Not a simple solution...
Posted By: TechSupport on 2009-05-26
In Reply to: In order to curtail shipping jobs overseas - A.Nonymous
There's literally no simple action that can be taken with respect to offshoring - that train has left the station and it isn't coming back.
This is a global economy and we not only buy goods and services from other countries, we sell ours to them as well. Any adverse action will have an opposite adverse consequence of some kind - either direct or indirect.
Directly, a foreign government can restrict your exports to them, or impose excise taxes. They can restrict American companies from doing business altogether.
And there are indirect consequences. If the people in another country lose income as a result of some action we take, we restrict the market in that country for our goods and services. What that means is a powerful argument against restricting trade. The best we can hope for is to try to ensure that the playing field is as level as possible - and even achieving that has been extremely difficult.
When we imagine that there are simple solutions to complex problems, and then blame the government for not applying these imaginary solutions, we're living in a fanasy world and foreclosing the demand for whatever realistic actions we might actually be able to take - because they're never simple, and they're not going to be as satisfactory as we always imagine our simple solutions would be.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Here's the simple solution:
an email I received yesterday....
This was an article from the St. Petersburg Times Newspaper on Sunday. The Business Section asked readers for ideas on "How Would You Fix the Economy?" I thought this was the BEST idea....I think this guy nailed it!
Dear Mr. President,
Patriotic retirement:
There are about 40 million people over 50 in the work force - pay them $1 million apiece severance - no tax - with the following stipulations that they must do:
1) They must leave their jobs...... Forty million job openings - Unemployment fixed.
2) They must buy NEW American cars....... Forty million cars ordered -Auto Industry fixed.
3) They must either buy a house/pay off their mortgage ..... - Housing Crisis fixed.
Can't get any easier than that! Way cheaper than the cost of what's going on now!
Simple solution, DON'T LISTEN TO
HER! Your know you are not going to vote for her, so why punish yourself?
Closing Gitmo is not as simple as simple
nm
simple exercise or simple mind
ever heard of thyroid dysfunction, ever heard of drugs that cause weight gain (such as steroids) or any other cause for obesity? Don't be so self-righteous.
I have the solution.
Imagine this: Throughout America's communities, we could build many buildings. We could place crosses or other religious symbols on these buildings in order to distinguish them from other buildings.
People could gather at these buildings once a week or so -- let's say Sunday, for example -- and one person could teach intelligent design to both children and adults and anyone who expresses an interest in learning this subject.
We could call these buildings churches.
Please pass this on to everyone you know. I believe it's an idea whose time has come.
Well, of course that is your solution. sm
And again, millions in Iraq who worked alongside coalition forces, will die. But that's okay, just as long as we are out. Just like Vietnam. You resent having to come up with a solution for terrorism? That sure says a lot about the left, doesn't it?
So what is your solution?
Or do you not believe there is a problem and the government should stay out of it?
So what is your solution?
??
I might have a solution for this.
How about we give the "legal" children to legal American adults who have been wanting to adopt and have not been able to, then ship the "illegal" parents back to their own country.
Win win situation for the children and the people who have been trying to adopt a child for years. The only ones not happy would be the ones trying to use their children as pawns to stay here illegally, but then again....they're illegal, who cares what they think.
Just my two cents.
the link solution
When I checked the links, you had them all correct except for the " that somehow is added to the url. when you click the link from this page it looks like this
http://iwilltryit.com/fixed1.htm"
Just remove the " at the end of the URL in the address bar, so that it looks like this
http://iwilltryit.com/fixed1.htm
In fact if you take off the " on all the links they will all work
Israel solution
Move the state of Israel to Virginia, Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson can fight over the honor, and see how much y'all love Israel then.
My solution is to get out, period, now.
and I resent having to come up with a solution to a problem that I did not create, an idea that I found ridiculous, that I opposed, that I petitioned, attended rallies with those blood-thirsty Quakers against, and wrote letters to editors, senators, congressmen about. There is nothing to be gained in Iraq.
Part of the solution would be to put someone else
nm
Perfect solution........... sm
Send the illegals back to their home countries with a politician under each arm!
