Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Creeping Socialism is about to become Socialism on steroids. Why even bother pretending anymore.
Corporate Media Ignores Palfrey’s Statement She Would Not Commit Suicide
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, May 2, 2008
http://www.infowars.com/?p=1874
(video on link)
Within hours of the announcement that DC Madam Deborah Jeane Palfrey had allegedly hanged herself at her mother’s home in Florida, Time Magazine released an interview with her "friend," a professional conspiracy debunker and an individual who has fabricated quotes in the past, who claimed Palfrey had told him of her wish to end her life.
Only the dangerously naive could take this report at face value without being massively suspicious.
“She wasn’t going to jail, she told me that very clearly. She told me she would commit suicide,” Dan Moldea told Time Magazine. “She had done time once before [for prostitution],” Moldea recalls. “And it damn near killed her. She said there was enormous stress — it made her sick, she couldn’t take it, and she wasn’t going to let that happen to her again.”
The fact that the corporate media has given Moldea’s claim a thousand times more attention than our recorded interview with Palfrey - in which she unequivocally states that she would never commit suicide on multiple occasions - and treated his words as gospel, tells its own story.
We have the audio tape in which Palfrey states, "No I’m not planning to commit suicide, I’m planning on going into court and defending myself vigorously and exposing the government."
What does Moldea have apart from a history of fabricating quotes and his own agenda?
Moldea bills himself as an "investigative journalist," and is writing a book about the DC Madam case, but a closer look at his past activities proves that he is nothing less than an unreliable conspiracy debunker.
Moldea’s book about the RFK assassination is nothing more than an echo of the official story that has now been definitively discredited with the recent release of evidence proving there were multiple shooters in addition to Sirhan Sirhan.
“In 1995, Dan Moldea wrote his apologia for the LAPD… for their handling of the Robert F. Kennedy assassination,” writes Jim DiEugenio for Probe. It appears Moldea fabricated a Sirhan B. Sirhan quote. “Moldea had provided Sirhan B. Sirhan a chance to fact-check an eight-page report culled from his visits with the prisoner,” writes DiEugenio. Moldea claims Sirhan had wanted to shoot Kennedy between the eyes, but “that son of a bitch turned his head at the last second.”
Sirhan denied such an exchange and Sirhan’s brother Adel, present during Moldea’s visit, also denied the exchange took place. Moreover, Lynn Mangan, Sirhan’s chief researcher, found the comment hardly tenable. “I flatly deny making the statement Moldea ascribes to me in his book,” Sirhan declared in a letter to Mangan.
The fact that the corporate media immediately accepted Moldea’s claim at face value and featured it front and center within hours of the announcement of Palfrey’s death, while completely ignoring her recorded intention never to commit suicide, smacks of a contrived ploy and underscores just how easy it would be to make murder look like suicide with the aid of a graciously compliant mass media to endlessly parrot the official story while blackballing clear evidence to the contrary.
As Kurt Nimmo writes, "It is, for the corporate media, a tidy way to close the case and not breach a larger and more far more portentous issue — Deborah Jeane Palfrey, who threatened to release the names of well-known clients of her call girl business in Washington, had made an unknown number of powerful enemies that wanted her dead. She had indicated Dick Cheney may have been one of her customers."
What really happened to Deborah Jeane Palfrey will ultimately emerge and the reasons behind her death will unravel, but don’t count on reading it in the New York Times or seeing it reported on CNN.
The alternative media will once again be forced step up to the plate and perform an activity that has been anathema to the corporate press for decades - real investigative journalism and an agenda geared towards finding out - not covering-up - the truth.
RELATED: DC Madam Predicted She Would Be Suicided
RELATED: Palfrey Considered Call Girl’s "Suicide" Possible Murder
Fox News Host Guilfoyle Doubts Palfrey Suicide
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
May 2, 2008
http://www.infowars.com/?p=1882
(video on link)
So shady is the “suicide” of Deborah Jeane Palfrey, even Fox News has questions. For instance, Kimberly Guilfoyle, a former prosecutor and talking head on Fox News, doesn’t buy the now commonly accepted — on corporate media venues, anyway — assertion that Ms. Palfrey was so depressed she went out in the car port of her mother’s mobile home and hanged herself.
