• Feed RSS
There was an error in this gadget

Just in Case You Weren't Sure Who's Behind the OWS

ŠįlěƝţ ŁøvȜř Tuesday, October 4, 2011
0

Just in Case You Weren't Sure Who's Behind the OWS
Posted by David Kramer on October 4, 2011 11:05 AM

Here is the list of demands from the Rothschild/Rockefeller puppets protesters down at Wall Street. (Pay close attention to Demands one and three, and then the closing sentence of the list. As Bill Anderson likes to say, "What a hoot!")

Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr. [emphasis mine]

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

Demand four: Free college education.

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.

Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants.

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the "Books." World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the "Books." And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period. [will never happen]

Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.

These demands will create so many jobs it will be completely impossible to fill them without an open borders policy. [emphasis mine]

By the way, do you notice a very important Demand missing? How come no Demand about ending the wars and bringing all of our troops home? Because Ev and Dave can't make money if that were done.

[Thanks to Anthony Gregory]

Act Now to Help Save This Child: Florida to try 12-yr-old as adult

ŠįlěƝţ ŁøvȜř
0



New post on COTO Report

Act Now to Help Save This Child: Florida to try 12-yr-old as adult

by coto2admin

12-year-Old To Be Jailed For Life? By Change.org Cristian Fernandez is only 12 years old. And if Florida prosecutor Angela Corey has her way, he'll never leave jail again. Sign Petition opposing this. Cristian hasn't had an easy life. He's the same age now as his mother was when he was born. He's a survivor [...]

Read more of this post

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://coto2.wordpress.com/2011/10/04/act-now-to-help-save-this-child-florida-to-try-12-yr-old-as-adult/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Apple, Google, Facebook Censor Christians

ŠįlěƝţ ŁøvȜř
0



New post on Fellowship of the Minds

Apple, Google, Facebook Censor Christians

by Dr. Eowyn

This is a follow-up on my Sept. 22 post, "Study Shows Social Media Censor Conservatives-Christians".

Father John Flynn, LC, writes for Zenit, Oct 2, 2011, on how social media sites such as Facebook, Google, Apple, and Twitter censor Christians, as detailed in a report commissioned by the Virginia-based National Religious Broadcasters (NRB), a non-partisan, international association of Christian communicators according to a description of its mission on its Web site.

The report, "True Liberty in a New Media Age: An Examination of the Threat of Anti-Christian Censorship and Other Viewpoint Discrimination on New Media Platforms," concludes that "Christian ideas and other religious content face a clear and present danger of censorship on Web-based communication platforms."

The study revealed a number of ways in which the policies of the new media giants affected religion.

Apple

On two occasions Apple has blocked Christian apps on the iTunes App Store due to the religious content:

  1. In November of 2010, Apple revoked its approval of the Manhattan Declaration App. This declaration was a statement of Christian beliefs about marriage, the sanctity of life and religious liberty. The reason given was that one of the points in the declaration was that homosexual conduct is immoral and this, in Apple's view, was offensive.
  2. In March 2011, Apple also censored the app for Exodus International, a Christian ministry that helps people to leave the homosexual lifestyle. Once again Apple declared that this was offensive and violated its guidelines.

Then, in July 2011, Apple pulled iTunes out of the Christian Values Network, a portal that contributes funds to charities. The report said that this action was caused by complaints that some of the charities had policies critical of homosexual rights initiatives.

In fact, the only apps that Apple has blocked due to the views expressed in them are ones that reflect Christian views. In general, the NRB report finds Apple to have a two-faced policy on content. When it comes to satire, humor or political commentary the norms are quite different, giving wide latitude to content. But Apple's guidelines on religion define content should be prohibited if it is "offensive, mean-spirited" or if it contains material that has "abuse," or is "inappropriate" or "unacceptable." Using such fuzzy terms means that Apple has very wide discretion to determine which religious ideas they prefer and which they will censor, the report pointed out.