I agree that amnesty is a bad idea. With the millions upon millios we now spend for healthcare, housing, and other benefits for illegals, the rising tide of illegals that will likely come with this amnesty will only dig us all further into debt. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm getting a little tired of paying taxes to cover illegals' medical bills and pay for their food when I can't afford insurance for myself and have to scrimp on the food bill because there just is not enough money to go around after I pay taxes.
Well....the solution to your problem is
simple. If TechSupport is too smart for ya....don't read. You people can't just leave certain people alone. Instead of ignoring someone you don't like or someone you don't agree with...or in this case....someone who uses too big of words for you.....instead of just skipping it you have to make fun, call names, and tell them they are stupid for talking too complicated for ya. Seriously....grow up and if the conversation is too complicated for you....just take a little time out to calm yourself and just skip the next post. You might take some pills for your headache as well. Sheesh.
Again, what is your solution to get information out
nm
My solution is to get a different president!
nm
iwilltryit.com link solution
http://iwilltryit.com
Worried about a recession?? Here's the solution s/m
With Recession Looming, Bush Tells America To ‘Go Shopping More’
Today, President Bush held a news conference where he discussed the “way forward” for the economy in 2007. Renowned Morgan Stanley economist Steven Roach says the the “odds of the U.S. economy tipping into recession are about 40 to 45 per cent.” New York Times columnist Paul Krugman notes that “the odds are very good — maybe 2 to 1,” that the U.S. will teeter toward a recession in 2007. Bush’s solution? “Go shopping more.”
Yes, yes!... BOMBS are no solution, WORDS are..nm
nm
My solution to carmaker crisis
SUGGESTED SOLUTION TO CARMAKER'S CRISIS, AS WELL AS SOME ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Maybe I've gone off the deep end - but I'm so sick of hearing about the big 3 bailout requests I've come up with a serious suggestion to help them.
I think its environmentally, morally, and financially irresponsible for the government to give tax breaks to those who buy NEW cars (much less bail out the manufacturers). The majority can't afford them anyway (or can't guarantee they'll have a job to make payments on them tomorrow), and we already have enough cars! Backyards and junk yards are full of cars because we can't get parts for them! How many economy cars that were good on gas are sitting in junkyards - because we don't have the parts to keep 'em on the road?
Why can't we get parts? The greedy corporate suits in Detroit figured if we couldn't get them, we'd be forced to buy new cars whether we wanted to or not! So they won't make them. I guess their plan didn't work, because when we bought new cars, we bought them from someone else.
I believe replacement parts manufacturing can be profitable - as the few little companies that make replacement parts for classic cars can prove. It might not restore the bonus of every deprived CEO in Detroit, but it could save quite a few line jobs. There is no longer a big market for new cars - but there's a constantly growing market for replacement parts. Its better than continuing the denial that Detroit has been in for the last decade - clinging stubbornly to the myth that we LIKE what they make, that we WANT it, and that we can AFFORD it, and that every one of us pines away for shiny new giant gas-guzzler in our driveway. We like what they USED to make, the muscle cars, the economy cars, the cars that were our sentimental favorites back in the day, when cars didn't cost the price of a house, and lasted longer than the 5 year warranty! They still have the blueprints to make the parts for those models, as well as parts for later-model cars past their warranty. That's what we want, what we can afford - and the sheer volume of parts purchased would make them a profit as well as helping the little guy with bad credit survive. Not everyone can get a loan for a new car - or even a used one - but those that can't could probably come up with the price of a needed part
I propose we reduce the production of new cars drastically. Instead we revamp a large number of our factories to manufacture parts for the cars that already exist (if we really MUST bail out the big 3, let's insist they put the money toward this). Alternatively, we insist that for every new car they manufacture - they must manufacture a certain number of essential repair parts for their discontinued models (which, according to recent news - will be most of them). This creates jobs, renews the jobs at some of the small non-union subcontracting plants that had to close when told to stop making the parts, or at least saves the jobs of UAW workers who were making unwanted new cars. Let them close their dealerships - but keep the dealer repair shops open. We then give tax credits for anybody who takes classes on repair - this creates jobs, as more people would rather fix it versus junk it (and can certainly afford the part easier than a whole new car). We give tax credits to anyone who gets a non-running vehicle operational again, we give tax credits for anyone who opens a repair/refurbishment shop, we give tax credits to junk yards that reduce their scrap heaps. Much better than a tax credit encouraging people to take on even more debt for a new car!
