You got no proof that it has to do with his religion and nor does the media or FBI either.

In addition................

You also don't know whether he is Muslim or not. Someone's name doesn't indicate his religion.

Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control

" CNN, which invented the cable news network more than two decades ago, will hit a new competitive low with its prime-time programs in October, finishing fourth – and last – among the cable news networks with the audience that all the networks rely on for their advertising. "

" Individually, the CNN shows were beaten resoundingly by all the Fox News programs, "

" For the month, CNN averaged 202,000 viewers between the ages of 25 and 54 – the group that television news organizations use as their basis of success because of their advertising sales. That was far behind the dominant leader, Fox News, which averaged 689,000. "

" CNN executives emphasized that the network continues to draw more viewers than all its competitors except Fox News when all hours of the day are counted. "

And there are times where your relationship is more romantic than just an ordinary friendship.

She wants something more

but you don't feel the same way

that maybe one day you could be more than just friends.

Whether or not I have children of my own really has nothing to do with my competencies and knowledge in the field.

I have had quite a few years of step-parenting experience, though, and more importantly, I am a certified parent educator and a child researcher.

the rule is 1 minute for each year and yes , 30 minutes is too long for a 5-year-old,

what I remember as the worst punishments when I was an older child was my mother making me sit in a chair in the living room and do nothing, before they invented the time-out.

Soooooo ... if you or any of the other "haters" should happen to win the Nobel Peace Prize in the next few years ... it will just be a big joke? It will mean absolutely nothing?

The Nobel committee has made the Nobel Peace Prize one of the most ridiculous prizes for anyone to win.

Majority of Nobel jury 'objected to Obama prize'
(AFP) – 2 hours ago

OSLO — Three of the five members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee had objections to the Nobel Peace Prize being awarded to US President Barack Obama, the Norwegian tabloid Verdens Gang (VG) reported Thursday.

Is this thread for real? There are truly people who think that by jumping on this and trying to somehow associate it in the long run with OBAMA, that it will "tarnish his polished image"? It's so far removed from OBAMA that I can't see how it could be connected in any way.

that it will "tarnish his polished image"?

As a reminder, the below are only a few of the direct ties and activities that the Obama pretender-to-the-throne has engaged in with ACORN. Many may now view them with newly refreshed eyes:
• In a number of crucial cases, Obama was the Attorney for the Chicago ACORN chapter and he used them to assist him in his run for the Illinois State Senate in 1996
• In 1992, prior to his working as ACORN’s attorney, Obama was Executive Director of ACORN subsidiary “Project Vote” Obama trained ACORN workers
• While sitting on the board of the Woods Foundation, Obama and domestic terrorist William Ayers—who is also a major Obama fundraiser—arranged for grants for ACORN
• While both on the board of Chicago’s Annenberg Challenge—Ayers and Obama with Obama as Chairman—funds were funneled to ACORN
• In his November 2007 speech to ACORN, Obama stated: “I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work.”
• In his run for the Democrat presidential nomination, Obama paid ACORN subsidiary “Citizen’s Services, Inc.” over $830,000 to engage in ACORN ‘get out the vote’ activities (these would later be called the Obama-ACORN Voter Fraud Alliance)
• ACORN is falsely registered as “non-partisan,” as its leader Maude Hurd endorsed Obama for president
• Tax dollars collected from US citizens are paying for this Obama and Democrat Party fraud voter fraud group. Did you know that?

I'm starting to smell a set up. ..

I wonder if REAL (Pulitzer type) investigative reporters will find a link between the 'filmmaker' and the 'Acorn employees'?

Sorry, I just can't see any rational person condoning let alone assisting child prostitution!

The community organizing group ACORN on Wednesday announced a hiring freeze, new training programs and an independent review of its programs after the recent release of a series of videotapes embarrassing to the agency.

The statement issued by ACORN on Wednesday stands in sharp contrast to comments earlier in the week, in which a spokesman called the recordings' release "an orchestrated sham."