Guilfoyle made mention of Palfrey’s appearance on the Alex Jones Show where she declared she would not commit suicide. But Palfrey’s vow was not mentioned anywhere on the corporate media, with the recent exception of Fox News.
As Alex said on his show this morning, it is indeed a “strange world we live in” now that Fox has allowed Guilfoyle to cast apsersion on the official version of reality.
I think that you are right.
I predict Hillary will win by a landslide in Pennsylvania tomorrow. She'll be knocking back some brewskis and doing the Pennsylvania Polka by 10 p.m. tomorrow night.
otcbargains:
I agree with Michael Savage--revoke George Soros' citizenship. We know what he really is.
bbotcs
Obama will never be President. He is an empty suit. His speeches are more boring than Al Gore's. He is another media straw man, as I predicted a long time ago. As they did with Howard Dean, they built him up to take him down. Big ratings. Lots of ad dollars. The tide has turned, meaning, the mainstream media has started to turn on Obama.
If Obama gets the Democratic nomination, just wait for the shark, aka Hillary, to tear him apart limb by limb. If you think that Bill has sabotaged HER campaign, just wait until you see what Hillary does to Obama's campaign.
Next Tuesday should be interesting. I believe that Hillary will win by a landslide in Pennsylvania. Operation Chaos will be a success.
Enjoy - Maybe you will get your wish and have McCain for Pres.
Whose Elitism is Worse?
Thu Apr 17, 3:00 AM ET
It is hard to blame John McCain for mocking Barack Obama as an "elitist" following that silly remark about bitter folks who cling to guns and religion. Rarely does the Arizona senator — one of the wealthiest members of Washington's most exclusive club — encounter such a tempting chance to masquerade as a populist.
Making the most of that opportunity, elder statesman McCain delivered a brief history lecture to the young upstart from Illinois. "During the Great Depression," he said in a statement released by his campaign, "with many millions of Americans out of work and the country suffering the worst economic crisis in our history, there rose from small towns, rural communities, inner cities, a generation of Americans who fought to save the world from despotism and mass murder, and came home to build the wealthiest, strongest and most generous nation on earth.
"They suffered the worst during the Depression, but it did not shake their faith in, and fidelity to, America. They did not turn to their religious faith and cultural traditions out of resentment and a feeling of powerlessness to affect the course of government or pursue prosperity. On the contrary, their faith had given generations of their families purpose and meaning, as it does today."
Now this is all standard-issue rhetoric, designed to insinuate that Obama disdains traditional American culture and religious piety (although he probably attends church at least as often as McCain). Harking back to the era of the Depression and World War II, the Republican may have unintentionally emphasized both his own advanced age and the perilous condition in which his party and president have left the country and the world.
The inspiring story of the "greatest generation," in which he seems to be claiming honorary membership, is not only a narrative of faith and patriotism. The brave men and women who rose from America's towns and cities to defeat fascism had a stake in a democratic society "worth the fighting for," to borrow the title of McCain's last best-seller. Despite the terrible rigors of the Depression, they remained confident in democracy's future because a progressive government acted vigorously on behalf of them and their families — and acknowledged their service when they returned from war.
When those soldiers came home to build the nation that dominated the 20th century, they achieved unprecedented prosperity and security, thanks not only to their own work and faith, but also to liberal policy that guaranteed their education, health care and access to credit. The original 1944 GI Bill ranks among the greatest legislative works in American history, with beneficial effects on the U.S. economy that repaid its cost many times over. (Incidentally, the benefits of the original bill included low-interest mortgages with no down payment — not so different from the "subprime" loans that working-class homeowners are now criticized for signing.)
Of course, McCain knows all this history, too, which raises the tough question of why he refuses to support Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans with commensurate benefits. Having built his own career on his service and suffering in Vietnam, he surely must be aware that the new generation of vets receives nothing like the assistance made available to those who served with him — because the landmark bill has not been updated for so many years. The current level of benefits doesn't cover even half the cost of state college tuition for most soldiers.