If some of elderly vehicles are unsafe by today's standards, we could manufacture parts that make them safer and update them, depending on the needs of each model. Surely the powers that be could run a scan for every VIN and get the statistics for how many models of each are currently still on the road (just like they do when there's a safety recall), and decide from there on whatever issues need addressed.
We should also consider legislation that insurance companies stop totalling vehicles without proof that their repair will be more expensive than a new car. "What a car is worth" needs to be restructured - what is the environmental/financial impact of junking it worth - the cost of a new one? If an old paid-off car ran perfectly fine before the wreck - should it be totalled because the damages came to a couple bucks more than the Blue Book value? I really don't think so! In this economy, having a paid-off vehicle with the option of keeping minimal insurance on it is nearly priceless!
We found out during the last couple years that we really can't afford a brand new McMansion, and we don't actually need one either, and we're much better off with less house than our budget can stretch to cover. Many of us know the same thing about the brand new car, but we don't have a choice because we can't fix the old one, and can't trust that the used one we buy will have parts available for it when it breaks down. That needs to change. We need more cost-effective options and we WANT the choice of fixing what we already paid for, instead of being forced to buy ever-more expensive brand new ones again and again and stuffing the landfills indefinitely!
My solution also applies to large appliances. Our landfills are full of them! The manufacturers of refrigerators, washers/dryers, riding lawnmowers, etc. should be required to produce a set number of repair parts for their older models - instead of making commercials about a lady throwing her old one off a cliff simply because she's tired of it!
Do we really want to be a nation of salesmen and consumers? I think we'd have more pride, strength and better ability to make it through these hard times if we replaced our salesmen with repairmen, blind consuming with sensible choices, and learn to one-up the Joneses with how much we saved from the landfill instead of how much we spent. Let's stop planned obsolescence and let the companies that refuse to give up the practice go belly up! They deserve it - they are trashing the environment as well as ripping off their customers - deliberately manufacturing products to break down in a couple years is just morally wrong. Lets make if fashionable to preserve and restore instead of consume and discard! I hope I'm not the only one that's tired of this - so is anybody with me on this? If you're in favor spread the idea! Discuss this with everybody!
The Solution to the Budget Deficit
The Solution to the Budget Deficit: The Peter G. Peterson Institute
Monday 23 February 2009
by: Dean Baker, t r u t h o u t | Perspective
 Peter Peterson. (Photo: Reuters)
Peter Peterson is coming to get your Social Security and Medicare. Peterson was the commerce secretary in the Nixon administration. He then went on to make billions of dollars as one of the top executives at the Blackstone Group, a private equity fund. Mr. Peterson is known as one of the top beneficiaries of the fund managers' tax break, through which he personally pocketed tens of millions of dollars.
Mr. Peterson has been using his Wall Street wealth to attack these social insurance programs for decades, but he recently stepped up his efforts. Last year, he spent $1 billion to endow the Peter G. Peterson Foundation to further his efforts.
In politics, it's not easy to counter the impact of $1 billion. In addition to its money, the Peterson crew enjoys the support of many important news outlets, most importantly The Washington Post, which pushes his line on both its editorial and news pages.
In fact, The Post even went so far as to identify Peterson's foundation by its boilerplate, an organization that "advocates for federal fiscal responsibility," instead of telling readers of its political leanings, the normal mode of identification for such organizations. (The Center for Economic and Policy Research was established "to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives.")
While the Peterson crew may have the money and the support of the media, the rest of us can rely on logic and ridicule to counter the attack. In this spirit, we have the Peter G. Peterson Intergenerational Fairness Tax Credit. (Mr. Peterson is apparently fond of having things named after him. In addition to his new Peter G. Peterson Foundation, he also has a think tank named after him, the Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics.)
The Peterson tax credit would essentially take the Peterson crew at their word. They claim that they are worried that huge tax burdens will leave future generations worse off than the generations that preceded them.