There is no doubt, the report concludes, that Apple's policies on religious content would be found "extraordinarily wanting" if they were matched up against the standards for free speech that the Supreme Court has established under the First Amendment.

Google

Scott Cleland, former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Information and Communication Policy, has stated that "Google rejects traditional Judeo-Christian values."

Indeed, Google refused to place a Christian pro-life advertisement from the Christian Institute on its search engine, on the grounds that Google's "policy did not permit the advertisement of Web sites that contain abortion and religion-related content." The Christian Institute took Google to court and as a result the ad was allowed and Google changed its policy to allow ads on abortion from religious groups so long as they are framed in a factual way. Google's policy is still, however, to block any ad on abortion that contains the phrase "abortion is murder," as this is deemed to be "gruesome."

Another problem outlined by the report related to Google's guidelines for its Web tools available for non-profit groups. The free or discounted use of these tools is not allowed for churches, faith groups, or organizations that take religion or sexual orientation into account in hiring employees. According to the report Christian churches who have applied to Google for non-profit status are being rejected.

Google also blocks advertising content that is critical of groups for their religion, sexual orientation or gender identity, thereby eliminating ads by Christian pro-family groups that oppose what some homosexual advocacy groups are doing to promote the legalization of same-sex marriage. It also means that criticism of other religions or sects as being theologically wrong would violate Google's policy.

A further case involving Google was related to a Norwegian site that contained criticism of Scientology. Lawyers representing Scientology protested to Google that the site contained copyrighted content. As a result the pages of the critical site were removed from Google's index. But there are a number of Christian groups that expose religious movements for their lack of fidelity to the Bible. In order to do so they need to quote from the original sources. Copyright law allows the fair use of material for reporting and criticism, so Google's approach could unjustly block legitimate Christian groups from engaging in criticism of what they consider to be false teachings.

Google also showed itself willing, during the time it operated in China through a local version of its Web site, to cooperate with the government in blacklisting words from its search engine relating to the Falun Gong religious group and the Dalai Lama.

Facebook

Facebook has a policy of erasing anti-homosexual comments from its site and has partnerships with some organizations that promote the homosexual agenda. As an example, Facebook removed a posting of a photo of two men kissing. This decision was quickly reversed and Facebook made an apology. By contrast in other cases of photos involving sexual depictions unrelated to homosexuality the material has been permanently removed.

Facebook also has a "hate speech" language policy that prohibits "Inflammatory religious content; Politically religious agendas."

There are similar problems with other new media organizations, such as MySpace, which also has very broad and ill-defined policies when it comes to hate speech and homosexuality. The Internet service providers Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon also violate free speech and their rules would allow censorship of Christian content, according to the report.

~Eowyn

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/10/04/apple-google-facebook-censor-christians/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Obama: Banks Don’t Have ‘Inherent Right’ to ‘Certain Amount of Profit’

ŠįlěƝţ ŁøvȜř
0



New post on Scotty Starnes's Blog

Obama: Banks Don't Have 'Inherent Right' to 'Certain Amount of Profit'

by Scotty Starnes

Spoken like a true Marxist/Socialist/Communist. Obama believes the government can regulate how much a business can earn and his regulations are showing his disdain for the free market.

(CNSNews.com) - President Obama suggested on Monday that the nation's banks should "take a little bit less of a profit" rather than raise fees on customers.

In an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, Obama was asked if the government can stop banks from imposing a new debit card fee on their customers.

"Well, you can stop it because ... if you say to the banks, 'You don't have some inherent right just to -- you know, get a certain amount of profit if your customers are being mistreated. That you have to treat them fairly and transparently.' And -- and my hope is is that you're going to see a bunch of the banks, who say to themselves, 'You know what? This is actually not good business practice.'

This coming from a man who has never worked in the free market or ran a business. The banks are doing this because of Obama's regulations.

