Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 
 Author Thread: Can I recover a can we slow things down? situation?
 strangerinthehouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 84 (view)
 
Can I recover a can we slow things down? situation?
Posted: 9/23/2008 12:51:50 PM
Sounds like only time will tell how it works out. I think everyone has second thoughts about any relationship, no matter how good it is.
People have to be able to miss each other. If you don't have time to do that, you really don't know if it's love, or just a habit.
 strangerinthehouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 21 (view)
 
Co - Worker Caught BF Wrestling With her Mom. Should she be worried about more?
Posted: 9/23/2008 12:49:38 PM
I'm sure it's happened before. Someone shouldn't automatically suspect her b/f and mother of cheating, but she'd be dumb to ever trust them alone together after that... I also know what some cultures are like. People can be way different than we think, many times.
 strangerinthehouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 38 (view)
 
a response to I love you
Posted: 9/19/2008 7:47:49 PM
I think a good thing would be to say what your definition of "love" is and try to realize it means different things to different people. If you're someone who can't say you love a person until it's been a real long relationship, just tell the person how you feel. That's honest enough and it gives them the true reason you don't think you should say that.
BUT: the irony here is that the person who you would eventually say "I love you" to... all they would have to do would be to say ONE THING that you didn't think them capable of saying and it would be SO OVER that it would make their head spin.

Love can be a long term or a short term thing and nobody knows until the spinning wheel has stopped... exactly what it's going to be...
 strangerinthehouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 1 (view)
 
Greenspan: No McCain tax cuts without reduction
Posted: 9/13/2008 4:57:14 PM
As McCain said "Economics is not my strong suite."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/09/13/politics/p130044D97.DTL

By GLEN JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer

Saturday, September 13, 2008
(09-13) 14:07 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

Alan Greenspan says the country can't afford tax cuts of the magnitude proposed by Republican presidential contender John McCain — at least not without a corresponding reduction in government spending.
"Unless we cut spending, no," the former Federal Reserve chairman said Friday when asked about McCain's proposed tax cuts, pegged in some estimates at $3.3 trillion.

"I'm not in favor of financing tax cuts with borrowed money," Greenspan said during an interview with Bloomberg Television. "I always have tied tax cuts to spending."

McCain has said that he would offset his proposed cuts — including reducing the corporate tax rate and eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax that has plagued middle-class families — by ending congressional pork-barrel spending, unnecessary government programs and overhauling entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security.

Democrats pounced on Greenspan's comments, in part because McCain professed last year that he was weaker on economics than foreign affairs and was reading Greenspan's memoir, "The Age of Turbulence," to educate himself.

"Obviously he needs to go back to that book and study it some more," Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said during a conference call arranged by the campaign of Democratic nominee Barack Obama.

McCaskill said eliminating congressional earmark spending — estimated at $17 billion annually — cannot offset McCain's proposed tax cuts.

"That's a huge amount of money, but it's not even a drop in the bucket to pay for $3.5 trillion in tax cuts," she said. "So, every time he throws up earmarks and he's asked how he's going to pay for it, he knows he's being disingenuous, he knows he's not being forthcoming..."


 strangerinthehouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 1 (view)
 
Palin, McCain contradict each other on spending
Posted: 9/13/2008 4:34:54 PM
Amazing!!!
Moooooooooooooooorepublican liesss!!!!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/13/MNDM12T018.DTL&tsp=1
Carla Marinucci, Chronicle Political Writer

Saturday, September 13, 2008
(09-12) 17:58 PDT SAN FRANCISCO --

In a televised interview Friday, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin defended her request for an estimated $200 million in federal projects from Congress - even as earlier in the day her GOP running mate John McCain insisted Palin had never sought money from Congress.

In a second ABC interview with Charlie Gibson, the GOP vice presidential candidate acknowledged that she has supported millions of dollars in congressional money - including the famed "Bridge to Nowhere" - to allow Alaska "to plug into ... along with every other state, a share of the federal budget in infrastructure."

But she said she and McCain would seek to reform that system.

She also told Gibson that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama probably regrets not naming Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to be his running mate - and dismissed as an "old wives' tale" reports that she had tried to ban books in public libraries.

McCain, for his part, faced an even tougher grilling on the usually friendly daytime show "The View," where hosts including Barbara Walters, Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg jabbed him on issues like abortion, his "maverick" record, separation of church and state, and his campaign attack ads.

Asked by Walters about Palin's statements that she would reform Washington, McCain insisted that she would "reform all of Washington, just like she did ... in Alaska. Earmark spending, which she vetoed half a billion dollars worth," said McCain.

When reminded by Walters that Palin took earmarks in Alaska, McCain said, "Not as governor she didn't."


"She took government out of the hands of the special interests," he said.

Independent analysts and the Web site of Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, have both noted that under Palin's leadership as governor, Alaska has requested 31 earmarks worth nearly $200 million - an amount that taxpayer groups say places Alaska as the per capita leader on such fundraising.

McCain appeared a little riled when Behar aggressively challenged him on his latest campaign ads - one accusing Obama of supporting sex education for kindergartners and another suggesting sexism in the use of the phrase "putting lipstick on a pig."

"Those ads aren't true. They're lies," said Behar, as Walters noted that McCain himself used the lipstick phrase to describe Clinton's health care proposal.

"They're not lies," McCain said, adding that Obama "chooses his words very carefully ... this is a tough campaign. And he shouldn't have said it."

The focus on the interviews by the two members of the Republican ticket comes as Obama and his campaign said it is turning a new page - and taking a tougher new tone - in confronting what it says have been lies and misrepresentations from the GOP candidates.

Obama's campaign said the GOP team's recent appearances show that the Arizona senator "would rather lose his integrity than lose a campaign."

And it released two aggressive new ads - one based on a McCain interview in The Chronicle - in which it suggested that McCain is out of touch on issues like technology, and that his campaign is populated by Washington lobbyists.

But Democrats have been increasingly nervous since Palin fired up grassroots Republicans and shot energy into McCain's campaign when she was named his vice presidential choice. New national polls show that McCain and Palin have erased leads by Obama and his running mate, Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, especially among white voters. That prompted Obama to reassure Democrats on Friday that he would ramp up aggressive efforts to challenge the Republicans.

"You know, I'm not going to be making up lies about John McCain," Obama told voters in Dover, N.H., but reprising an old saw, said that, "If you don't stop lying about me, I'm going to have to start telling the truth about you."

Meanwhile, Behar appeared to get under the GOP candidate's skin when she suggested that McCain - who has shifted his positions on offshore oil drilling, making President Bush's tax cuts permanent and caps on greenhouse gas emissions - has lost his maverick status and is now in lockstep with Bush's policies.

"What specific area have I, quote, 'changed?' " he said. "Nobody can name it."

Palin, meanwhile, faced off with Gibson, who noted that the millions of dollars in Alaska earmark requests constitute 22 times the per capita amount of federal earmark dollars for Obama's home state of Illinois - and included costly projects such as studies on the mating habits of crabs and harbor seals.

"We have dramatically, drastically reduced our earmark requests since I came into office," said Palin. She said those requests came through "our research divisions" and universities, but they should be made "in the light of day, not behind closed doors," she said.
 strangerinthehouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 46 (view)
 
Federal Deficit Estimated at Near-Record $407B
Posted: 9/13/2008 3:58:50 PM

First off according to the constitution, it is congress that passes spending bills. The president ask, congress passes, and the president then signs... so yes Congress is as much or more to blame than the president.