This isn't true. There is no plausible scenario, short of war or environmental disaster, that would leave future generations worse off than their parents or grandparents. But we don't have to argue with the billionaire; let's just give future generations the option to trade places with their parents or grandparents who made out so well.
This is where the tax credit comes in. The tax credit would allow an individual to trade her after-tax income for the after-tax income that someone born 20 or 40 years sooner would have earned at the same age. For example, if someone born in 1990 believes in 2020 that their grandparents got a better deal, they would simply check off the year 1940, and they would have their taxes adjusted so that they would have the same after-tax income of a person born in 1940, when they were also age 30.
Of course, the young ones would end up big losers in this story. Real wages, on average, will be more than 50 percent higher in 2020 than they were in 1970. Even if tax rates were, on average, 5 percentage points higher, workers in 2020 will still have after-tax wages that are more than 40 percent higher than their counterparts in 1970.
This means that anyone who chose to take advantage of the intergenerational equity tax credit would end up as a big loser. That is why it can help solve the deficit problem. If people check off the tax credit, they will pay more in taxes and, therefore, increase government revenue.
It might be hard to convince large numbers of people to voluntarily pay more in taxes. This is where the Peterson Foundation comes in. They are spending huge amounts of money trying to convince young people that they are being ripped off by their parents and grandparents. They are even promoting front groups of young people to advance this effort.
With his billion dollars, Peterson could convince a huge number of gullible young people to tax advantage of the intergenerational equity tax credit. Insofar as he is successful in this effort, he can help to generate billions of dollars that can be used for items like health care, preschool education, and other pressing needs.
So, let's join efforts with Mr. Peterson and encourage his followers to take advantage of the Peter G. Peterson Intergenerational Fairness Tax Credit. There is a word for taking money from willfully ignorant young people who would deny their parents and grandparents the Social Security and Medicare benefits they need to survive: justice.
And your solution to the economic crisis is???? (nm)
x
I didn't say it was a perfect solution....... sm
just a solution and as with any solution there are exceptions. The elderly by and large are eligible for this program provided their income falls within a certain limit, as are prenant or nursing women, postpartum women up to a certain point, children under the age of 6, among others. This program is already in place, so what might be more appropriate is to save the food stamp program for the disabled, the low-income working class and the elderly and revamp the screening process for food stamps that would weed out those who currently abuse the system because it is easier to get a hand out than a hand up. Maybe even make job retraining programs a stipulation of receiving food stamps and make food stamps work in conjunction with the commodities program in certain instances.
Here is a link to the commodities program. There is a page listing the foods available now and it does appear that there is more variety than before, but still limited to basic nutritional foods.
http://www.fns.usda.gov/fdd/
He has no solution but blow MORE money?
nm
I heard this solution and thought it was interesting
Someone proposed that instead of bailing them out, you give 3.5 million to each American citizen. You let them tank (which they should and deserve), and those Americans who now have 3.5 million dollars can spend it in the economy, save it whatever way they want (back into the banking industry, etc), and the economy would build back up. Of course don't know all the details, just heard that and thought it was a pretty good solution and I can bet you all Americans would say yes to that plan.
I did post a solution at the top...looked good to me...
but if you reward the bad behavior that got us here, and leave the same foxes in charge of the henhouse with absolutely NO remorse for where they put this country...maybe you are ready to excuse them. I'm not. does not mean we can't move forward with a solution. But I am not cutting them any slack. Do I blame them? Yes I blame them. They nearly killed the economy and are about to cost me several billion dollars. You do whatever fits you best. I think SOMEONE in this should lose their job!!
Not THE solution, but perhaps one of many? sorry I put an idea out there for discussion, didn't
and sorry if my post ended up with yours, that happens, and I am not here to insult anyone. I do believe in my stance and my idea, have many reasons for it, thought that for once an issue on here could be discussed without personal attacks, if you read my first posts, there is no content other than the proposed idea; I was insulted and attacked for no reason, had the AUDACITY to defend myself and what I am trying to do with my life, my OWN life, and as usual it has turned ugly and it is almost impossible to figure out the original thread....oh well, back to work.
Great solution. Skip healthcare for the parents.