"Banks can make money," Obama said. "They can succeed the old-fashioned way, by earning it -- by lending to small businesses, by lending to consumers. By making sure that-- you know, we are building the economy together."

These are the "fat-cats" Obama pretends to hate as he accepts their money and bails them out.

Obama advocated "protections" (regulations) that Republicans want to roll back. However, as a direct result of those regulations, the nation's major banks are considering a plan to charge customers a $5 monthly service fee for debit card transactions. A provision in the Dodd-Frank Act cut the amount banks could charge merchants for debit card swipes, so the banks may shift the burden onto consumers.

Continue reading>>>

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2011/10/04/obama-banks-dont-have-inherent-right-to-certain-amount-of-profit/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Judiciary Chair Calls Special Prosecutor: U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Faces Perjury Investigation.

ŠįlěƝţ ŁøvȜř
0



New post on Political Vel Craft

Judiciary Chair Calls Special Prosecutor: U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Faces Perjury Investigation.

by Volubrjotr

House GOP calls for special prosecutor to probe Holder on perjury allegation House Republicans aren't buying the "dog ate my security briefings" excuse from Eric Holder.  In a letter to President Obama today, House Judiciary Chair Lamar Smith (R-TX) requested a special prosecutor to investigate the Attorney General for perjury, explaining in detail how false Holder's May 3rd testimony that [...]

Read more of this post

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://politicalvelcraft.org/2011/10/04/judiciary-chair-calls-special-prosecutor-u-s-attorney-general-eric-holder-faces-perjury-investigation/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Shared by sage2: House Republicans Request Special Counsel to Probe Holder on 'Fast and Furious'

ŠįlěƝţ ŁøvȜř
0

Hello,

 

Eric Holder liar & coward is to be investigated. A bout time !

 

Shared by sage2 while visiting FoxNews.com:

 

House Republicans Request Special Counsel to Probe Holder on 'Fast and Furious'

 

EXCLUSIVE: House Republicans are calling for a special counsel to determine whether Attorney General Eric Holder perjured himself during his testimony to the House Judiciary Committee on Operation Fast and Furious, Fox News has learned.

 

- sage2

 

 



This email is a direct message from a friend who wants to share an item of interest with you.
This email message is powered by Gigya's sharing technology. If you no longer wish to receive messages that are sent via Gigya's service, please click here to remove your email address.
Gigya Inc., 1975 Landings Dr., Mountain View, CA 94043.

Obama Humor:

ŠįlěƝţ ŁøvȜř
0


 

 
 
 
 

Patriot Humor

3...2...1... Ripped off?
FAIL! During China's Sept. 29 launch of their Tiangong rocket, the state broadcaster inexplicably played the song "America the Beautiful". Here's a link to the article on space.com.

That's racist!

Inappropriate music selections aren't the only unusual thing China's up to these days. Check out this "Obama Fried Chicken Restaurant" in Beijing. Some suggest it is racist, and they might be half right.
Click Here

Property of Barack Hussein Obama stamp

Add a little bit of fun to our country's current financial cesspool. While we would not advocate defacing currency, we know you will think of many amusing and satisfying uses for our RED self-inking stamper, Property of Barack Hussein Obama. All purchases at The Patriot Post Shop support our Mission of Service to America's Armed Forces.

And now for a cartoon

 

 

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
IF YOU DON'T STAND BEHIND OUR TROOPS, FEEL FREE TO STAND IN FRONT OF THEM! Please visit: www.operationshoebox.com
.

__,_._,___

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Legalize heroin

ŠįlěƝţ ŁøvȜř
0
"The drug war is "bad" not only because it plainly doesn't work, but because it actually brings about much greater harm than the activities it wages against."

Legalize heroin
Published September 29, 2011 | By Brian Earp

Forget about "medical marijuana." Isn't it time to legalize heroin in the United States? Recreational cocaine? Ecstasy? LSD? How about the whole nefarious basketful of so-called 'harder' drugs?