No... because a president can't be forced to sign it.
Congress makes the budget, but the president must approve it before it becomes law; or else congress has to override his veto.
Any president who can be pressured into signing a budget he doesn't approve would be the lamest of lame ducks... It doesn't happen.
If the president doesn't sign a budget, the public invariably blames the congress for not being reasonable. That's the was it was in the 90's when Clinton insisted on his middle class tax cut. That's the way it was with Ford when he wouldn't pass democrat majority budgets. That's the way it was when Nixon balanced the budget back in 1968/69 and that's the way it's always been to my knowledge.
Show me a time when this wasn't the case?

 strangerinthehouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 3 (view)
 
McCain's mailer creates controversy
Posted: 9/13/2008 11:38:46 AM
Another republican scam to trick the voters.
Premarked ballots?
Florida highway patrol blocking major thoroughfares to polling places on election day in black voting districts?
Removing people with misdmeanor arrest records from voter rolls in violation of Florida state law?
One voting machine in a black (or you can say "democrat") voting district with thousands of voters so many can't vote before the polls close?
Polling place employees changing the totals on voting machines and then throwing away the paper that shows the individual votes the next day in violation of federal election laws?

Read all about it:

http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/main.htm

If you think it's a typo, think again.
Republicans are a cancer on the US political system.
 strangerinthehouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 91 (view)
 
Race Relations in America...
Posted: 9/13/2008 9:06:29 AM
The "war against racism" is the left's "war on terror". It's using race as a justification to modify laws about hiring, education and income in favor of minorities. Some say the laws are never fair enough. Some others... even members of minorities, say "That's enough."

Malcolm X was an opponent of the welfare system.
Whatever his motives were is beside the point. Maybe he thought things should go back to the way things were before the Roosevelt administration, where poor people had to depend upon faith based charities controlled by their own cultural groups, like "Sons of Italy", "Knights of the Red Branch", etc, etc... which empowered communtiy leaders like himself... which certainly would have given the Nation of Islam a whole lot more power than what they had...

Who knows... BUT, He claimed welfare destroyed any person's willingness to work. Look that one up. It's there.

No matter what we do, there will always be what someone could call "racism", as we tend to trust people we don't know based upon relatedness... or qualities we share with that other person, through whom we feel familiarity and personal security with them. People who look or act different than us won't be trusted as easily because we don't understand them.

Rules of anti-discimination laws contain tools through which people can limit the way public agencies refer to familiarity in making decisions about who gets what in certain areas of society, like housing, public service, education, job hiring and many other things.

But if a prospective job applicant shows up to apply for a job as a policeman dressed up like a gangsta...or a person to apply as an office worker wears beach going clothes , a five day growth of beard, smells of urine and carries a skateboard into the interview room they may well be refused because they appear to be foreign to the culture they're attempting to become a part of and the person who does the hiring has the responsibility of making an assumption of whether or not they'll be able to fit into that culture based upon what they see.

Relatedness is even something other species use as a tool of survival. Relatedness has been studied as a cause of altruistic behavior in other species as well as humans.

We in the United States have exhibited altruistic behavior toward all members of our society in many ways. We've even taken people out of jobs they worked in all their lives and given those jobs to minorities during the Affirmative Action era in the 1970s.

One of the reasons we have a right wing government in power right now is because of America's reaction to the unfairness of that; school busing, layoffs of the most senior and experienced workers in manufacturing jobs because of race, high crime rates in the workplace caused by people having to be hired who hated the companies, etc, etc...

You can see how manufacturing companies themselves reacted to those problems. They just flat out up and fled the country!

We have laws in place to counter the effects of unfair racial, gender and cultural discrimination. THAT is a great thing.

... but if people expect the whole system to be handed over to them so they can determine if it's fair enough: I don't think that's going to happen. At least, I hope it doesn't.

I don't understand what possible rules of law or laws could be put in place that would make things fairer than they currently are, if they're enforced.

I don't think it's fair to completely overlook accomplishments of individuals or the interests of an organization's capacity for productivity... although we have certainly done that to some extent... the extent that we believe is fair enough in order to make things more equal and I don't think any system would be able to do that.. it's counterproductive.
 strangerinthehouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 5 (view)
 
Republicans: Inflation doesn't count.
Posted: 9/13/2008 8:45:22 AM
People who think inflation doesn't count are people who don't count how many dollars things cost.
People robbing a bank usually don't spend that much time counting the money... they just take it.
Judging by the size of the national debt and the fact that 17 cents of every dollar we pay in taxes now is interest on that debt, I think someone should wake them up and get them to do the math.
Better yet would be to throw them out of Washington altogether. Their dam government is too expensive!

 strangerinthehouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 42 (view)
 
Federal Deficit Estimated at Near-Record $407B
Posted: 9/13/2008 8:32:05 AM

and your right, we should put obama in there. yeah, sure, he'll cut down on the spending...please...the guy wants to create a whole new monstrous dept called nationlized medicine.

Both Obama and McCain recognize that we have a health care problem that's going to require a federal plan to get under control.
I guess you don't read the papers that much... but here they are, if you'll pull your head out of the sand long enough to read. IN fact, either of them are calculated to be able to cut healthcare costs by over 1/2 trillion from what they are now and make it available to every US citizen:

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/pm126
 StrangerInTheHouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 35 (view)
 
Federal Deficit Estimated at Near-Record $407B
Posted: 9/12/2008 3:59:55 PM
eeeo4U: It happens by the federal government not spending more than it takes in. If we take in more than we spend, then we can cut taxes by that amount the next fiscal year... really.

The government financed bonds can't be paid earlier than they're due.. because they draw interest for the owners... but if for instance, the feds take in 253 billion more than they spend in a given year, as they did in 99/00 with Clinton's budget/tax cut, then it gets carried over into next year's budget and it's revenue "earned" and they can actually cut the tax amount they need to collect and therefore lower the percentages of withholding income in the following fiscal year.

Make sense?

That's what they meant when they said "surplus". It's not like a permanent surplus of money. It's only a surplus of money at the end of the last fiscal year... but it means there will be a need to collect less money in the following year.... and if there's a surplus in the next fiscal year, then even less the year after and so forth and so on...

Okay?
 StrangerInTheHouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 9 (view)
 
Is America the BEST Country in the World?
Posted: 9/12/2008 3:41:52 PM
America is the greatest nation in the world... most powerful, etc... but that's kind of a dilemma... because we're also the world's greatest threat to peace. We are military agressors. We start wars between other nations. We proliferate weapons of mass destruction. We sell military hardware to everybody. We've sewed the soil of the earth with millions of mines and bombs that blow the legs off poor farmers trying to work the land even years after we've left wars in places like Afghanistan, Viet Nam, Cambodia, Laos...
It's the safest place to live, because we rarely attack ourselves, but even then, there are instances where that happened...
There are some things I love about the USA and some things I hate. I've looked at the possibilities of leaving the c0untry since the Bush administration got elected and we had this big political swing to the right.
Canada's a nice place. Some of the Northern European countries are very nice also. I don't think I'd mind living either of those places.
 StrangerInTheHouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 25 (view)
 
OJ SIMPSON TRIAL
Posted: 9/12/2008 2:50:24 PM

I hope that Simpson is judged according to the case at hand.
Whether I though he was guilty or innocent of murder is irrelevant
as this is a wholly seperate charge and if found guilty he needs to
pay his debt to society.

I think he'll get a fair trial. The jury selection process was probably
pretty stringent.

