S.-Israel relations, according to the AJC poll.

It is on domestic issues that the president appears to be facing more unhappiness.

Jewish voters are statistically split on how Obama has handled health care reform, with 50 percent approving and 48 disapproving. On the economy he fares slightly better. Jewish voters who favor his policies stand at 55 percent, while 42 percent disapprove.

The last AJC poll on the views of American Jews, released last September, did not address domestic issues, so there's no measure to assess any change in support on the specific issues of health and the economy. Indeed, this is the first poll in at least 10 years in which the AJC has attempted to assess views on the economy and health care. However, Jewish voters in solid majorities describe themselves as Democrats and as liberal to moderate in their views, and traditionally list the economy and health care as their two top concerns in the voting booth.

Matt Brooks, who directs the Republican Jewish Coalition, said the relatively low score on domestic issues underscored what he said was a steady decline in Democratic support among Jewish voters.

"This indicates a serious erosion of support," he said. "It's a huge drop. There's no silver lining" for Democrats.

Ira Forman, the director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, countered that the poll did not account for Jewish voters who might be disappointed with

Obama from a more liberal perspective -- for instance, over his dropping from the reform bill of the so-called public option, which would have allowed for government-run health care.

Additionally, much of the AJC polling took place before Obama's come-from-behind victory on March 21, when the U.S. House of Representatives passed health care reform, Forman said. Since then, Democrats have said they see a turnaround in the president's political fortunes. "The narrative was the president was in the tank," Forman said. "This was when it was thought his initiative was dead."

Obama fares strongly with Jews on homeland security, with 62 percent approving and 33 percent disapproving -- a sign that Republican attempts to cast Obama as weak on protecting the nation have had little impact in the Jewish community.

He also scores 55 percent approval on how he handles U.S.-Israel relations, which is virtually unchanged since last September, when his handling of the relationship scored 54 percent approval. At that juncture, the tensions between Washington and Jerusalem were kept at a low bubble and were confined to U.S. insistence on a total freeze of Israeli settlement, and the Netanyahu administration's reluctance to concede.

The latest questions, however, coincided almost exactly with the period when U.S. officials accused the Netanyahu government of "insulting" the United States by announcing a new building start in eastern Jerusalem while Vice President Joe Biden was visiting, and when the president refused to make public gestures of friendship during Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's subsequent visit to Washington.

A question on Obama's handling of Iran's nuclear capability showed a statistical dead heat on the approval side between last September -- 49 percent -- and now, at 47 percent. However, disapproval ratings rose moderately, apparently borrowing from the "uncertain" column: Back in September 35 percent disapproved; now 42 percent give a thumbs down.

The marks compared favorably, however, with Bush administration figures. Bush scored 33 percent approval ratings on Iran in 2006, the most recent year that AJC asked the question.

Support for U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran to keep it from making a nuclear bomb appeared to drop slightly. Asked about a U.S. strike, 53 percent said they would support one, and 42 percent were opposed, as opposed to 56 percent and 36 percent last September. On an Israeli strike, 62 percent supported and 33 percent opposed, as opposed to 66 and 28 percent in September.

The only other question in the most recent survey directly addressing Obama's foreign policy also showed strong support for the president: 62 percent of respondents agreed with Obama's decision to deploy an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. This contrasts with the consistently negative Jewish assessments of Bush's handling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, except in the period immediately following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

Approval of Obama's foreign policies contrasts with increasing uneasiness in the Jewish establishment with the administration’s approach. Several influential pro-Israel organizations have spent months, to little avail, pleading with the administration to confine its disagreements to back rooms.

A handful of prominent Jewish backers of candidate Obama also appear to have had second thoughts. Most pointedly, in a New York Daily News column Monday, Ed Koch, the former New York City mayor and a supporter of Obama during the 2008 general election, said he was "weeping" because the president had "abandoned" Israel.

And Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), perhaps the most influential member of the Senate's Jewish caucus, on Sunday pointedly avoided answering a question on ABC's "This Week" about whether he agreed with a Netanyahu confidante who said Obama was a "strategic disaster" for Israel.
Brooks predicted a tide of defections. "You'll have a number of candidates" in areas with a strong Jewish presence "asking him not to campaign for them," he said.

David Harris, AJC's executive director, cautioned that low approval ratings did not necessarily translate into electoral losses.

Brooks said that he would advise GOP candidates to hammer Democrats hard on foreign policy, particularly in tight races in Illinois, Pennsylvania and Florida, where Jewish voters trended less liberal than on the coasts. "If Republican candidates are smart, they will make Democratic candidates in these races answerable to whether they support Obama's policies of pressuring Israel," the head of the Republican Jewish Coalition said.

Jewish Democrats are already preparing a response strategy of arguing that the relationship remains close on defense cooperation and other matters, despite heightened rhetoric on settlement differences.

Harris suggested that the polling showed that the American Jewish public would prefer to imagine a closeness rather than deal with tensions. Obama and Netanyahu scored similar solid majorities -- 55 percent and 57 percent, respectively -- on how they handled the relationship.

American Jews "don't want to be forced to choose," Harris said. "They would rather say a blessing on both your houses than a pox on both your houses."

According to the survey, 64 percent of Jews think Israel should, as part of a peace deal with the Palestinians, be willing to remove at least some of the settlements in the West Bank. But 61 percent rejected the idea that Israel should be willing to "compromise on the status of Jerusalem as a united city under Israeli jurisdiction."

The poll had a margin of error of plus/minus 3 percentage points. Interviews were conducted by the firm Synovate, formerly Market Facts.****

3050  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: April 14, 2010, 11:08:35 AM
Agreed.
Doug, or other Court followers,
Couldn't it be worse with the replacement?
Obviously the One wants activist judges who interpret the constitution in a way then benefits transfer of power to the "oppressed".

I mean phone one is in office less than two years and he already is appointing two justices.  Ginsberg may die soon so there is likely a third.  Thank God they were all liberal to start with!



Pages: 1 ... 59 60 [61] 62 63 ... 85
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!