Does anybody else think Fox may have gotten 'punked'?

imagine the lawsuits of the dismissed Acorn employees

Could be interesting!

I've heard so much negitive stuff about ACORN,..that Im going to do a little research myself......

Its bad enough, that we have TAX Cheats,...but to me, its even more horriable to have people posing as a pimp and prostitute,..asking for advice,....
"on how to falsify tax forms and set-up a child prostitution business"

What kind of people do that ?

Now,.it used to be,..that If you were minding your own business,..and someone talked you into commiting a crime ,..that was called "Entrapment",....if the person would NOT of otherwise commited such an act.

and just because ONE,....Tax Consultant working for ACORN commits an unjust act, or unlawfull act,...doesnt mean the entire group of ACORN members are criminals

I'll have to read more,..and digest, what my feeling are about ACORN really are.

The film makers that so proudly put these videos together will have to answer in court for publishing the hidden camera videos because at least 2 of the states they did it in have laws against it.

Uhh, I have a question. How come you ignored MJ's post where he made the case that you were butchering quotes in order to make a false point?

He in essence demonstrated that you lied. YMMV, but to me that is a serious accusation that would be confronted immediately and wholeheartedly.

Oh, and a little hint, snide and condescending only work when you are both right and know how to use them well.

He is arguing that the training of the entire populace in order to form a 'well regulated' militia is impossible for practicality (too many people, too much time), financial reasons (too expensive, a drain on the labour force, cause economic instability) and as a violation of rights (forcing all people to be in the militia whether they want to or not).

He goes on to argue that since the idea of a militia of the whole populace is impractical, financially disasterous and against the rights of the people that the only practical solution to achieving a 'well regulated' militia is to form "a select corps" of militia

Whether there ought to be a federal government intrusted with the care of the common defense, is a question in the first instance, open for discussion; but the moment it is decided in the affirmative, it will follow, that that government ought to be clothed with all the powers requisite to complete execution of its trust. And unless it can be shown that the circumstances which may affect the public safety are reducible within certain determinate limits; unless the contrary of this position can be fairly and rationally disputed, it must be admitted, as a necessary consequence, that there can be no limitation of that authority which is to provide for the defense and protection of the community, in any matter essential to its efficacy that is, in any matter essential to the FORMATION, DIRECTION, or SUPPORT of the NATIONAL FORCES.

To THE powers proposed to be conferred upon the federal government, in respect to the creation and direction of the national forces, I have met with but one specific objection, which, if I understand it right, is this, that proper provision has not been made against the existence of standing armies in time of peace; an objection which, I shall now endeavor to show, rests on weak and unsubstantial foundations.
And then further down ..
Previous to the Revolution, and ever since the peace, there has been a constant necessity for keeping small garrisons on our Western frontier. No person can doubt that these will continue to be indispensable, if it should only be against the ravages and depredations of the Indians. These garrisons must either be furnished by occasional detachments from the militia, or by permanent corps in the pay of the government. The first is impracticable; and if practicable, would be pernicious. The militia would not long, if at all, submit to be dragged from their occupations and families to perform that most disagreeable duty in times of profound peace. And if they could be prevailed upon or compelled to do it, the increased expense of a frequent rotation of service, and the loss of labor and disconcertion of the industrious pursuits of individuals, would form conclusive objections to the scheme.

This statement of the matter is taken from the printed collection of State constitutions. Pennsylvania and North Carolina are the two which contain the interdiction in these words: "As standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, THEY OUGHT NOT to be kept up.'' This is, in truth, rather a CAUTION than a PROHIBITION. New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Delaware, and Maryland have, in each of their bils of rights, a clause to this effect: "Standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be raised or kept up WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE LEGISLATURE''; which is a formal admission of the authority of the Legislature.