O

I strongly agree with this.
The Nicole/Ronald Goldman murder case was tainted from the word "go". No jury in their right mind could have convicted him with all the falsified evidence presented. If they had, Judge Ito would have had to overrule them or it would have been reversed in a snap by an appeals court.
Look at this:
*2 cc's of Simpson's blood was missing after they took a total of 6.5 cc's. They also took over 4 hours to bring it to the evidence collection station. On top of that, the blood found at the murder scene which matched Simpson's was proven to have been splattered by someone standing still over it.
*Simpson's Bronco was not quarantined for days after it was impounded. The blood they found in there was found days after the murder.
*There were two bloody socks found on Simpson's bed the second night the police entered his bedroom; not the first night... but the second... and the socks were soaked all the way through with blood, which proved they weren't occupied by a foot in them when the blood spattered on them.
*Mark Fuhrman, the cop who found the bloody glove, had spoken on a radio show before the murder, admitting to planting evidence to convict suspects whom he "knew were guilty".

The different errors made by the Los Angeles police in collecting evidence and building a case could fill a whole textbook on how to frame an innocent suspect.

How could the jury convict him?
 StrangerInTheHouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 9 (view)
 
The most dominating electoral victories in U.S. history.
Posted: 9/12/2008 1:31:26 PM
[quote}
They also went after her for her pro-choice views (she was Catholic) and why she was married but didn't take her husband's name of Zaccaro. All distractions that took out any bounce out of her nomination but I think the Democrats would have lost the 1984 election anyways.

All I heard was her silence or agreeing with the other side whenever questions came up about the democratic positions.
She's a huge Reagan supporter... even to this day.
Choosing her for a running mate set back women in presidential politics by what?... 24 years at least. Mondale was a huuuuuuuuuuuge supporter of the women's rights political movement... much more than her, even.
She was a disgrace to her gender.
 StrangerInTheHouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 77 (view)
 
Race Relations in America...
Posted: 9/12/2008 1:18:59 PM
There's also a huge problem with the Hispanic population... in addition to illegal immigration. There's gang war in SoCal. That's a big race relations problem... and it's not just between different races, it's between Mexican nationals and Mexican/Americans (US citizens)... Nortenos and Sorenos...There are also race problems with blacks being attacked on the streets by Hispanics. Vietnamese gangs in San Jose and San Francisco have done home takeover robberies against Chinese recently.
 StrangerInTheHouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 72 (view)
 
Race Relations in America...
Posted: 9/12/2008 12:33:24 PM
Scherri, excuse me for saying so... but your oppressor doesn't exist anymore and if you think he does, then you're the oppressor here.

My ancestors might have been poorer than yours... and yours might well have lived a better life, even if they were slaves. My dad didn't even own a pair of shoes until he was twelve... had to quit school in the third grade to dig potatos on his parent's farm... My mother's sisters were domestics... just like what blacks called "House N"s at one time... but they did poorly even for that.
My mother had to work a 40 hour a week job and get financial help from her sisters just to finish high school.

Now, I've had MANY black friends... who've discussed their own family's histories with me and there are few whose parents had to go through what mine did.
...And YOUR family just may have had it tougher than mine did... but there's nothing about the color of a person's skin that makes that something which can be automatically assumed.

Again: it's cultural mythology.
 StrangerInTheHouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 6 (view)
 
The most dominating electoral victories in U.S. history.
Posted: 9/12/2008 12:10:59 PM

Where does Nixon's 72 thrashing of McGovern rate? I was thinking it was until 84 the most one-sided landslide.

McGovern actually had an edge until the press found out his VP choice, Thomas Eagleton had actually seen a therapist (Wow... now how does that compare to Bush and Cheney both having been arrested before they ran for office?) and then the right wing media caved in on him. It was the number one issue of the election.
No matter that Nixon was known to have beaten the hell out of his wife after he lost the gubernatorial election to Pat Brown in 1962....

Also... the Mondale blowout...had alot to do with HIS VP choice, Geraldine Ferraro, who was (if anything) taking more of a "star struck by Ronald Reagan" position than anything else. In debates, she totally abandoned the defense of Mondale, the democratic platform or anything. If women wonder why it's been since 1984 that women have been selected as running mates, look NO FURTHER.
 StrangerInTheHouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 70 (view)
 
Race Relations in America...
Posted: 9/12/2008 11:47:08 AM

That experience just sent a chill down my spine, as it was the first time in my life that I'd actually experienced something like that personally. That's something that doesn't exist here, and never really has over the course of my lifetime.

I believe I know what you mean and I've had it in the course of my lifetime...

*Riding the AC Transit bus home after watching a James Brown concert in 1963 at the Oakland Auditorium... the concert was great. Nobody messed with us... but on the bus, we were extremely uncomfortable... felt exactly as you describe above.
*When I was waiting for a bus at the corner of 73rd Ave. and East 14th (nee International Blvd.), just doors down from the Black Panther headquarters in 1969, when an auto repairman waiting for the same bus got sucker punched and stomped by a black person walking by because of the white work clothes he was wearing. The black guy swore at him and said "DON'T YOU DARE, EVER wear WHITE down here!" and then walked away... leaving this guy... probably a hispanic, with his work clothes smudged with oil, a bloody nose and a puffed up face.
*My Dad was robbed twice at movie theatres in the bay area when I was young, once at a drinking fountain when a black male put something in his back and told him it was a gun; another time when we were getting out of the car to watch the movie "Tom Thumb", two black adult males came up and demanded his wallet.
*Sitting in Merritt Coffee Shop in downtown Oakland.
*When a black male said "Are you turning white on us?" to my black female co-worker/companion when we met for lunch IN BERKELEY of all places!
*When I was twelve through fourteen years old, I used to go alone to downtown theatres in Oakland and San Francisco to watch movies and had black kids come up and threaten me while they demanded to go through my pockets.
*Going into a coffee shop on Fillmore St. in San Francisco before going to the Fillmore auditorium. I didn't even wait in line. I just left.

... but that didn't effect my life... none of those things did.

... and things are much different now with black people in that I've had many black friends, as I've said. I have no "fear" of anyone robbing me or wanting to take anything from me because they're black... IN fact, I've probably had more black friends than white ones in my life.
... And don't get the idea that I'm trying to do anything here but give an honest perspective on the topic of the thread from my life experiences.
I'm not bad mouthing blacks and I wouldn't bring this stuff up at all if it weren't for the subject matter.
I stand on my position that being a minority doesn't and can't prevent a person from becoming successful.
 StrangerInTheHouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 67 (view)
 
Race Relations in America...
Posted: 9/12/2008 11:26:43 AM

I could go on all day but I can't imagine winning an argument with anybody who can remember how deep the shallow end of their town pool was at 4 years of age. you must have been a remarkably smart child.

First let me say... that I don't consider myself "smart". I don't take any stock in IQ tests or anything like that. My brother-in-law/pastor/truck driver is a mensa (over 165 IQ) and although he's a very bright fellow... whose brain works real good, he's kind of like the rest of us. If we study something alot we learn about it.. and know what we know.. nothing less, nothing more. So I'll kindly thank you for the compliment but not buy into it that much...
As for the swimming pool...I did a typo. I meant 3.5 feet deep... but since we're on that... I must admit my memory had some outside reinforcement... like taking swimming lessons there for 4 years in grades 6 through 9 and occasionally swimming in that pool from time to time for about ten years after I left high school... but actually, that was the DEEP end of the shallow pool. The shallow end was only 1-1/2 feet.. if that's important.

I guess we had a miscommunication. (Did I ever say I never swam or went there after 1954?.. you drew some mighty conclusions there, podnuh...)