Yes, it is, says Dr. Ron Paul, a fourteen-term libertarian congressman and obstetrician from the state of Texas. It's a view shared by virtually none of his Republican colleagues, nor, for that matter, very many Democrats. Nor really anyone in the "mainstream" of American politics. But in this post, I'll argue that he's right.

Paul -- who is currently making his third bid for President of the United States, and polling third among Republican contenders -- offered his perspective to comedian and Daily Show host Jon Stewart in an interview earlier this week:

"I think drugs [like heroin] are horrible. I think they're dangerous­prescription drugs as well as illegal drugs. I think they're very, very dangerous. But the war on drugs, which violates civil liberties -- getting people busted in their houses -- that is the danger … [So] I fear the war on drugs more than I fear the drugs themselves."

The "war on drugs" is dangerous indeed; it has failed, and failed dramatically. A new report by the Global Commission on Drug Policy concludes that that "political leaders and public figures should have the courage to articulate publicly what many of them acknowledge privately: that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that repressive strategies will not solve the drug problem, and that the war on drugs has not, and cannot, be won."

The commission consisted of such figures as former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, former U.S. Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, and the former presidents of Mexico, Brazil and Colombia.

But what sort of "evidence" do they mean? What's so bad about the war on drugs? A 2009 article in the Economist -- to pick one of countless sources making the same point -- renders the situation vivid:

The United States alone spends some $40 billion each year on trying to eliminate the supply of drugs. It arrests 1.5 million of its citizens each year for drug offences, locking up half a million of them; tougher drug laws are the main reason why one in five black American men spend some time behind bars. In the developing world blood is being shed at an astonishing rate. [And] far from reducing crime, prohibition has fostered gangsterism on a scale that the world has never seen before.

Ron Paul is right. The drug war is "bad" not only because it plainly doesn't work, but because it actually brings about much greater harm than the activities it wages against. In light of this fact, the Global Commission on Drug Policy made a number of common-sense recommendations, summarized here and listed below:
  •  Stop vindictive prosecution of our young people and our poor citizens
  •  Break the taboo on debate and reform
  •  Encourage governments to legally regulate drugs to undermine the power of organized crime and safeguard the health and  security of their citizens
  •  Offer a variety of health and treatment services and abolish abusive practices carried out in the name of treatment
  •  Implement syringe access and other harm reduction measures
  •  Invest in serious drug education programs (not cheap slogans like "Just Say No") to prevent young people from taking drugs  and to prevent drug users from developing more serious problems, like AIDS and other infections
  •  Focus repressive actions on violent criminal organizations, not on individuals
  •  Focus law enforcement on reducing drug harm to individuals, communities, and national security
  •  Replace ideology-driven drug policies with policies and strategies grounded in science, health, security, and human rights.

These are all good ideas, and measures in line with such recommendations have already been shown to work. As Denis Owsley and Sarah Serot explain in this excellent article, Portugal had the worst drug problem in Europe in the 1990s, and chose to abandon its war on drugs for the failure it had proven itself to be. In 2001, it decriminalized the possession of small amounts of drugs by individuals, with the result that drug deaths are now down 40 percent. But that's not all. Owsley and Serot report:

Crime is down. HIV/AIDS incidence is down 17 percent. Drug treatment rates have doubled because people are voluntarily getting treatment. Marijuana use among teens fell 33 percent because it is no longer forbidden and glamorous. Drug use remained stable and only increased at the same rate as the rest of the world.