That is why Sens. James Webb of Virginia and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska wrote the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act, whose cost is estimated at less than $4 billion, or approximately one-tenth of 1 percent in the total expense of the current war. They have gathered 53 co-sponsors, including nine Republicans and three of the four other Vietnam veterans in the Senate, but they need 60 to defeat a likely filibuster by conservatives who've never served.
Incredibly, McCain has so far refused to add his name to the sponsors. His startling excuse is he has not had any time to read the bill during the past year or so. He has time to barbecue sausages for journalists. He has time to take a bus tour glorifying his own service. And he has time to hold fundraisers in Atlanta, New Orleans, Phoenix, St. Louis, New York, Boston, Chicago, Las Vegas and even London.
But, he has no time for today's soldiers. If that isn't the worst kind of elitism, what is?
Joe Conason writes for the New York Observer (www.observer.com). To find out more about Joe Conason, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Obama's capital gains tax is a tax on economic growth
Gerard Jackson
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 14 April 2008
Obama proposes to raise capital gains taxes. Only a thoroughgoing economic illiterate could sincerely declare that such taxes would not damage the US economy. (Economic policies that damage the economy do not bother Dems so long as their media pals can lay blame at the at the feet of capitalism or Republicans).
The first thing to note is that capital gains taxes are barriers to the mobility of savings. This is because the tax can be avoided by simply holding on to one's shares. Therefore the greater the tax barrier the fewer transactions involving capital gains. Not only does the tax reduce the amount of savings available for investment it also misallocates resources.
Let me make this so simple that even Obama and his little mates can understand it: If you want less of a product then raise the cost of producing it. If you want more, lower the cost of production. For those economic geniuses in the media and the Democrat party, capital gains to business become savings, without which the rate of capital accumulation would be greatly retarded. This is because real capital gains are pure profits and it is these profits that fuel economic growth.
For those who doubt this, let me draw your attention to 1969. It was in that year that President Nixon was persuaded to raise the capital gains tax from 28 per cent to 49 per cent. Result: revenue from the tax dropped sharply with realised gains from the sale of capital assets falling by 34 per cent, and the stock issues of struggling companies dropping from about 500 in 1969 to precisely four in 1975.
High-tech companies in Silicon Valley were hit particularly hard. Yet the Treasury had assured President Nixon that the tax increase would raise $1.1 billion in the first year and then $3.2 billion a year until 1975. This is obvious proof that high taxes have a detrimental effect on business behaviour and investment. If you think about it, capital gains taxes are a great way to soak the poor without them knowing it.
Clearly, capital gains taxes erect a significant barrier to the movement of savings from old established companies to newer and more innovative enterprises. In fact, they become a tax on social mobility, as does a highly progressive income tax structure. It protects those (like Teddy Kennedy) who can live off their family’s accumulating capital that is kept in tax-free trusts in other countries while railing against those who are trying to accumulate capital: it is not a tax on the rich but on getting rich; it encourages those who have accumulated wealth to simply conserve it while reducing the flow of venture capital, the lifeblood of new entrepreneurs.
No wonder the wealthy likes of Teddy Kennedy, Warren Buffet, George Soros, Theresa Heinz, etc., violently inveigh against cuts in capital gains taxes. Americans should bear this in mind next time a Buffett or a Soros tells them that their tax burden is too light. Capital gains taxes also penalise the decision-making ability of entrepreneurs. It is this decision-making ability that largely accounts for the existence of high-cost and low-cost firms in any industry. Therefore the capital gains tax also becomes a tax on entrepreneurial talent. The more successful the entrepreneur becomes in satisfying consumers’ wants, the greater the financial penalty he will finally pay. This is guaranteed to restrict entrepreneurial mobility .