As for B.B. King's club... I never went there.. just heard of it. If you say so, I'll take your word.

As for senators, can you tell me how being white is an advantage?
Do you think you could get elected senator without being a millionaire?
Do you think you could get elected senator, a major CEO or head of the stock exchange without either being a superstar of stock trading or a family legacy?
Obama got elected just by being a superstar law student in the Ivy League and showing fantastic talent as a leader, administrator and political strategist along with an incredible understanding of how the government works.
I'm not so sure I could do that...
Those things have nothing to do with being "white".
Condoleeza Rice held a high management position in the oil industry. She's even got a tanker ship named after her.
Are there others?
I don't know...

Wow... Oscar... now this one is way way out there...
85% or our prison population is (what?) black?

not according to this:

http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/5145666

or this:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/cpracetab.htm

or this:

http://www.project.org/info.php?recordID=174
 StrangerInTheHouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 117 (view)
 
How do we defeat Terrorism?
Posted: 9/12/2008 10:46:27 AM
The US creates it's own terrorism.
The truth is that WWII made the US rich and we fell in love with the prosperity it brought. I pulled us out of the depression and we became a full-time war economy.
Every once in awhile, some president has to juice that up with some declaration of a "war to spread democracy", a "war against communism" or a "war on terror"... but that's the main plan... no matter what.. the central theme of US foreign policy and the US economy, if you will.

We couldn't possibly sustain single digit unemployment and the growth we have without it. Military sales are the biggest industry in the world and just to make sure they sell well, we train our enemies just in case some don't spring up on their own. We had the Brits train Osama Bin Ladin. We trained Manuel Noriega at the school of the Americas. We gave biochems to Saddam. We actually started Iran's nuclear program back in 1969, after we had to remove our missiles from Iran as part of the cuban missile crisis agreement... After all, who could blame us if Iran had it's OWN nukes pointed at the Russians?
But now that we're attacking in the middle east, we're not so comfy with that.
Reagan sold satellite technology to the Chinese in 88... then they build ICBM's... do you think this was a surprise?
IN Iraq, we bought 200,000 weapons with taxpayer's money and GAVE THEM AWAY!

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/08/gao-190000-us-w.html

As long as we sell weapons, war is good for business.
We even elected the first family of the arms industry, the Bush's... two of them, as presidents.
Look it up.
 StrangerInTheHouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 65 (view)
 
Race Relations in America...
Posted: 9/12/2008 10:23:24 AM

well, I'm not going back thru all the stats that prove that false but while you were listening to Malcom at 8 years old, apparently you didnt see the "whites only" restaurants, drinking fountains, and bathrooms that existed in the South at the time.

OH.. but I did!
I also saw that blacks couldn't swim at the local neighborhood pool after noon time... even here in the east bay... but that was then. The law was changed in 1954.. when I was only four. I remember that too... Farrelly Pool, San Leandro...At noon, the lifeguard would blow a whistle and order everyone out of the pool. There would be a half hour grace time for blacks to leave and then at 12:30, the pool was open to whites and nonblacks (the lifeguards were very confused about Asians, hispanics and others) and blacks were only allowed in the children's (up to 2.5 feet depth) pool after that.
go figure...
It's not like that now...not at all.

to think that has no bearing now is just absurd

It did have a bearing on now. It's been changed.
Blacks have the top rated shows on tv.. Oprah, Bill Cosby... the world's top athletes... about half the commercials I see have black actors... Things are so much better for that reason.
B.B. King has a club in TIMES SQUARE.
http://www.bbkingblues.com/
Are you serious?
I think the other side of the argument is absurd.
 StrangerInTheHouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 62 (view)
 
Race Relations in America...
Posted: 9/12/2008 10:07:05 AM
I saw a program with Mike Wallace interviewing him in front of the New York Police department station in Harlem where there were a whole group of black people standing outside after a black man had been arrested and they showed how easily Malcolm controlled the crowd... in (I think it was 1959), and then he was in the studio being interviewed also. He made the "by any means necessary" statement.
At the time, there was alot of paranoia about blacks and their capacity to become violent. The networks were really getting people worked up over it. The weekly KPFA broadcast show was just something I hit upon because we received it well in the east bay...EVERY FRIDAY..It was nationally broadcast (look it up) and after they got done playing the top 40 hits on KYA and KEWB, there wasn't much else to listen to... so...I actually agreed with some things he said, but the main attraction was that he was a very eloquent and passionate speaker. I think he believed what he said... In fact, he died for what he believed in and I have to give him credit for that... but on some things, he was just wrong.
I've certainly made mistakes like that. We're only human. I'm not saying he wasn't doing his best or trying to deceive anyone. I'm only saying that people can be made to believe things that aren't true...

You can ask anyone who was in the bay area at that time to verify. I have no problem with that.

Actually, the rat/cat/pig thing is a pretty famous quote of his. If you don't feel like looking it up, here it is.
It's also in Bob Dylan's bio:

http://arrabi.blogspot.com/2006/04/book-review-malcolm-x-autobiography.html

...as for the cornflakes quote, you'll have to take my word (or not) on that. That's from memory.

Your skepticism is pardoned. Not only that.. I approve of it. If you didn't question it, it would be bad.
 StrangerInTheHouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 60 (view)
 
Race Relations in America...
Posted: 9/12/2008 9:53:09 AM

Stranger, unless you're lying about your age you're the same age as I am, 58, and I was under ten all through the fifties. You really expect me to believe you were listening to Malcolm at that age, and understood what he was talking about, and remember it? What's your real agenda?

I heard Malcolm X on the radio from 59 thru 62... but I must say that's a very complex question...You included your reason to doubt me in the asking of it... kind of like Did you stop beating your wife?
When a person asks a question like that, it's like they're not really asking. They're just doing it to create doubt that the other person is telling the truth... as if my claim is impossible... as if nobody could possibly remember such a thing.
This isn't true.
Many people remember things that happened when they were very young. Maybe you don't, but it's not up to me to account for why I do, other than to state that it happened.
I was there.
Ummm... are you disputing my quotes?
Facts?
What's your agenda?
Are you trying to discredit me?
Why?
Did I say something to offend you... like the Kings of Pain thing and how I don't believe that anymore?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6871591288949111953
 StrangerInTheHouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 56 (view)
 
Race Relations in America...
Posted: 9/12/2008 9:15:00 AM
Scherri, nothing personal... we think alike on almost anything else... but I must respectfully disagree.
 StrangerInTheHouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 53 (view)
 
Race Relations in America...
Posted: 9/12/2008 9:09:07 AM

There are crabs in the barrel in every group, whites too! Who made the barrel and put them in it?

Who are you arguing with?
Did I say there weren't?
Did I not say there are whites who need to believe things like "the US is always right", "might is always right", etc, etc....?
Have I not made it plain that I'm ashamed of the Bush administration and even my own Irish-American heritage for the murderers, liars and thieves who've been president and were Irish-Americans?
If not, then let it be known...
Are you making an argument for me?

My point is that blacks don't have it harder than everyone else. Many other groups in the US have had it much harder, and being white doesn't give anyone social advantages over anyone anymore insofar as jobs and education. Being related to someone with money is different... but the race stuff, I don't believe that and I've seen examples my whole life that it's no longer true .
 StrangerInTheHouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 48 (view)
 
Race Relations in America...
Posted: 9/12/2008 8:58:18 AM

If you stick a knife in my back 9 inches and pull it out 6 inches, that is not progress. You pull the knife all the way out, that is not progress. The progress is healing the wound that the blow made, and they haven't even begin to pull the knife out, much less heal the wound. They won't even admit the knife was there!