Because it is great for kids to be motherless and fatherless? Right. I actually do not have any health insurance, and since I put my kids first (who are covered btw), that is okay for now, but should I really have to do without? I agree tax refunds would be good for people who pay health insurance, but I think a better solution would be for government to force the health insurance companies to offer more affordable, straight-forward plans. WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE SO AGAINST FREE OR AFFORDABLE HEALTHCARE FOR KIDS WHO DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE WHAT INCOME LEVEL/INTELLIGENCE LEVEL THEIR PARENTS ARE. I am a broken record here. I don't care what argument you give me, I will still believe that government should cover all kids, just like it already covers all poor people. Does a poor adult deserve better healthcare than a middle-income child? No, of course not, but God forbid someone raise your taxes (even though they will continue to rise regardless) to fund health care for kids.
Bailout is Not the Solution, Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S27yitK32ds Thank you for speaking Rep. Marcy Kaptur! D-Ohio
No doubt this is a centrist Democrat. Being Republican, I didn't even know if any centrists were left now that they've been hijacked by moveon, who has openly bragged about owning the Dems.
Anyway, this is really something.
Incidentally, the Dems had enough votes to pass this thing day one. They know better than to do that and end up being responsible. This is why we're subjected to this dog & pony show by them now.
And to think, they are not only working on a filibuster-proof election and an Obama presidency. Can y'all afford this tax ticket? I know I can't.
So you solution is to throw the kids of the great unwashed under the bus?
Wow. I'm glad your not my mom.
why then does Netanyahu till now NOT accept the 2-state solution?...nm
nm
Here, here!!! It sure isn't that simple.
I remember when I used to be 18 and the world was black and white, and I thought I knew everything.
The older I got, the more gray I saw, and the less I knew.
I figure at this rate, in a few years, I'm not gonna know nuttin!!! LOL
I know exactly what you mean about screaming out at the TV, too!!! LOL. (I wonder, if I turned down the sound on the TV and opened the windows, whether I'd hear a bunch of other people screaming, too.)
I still don't know if I can bring myself to watch him. I just hope that every single soldier, whether seeing him personally at Fort Bragg or watching him on television somewhere, is able to return to their families safely and without injuries. I have a feeling it's going to be the soldiers who really attract my attention, and I always cry when I see them, knowing how they've been betrayed by their "commander in chief." Our military deserves much better than "chimpboy." (Laughing at and agreeing with that term.)
It isn't that simple. sm
When Chavez held Chomsky's book up at the UN, the headlines the next day said his book was selling out. Exactly who has the power here?
Yes, very simple.
Plainly speaking, why do you post in a political forum if your posts are not politically motivated?
Look, it is very simple....
Bush has not broken the law. Clinton did. He committed felony perjury. I don't care that he jumped Monica Lewinsky. Ihate it for her and I hate it for Hillary but that is nothing to impeach a man for. What he was impeached for is obstruction of justice and felony perjury. If Bush had done that you would be calling for his head on a pike. So let's not pretend you wouldn't...waste of time. That is the difference between you and me. Nixon, a Republican, broke the law. But he had at least one iota of integrity left and resigned. Clinton lied through is teeth, broke the law. If he had just said, yeah, I jumped Monica, sorry, no harm no foul, it would have gone away. But he chose not to. And even after the impeachment hearings proved him guilty, they all ADMITTED he was guilty, they did not (Congress) have the guts NOR the integrity to convict him, and I mean Dems AND Republicans. That is the difference, again, between you and me. If it is wrong, it is wrong, and the political party of the person makes no difference to me. If George Bush committed perjury on national TV I would be calling for his resignation as well. One would hope he would have the integrity to resign BEFORE he was impeached if he did so.
Bashing Clinton? Did I lie? I stated the truth, in response to someone posting, for no apparent reason, that Bush was a dumba$$ and an embarrassment. I countered and said that I felt like a morally bankrupt lying perjurer was just as embarrasing.
Why aren't you getting on the other poster for bashing Bush? Ohhhhhh I understand...okay to bash Bush, NOT okay to bash Clinton. What is that again about liberal tolerance, no bigotry, freedom of speech, we love everybody doctrine? How does that go?
Simple as that.