Those who deny that cuts in capital gains taxes promote capital accumulation are denying historical fact: always an easy task for Democrats. In 1978 Congress slashed capital gains taxes, resulting in an explosion in the supply of venture capital. By the start of 1979 a massive commitment to venture capital funds took place, from $39 million in 1977 to a staggering $570 million at the end of 1978. Tax collections on long-term capital gains, despite the dire predictions of big-spending critics of tax cuts, leapt from $8.5 billion in 1978 to $10.6 billion in 1979, $16.5 billion in 1983 rising to $23.7 billion in 1985.
By 1981 venture capital outlays had soared to $1.4 billion and the total amount of venture capital had risen to $5.8 billion. In 1981 the maximum tax rate on long-term capital gains was cut to 20 per cent. This resulted in the venture capital pool surging to $11.5 billion. Astonishingly enough, to conventional economists that is, venture capital outlays rose to $1.8 billion in the midst of the 1982 depression.
This was about 400 per cent more than had been out-laid during the 1970s slump. In 1983 these outlays rose to nearly $3 billion. Compare this situation to the period from 1969 to the 1970s which saw venture capital outlays collapse by about 90 per cent. All because of Nixon's ill-considered capital gains tax. But then Nixon never professed to know anything about economics, unlike most of his leftwing media critics.
In 1982 the US General Accounting Office sampled 72 companies that had been launched with venture capital since the 1978 capital gains tax cut. The results were startling. Starting with $209 million dollars in funds, these companies had paid $350 million in federal taxes, generated $900 million in export income and directly created 135,000 jobs! Professor Laffer and his supporters stood vindicated, not that you would know this from the corrupt mainstream media. Those Democrats who sneer at Laffer need to be reminded — not that it would do any good — that Walter Heller, chairman of Kennedy’s Council of Economic Advisers and a Democrat, stated:
The upsurge of tax revenues flowing from economic expansion would finance higher levels of local, state and Federal spending than we would have had without the tax cut’s stimulus — a stimulus that the country was unwilling to provide by deliberately enlarging the Federal budget. (Cited in A. James Meigs' Money Matters: Economics, Markets and Politic, Harper & Row, 1972, p. 38).
Once again let us return to Professor Laffer. All that he had really said, irrespective of what the media and the Democrats assert, is that beyond a certain point the burden of taxation would cut investment and thus reduce, if not halt, economic growth. No sound economist would deny this proposition. And yet Laffer was lampooned, pilloried, grossly misrepresented ad nauseam — and now that I think of it, still is. Clearly, economic reasoning and history have refuted the ridiculous contention that the abolishing the capital gains tax would cut national savings and impose costs on the poor. (It's pretty hard to imagine that in 1962 President F. J. Kennedy cut taxes, with the observation that "[a] rising tide lifts all boats").
Every economy has what we call a production structure. This structure takes the form of integrated stages of production. As an economy progresses it adds more and more complex and stages to the structure. (There is a lot more to it than my explanation suggests. However, I'm trying to keep it simple for those who have no knowledge of production structure analysis). Now figure 1 represents an economy with few stages of production and hence lower living standards than the economy represented by figure 2.
If all pure profits (capital gains) are taxed away so that aggregate losses exceed net returns firm then the economy, represented by figure 2, would gradually abandon the higher stages of production and thus come to resemble figure 1and living standards would fall. This process is called capital consumption. I think it is important at this point to emphasise that where capital gains taxes are not indexed for inflation capital consumption can still develop. If a firm has a profit of $1 million which is then taxed at 40 per cent (the tax figures are for illustrative purposes only) it will be left with $600,000 which in turn pays a capital gains tax of 20 per cent, leaving $450,000 for dividends giving us an effective capital gains tax of 55 per cent.
If it so happens that because of inflation there was no real profit then the tax leads to capital consumption. What makes indexation really tricky is that it is based on consumer products and not factors of production. During an inflationary period factor costs tend to rise faster then consumer prices. The best solution is to abolition the capital gains tax and allow its fruits to ripen in the form of greater productivity and higher real wages.
It should be stressed that the only thing that has so far saved America from the financial depredations of big-spending politicians has been its inventiveness and entrepreneurial drive. But even this gift has been a curse. It has led the very same politicians to think they can mercilessly milk the economy indefinitely. They can't.