Reasons have been already given to induce a supposition that the State governments will too naturally be prone to a rivalship with that of the Union, the foundation of which will be the love of power; and that in any contest between the federal head and one of its members the people will be most apt to unite with their local government. If, in addition to this immense advantage, the ambition of the members should be stimulated by the separate and independent possession of military forces, it would afford too strong a temptation and too great a facility to them to make enterprises upon, and finally to subvert, the constitutional authority of the Union. On the other hand, the liberty of the people would be less safe in this state of things than in that which left the national forces in the hands of the national government. As far as an army may be considered as a dangerous weapon of power, it had better be in those hands of which the people are most likely to be jealous than in those of which they are least likely to be jealous. For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.
The framers of the existing Confederation, fully aware of the danger to the Union from the separate possession of military forces by the States, have, in express terms, prohibited them from having either ships or troops, unless with the consent of Congress. The truth is, that the existence of a federal government and military establishments under State authority are not less at variance with each other than a due supply of the federal treasury and the system of quotas and requisitions.
Here I expect we shall be told that the militia of the country is its natural bulwark, and would be at all times equal to the national defense. This doctrine, in substance, had like to have lost us our independence. It cost millions to the United States that might have been saved. The facts which, from our own experience, forbid a reliance of this kind, are too recent to permit us to be the dupes of such a suggestion. The steady operations of war against a regular and disciplined army can only be successfully conducted by a force of the same kind. Considerations of economy, not less than of stability and vigor, confirm this position. The American militia, in the course of the late war, have, by their valor on numerous occasions, erected eternal monuments to their fame; but the bravest of them feel and know that the liberty of their country could not have been established by their efforts alone, however great and valuable they were. War, like most other things, is a science to be acquired and perfected by diligence, by perserverance, by time, and by practice.

It may not be amiss in this place concisely to remark the origin and progress of the idea, which aims at the exclusion of military establishments in time of peace. Though in speculative minds it may arise from a contemplation of the nature and tendency of such institutions, fortified by the events that have happened in other ages and countries, yet as a national sentiment, it must be traced to those habits of thinking which we derive from the nation from whom the inhabitants of these States have in general sprung.
And Further down …
The legislature of the United States will be OBLIGED, by this provision, once at least in every two years, to deliberate upon the propriety of keeping a military force on foot; to come to a new resolution on the point; and to declare their sense of the matter, by a formal vote in the face of their constituents. They are not AT LIBERTY to vest in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army.
And Further down …again
But it is an evil infinitely less likely to attend us in a united than in a disunited state; nay, it may be safely asserted that it is an evil altogether unlikely to attend us in the latter situation. It is not easy to conceive a possibility that dangers so formidable can assail the whole Union, as to demand a force considerable enough to place our liberties in the least jeopardy, especially if we take into our view the aid to be derived from the militia, which ought always to be counted upon as a valuable and powerful auxiliary. But in a state of disunion (as has been fully shown in another place), the contrary of this supposition would become not only probable, but almost unavoidable.

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state.
The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny.

“"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.”

“This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.''

“ If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism, what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people? “

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. the supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." -Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the federal Constitution (1787) in Pamphlets to the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888).

"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -James Madison. (Federalist Paper #46)

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -Alexander Hamilton,

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government..."-Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist (#28).

"We are taking the law and bending it as far as we can to capture a whole new class of guns." - Jose Cerada, (White House official who specializes in gun control policy), The Los Angeles Times
"Gun registration is not enough. Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." - Janet Reno
"Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed." Sara Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control, The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.
Charles Shumer: (US Congress, has sworn an oath to defend the US Constitution) "All we ask for is registration, just like we do for cars."
(Press conference, 1993, exact date being sought)
Diane Feinstein: "US Senator, If I could have banned them all- 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' -I would have!"
(Statement on TV program 69 Minutes, Feb 5 1995)
Bill Clinton: "We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans ..." (USA TODAY, 11 March 1993, page 2A)
Bill Clinton: (US President, has sworn an oath to defend the US Constitution, (not to violate it, criticize it, and belittle it)) "When we got organized as a country, [and] wrote a fairly radical Constitution, with a radical Bill of Rights, giving radical amounts of freedom to Americans, it was assumed that Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly...When personal freedom is being abused, you have to move to limit it." (April 19 1994, on MTV)