It's very simple
Obama is the #1 most liberal Senator, which you can check. He leaves Ted Kennedy and the rest in the dust by comparison. Many Democrats fear him. John McCain is pro-life, regardless what you think of him. I'm no cheerleader for McCain, but holy hanna would freeze over before I either voted for or sat idly by over something this serious, and I don't even have kids.
If you want to try to spin it so someone you think maybe, kinda could sorda be for this barbaric procedure, so ahead and either not vote or keep your head in the sand.
My guess is that you could track down this nurse if you really wanted. It's possible that she could no longer take it and then said "enough."
Like the old saying goes, if you don't vote, then don't complain.
When is enough enough?
Simple
Check his voting record. He voted with Bush 90% of the time on important issues that he VOTED on.
Simple...
He isn't a white flag waving wimp, he doesn't want to censor the media, he has experience, he can speak without needing a script, though he probably has some questionable associates, none are like the Obama associates, most military people respect him, and most importantly, he is not a Marxist or Socialist hiding in sheeps clothing in order to get everyone to follow him.
But still not simple enough
Many people refer to the SS system as a pyramid/Ponzi scheme for the very reason that the money paid to retirees now is not from the money they paid in, but rather the money current workers are paying in. In addition, your benefit payment is determined by what you earned, not what you paid into it. Wikepedia, while I'm not a big fan, does a good job of explaining this is in fairly simplistic terms. Theoretically at least, SS moneys cannot be used for anything but SS and even investment of it is limited to government-secured bonds.
And just to be clear, I don't want to take anyone's benefits or even end Social Security as we know it now. All I'm saying is that there is no money to fund an increase at this time and that at this moment in time, I would rather see each recipient's $30 SS increase go toward putting people to work so that next year, the increase can be funded without bankrupting the system further.
simple minded? Nah.
Nah, the simple minded and hateful are on the conservative board..you got the wrong board..sorry, sweet cakes..
Just that simple. No problemo, yea right!
Unfortunately, some of us do care that the prez would appoint a person to a position of that magnitude with a whopping NO EXPERIENCE. The leader of this organization has the ability and is required to make decisions that can save American lives, and many, and NO EXPERIENCE is just a no biggie to ya! Oh, OK.
Why I am relevant...very simple!
This is the liberal board and I am a liberal. You are not. You and your playmates enjoy degrading the liberal posters on this board. It gets really tiresome. You and your bully friends need to find a different group to pick on, as it obviously brings you very much perverted pleasure as you CANNOT seem to stop and you REFUSE to quit bashing the posters on this board even when asked to by the moderator multiple times.
It would be wonderful if it was that simple....
so let's just make it REAL simple. If you want on SCHIP, you have to pay an additional 3% off the top in your income taxes. Democrats in Congress want to expand it, 3% off the top of all their salaries from now on to fund it. That would probably take care of it for years to come. If not, then start down the registered Democrats' tax rolls and if they favor the program, 3% off the top of their salaries to pay for it. Don't force it on people who are not going to use it, who pay their own premiums, to pay for it. Let those who want to expand it fund it. Simple as that. Sounds fair to me.
yes, you sound simple.
nm
simple remedy
like someone posted earlier. Open. Close. Open. Close. Then you can read what other posters have to say because new posts are in blue.
Simple ? What does it say about a man's character when he
1. Dumps his crippled wife and mother of his children to have affair with wealthy heiress, then turns around to apply for marriage license before his divorce is final.
2. Calls his wife C-word.
3. While speaking at a biker's rally, volunteers his wife as a contestant in the "Miss Buffalo Chips" topless modeling contest, including it's legendary banana competition.
4. Tries to blame his wife for the Keating 5 scandal when it becomes public.
5. Screams at and thoroughly humiliates a young pub volunteer who set up his podium at a rally.
6. Jokes about ape rape and killing off Iranians with cigarettes and "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb."
7. Describes Arizona's elderly as "seizure world."
8. Throws temper tantrums, punctuated with the casual use of the F-word.
9. Calls fellow senators Aholes and sh-heads.
10. Ignites a culture war to get elected.
11. Questions the patriotism of his opponent and fails to renounce his supporters who question his faith, endlessly insinuate he lies about it and portray his wife as a militant with hidden agendas to stage a socialist/Black Power takeover of the country.