Note: Soros and Buffet's support for a capital gains taxes and the death tax. Because of their immense wealth these men are in a position to exploit every tax loophole. This makes taxes optional for them. Moreover, Buffet has profited considerably from the death tax, while making sure he won't have to pay it. These loopholes are only open to the uber-rich, those with the money to hire the best tax lawyers, and not those rich Americans, as Obama called them, on $75,000 plus. If Buffet and Soros were serious not only would they refuse to exploit loopholes they would demand that the Democrats impose a significant wealth tax that would go along way toward levelling the country's wealth. Fat chance.
So why are Buffet and Soros behaving in this despicable way? It was Keynes view that
. . . dangerous human proclivities can be canalised into comparatively harmless channels by the existence of opportunities for money-making and private wealth, which, if they cannot be satisfied in this way, may find their outlet in cruelty, the reckless pursuit of personal power and authority, and other forms of self-aggrandisement. It is better that a man should tyrannise over his bank balance than over his fellow-citizens; and whilst the former is sometimes denounced as being but a means to the latter, sometimes at least it is an alternative. (John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, Macmillan, St Martin’s Press for the Royal Economic Society, 1973, p. 374).
When I first read this — many years ago — my first thought was: What if the bank accounts grow so big they can basically take care of themselves? We now have the answer. These men can then turn their thoughts and their vast fortunes into a means of acquiring political influence with the sole purpose — despite two-faced lofty sentiments to the contrary — of finding an "outlet in cruelty, the reckless pursuit of personal power and authority, and other forms of self-aggrandisement".
otcbargains:
Could not see the image.
By the way, Michael Levine is doing an excellent job of taking down the big fraud Barack Obama.
He's in the shark tank will Hillary, and she will eat him alive or else!
This is horrifying!!!
FOR THOSE OF YOU ON THE "CONSERVATIVE" SIDE OF THE FENCE, READ THIS AND
LEARN TO UNDERSTAND YOUR FEELINGS BETTER THAN EVER.
FOR THOSE OF YOU NOT ON THE "CONSERVATIVE" SIDE OF THE FENCE, READ AND
LEARN FROM A FORMER DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR.
Please take the time to read this; it ought to scare the pants off you!
We know Dick Lamm a as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context
his thoughts are particularly poignant. Last year there was an
immigration overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to
capacity by many of America's finest minds and leaders. A brilliant
college professor by the name of Victor Hansen Davis talked about his
latest book, "Mexifornia," explaining how immigration - both legal and
ill egal was destroying the entire state of California . He said it
would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The
American Dream.
Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and
gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America . The audience sat
spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the
United States . He said, "If you believe that America is too smug, too
self-s atisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America.? It is not that
hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time.?
Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall! and
that 'An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit
suicide.'"
"Here is how they do it," Lamm said:? "First, to destroy America , turn
America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country."
History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and
antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a
blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for
a
society to be bilingual. The historical scholar, Seymour Lipset, put it
this way: "The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do
not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy." Canada,
Belgium, Malaysia, and Lebanon all face crises of national existence in
which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and
Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France
faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans.".
Lamm went on: Second, to destroy America , "Invent 'multiculturalism'
and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. I would make it an
article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no
cultural differences I would make it an article of faith that the Black
and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely to prejudice and
discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of
bounds.
Third, "We could make the United States an 'Hispanic Quebec' without
much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As
Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: "The apparent
success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have
been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance
that once dictated ethnocentricity and what it meant to be an American,
we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together."
Lamm
said, "I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and
culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl
metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural
subgroups living in America enforcing their differences rather than as
Americans, empha sizing their similarities."
"Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least
educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated,
undereducated,
and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass
have a 50% dropout rate from high school."
"My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations
and business to give these efforts lots of money . I would invest in
ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of 'Victimology.' I
would get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the
fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all
minority failure on the majority population."
"My sixth plan for America's downfall would include dual citizenship,
and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity.