The ruling class doesn't care about public safety. Having made it very difficult for States and localities to police themselves, having left ordinary citizens with no choice but to protect themselves as best they can, they now try to take our guns away. In fact they blame us and our guns for crime. This is so wrong that it cannot be an honest mistake." Malcolm Wallop former U.S. Sen. (R-WY)

Adolf Hitler: "This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead." (Chancelor's Speech, 1935)
Adof Hitler: "The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subject peoples to possess arms. So let's not have any talk about native militias." (Hitler's Secret Conversations, 1941-44, Farrar, Strauss and Young, 1953)
Mao Tse Tung: "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." (Problems of War and Strategy, Nov 6 1938, published in "Selected Works of Mao Zedong," 1965)
Vladimir I. Lenin "One man with a gun can control 100 without one. ... Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms." --V.I. Lenin.
Joseph Stalin "If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves." --Joseph Stalin.
Mahatma Gandhi: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
("Gandhi, an Autobiography," M.K. Gandhi, 446)

So, the right to bear arms (as SPECIFICALLY stated in the ammendment) was for a purpose which has passed. These are your own words.

Obviously "the People" need to have thermal nuclear devices, since the government does.

Pistols aren't going to stop the army - you need the "right" to have RPG's, landmines, fighter jets, surface to air missiles.

To stop the government you need the armament to fight them.

Now try and name a single political event where some civilian saved the day by bringing a gun.

It's dangerous, selfish, and stupid to carry a gun in a crowd in a position where some other nut could easily wrestle the gun away and go on a rampage.

This quote has become the motto for many, even Tim McVeigh found inspiration in it. Remember Tim McVeigh?

No, this is not what is happening. If this were true, then these same people would have been protesting for (at least) the last eight years, but we didn't see any Fox-organized "Tea Parties" back then. Trying to claim that this is some kind of bipartisan uprising is absurd.

There are actually many examples of Obama reversing Bush's policies

In regards to the financial bailout, Obama has actually been continuing the trend started by Bush.

Are we all supposed to forget that it was the Bush administration, with the help of a Republican-controlled Congress, which saw the largest increase in the national debt? & who signed the prescription drug bill in 2003 (after lying about how much it would cost)?

President Obama has framed his budget as a break from the "failed policies" of the Bush Administration. Actually, his budget doubles down on President George W. Bush's borrow, spend, and bailout policies. For example:
President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
President Bush began a string of expensive financial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
President Bush created a Medicare drug entitlement that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern¬ment health care fund.
President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. President Obama would double it.
President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already increased this spending by 20 percent.
President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.
President Bush ran budget deficits averaging $300 billion annually. After harshly criticizing Bush's budget deficits, President Obama proposed a budget that would run deficits averaging $600 billion even after the economy recovers and the troops return home from Iraq.
The President's tax policy is the only sharp break in economic policy. President Bush reduced taxes by approximately $2 trillion; President Obama has proposed raising taxes by $1.4 trillion. In doing so, President Obama has rejected the most successful Bush fiscal policy. In the 18 months following the 2003 tax rate cuts, economic growth rates doubled, the stock market surged 32 percent, and the economy created 1.8 million jobs, followed by 5.2 million more jobs in the next 27 months. Not until the housing bubble burst several years later did the economy finally lose steam.
http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/bg2249.cfm

And yes, Congress "controls" spending, but to imply that it does so in a vacuum, without any influence from the WH (and special interests) is overly simplistic, if not disingenuous.

The fact of the matter is that these protesters are showing up carrying guns to political events that have nothing to do with gun rights, and in some cases carrying signs with not-so-veiled references to violent revolution.

they're trying to make the President look weak on the world stage.

Basically maybe you should know something about another country before you make broad assumptions about how other people feel.