Despite statistics like these, many people, even progressive and liberal-minded people, struggle to go "all the way" with Dr. Paul and support the wholesale legalization of drugs across the board. Jon Stewart, for instance, in the interview I mentioned above, seemed to advocate for something like a "compromise" view in his response to Paul's argument. That is, he acknowledged the failure of the drug war with respect to substances like marijuana, but implied that heroin use should be kept legally off-limits:

"There's so much that you say that appeals. And then I always feel like 'Ron Paul, he's really telling it like it is,' and then you'll go one step and I'll go 'No, Ron, oh.' We were talking about the drug war and the legitimacy of the drug war, and you were saying that this was failing, and I was listening to you and thinking 'Yes. Ron Paul, he's schooling these guys.' And then you went, 'Like heroin for instance.' And I went, 'No! Ron!"

But why? Why put heroin in a class of its own? To ask the question another way, does it make sense to be against the drug war in general, but support a limited ban on certain drugs seen as being especially addictive and harmful?

I think the pragmatic answer to this question has already been given. Criminalizing heroin, cocaine, and other 'hard' drugs simply doesn't work; so to ban them achieves no good end. But if heroin were legal, some might say, wouldn't droves of new users get in line to start the habit? As Paul asked a debate audience in South Carolina in May: "How many people here would use heroin if it were legal? Oh yeah" -- signal sarcasm -- "I need government to take care of me; I don't want to use heroin so I need these laws!"

Paul might be right in his implied point that heroin use wouldn't go up by much, at least long-term; but he might be mistaken. Those data would have to be collected. For my part, I can certainly imagine some individuals who might seize legalization as an opportunity to experiment with harder drugs -- so it's not inconceivable that this type of fear could be borne out. But libertarians like Paul would respond that if that really did happen -- if some people who wouldn't have used an illicit drug might try it if it were legal -- it wouldn't be the end of the world. Here's why.

Libertarians believe that people should be maximally free, with one condition. That is, people have a right to do whatsoever it is they please -- including stupid things that present a danger to themselves, even a grave danger, even danger to the point of death -- just so long as they do not harm anyone else in the process. If they pose a threat to others, yes, the law can step in; otherwise personal liberty should be held paramount. I'll show my cards here and state that I find this principle basically compelling, though I won't take the time in this post to mount a philosophical case for libertarianism; others have done a much better job than I could possibly do, and it would distract from my present point.

On the libertarian view, if a person wants to use heroin, knowing the addictive and life-destroying possibilities it harbors, the government has no business telling her she can't. The government can educate; the government can persuade -- but it has no moral right to force. It's her body; it's her life.

Paul is also a strict federalist, by the way, which is relevant too. This means that he believes that nation-wide drug laws are by their nature overreaching; indeed, he thinks that they are inherently invalid as they deprive individual states of a vital prerogative. That prerogative, of course, is their 10th amendment right to experiment with legislation at a local -- lab level -- a constitutional design feature with huge practical benefit, since it allows for the generation of separate streams of real-world data on contentious issues, such as drug policy. It allows us to see what really works, or what works best in different situations.

So I should clarify Paul's view. He doesn't explicitly advocate the wholesale, immediate legalization of heroin and other hard drugs, nation-wide, as a practical policy measure in the US (though he clearly would support such a move in a libertarian utopia); but he does think that each state should be free to ban -- or not to ban -- substances of that ilk as they see fit.

Let's re-cast the war on drugs, then, as a problem not just of pragmatics, but of principle. Given libertarian premises, which we'll take as given for this particular post, and the point I'm trying to make, can it be consistent to defend a person's right to harm herself if she chooses to do so … but only up to a point? Can you draw a line at marijuana, say, and leave heroin beyond the pale?

The answer is no.

It seems to me that the main concern here is third-party harm. That is, heroin can rightfully be banned if and only if its use can be shown to harm individuals other than the user. Remember: libertarians believe you have a right to take actions -- even stupid, dangerous actions -- so long as the one at risk of being hurt is you and you alone.

Then a few points arise:

First, you could obviously argue that an individual's heroin use does indeed harm people other than the user. I don't know enough about heroin to offer convincing examples, but insofar as the drug can gradually destroy a user's body and mind, I expect that anyone who loves or cares for the user would be harmed -- emotionally at least -- by her disintegration. And insofar as this type of harm is worse for heroin than for marijuana, say, it could be a valid libertarian grounds for distinguishing between the two drugs in debates about legalization.