~El Hajj Malik Shabazz (Malcom X)


You're not even old enough to have heard Malcolm X on public radio on Friday nights back in the 50's...
I am and I DID.
I used to hear him every Friday night on KPFA radio from Berkeley... and I heard him say a LOT of things:

"A pig is a graph between rat, cat, and dog."

"There are more vitamins in the cardboard box that cornflakes come packaged in then there are the cornflakes themselves."

Malcolm was another guy who did better than other blacks wanted. When he went to Mecca, against Elijah Muhammad's orders and was cast out of the Nation of Islam, he realized that color was not a barrier. He also outed Elijah Muhammad's affairs with his secretaries and exposed him for the fraud he was. And that was why he was murdered.. and replaced in the Nation of Islam by Louis Farrakhan... who as much as called for him to be killed in "Muhammad Speaks" ("the die is set, and Malcolm shall not escape, especially after such evil foolish talk about his benefactor, Elijah Muhammad. Such a man as Malcolm is worthy of death." ) for doing what he did.

So perpetrators of the mythology make Louis Farrakhan their leader and act as if Malcolm never existed. What kind of stuff is that?

Maybe you'll see how important this mythology is to people who want to control the way you think... someday.
 StrangerInTheHouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 45 (view)
 
Race Relations in America...
Posted: 9/12/2008 8:17:45 AM

Minorities simply to not have the same opportunities as whites, in the grand scheme of things.

Well, you can believe that if you want. I guess it's deeply ingrained in your psyche, and just about every black person I've ever known (many) have insisted that's the way it is...but the rest of us don't buy that anymore.
I've seen it go both ways. I've seen discrimination. I've seen reverse discrimination.
To me, the claim that minorities don't have the same opportunities as whites because of their color, is fraud and slander against others who've tried to do everything they possibly could to give opportunities to minorities. Short of giving them everything there is without them earning it, there's not much more the law or people's consciences can do to help. That goose won't lay anymore.
The knowledge of that attitude among black people is probably the main reservation anyone has these days against associating with black people and it's not going to change unless they change.
In fact, this is probably why many people won't vote for Obama... despite the fact that he's better qualified, smarter, better speaker and better educated and everything else.. and millions of white people like myself want him to win.
People like Reverend Wright will shame him for not appealing that perspective... that minorities (particularly blacks) have it wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy harder than anyone... and it hurts him. He wants to be president, but if that were to happen, it might then endanger this claim that many blacks like to make.. that they've got it tougher...
Some people can't tolerate that.
Cut the nose and spite the face.

I guess it's something alot of black people have to believe or they'll fall apart... the same way some people believe the US is always right or we never lost a war or might is always right or something... but I've seen a whole lot and I don't believe it.
People have been brainwashed to believe that and it hurts them worse than anything else.
I've heard this so often and seen life...how things work and how they don't... and to me it's a grain of salt... or pepper if you will... nothing more.
 StrangerInTheHouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 111 (view)
 
How do we defeat Terrorism?
Posted: 9/12/2008 8:13:23 AM

EarlzP you brought up such a good point, not really on topic...But borrowing money from China. When I first heard that I was like WTF? Isn't China one of the countries we don't actually agree on things with??? We treat them like enemies and question their government but will take a hand out from them???


That's only the half of it...
We borrow money from China to pay China with.
The trade imbalance between our two nations is staggering...
The United States' current monetary policies do everything possible to make China the richest nation on earth in the future...
That's the republican way and that's where we're headed.
 StrangerInTheHouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 155 (view)
 
ABC's Charles Gibson lands First interview with Sarah Palin
Posted: 9/12/2008 8:10:10 AM
It's sad to think she's probably going to be VP just because she's a republican...
 strangerinthehouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 145 (view)
 
Why do some younger men want to have sex with an older woman?
Posted: 9/11/2008 11:19:22 PM
As an older guy, I can be honest and say that it's just because women usually get sexier as they get older. They're more experienced and not afraid... I think many women find that to also be the case with older men... It's not as much stupid beating around the bush and stuff and when you do it, it's just better... they know how to do it better because they've done it more. They're comfortable with it and make their partner the same.
 strangerinthehouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 95 (view)
 
How do we defeat Terrorism?
Posted: 9/11/2008 10:55:41 PM
My point is that terrorism will never be defeated. When you push people far enough back into a corner that they don't fear death compared to the life that they're offered under your government, they're going to do it.
This is the case with the middle east, who don't want to be ruled by western oil interests.
I think the term "terrorists" is pure bull crap because most of you, if you were in the same position as the people who did this, would do anything you could to strike back at foreign invaders and be proud of it.
 strangerinthehouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 41 (view)
 
Race Relations in America...
Posted: 9/11/2008 9:19:25 PM

We need to acknowledge the differences and focus on the similarities.

Until we do that, and realize that it's tough for everyone who's not rich, we'll never really trust each other. If one race has to be "king of pain", that's not going to work. People of other races have been through too much to let that happen.
 strangerinthehouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 39 (view)
 
Race Relations in America...
Posted: 9/11/2008 9:10:24 PM

So when I say that blacks run a gauntlet of fire It doesn't encompass violence but rather pressure from all sides. In my HS you had more Crips and Bloods than bookish friends to hang with. At times I felt like more than my wallet was at stake. The very party I decided to skip was the one where a classmate was shot and killed. Trust, experiencing violence is nothing new to many of us.

Nor me....
Not by a longshot....and nobody can say they had a more violent situation than you; but were there white kids at your school?
How do you think they felt?
I knew of a white kid who was forced to get on all fours and bark like a dog in the high school hallway at Castlemont High School in Oakland by some black gangstas... I don't know if you had to go through anything like that...maybe you'd die or get the living hell beat out of you first, as I hope I would... but it happened.
That's one reason that stuff about one race having it tougher than another just doesn't impress me. We're all targets for violent people, and once they find out they can get away with it, they don't stop. When I went to school I saw gang beatings, homosexual rapes... all that... most of it white on white... but it was there...
 strangerinthehouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 22 (view)
 
What Change is really possible?
Posted: 9/11/2008 8:58:03 PM


I may be dead wrong, but if we want real change it is time for the people of this nation to stop being so damn partisan. Obama has consistantly voted with his party how is that change? Unless the only change some of these posters want is to change the name of the idiot in cheif.
To make real change in this nation we need, in MHO, the following:
1. A balenced budget ammendment. The congress can not pass any bills to spend what we have not got. A no raiding Social Security.

2. End Lobbists. It is time for the politicians to start working for the people of this nation, not the special intrest groups.

3. Term limits and the more efficient right to fire a politician.

4. End their ability to raise their own pay. I mean if you went to work for person X you dont get to vote yourself a pay raise for not working or even for working. Person X gets to descide your pay raise, based upon how well you have done and the available funds. In this case person X is the district that they come from.

5. End private campaign financing. Only public funding and public funds will be available for anyone who can get enough supporters. Not just the Republicans and the Democrats.

6. End foriegn Aid. No more money from the US to any other country other than for humanitarian emergencies.

7. I am not sure about this one, i mean if the others were in place this one may not be needed, but None of the Above is a viable option. We need to be able to say you all suck.

8. Have an independent auditor go over the books for all government and government mandated organizations. IF you get tax money your books will be reviewed for waste and efficency.