Yes, it sent the message that the far right can rely on manufactured phony outrage every time they lose an election.

And yet they put up with it every time the Republicans hold the majority. Go figure.

Don't you just love when faux 2nd amendment argument has a statment about what the founding fathers intended and remain ignorant of the term"regulated" within it?

Wonder why the NRA did not return calls for comment?

I wonder if the gun nuts even care that Obama supported the Supreme Court ruling overturning the DC gun ban?

But the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he "believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional."

The pride the Clown in NH had was scary............. Water with Blood?

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."

I don't care what color a persons skin is carrying weapons to town hall meetings will end up in tragedy

this is just another scare tactic to discourage freedom of speech

I wouldn't say it with any certainty, but the addition of fire arms to an already emotionally charged situation is usually not a positive event.

I'm not sure what their point is

, for one, would not feel safer seeing people around me who were carrying guns. I already imagine that there are people with concealed guns, and that doesn't make me feel any safer, either.

Many things are not against the law. It doesn't mean that it isn't a little worrying.

There is a great deal of history of guns and political events not ending well.

Apparently not allowing fire code violations and not meekly accepting being shouted down by right wing extremists is now "violating the constitution."

People who're deranged ..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Republican_National_Convention_protest_activity#Protest
On the first day of the convention, a group of protesters stood in front of approximately 30 to 40 delegates from Connecticut in an attempt to prevent them from entering the convention. Paramedics had to treat 83-year-old member of the delegation for breathing problems when his credentials were ripped from his neck by a protester.[49] Additionally, a black bloc smashed windows of downtown businesses, smashed windows and slashed the tires of several police cars, lit one police car on fire, and used a garbage dumpster as a battering ram against another.[49] About 12 protesters were arrested …

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Republican_National_Convention_protest_activity
Over 1800 individuals were arrested by the authorities, a record for a political convention in the U.S. [1] However 90% of those charges were eventually dropped.

Maybe they should leave the guns and the hanging effigies at home when they stand up for themselves.

Which rights have you lost in the past 8 months and why didn't the idea strike you back when the previous resident was busy destroying due process?

Because apparently it was okay for a Republican to trample all over our civil rights and spend money like a drunken sailor.

The dumbing down of America--on televisions and town halls everywhere.

Anyway, "rights" notwithstanding....people need to figure out that having the "right" to do something doesn't mean that you aren't an ***hole for doing it.

NO ONE was close enough to protest..... Screened Town Halls ............

I have never been married, don't have any kids, and am still single because I have been very career-driven.

You might want to check this out

http://www.citizencorps.gov/

Republicans aren't about truth or rights. Which is why the government wanting to know about misinformation campaigns is snitching while this domestic spying program was a-ok

Both Congressional Representative****Armey (Republican, Texas) and Senator Patrick Leahy (Democrat, Vermont) raised concerns. Senator Leahy said that it was similar to J. Edgar Hoover's misuse of the FBI during the 1960s when Hoover hired citizens to spy on neighbors who were political protesters. Rep. Armey included legislation in the House's Homeland Security Bill that explicitly prohibited the creation of Operation TIPS; but Joe Lieberman blocked the program's removal from the Senate version of the bill. The Senate, however, essentially passed the House version that eliminated the program. [9]
Operation TIPS was officially cancelled when the Homeland Security Act was passed by Congress in November 2002. Section 880 explicitly prohibited the program

I've read it a couple of times and I still don't see it.

These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.

The Buy US was pulled from the Bill by the Free Traders......

All those working in the Southern plants are NON Union....

This is really helping the Middle Class... working person

Foreign aid is NOT a vehicle for imposing your own values on others.

Either give it or don't.

It is the epitome of right-wing hubris to think that your "generosity" somehow gives you command over the lives and actions of the recipient.

It is one of the hallmarks of utter selfishness and abject egotism to try and use "charity" as blackmail.

This would be no different than donating to the United Way but trying to tell them they can only use the money to help people who you approve of.