12. Embraces endorsement from a pastor who disparages Catholics, women, African Americans, Muslims and LGBT Americans, believes that Hurricane Katrina was punishment from God because "New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God and they were recipients of the judgment of God," announced a "slave sale" at the church to raise funds and believes that "the coming nuclear showdown with Iran is a certainty,"
13. Overlooks the Bush-Rove campaign strategy of unleashing a landslide of racist attacks on him, including calling his own daughter an illegitimate half-black love child, turns around in 2004 to campaign for W's second term, throughout it all supported 9 out of 10 of his disastrous policies that has brought the nation to it knees and then embraces Rove as senior campaign adviser in 2008.
14. Stood silently by while fellow war hero/veteran John Kerry was swift-boated without mercy.
Before any rebuttal ensues that would seek to deny, dodge and deflect, keep in mind that character assassination has been a benchmark of JM's campaign and of his supporters, so no whining allowed. Finally, this is legitimate inquiry, given that 90% is striving so diligently not to be 90% and has hawked character as his main qualification for presidential leadership.
Simple answer...
#1. Anything that passed Congress required votes from both sides to carry. So both parties did.
#2. Obama voted against. Biden voted for.
#3. Obama, according to his website it was January. Trouble is, Gen. Petraeus said to commit to some kind of a line in the sand date was the wrong thing to do. I vote with Gen. Petraeus.
#4. I imagine several Republicans lobbied against it...I think David Petraeus knows more about whether a timetable will work than Barack Obama does.
#5. Gen. David Petraeus said: WASHINGTON: General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, has said that US forces could hand over control of the entire country to the Iraqi military by the end of next year.
That could coincide with Obama's withdrawal timetable. If you are saying General Petraeus is trying to highjack Obama's timetable...I don't think so. It is his recommendation that drives what the administration says. Since he is the architect of the surge, which has worked "beyond anyone's wildest dreams" (Obama quote), he is in the best position to know what is feasible. But even he does not call it a timetable. COnditions on the ground dictate how something plays out. Or it SHOULD.
And that is the rest of the story.
A simple poll, sm
Who Would You Hire
You are The Boss... which team would you hire?
With America facing historic debt, multiple war fronts, stumbling health care, a weakened dollar, all-time high prison population, skyrocketing Federal spending, mortgage crises, bank foreclosures, etc. etc., this is an ***unusually critical*** election year.
Let's look at the educational background of your two options:
McCain:
United States Naval Academy - Class rank 894 of 899
Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester
North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study
University of Idaho - 2 semesters - journalism
Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester
University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in journalism
(verified through Anchorage Daily News adn.com 1981-1987. 5 schools in 6 years!
vs.
Obama:
Occidental College - Two years.
Columbia University - B.A. political science with a specialization in international relations.
Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude
University of Delaware - B.A. in history and B.A. in political science.
Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)
Now, which team are you going to "hire" ?
for simple god-fearin'
salt-of the-earth christian folk, you and your alter egos certainly disdain and/or hate many people.
Let's keep this simple this time around.
Here's a staight answer: Go here first and read the extensive fact check information and view detailed copies of the HAWAIIAN birth certificate which you can blow up and inspect if you like.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Naysayers will decry the source as biased. You can make up your own mind.
Mr Phillip Berg does not accept the authenticity of this valid birth certificate. We can go around and around about dual citizenship, age of mother, etc. Irrevalent. Certificate has been submitted and disputed. Bottom line. As in all legal actions heard in US courts, the BURDEN OF PROOF is on the prosecution, not the defense. Berg now needs to prove not only that the BC is a forgery, but that Obama was born in Kenya. Good luck with that.
BTW, my husband is a foreign national. I was automatically given naturalized status from his country of origin by virtue of my marriage to him...did not even have to apply. Does not make me any less of a US citizen. Just got back from early voting. In terms of qualification to run for office, the dual citizenship arguments center on the Indonesian side of the assertions...another irrevalent point. What matters is whether or not the US recognizes dual citizenship. I am living proof that that argument is false. In fact, if you examine how many inconsistencies and irrevalant points have been raised during the course of this legal action and the contoversy that surrounds it, you may draw your own conclusions about the pattern that will emerge. Frivolous lawsuit.
|