9. End All corporate welfare. Not just the billions we give the oil companies, which i want to point out the Dems support just as often as the repubs, BUT ALL corporate welfare.

10. Energy policy: Do it all. Drill, push alternatives, research, nuclear power, and put the "energy" of the people in this nation on finding viable alternatives and ways to power this nation. This will require the US govt to fund inproving the infrestructure of this nation. IT is subpar for what it will need to be, so that we can grow.

11. I honestly dont have an answer for health care, would be interesting to see what someone can come up with that could be acceptable to the majority of people not just the extreams.

Ok, now it is time for all you to bash my ideas.

Well...not to bash them.. but maybe just give you some feedback...

Most people don't know this, but foreign aid doesn't go to Juan and Maria Valdez in Columbia to help them buy their weekly supply of milk and rice for themselves and their kids...

Actually the vast majority of it goes to American businesses who are opening up new locations overseas OR to nations buying US arms. It's one way to sneak money out the back door of the treasury into the defense industry coffers. Foreign nations don't even see the money... it just goes to the defense industry with a note saying "25 F-16's to Indonesia" or something... which they then use(d) to exterminate indigenous people in East Timor...

I agree that None of the Above should be a viable option. We should be able to reject any and all candidates.

I disagree about nuclear power... too dangerous. Also, drilling for oil in the ocean is terrible for the oceans. There's an island of slime and dirty diapers and candy wrappers THREE FEET DEEP AND AS BIG AS TEXAS floating around in the south pacific now. There are hundreds of places in the ocean now that are "dead zones" and that number has doubled in the last ten years. Do you have any idea what will happen if we destroy ocean life?

Both Obama and McCain have health care plans that would save us a lot. We pay about 2 trillion per year now. Obama's plan costs 1.6 trillion. McCain's is 1.3, but not as many benefits.
 strangerinthehouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 32 (view)
 
Race Relations in America...
Posted: 9/11/2008 8:42:33 PM


Not a race problem.
Rotten kid problem.

Now, we're talking...
but I'm not listening to anyone who tells me any race of people has it harder than anyone else. That's ethnic mythology these days.. Not true.. and I won't listen to it. I've been close with enough black people and families to know...
People make choices. People choose whether or not to show attitude. If you come dressed for a job interview looking like you're going to hold the place up or carrying a skateboard, you don't have that good a chance to get hired.
Okay?
 strangerinthehouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 30 (view)
 
Race Relations in America...
Posted: 9/11/2008 8:31:55 PM

I liken being black to running a gauntlet of fire. If you can survive the name calling, questions
about your intellect, being called ugly, and seeing people that look like you in the worst of condidtion
and still keep your head up you're doing well.

Uh buoy...
See, this is where we really don't understand each other...
I get off work and I'm walking down the street to catch my train in Berkeley. I see three black boys about 12, 13 years old come up and shout in the face of an old white woman who can barely stand up, balancing herself with a metal cage... they stand there and heckle her...laughing at her... and they taunt me... call me a white bitch and they know I can't touch them because they're kids... and all that... if I hadn't walked up and said something, they might have heckled her to death.
I've gotten police reports for the last twenty years, at least two or three times a week from the campus police department telling a listserve about some groups (or other) of black males robbing and/or beating up some white, asian or hispanic student for their wallet, cell phone, whatever...

If being black is running a gauntlet of fire as you say, then what are the rest of us doing who get knocked down by some black skateboarding kid and robbed by other black kids who come up behind and stomp our butts and rob us, as happened to a friend of mine leaving work about a year ago?

All this is not your fault.. any more than white racists are my fault... but if you tell me that these criminals have to do that because they're black, and you think the rest of us are going to accept that, I'll tell anyone we're not listening to that anymore. People are responsible for crimes they commit. Nobody makes them do it. It's time to stop making excuses for criminal behavior.
 strangerinthehouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 89 (view)
 
How do we defeat Terrorism?
Posted: 9/11/2008 8:11:56 PM

this is a news flash to all Americas, there is no such thing, as a war on terror. its your governments way of keep you Americans in line.

beltongary: We're way past that. It's a way Bush and the republicans are keeping the world in line and an excuse to invade weaker nations who have resources the multinational corporations want to control.
It's been accepted as an excuse for a neverending war.
I hope we can stop it someday.

How to react to terror? my brothers in israel know this and so do I...

but didn't the Israelis drive the Brits out by acts of what the Brits called "terror" back in the 1940s?
 strangerinthehouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 27 (view)
 
Race Relations in America...
Posted: 9/11/2008 7:45:09 PM
I think black people think about racism much more than most white people do at this point... and I believe that thinking about it hurts them worse than anything else; even the racism itself. It destroys hope in their lives.
Nobody's going to give you anything in this life no matter what color you are... how good looking you are, how smart you are or anything else...and if you don't believe you can get it if you go after it, then it makes it harder to go after it.
Even more discouraging is the idea many black people have that white people are "given" things and they aren't...
Hey... it's not true... not unless your parents own it.... just like the black Moms and Dads... Not that many people have stuff to give... in the way of career opportunities, businesses to run, etc, etc...
Look at who pays the taxes... Look at what a small percentage of people make so much money that they pay 35% of all the US taxes....only one percent.

Nobody gives you stuff because you're white.

Now I know some blacks are going to grouse about that... and say to themselves You don't know what it's like.... and that, by itself, might be true.

but that's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying you don't know what it's like...
 StrangerInTheHouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 79 (view)
 
How do we defeat Terrorism?
Posted: 9/11/2008 4:09:53 PM
"terrorism" is only seperated from other acts of war by usually being done as a surprise.
If someone attacked YOUR country, would YOU not be a "terrorist" to drive them out?
If let's say, Russia... came rolling in here.. overwhelmed our military and started trying to make us live by their laws, wouldn't you do whatever you could to fight?
I should at least hope I would.
.. and then of course, they'd say "We murdered your children fair and square... there were soldiers standing behind them...".
Uh huh....
 StrangerInTheHouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 76 (view)
 
How do we defeat Terrorism?
Posted: 9/11/2008 4:01:10 PM
Wow... some wild conclusions here...
Terrorism is an ideology
What ideology did the Boston Tea Partiers have with John Brown's anti-slavery movement or the Israel nationalist movement or the French underground during WWII?

That's one brainwashed idea... I can't swallow that "war on terror" line, hook and sinker like you have. No way.

"Terrorism" is a label that a nation which is occupying another puts on clandestine acts committed by the occupied nation in order to drive the occupiers out, in an attempt to make the resisitors of their authority appear to be morally wrong.

We called the insurgents who fought against the Russian occupiers of Afghanistan "freedom fighters"...

What do you think the Russians or the government in Kabul called them?

NEGOTIATION, DIPLOMACY, & APPEASEMENT
Negotiation is a craft. Diplomacy is a skill about that craft and appeasement is a conclusion someone makes about the negotiations after they're done.