The Obama administration is proposing to scale back a long-standing ban on tracking how people use government Internet sites with "cookies" and other technologies, raising alarms among privacy groups.
"Snip"
Some privacy groups say the proposal amounts to a "massive" and unexplained shift in government policy. In a statement Monday, American Civil Liberties Union spokesman Michael Macleod-Ball said the move could "allow the mass collection of personal information of every user of a federal government website."

Cash for clunkers did two things. ….

The Department of Transportation reports that the ten leading trade-ins are all American branded cars.

while six of the top ten new cars purchased - and four of the top five - are foreign.

If we want to create long term demand we need to place import tariffs on car manufacturers that are building over seas and shipping to the USA

It is a violation of the World Trade Organization rules to enact a public subsidy program and skew it toward only domestically produced products,

First it brought demand for new cars foreward into the current quarter. That is, it got people to buy new cars today instead of next quarter or year. Second, it allowed car companies to more rapidly work off excess inventory.

Without knowing present inventory levels and what the companies normally keep in inventory it's impossible to make the statement above, so what are your sources?

Unfortunately he did this by requiring most of the money go to programs that were a complete waste of time, abstinence only.

I don't think he is .................... Thats what makes me

Damn this is funny

Are you being paid to spread mistrust, misiformation and distortions? How much does it cost to have you spread distortions and fabrications? Do people actually buy your spin?

Go buy a new fuel efficient vehicle, open the windows and take a long relaxing ride you will feel better

And in quotes below is what you call being asked to rat out your neighbor?

“or through casual conversation”. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help

Maybe he wants people to be able to make decisions based on facts not spin and speculation, why does that scare you so much?

John Cornyn of Texas wrote US President Barack Obama.
"As Congress debates health care reform and other critical policy matters, citizen engagement must not be chilled by fear of government monitoring the exercise of free speech rights," he wrote.

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

No benefit WORKING Americans ? Help for the Middle class?

People buying cars gain nothing Just Unions..........

But some environmental and national security watchdogs are now arguing that the harm caused by destroying the used vehicles -- required by the government trade-in program -- may outweigh the benefits of exchanging pollution-spewing gas guzzlers for new, more efficient cars.

Under the program, the government is advising car dealers to replace a trade-in's engine oil with a lethal sodium silicate solution and run the engine to ruin it before giving or selling the car to a scrap dealer.

"Disposing of old products, a step required by most incentive and rebate programs, also has environmental costs," Gwen Ottinger, a researcher at the Chemical Heritage Foundation's Center for Contemporary History and Policy in Philadelphia, wrote in an opinion article published in The Washington Post on Tuesday.

"Cash for clunkers is a historic mistake for America because it misapplies billions of taxpayer dollars to subsidize more fuel inefficient cars that are bad for our dependence on foreign oil and bad for the environment," said Edwin Black, author of "The Plan: How to Save America When the Oil Stops -- or the Day Before."

another example of how the republican party is willing to do any thing to discredit the democratic party

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina predicted that the Senate will approve it. "

Democrats Dianne Feinstein of California and Chuck Schumer of New York, and Republican Susan Collins of Maine, who had complained that smaller rebates of $3,500 were going to people buying new cars that get as little as 4 more miles per gallon than the gas-guzzlers they traded in.

Many Republicans remained skeptical, raising objections to the additional costs amid questions about the management of the overwhelmed car rebate program. The GOP holdouts said the government has failed to provide enough data about how well the initial funding has worked and should wait until the fall to provide more.

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration is refusing to quickly release government records on its "cash-for-clunkers" rebate program that would substantiate — or undercut — White House claims of the program's success, even as the president presses the Senate for a quick vote for $2 billion to boost car sales.

Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has argued against quick approval of $2 billion for the program because little is known about the first round of $3,500 and $4,500 rebates. "We don't have the results of the first $1 billion," McConnell spokesman Don Stewart said. "You don't have them. We don't have them. DOT doesn't have all of it. We'd hate to make a mistake on something like that."