I
would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people
worldwide! are m ostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when
they
are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is
against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes
to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks
believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common
language and literature; and they worshipped the same gods. All Greece
took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy, Persia , threatened
their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to overcome
two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured
political divisions. Greece fell. "E. Pluribus Unum" -- From many, one.
In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the 'pluribus'
instead of the 'Unum,' we will balkanize America as surely as Kosovo."
"Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits; make it taboo to
talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' I would find a
word
similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century - that stopped discussion !
and
paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'xenophobe' halt discussion
and debate. Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having
established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the
doctrine of 'Victimology,' I would next make it impossible to enforce
our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because
immigration
has been good for America , it must always be good. I would make every
individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of
millions of them."
In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow.
Profound
silence followed. Finally he said, "Lastly, I would censor Victor
Hanson
Davis's book "Mexifornia." His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan
to
destroy America . If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't
read that book."
There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous
cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that
room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically,
quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today.?
Discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the
foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Even
barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing
as
we celebrate 'diversity.' American jobs are vanishing into the Third
World as corporations create a Third World in America - take note of
California and other states - to date, ten million illegal aliens and
growing fast. It is re miniscent of George Orwell's book "1984." In
that
story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building:?
"War is peace," "Freedom is slavery," and "Ignorance is strength."
Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the
conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy is
deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don't get this immigration
monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California
wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especiall y The American
Dream.
If you care for and love our country as I do, take the time to pass
this
on just as I did for you. Trust me, NOTHING is going to happen if ! you
don't!
I'M not. If you read the quote again and think about it you will see why i posted it.
Check out the big to-do about the Absolut Vodka ad in Mexico--shows the reconquista map! Sick thing is, this will hurt Absolut sales in the U.S. at the expense of the French company that is acquiring Absolut from the Swedes.
I guess the idea is that when you are drunk on Absolut, that is how you will see the maps of the U.S. and Mexico.
OTC:
You don't seem like an O'Bama fan?
Len
Lets fix it.
What a great slogan:
"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world.
I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it." (Barack Obama)
RMIWA: Nuclear Energy
Decided to take it off the VMC board.
Yes! But the "inaction" isn't because the smart folks don't want it. It is because the tree huggers have a huge marketing campaign and the $$ to fight any new reactors in the courts.
Sure, I don't want a nuclear reactor built in my back yard, but there are plenty of worse things (landfills) that are being built in peoples back yards.
To them the principle of the subject outweighs any need, apparently. The same with refineries.
With the media just learning(HuH?) about Baraq's preachers views it would appear that those that are on the side that believes the Media will attempt to hand Hillary the post are correct.
Then again it could change overnight. The media decides what we should know and how we should think so anything could happen.
I know one thing for sure i cant wait till Hillary Baraq or Mccain get their way and get control of our children at an even younger age because if you let them make it to 5 without beginning the brainwashing they may actually receive some values from their parents.
Looking for a desert island to live on!
POTUS wisecracking about a falling economy. It is the exact same speech he gives about every event. Fill in the blanks, Bernanke instead of Brownie, etc.
Less than 1 year and we will be rid of POTUSBUSH.
He is not funny.
I don't know why they don't set all the dip shit politicians in Washington up with expensive call girls, and then hit them with a sting operation. Looks like a good way to clean house to me. It worked in NY.
otcbargains:
Hillary and Bill, upon leaving the White House, allegedly took everything that wasn't nailed down.
She will get the nomination, if she has to claw people in the face to get it. The Democratic Convention is going to be quite the show. It will far exceed the Olympics ratings.
By the way, McCain has a black daughter that they adopted in Africa years ago. You know, the Madonna thing. After that becomes widely known, Obama won't have a lock on the African-American vote, in my opinion, if, my some miracle, he can outmaneuver The Witch. African-Americans will start to look at the man, both of them, and decide who would make a better President. There are many conservative African-Americans. Many. And they call into talk radio regularly.
OTC....I pretty much agree with everything you said.
This Presidential "election" is a complete Orwellian farce.
I'm not happy and I'm not amused.