We've got an apple and orange and a pear.
I hope you don't think they're the same... because they're not.
A person who doesn't negotiate with their enemies under any circumstances, to try to avoid war is either a fool or someone who makes huge amounts of profit from war.
Why would a person not try to avoid war?
Why would a person refuse to negotiate?
If it's to avoid making vital concessions, I could understand that, but one has to at least negotiate to start off in order to see what those concessions would be.
Bush has never done that.
Need I say more?
 StrangerInTheHouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 12 (view)
 
Race Relations in America...
Posted: 9/11/2008 3:42:25 PM
Racism still exists... and always will.
It's like "terrorism" though.. you can have wars on it or crusade against it, but you'll never eliminate it.
It will always be with us, at least I know it will be long after I'm dead and gone.
Why is the income of average white families higher than black families?
I'd never say black people don't work as hard. Some do and some don't.. just like white people and everyone else. Nobody can say that's the case on anything more than an individual basis.
I will say that the way some black people have acted at work have worked in tandem with media stereotypes to make it tougher for those who do want to work.
But, if you really think racism can stop a person who works as hard as they can to succeed from succeeding, then I think you're really fooling yourself.
.... and sports isn't the only way to do it, either. Read bios of black people like Willie Brown, ex-mayor of SF... or many others. Look at Jesse Jackson.
I'll try to put it simply: the western economy was built by white people and they own most things right now. Fifty years from now, who knows?.
Now, whether that's fair is another matter.
What could be done to correct this?
The government should take over all private property and redistribute it according to race?
Take the companies and property away from the people who got them built and own them?
Wow... I doubt that will ever happen.
Can not being white stop people from succeeding?
I just don't believe that.
 StrangerInTheHouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 16 (view)
 
What Change is really possible?
Posted: 9/11/2008 1:33:33 PM
we need changes in health care, the deployment and use of the military... which also needs to be rebuilt because as we are, we couldn't win a land war against even nations with backward technology. Our equipment is worn out and needs replacing. The world has almost caught up with 0ur defense technologies..
We also need to update our infrastructure to use alternative energy sources and mass transit, as well as protect our coastal cities from rising sea levels and ferocious weather resulting from global warming.
We need to stop the North American Missile Defense for the waste of money it is and the cold war it's starting.. we just CAN'T AFFORD IT and it was useless to begin with. We need to fund the US army corps of engineers to strengthen bridges, rebuild levees and our water system. We need to stop wasting money the way Bush has been throwing it out the back door of the US treasury under the guise of "protecting us" by blowing up other countries and paying Haliburton, Bechtel and Blackwater to "rebuild" them. Actually, they haven't rebuilt anything. They've just been stealing our money and that's why Iraq would like us to get out.
Who needs new taxes?
We can still have the same taxes Bush had... or close to it. They only taxes we paid over that amount were what we were getting ripped off for in the "war on terror". If not for that, bush could have balanced each and every budget. Most people don't realize that.
National debt is something we pay interest on and it's set up to collect interest. It's not like we can pay it off quick. We just have to not overspend the revenue every year. If we stop doing that, then in afew years, the debt is GONE... and taxes go down PERMANENTLY.
Yes... we need quite abit of change. It's going to take awhile, so we'd better get started.
 StrangerInTheHouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 62 (view)
 
How do we defeat Terrorism?
Posted: 9/11/2008 1:21:09 PM
"Terrorism" can't be defeated, anymore than alcoholism or drug addiction, domestic or animal abuse, toilets getting stopped up, foundations or roofs needing to be rebuilt, wrestling matches being fixed or obesity.

When people who don't have an army and/or uniforms try to fight people who've cut them out of the political process, they resort to this. It happened in the days of Jesus. It happened in the days of Moses.

Cain slew Abel...

"War on terror" is something Bush started so he could declare as many wars as he wanted, because his family made it's fortune off war and the defense industry... going all the way back to Samuel Bush and Woodrow Wilson. Their family sells oil, ammo and weapons to the Kaiser, allies of the US, Russians, Nazis, Japanese during WWII... even when their sons are in the US military getting shot at with it. It's just the way the family is.

Terrorism is like the poor.. it will always be with us. This is why we have wars... between nations, social classes, whatever...

The only way to "stop terrorism" would be to kill everybody
 StrangerInTheHouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 3 (view)
 
Race Relations in America...
Posted: 9/11/2008 12:52:35 PM
I think it's more possible than ever for minorities to get past it. I work with people of all different races at UC Berkeley and with the possible exception of the highest of the higherups... basically people who were born as part of the rentier class in the US... there are people of all races making the same high or low salaries all across the board. I've also seen that reflected in other jobs around the SF bay area. I don't know what it's like in the rest of the country...but even Condoleeza Rice is way up there...along with many other black people.

From what I've seen: Nobody cares what race a person is if they can do the work.


Therein is the rub... in that alot of blacks... or for that matter, many people of color... or socially rebellious people who believe the world should be different... consider doing the work that more powerful people ask them to do, to be selling out to the white establishment... the mainstream... so they don't want to do that.

This is the main reason that most qualified people don't succeed economically. They don't want to do what people want them to do.

I'm not saying who's right or wrong, either... I'm just saying that success is based on that, usually... although there are certainly exceptions, like Thomas Edison, who discovered and patented something so important that nobody could reject him... but if not for that, I don't think he would have done much. People who knew him hated him.

There are indigents... people who are homeless... who are every bit as intelligent and qualified as those who are billionaires... but the difference is that the billionaires learned how to turn a buck by doing something.. usually something for someone else with alot of money.

That's just the way the world is...

 StrangerInTheHouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 20 (view)
 
Will Palin's interview change things? Will she campaign alone? Is it now Obama/Palin?
Posted: 9/11/2008 10:07:02 AM
Republicans generally vote the party. Democrats vote the candidates.
This gives the republicans the advantage of being able to build their platforms and tickets on wedge issues which divide the other party.

In this case, it's a female candidate; regardless of whether she's about as qualified and intelligent as a Polar Bear; the republicans know their interests will be served by their party.

Women have been out there for a long time. It is a major failure in our political system that there aren't more women in government. The only problem I have is: with so many better qualified women, how on earth could they want to vote for this fool?

I guess many women feel this might be the only chance they have for a long time to make it happen. It surely couldn't have anything to do with her ability to do anything. She's whacko.

There's a long history of wedge issue politics. When your goal is to keep others from getting more power, and the "others" are a far more diverse group, wedge issues are not hard to find. They can be things like high taxes, abortion, death penalty, integration...

At one time, the republicans were progressive and built such things as the interstate highway system, transcontinental railroad, Hoover dam and large infrastructure projects having to do with improving the water supply and land conservation.

Since the Roosevelt administration, they've left those things to the democrats, except for the defense industry... buying bombers and aircraft carriers and missiles we'll never use (hopefully).
 StrangerInTheHouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 7 (view)
 
The People President Clinton Didn't Have to Pardon...Because They're All Dead-Truth! & Fiction!
Posted: 9/11/2008 9:42:28 AM
republican smears... linking clinton with everyone he ever knew who died.

Family values, yaknow?

lie, lie, lie...
 StrangerInTheHouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 115 (view)
 
Obama's Lipstick on a Pig
Posted: 9/10/2008 4:26:02 PM


I hope that somewhere in the 5 pages of this thread someone has addressed that McCain himself has used "lipstick on a pig" several times over the years.


He sure has. I hope they bring that up tonight on tv news shows... How hollow and fraudulent for the republicans to criticize Obama for it.
 StrangerInTheHouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 29 (view)
 
Federal Deficit Estimated at Near-Record $407B
Posted: 9/10/2008 1:44:42 PM
There's alot of things you can call democrats, but one of them is not wasteful spenders... especially if you're a republican.

Here's an interesting graph, showing how our republican presidents have run the national debt through the roof:

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Here's some more budget data you might find interesting...Note: the years of Clinton's administration when he balanced the budget and the amounts of surplus in billions of dollars are in bold.
All years with a minus sign in front of them are years the budget was not balanced and we added to the national debt.