But arguments like this strike me as weak. People engage in all sorts of self-destructive habits and behaviors that cause emotional harm to loved ones, and we'd never think of banning all actions which cause emotional harm to others. So is there another type of third-party harm we could invoke? Something more grounded, more physical?

What if heroin caused the user to commit terrible acts of violence, or at least made the commission of such acts much more likely under typical circumstances? But this won't work, either, since heroin use -- like marijuana use, and the use of and several other presently illegal substances -- has an inverse relationship with violence and aggression. The relevant counterpoint is alcohol, of course, which, as is well known, is much, much more likely to lead to third-party physical harms than heroin, pot, and the rest. But alcohol is legal -- as it must be; prohibition doesn't work.

So what are we left with? As far as I can make out, if a person has a right to engage in actions which are harmful only to herself, and if heroin is harmful in just this way -- given the clarifying arguments and examples I've just explored -- then there can be no basis for banning even so dangerous a drug. Such bans don't work, anyway, so the use of heroin -- like that of 'softer' drugs like marijuana -- should be treated as a medical and educational issue, rather than a criminal one. What do you think?

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2011/09/legalize-heroin/

one for the record books

ŠįlěƝţ ŁøvȜř
0
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2011/1004/Hank-Williams-Jr.-in-hot-water-for-comparing-Obama-to-Hitler

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Who was booing? And who benefited from it?

ŠįlěƝţ ŁøvȜř
0

There is a twitter campaign, #EvolveAlready, led by humor/advice columnist Dan Savage, among others, to get Obama to come out in favor of gay marriage, his position before he ran for and was elected to be President.  Obama keeps saying his position is evolving, and Savage and others keep accepting his invitations to attend fancy White House dinners.  Obama's hypocritical, evasive ass was just saved for another week on this issue by the hecklers at the September 22 GOP debate -- so much so one wonders if they were plants.


Has anyone identified the booers by the way?  If they were tea party organizers the media would have sought them out and interviewed them.  But it didn't seek them out and identify them.  Is that because they might have turned out to have Democratic connections?  Remember when a couple of years ago some rocks were thrown through windows of Democratic Party campaign offices and after a day of blaming the tea party it turned out the people who did it were all Democrats.


I do think Herman Cain, Ron Paul, Gary Johnson or even Jon Huntsman would have helped themselves if they had denounced the two or three louts who booed the gay soldier then and there. But how come if Barack Obama is the president of all America and the commander in chief of this soldier it took him 10 days to say something about it, and then only to score political points speaking at the national dinner of a gay lobby, the Human Rights Campaign. By then Gary Johnson had already denounced the hecklers.

Obama needed this as a talking point at the HRC dinner because even there, among Obama zombies and flaks, he was going to be pressed on his gay marriage flip-flopping.  And he does not want to spend political capital on this issue, as it would prevent him from "evolving" America to a socialist tyranny and a third world debtor nation.


bighomocon.blogspot.com

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

stimulus

ŠįlěƝţ ŁøvȜř
0
"The general fact that booms have always appeared with a great increase of investment, a large part of which proved to be erroneous .. fits in with the idea that a supply of capital was made apparent which wasn't actually existing. The whole combination of a stimulus to invest on a large scale followed by a period of acute scarcity of capital fits into this idea that there has been a misdirection due to monetary influences .. but this is capable of a great many modifications, particularly in connection with where the additional money goes .. Since [I wrote] so much of the credit expansion has gone to where government directed it that the misdirection may no longer be overinvestment in industrial capital but may take any number of forms. You must really study it separately for each particular phase and situation. The typical [pre-war] trade cycle no longer exists. But you get very similar phenomena with all kinds of modifications."

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)