The mainstream media sets any and all agenda's and the Pavlovian dogs salivate.
Is it really that bad and Americans that easily manipulated..... or is there complete fraud in the election process???
I've seen research that shows Ron Paul won New Hampshire (a CRITICAL early primary state) by a good margin but "the Agenda" gave his votes to McCain.
That was the turning point of this completely Orwellian election. Kind of "took the sails away" from the Ron Paul grassroots movement.
Mission accomplished by the forces of evil.....how can we ever change this complete charade???
Fascinating.
It is thrilling watching the current political scene. The media decides to reflect on how they have been unfair to the Clintons. A little biased maybe. Really? They have allowed Hillary to continue to claim to be "experienced". If they really wanted to be "unfair" to the Clintons they would mention scandals that happened during the Bill presidency. If it is unfair to point out facts. You remember the hundreds of scandals that were swept under the rug due to complete focus on blow jobs and adultery.
All i have wanted to see is one pundit smart enough to point out that the treatment the Clintons ahve received by the media is nothing compared to what a conservative receives.
Then again the media has so much control they have decided the Republican nominee for us.
Over the next few weeks we will see whom the pupetmasters have annointed because all it takes for the sheep is a couple of days of media coverage to sway the vote.
These are fascinating times we are living in. I think Hugo Chavez could win the presidency of the U.S. right now if the media wanted it to happen.
Does Obama resemble Curious George, the cartoon character? A caller to Rush Pompousaurus' show yesterday said that that is what her 12-year-old daughter thinks. They went to a break, and afterwood, Limbaugh had to apologize all over himself. One of the weirder things of late on talk radio.
How about this. I am going to write my Congressman and tell him that I want a bigger pay increase next year because I want to take a trip to Branson.
U are right. U have won the argument.
You didn't answer my question?
We are talking about collective behavior. There are exceptional people in every age group. You will be hard pressed to find many 18 year olds with the greatness of a Milton Friedman but there are only a handful in the senior age group that fit that as well..
So what though? Seniors as a group screwed things up massively and your solution is to let them party on making things worse. At the same time you want to ban people from voting who for all you know are better and from my perspective clearly could not be any worse.
Punish the innocent and reward the guilty? Not very mature.
And no I don't have grandparents. I was spawned from Zeus's forehead in full armor:)
DO you have grandparents? Have you ever been around any seniors. Think Warren Buffet. Think John McCain. Think T. Boone Pickens. Think Ozzy Osbourne.
Can you elaborate?
Seniors created the world we live in today. You don't like the results. Your solution is to ban adults who have not yet made those same mistakes from voting, but to allow the people who screwed it up to continue voting.
I can't see where that demonstrates my immaturity but I am interested in your take.
The lack of mautrity reflected in your statement makes me laugh.
gilead23: Cannot blame Ralph! He is smart. Blame the red diaper babies who have been controlling insitutions of higher learning since the 1960s. Think commie professor.
:) shrewd fair enough. I modify demonstrated incompetence to demonstrated corruption
Actually the 80 year olds are pretty smart. They have a bunch of young people like you paying them to go to the club and play bridge all day or play bingo all night. Not to mention all those day trips on the bus to the casino's.
Aint an honest bone in Ralph's body
He is as corrupt as the days in northern alaska are long
Classic example of why. Secretly trying to steal money from college students is beneath all but the enron's of the corporate world.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2544
Again high school 18 year olds are no less legitimate voters than 80 year olds.
The 80 year olds are the ones who led us to where we are today. What in the world is it about their demonstrated incompetence that makes them more qualified to vote?
Get this book: "Crash!ng the Party (How to Tell the Truth and Still Run for President)" by Ralph Nader. When he ran in 2000, Ralph came to the unhappy realization that the Democratic Party is no different from the Republican Party--just pandering to different voters. He is a little too socialist for my taste, but the man has a beautiful mind. I admire him.
Actually, McCain is fairly truthful, but I'm not buying what he is selling.
"We need a third party"
You wanna destroy their Punch and Judy Show, lol.