Very interesting how a democrat can cut taxes and balance the budget... and then your republican guy gets in and averages 300 billion a year in deficits and can't balance the budget and you won't even admit he's a thief.

from: http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN0454704720080204

Feb 4 (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush proposed a
budget on Monday that foresees a deficit of $410 billion, or
2.9 percent of GDP, this year. On Jan. 23, the Congressional Budget Office had projected a
$219 billion deficit, or 1.5 percent of GDP, for fiscal 2008.
In its last budget forecast in July, the White House had said
it expected the 2008 deficit to come in at $258 billion. Following are White House figures for budget surpluses or
deficits for the budget years 1985-2007, and the latest
projections from both CBO and the White House. The government's fiscal year runs from Oct. 1 through Sept.
30. BUDGET YEAR SURPLUS OR DEFICIT (-) AS PCT OF GDP
2007 -$162.0 bln -1.2
2006 -$248.2 bln -1.9
2005 -$318.3 bln -2.6
2004 -$412.7 bln -3.6
2003 -$377.6 bln -3.5
2002 -$157.8 bln -1.5
(Bush's total for his first 5 years in office= $1.676 trillion. The budgets for the next 3 years after this are his also... including the 403 billion that hasn't even been counted as part of this...)
2001 $128.2 bln 1.3
2000 $236.2 bln 2.4
1999 $125.6 bln 1.4
1998 $ 69.3 bln 0.8

1997 -$ 21.9 bln -0.3
1996 -$107.4 bln -1.4
1995 -$164.0 bln -2.2
1994 -$203.2 bln -2.9
1993 -$255.1 bln -3.9
(Clinton's deficits over 8 years= only $320.5 billion)..)
1992 -$290.3 bln -4.7
1991 -$269.2 bln -4.5
1990 -$221.0 bln -3.9
1989 -$152.6 bln -2.8

(Bush I's deficits= $933.1 billion dollars of national debt we're still paying interest on..)
 StrangerInTheHouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 26 (view)
 
Federal Deficit Estimated at Near-Record $407B
Posted: 9/10/2008 12:03:14 PM

Liberals have no sense of history and will ignore facts/figures and I have been watching this for years.

Since Reagan took office in 1981, the republican presidents have approved budgets that average 340 billion dollars a year deficits (otherwise known as national debt). By comparison, during the eight years of Clinton's administration, he averaged slightly over 200 billion... and actually balanced the federal budget the last three years in office, which gave us a surplus of cash in 2001... that being the revenues raised by taxes which were not spent in paying the governments bills in the fiscal 2000/2001 year... so Bush actually had 200 billion dollars that was carried over into the 2001/2002 budget before he even started.

Under Reagan the amount of money to US Treasury increased.

It certainly did.. because he borrowed to get it by selling bonds. The money we pay for that money is called the national debt, and it's not just a matter of paying it back to the owners of bonds. It also includes interest. For this reason the national debt increased from under 1 trillion to 4 trillion dollars before Bush I left office in 1993. Reagan and Bush quadrupled it.
... and the value of those dollars before the bonds were sold was what is called fiat money: "Phony" dollars in other words...which greatly devalued the dollar and made it so the price of any imported goods went through the roof!
Most Americans during much of the eighties couldn't even afford to buy leather shoes, because they're made abroad and our currency wasn't worth squat.


The same happened with the Bush tax cuts.

Yes, it sure did... and that's why 17 cents (or more) of every dollar we pay in taxes now goes for nothing but interest!

The so called Clinton economy did not take off until after the Conservatives came into power in 1994

It was 1997 in fact, when he came up with the idea for a "middle class tax cut". The republicans resisted it, as they wanted a regressive tax cut where the rich would get the biggest cut.. but Clinton didn't let them do that and there was a long budget impasse before congress finally gave in.
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/20000316.html

and most of his 'surplus' was book keeping.

*hahahahah* I don't think so!!!
If you think that... then tell me how you know that?
How can not having a deficit budget be (creative) "book keeping"?
Actually, by not having a deficit for three years running, he paid the debt down and there was a surplus of as much as 200 billion dollars when he left office...
No. You really don't know.

The problem is not the amount of money we take in but it is the out of control spending by Liberal and RHINO Pols.

Liberals didn't buy a missile system that costs us $170 billion per year. Liberals aren't paying Blackwater employess like major league baseball rookies to work security jobs in Iraq while our people in uniform get paid like MacDonald's employees.
Liberals don't pay $1000 per truck trip to Haliburton, which sometimes uses 28 trucks to carry one truckLOAD.
This war is nothing but a scam to throw money out the back door of the treasury to the big construction companies and arms industry. The GAO recently discovered over 200,000 US bought weapons are missing there.


Reduce taxes, cut Government useless Social Programs, allow oil drilling, refinery construction, coal and nuclear power plants construction, shale oil production and all the work that supports these very high paying jobs. Get Government out of the road. A bloated Federal Government is the problem not the solution.

If it hadn't been for this stupid war Bush lied to start, and stupid missile system, Bush could have balanced the budget, even with his tax cuts.
He's done everything possible to try and start as many wars as he could while in office. His family is tied to the arms industry and they'll do anything they can to build the family fortune. This means starting wars... and the republicans have given him nothing but help in taking us to the cleaners and now McCain is trying to do it some more.
 StrangerInTheHouse
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 1 (view)
 
Palin billed Alaska for nights spent at home
Posted: 9/10/2008 11:42:18 AM
What about this????

(09-09) 04:00 PDT Anchorage, Alaska -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has billed taxpayers for 312 nights spent in her own home during her first 19 months in office, charging a "per diem" allowance intended to cover meals and incidental expenses while traveling on state business.

The governor also has charged the state for travel expenses to take her children on official out-of-town missions. And her husband, Todd, has billed the state for expenses and a daily allowance for trips he makes on official business for his wife.

Palin, who earns $125,000 a year, claimed and received $16,951 as her allowance, which officials say was permitted because her official "duty station" is Juneau, according to an analysis of her travel documents by the Washington Post.

The governor's daughters and husband charged the state $43,490 to travel, and many of the trips were to and from their house in Wasilla and Juneau, the capital city 600 miles away, the documents show.

Gubernatorial spokeswoman Sharon Leighow said Monday that Palin's expenses are not unusual and that, under state policy, the first family could have claimed per-diem expenses for each child taken on official business but has not done so.

Speaking from Palin's Anchorage office, Leighow said the first family's travel is an expected part of the job.

"As a matter of protocol, the governor and the first family are expected to attend community events across the state," she said.

The state finance director, Kim Garnero, said Alaska law exempts the governor's office from elaborate travel regulations. Said Leighow: "The governor is entitled to a per diem, and she claims it."

The popular governor collected the per-diem allowance from April 22, four days after the birth of her fifth child, until June 3, when she flew to Juneau for two days. Palin moved her family to the capital during the legislative session last year, but prefers to stay in Wasilla and drive 45 miles to Anchorage to a state office building where she conducts most of her business, aides have said.

Palin rarely sought reimbursement for meals while staying in Anchorage or Wasilla, the reports show.

She wrote some form of "Lodging - own residence" or "Lodging - Wasilla residence" more than 30 times at the same time she took a per diem, according to the reports. In two dozen undated amendments to the reports, the governor deleted the reference to staying in her home but still charged the per diem.

Asked Monday about the official policy on charging for children's travel expenses, Garnero said: "We cover the expenses of anyone who's conducting state business. I can't imagine kids could be doing that."

But Leighow said many of the hundreds of invitations Palin receives include requests for her to bring her family, placing the definition of "state business" with the party extending the invitation.
 
Show ALL Forums