High school kids were voting in the Maryland primary, namely, those who would be eligible to vote on election day in November at age 18. High school kids. That is what blew my mind on the age thing.
Military personnel are the bugaboo. You would have to make an exception for military personnel, but I don't know whether that would violate the Constitution.
PBS is running a series, "Carrier" at the end of April. Tracks the lives of 12 people on the U.S.S. Nimitz. It is a documentary, it goes without saying. From the trailers, I'm not sure I want young military personnel voting either.
America will get the President it deserves. Educated people who understand the issues might not get the President they deserve, but the unwashed masses will.
We need a third party, wall-rus. Multiple parties work very well in the U.K.
Yep.......the bill woulda been less agredious if the gov could negotiate prices. That's the part that got to me.
Bridges to nowhere......well......if you let one horse loose, many more will follow.
Pharmaceutical companies and seniors are the beneficiaries
This is the way legislation works as a rule. You do what you need to do to get the support of 2 very interested motivated groups who stand to benefit dramatically and they support it ferociously. The population at large are less effected so they don't fight against it as hard as the beneficiaries fight for it.
Realistically speaking what is this program costing me? Maybe 100 bucks a year right now? Compare that to the huge benefits for a senior who gets thousands or a drug company that gets millions. They will fight much harder for it than I will against it.
That is exactly why money is so badly misappropriated in Washington. A bridge to nowhere costs maybe a dollar out of my pocket. I won't fight that hard against it because my time is limited and the cost is low but you can betcha the folks in Alaska will fight with the ferocity of wild animals to keep it because they benefit an awful lot.
I agree with you but it's problematic to send kids to war and not let them vote. Maybe the "death age" should be raised to 21 also.
Let's not forget the details of the Drug Bill and who rakes in the money. This was the worst piece of legislation in recent history.
I'm hoping nothing will happen, but the risk is still there, imo. If we do have an election it will mean that the neocons and their bosses have stretched their timetable.
Florida to hold a Dem primary? Wow. That would be novel. Being democratic. If I were a Floridian and a Democrat, I would be mad as the devil about not having a voice in the Democratic nomination. Will the people's voice be heard, or will once again, the political oligarchy stomp them into the ground.
Is it the fault of the voter that the Democratic Party leaders in Florida were asses and held their primary before the designated date? But should the voters themselves rise up and demand a new primary?
I'm thinking that Howard Dean thinks he is going to help Hillary get the nomination and get himself a position in her Cabinet. Or am I being too cynical.
And of course Charlie Crist the turncoat would want Clinton to be the Democratic candidate because she would be easier to defeat.
And of course Polident Pelosi is against giving Florida (and Michigan) a shot at new primaries. If Hillary wins both, she will have backed the wrong horse. I can see the Dem pols who have back Ombama getting very nervous about this. Ted Kennedy comes to mind.
This race for the nomination is getting unbelievably interesting.
Lentinman:
I know you don't like this sort of post on the main board, so I'll say it here.
If Hillary wins Ohio on Tuesday, I think we could have a nice rally on Wednesday. She is "Wall Street's" dog in the fight on the Democratic side.
If Obama wins, I don't think there would be sell off, just no rally.
When you play a reverse index EFT, you have to worry about this kind of stuff.
Thought for the day: If you invest in a gold stock and the price of an ounce of gold doubles but the U.S. dollar falls by half, where are you? Nowhere! Actually behind because you have to pay tax on your gains.
BBTOC
Election:
I wonder if the insaniaks who said we wouldn't have an election in 2008 are still clinging to that nonsense.
Len
<<"The select few that control the media have too much power!".>>
You are right....they will help select the President and set the Agenda.
I've never been so seriously concerned for the future of this country.
We needed Ron Paul and his ideals more than anyone will ever realize until it may be too late....
...hopefully those ideals will survive and flourish in the carnage ahead.
If they don't......we're doomed.
I'm thinking Jimmy Rodgers escaped the USA just in time.....I'm thinking I may be trapped in a sinking ship here.
up is down down is up etc. etc.
The future looks pretty dark to me.
The select few that control the media have too much power!
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |