on archlinux install lua and luarocks
# pacman -S lua luarocks
# luarocks install xavante
now copy this script and chmod 700 it
# cat xav.lua
#!/usr/bin/lua
require "xavante"
require "xavante.filehandler"
local webDir = "/home/g"
local simplerules = {
{ -- filehandler example
match = ".",
with = xavante.filehandler,
params = {baseDir = webDir}
},
}
xavante.HTTP{
server = {host = "*", port = 8080},
defaultHost = {
rules = simplerules
},
}
xavante.start()
# ./xav.lua
Xavante started on port(s) 8080
in seamonkey: localhost:8080/index.html shows my little custom html page yay!
note: unlike dustmote/tcl combo localhost:8080 caused a redirect loop, you need to feed xavante a filename, it wont default to index.html
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
suprise google are monopolositic assholes after all
http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/google-motorola-takeover-justice/2011/08/15/id/407440
Conservatives blasted Obama's bus-tour rhetoric as class warfare, and warned that raising taxes on wealthy Americans is likely to hurt job creation. “
Conservatives blasted Obama's bus-tour rhetoric as class warfare, and warned that raising taxes on wealthy Americans is likely to hurt job creation. “I think he’s desperate,” CATO budget analyst Tad DeHaven tells Newsmax. “Three years of spending and debt and deficits, and promises that all that would lead to economic growth and job creation, have been an absolute failure."
Monday, August 15, 2011
Rasmussen Poll: Most Want to Cut Taxes, Not Spend More Monday, 15 Aug 2011 04:41 PM By Greg McDonald Share: More . . . A A | Email Us |
Rasmussen Poll: Most Want to Cut Taxes, Not Spend More
Monday, 15 Aug 2011 04:41 PM
By Greg McDonald
Share:
More . . .
A A |
Email Us |
Print |
Forward Article
Most Americans – 62 percent – believe that cutting taxes, and not increased government spending, is the best way to create jobs, according to a new poll. And Americans also favor a flat tax of no more than 20 percent, with most believing everyone should pay the same rate, regardless of income.
The new Rasmussen Reports poll of 1,000 adults conducted Aug. 12-13 found that overall, most Americans want less government spending, and 64 percent said the middle class still pays a larger share of income in taxes than the wealthy.
"When it comes to job creation and improving the overall economy, voters think tax cuts work better than government solutions," the survey noted.
The poll had a number of other findings:
• 74 percent of Americans said the average tax rate should be no more than 20 percent, and 55 percent believe everyone should pay the same rate, regardless of income.
• 64 percent of Americans would be willing to trade some tax deductions for lower tax rates and 50 percent of Americans prefer a candidate who promises to raise taxes only on the rich over one who is against tax increases of any kind.
• 49 percent of them would oppose the elimination of all tax deductions in exchange for lower rates. Thirty-two percent, meanwhile, like the idea of lowering tax rates for all Americans while eliminating deductions for those who earn $100,000 a year or more.
• The poll also found that 66 percent of the country now believes it may be more beneficial for the economy in the long haul if the government treats all companies and industries, regardless of size, equally when it comes to taxes. Twenty-one percent, however, said it was better if the government continues to provide targeted breaks to certain businesses.
One of the most interesting findings in the Rasmussen poll was that voters, by a margin of 50 percent to 38 percent, said they would prefer a candidate who promises to tax only the rich over one who opposes increases of any kind. That, Rasmussen, noted was “the highest level of support for a candidate who would raise taxes on the rich in three years of surveying.”
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Monday, 15 Aug 2011 04:41 PM
By Greg McDonald
Share:
More . . .
A A |
Email Us |
Print |
Forward Article
Most Americans – 62 percent – believe that cutting taxes, and not increased government spending, is the best way to create jobs, according to a new poll. And Americans also favor a flat tax of no more than 20 percent, with most believing everyone should pay the same rate, regardless of income.
The new Rasmussen Reports poll of 1,000 adults conducted Aug. 12-13 found that overall, most Americans want less government spending, and 64 percent said the middle class still pays a larger share of income in taxes than the wealthy.
"When it comes to job creation and improving the overall economy, voters think tax cuts work better than government solutions," the survey noted.
The poll had a number of other findings:
• 74 percent of Americans said the average tax rate should be no more than 20 percent, and 55 percent believe everyone should pay the same rate, regardless of income.
• 64 percent of Americans would be willing to trade some tax deductions for lower tax rates and 50 percent of Americans prefer a candidate who promises to raise taxes only on the rich over one who is against tax increases of any kind.
• 49 percent of them would oppose the elimination of all tax deductions in exchange for lower rates. Thirty-two percent, meanwhile, like the idea of lowering tax rates for all Americans while eliminating deductions for those who earn $100,000 a year or more.
• The poll also found that 66 percent of the country now believes it may be more beneficial for the economy in the long haul if the government treats all companies and industries, regardless of size, equally when it comes to taxes. Twenty-one percent, however, said it was better if the government continues to provide targeted breaks to certain businesses.
One of the most interesting findings in the Rasmussen poll was that voters, by a margin of 50 percent to 38 percent, said they would prefer a candidate who promises to tax only the rich over one who opposes increases of any kind. That, Rasmussen, noted was “the highest level of support for a candidate who would raise taxes on the rich in three years of surveying.”
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
lisp on lines and lisp web tools galore cliki.net
https://github.com/drewc/lisp-on-lines/blob/master/doc/manual.org
Viaweb FAQ How did the editor handle client sessions? There was one Lisp process for each user. When someone logged in to edit their site, we'd star
Viaweb FAQ
How did the editor handle client sessions?
There was one Lisp process for each user. When someone logged in to edit their site, we'd start up a new process and load all their data into memory. From that point they had an ongoing conversation with that process.
Because everything was already loaded into memory, we never had to read anything from disk or start up a process to respond to an HTTP request. All we had to do was evaluate a closure stored in memory.
What did you use for an HTTP server?
At first the editor had its own HTTP server, written in Common Lisp by Robert Morris. Later we switched to a version of Apache that he hacked to talk to Lisp.
What Lisp did you use?
Clisp.
Did you use real continuations to save state?
No, we used macros to fake them in Common Lisp, as described in On Lisp.
What database did you use?
We didn't use one. We just stored everything in files. The Unix file system is pretty good at not losing your data, especially if you put the files on a Netapp.
It is a common mistake to think of Web-based apps as interfaces to databases. Desktop apps aren't just interfaces to databases; why should Web-based apps be any different? The hard part is not where you store the data, but what the software does.
While we were doing Viaweb, we took a good deal of heat from pseudo-technical people like VCs and industry analysts for not using a database-- and for using cheap Intel boxes running FreeBSD as servers. But when we were getting bought by Yahoo, we found that they also just stored everything in files-- and all their servers were also cheap Intel boxes running FreeBSD.
(During the Bubble, Oracle used to run ads saying that Yahoo ran on Oracle software. I found this hard to believe, so I asked around. It turned out the Yahoo accounting department used Oracle.)
Was your co-founder the same Robert Morris who wrote the worm and is now a professor at MIT?
Yes.
Where did you get venture funding?
We got money from several private investors, what are known in the business as "angels." Our investors were pretty serious, almost VCs, but they weren't actually brand-name VC firms.
We did Viaweb very cheaply. We spent a total of about $2 million. We were just about breaking even when we got bought, so we would not have spent too much more.
How was "Viaweb" pronounced?
The official policy was that you could say either vee-a-web or vie-a-web. We all used the former, but everyone else, including the people at Yahoo, seemed to prefer the latter.
What would you do differently?
Technically, not much. I think the main thing we should have done that we didn't was start some kind of online store ourselves. We used the editor to make our own site, so we were pretty motivated to make it good. But we could only understand the e-commerce part of the software second-hand.
How did the editor handle client sessions?
There was one Lisp process for each user. When someone logged in to edit their site, we'd start up a new process and load all their data into memory. From that point they had an ongoing conversation with that process.
Because everything was already loaded into memory, we never had to read anything from disk or start up a process to respond to an HTTP request. All we had to do was evaluate a closure stored in memory.
What did you use for an HTTP server?
At first the editor had its own HTTP server, written in Common Lisp by Robert Morris. Later we switched to a version of Apache that he hacked to talk to Lisp.
What Lisp did you use?
Clisp.
Did you use real continuations to save state?
No, we used macros to fake them in Common Lisp, as described in On Lisp.
What database did you use?
We didn't use one. We just stored everything in files. The Unix file system is pretty good at not losing your data, especially if you put the files on a Netapp.
It is a common mistake to think of Web-based apps as interfaces to databases. Desktop apps aren't just interfaces to databases; why should Web-based apps be any different? The hard part is not where you store the data, but what the software does.
While we were doing Viaweb, we took a good deal of heat from pseudo-technical people like VCs and industry analysts for not using a database-- and for using cheap Intel boxes running FreeBSD as servers. But when we were getting bought by Yahoo, we found that they also just stored everything in files-- and all their servers were also cheap Intel boxes running FreeBSD.
(During the Bubble, Oracle used to run ads saying that Yahoo ran on Oracle software. I found this hard to believe, so I asked around. It turned out the Yahoo accounting department used Oracle.)
Was your co-founder the same Robert Morris who wrote the worm and is now a professor at MIT?
Yes.
Where did you get venture funding?
We got money from several private investors, what are known in the business as "angels." Our investors were pretty serious, almost VCs, but they weren't actually brand-name VC firms.
We did Viaweb very cheaply. We spent a total of about $2 million. We were just about breaking even when we got bought, so we would not have spent too much more.
How was "Viaweb" pronounced?
The official policy was that you could say either vee-a-web or vie-a-web. We all used the former, but everyone else, including the people at Yahoo, seemed to prefer the latter.
What would you do differently?
Technically, not much. I think the main thing we should have done that we didn't was start some kind of online store ourselves. We used the editor to make our own site, so we were pretty motivated to make it good. But we could only understand the e-commerce part of the software second-hand.
tcl example coputing points per shot for pistol pete
http://www.basketballreference.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=MARAVPE02
$ tclsh8.6
>set p " paste blah from above regular season stats "
>set z [split $p "\n"]
>foreach x $z {
set points [lindex $x 6]
set fga [lindex $x 9]
set fta [lindex $x 12]
set eff [expr {$points / [expr {$fga + [expr {$fta / 2.0}]}]}]
puts "[lindex $x 0] [format "%.2f" $eff]"
}
1970-71 1.01
1971-72 0.98
1972-73 0.99
1973-74 1.02
1974-75 0.94
1975-76 1.03
1976-77 0.97
1977-78 0.97
1978-79 0.94
1979-80 0.91
1979-80 1.08
1979-80 0.99
$ tclsh8.6
>set p " paste blah from above regular season stats "
>set z [split $p "\n"]
>foreach x $z {
set points [lindex $x 6]
set fga [lindex $x 9]
set fta [lindex $x 12]
set eff [expr {$points / [expr {$fga + [expr {$fta / 2.0}]}]}]
puts "[lindex $x 0] [format "%.2f" $eff]"
}
1970-71 1.01
1971-72 0.98
1972-73 0.99
1973-74 1.02
1974-75 0.94
1975-76 1.03
1976-77 0.97
1977-78 0.97
1978-79 0.94
1979-80 0.91
1979-80 1.08
1979-80 0.99
awk example using pistol pete NBA stats to cmpute point per shot efficiency
http://www.basketballreference.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=MARAVPE02
$ awk '{p=$7;f=$10;t=$13;eff=(p/(f+(t/2)));print $1" "eff}' pistol_NBA
1970-71 1.00777
1971-72 0.983796
1972-73 0.986609
1973-74 1.01542
1974-75 0.943135
1975-76 1.02821
1976-77 0.96847
1977-78 0.971963
1978-79 0.941628
1979-80 0.909091
1979-80 1.08137
1979-80 0.989085
$ awk '{p=$7;f=$10;t=$13;eff=(p/(f+(t/2)));print $1" "eff}' pistol_NBA
1970-71 1.00777
1971-72 0.983796
1972-73 0.986609
1973-74 1.01542
1974-75 0.943135
1975-76 1.02821
1976-77 0.96847
1977-78 0.971963
1978-79 0.941628
1979-80 0.909091
1979-80 1.08137
1979-80 0.989085
pistol pete avg 57 a game in college wow
Maravich holds nearly all scoring records in the NCAA. Here are some stats from nba.com:
Most career points (3,667).
Highest career scoring average (44.2 points per game).
Most field goals made (1,387).
Most field goals attempted (3,166).
Most career 50-point games (28).
Most points scored in a single season (1,381).
Highest scoring average in a single season (44.5 points per game).
It must be noted that Maravich did all the above without the aid of three-point baskets. According to Wikipedia, former basketball head coach of LSU, Dale Brown, noted every shot that Pete Maravich took in college basketball and calculated that Pete would have made an average of 13 three-point shots per game. If he played under current regulations with the three-point arc set at 5.8 metres (19-foot 9 inches) from the rim, he would have averaged 57 points per gam
Most career points (3,667).
Highest career scoring average (44.2 points per game).
Most field goals made (1,387).
Most field goals attempted (3,166).
Most career 50-point games (28).
Most points scored in a single season (1,381).
Highest scoring average in a single season (44.5 points per game).
It must be noted that Maravich did all the above without the aid of three-point baskets. According to Wikipedia, former basketball head coach of LSU, Dale Brown, noted every shot that Pete Maravich took in college basketball and calculated that Pete would have made an average of 13 three-point shots per game. If he played under current regulations with the three-point arc set at 5.8 metres (19-foot 9 inches) from the rim, he would have averaged 57 points per gam
01:47:29 AM) heycomedy: now need to do more sprinting workout (01:47:36 AM) heycomedy: you know what I found out? (01:47:47 AM) heycomedy: only a smal
01:47:29 AM) heycomedy: now need to do more sprinting workout
(01:47:36 AM) heycomedy: you know what I found out?
(01:47:47 AM) heycomedy: only a small bit of exercise each day helps a lot
(01:47:56 AM) heycomedy: I did 1 160m sprint other day
(01:48:00 AM) heycomedy: and felt godo for 2 day
(01:48:26 AM) mr_snake_1_cent_dozen_hj: diet is 70 to 80% or workout i was told once
(01:48:28 AM) heycomedy: I always wonder if do 1 set curl 1 set bench 1 set back 1 set legs and 1 160m sprint
(01:48:29 AM) heycomedy: daily
(01:48:33 AM) heycomedy: would u get fast n huge
(01:48:44 AM) heycomedy: ya to get lighter eat less and eat veggy more
(01:48:49 AM) heycomedy: I got banana and grape
(01:47:36 AM) heycomedy: you know what I found out?
(01:47:47 AM) heycomedy: only a small bit of exercise each day helps a lot
(01:47:56 AM) heycomedy: I did 1 160m sprint other day
(01:48:00 AM) heycomedy: and felt godo for 2 day
(01:48:26 AM) mr_snake_1_cent_dozen_hj: diet is 70 to 80% or workout i was told once
(01:48:28 AM) heycomedy: I always wonder if do 1 set curl 1 set bench 1 set back 1 set legs and 1 160m sprint
(01:48:29 AM) heycomedy: daily
(01:48:33 AM) heycomedy: would u get fast n huge
(01:48:44 AM) heycomedy: ya to get lighter eat less and eat veggy more
(01:48:49 AM) heycomedy: I got banana and grape
THE SUN NEVER SETS ON THE BRITISH WELFARE SYSTEM August 10, 2011 Those of you following the barbaric rioting in Britain will not have failed to noti
THE SUN NEVER SETS ON THE BRITISH WELFARE SYSTEM
August 10, 2011
Those of you following the barbaric rioting in Britain will not have failed to notice that a sizable proportion of the thugs are white, something not often seen in this country.
Not only that, but in a triumph of feminism, a lot of them are girls. Even the "disabled" (according to the British benefits system) seem to have miraculously overcome their infirmities to dash out and steal a few TVs.
Congratulations, Britain! You've barbarized your citizenry, without regard to race, gender or physical handicap!
With a welfare system far more advanced than the United States, the British have achieved the remarkable result of turning entire communities of ancestral British people into tattooed, drunken brutes.
I guess we now have the proof of what conservatives have been saying since forever: Looting is a result of liberal welfare policies. And Britain is in the end stages of the welfare state.
In 2008, a 9-year-old British girl, Shannon Matthews, disappeared on her way home from a school trip. The media leapt on the case -- only to discover that Shannon was one of seven children her mother, Karen, had produced with five different men.
The first of these serial sperm-donors explained: "Karen just goes from one bloke to the next, uses them to have a kid, grabs all the child benefits and moves on."
Poor little Shannon eventually turned up at the home of one of her many step-uncles -- whose ex-wife, by the way, was the mother of six children with three different fathers.
(Is Father's Day celebrated in England? If so, how?)
The Daily Mail (London) traced the family's proud Anglo ancestry of stable families back hundreds of years. The Nazi war machine couldn't break the British, but the modern welfare state has.
A year earlier, in 2007, another product of the new order, Fiona MacKeown, took seven of her eight children (by five different fathers) and her then-boyfriend, on a drug-fueled, six-month vacation to the Indian island of Goa. The trip was paid for -- like everything else in her life -- with government benefits.
(When was the last time you had a free, six-month vacation? I'm drawing a blank, too.)
While in Goa, Fiona took her entourage on a side-trip, leaving her 15-year-old daughter, Scarlett Keeling, in the capable hands of a 25-year-old local whom Scarlett had begun sleeping with, perhaps hoping to get a head-start on her own government benefits. A few weeks later, Scarlett turned up dead, full of drugs, raped and murdered.
Scarlett's estranged stepfather later drank himself to death, while her brother Silas announced on his social networking page: "My name is Si, n I spend most my life either out wit mates get drunk or at partys, playing rugby or going to da beach (pretty s**t really)."
It's a wonder that someone like Silas, who has never worked, and belongs to a family in which no one has ever worked, can afford a cellphone for social networking. No, actually, it's not.
Britain has a far more redistributive welfare system than France, which is why France's crime problem is mostly a matter of Muslim immigrants, not French nationals. Meanwhile, England's welfare state is fast returning the native population to its violent 18th-century highwaymen roots.
Needless to say, Britain leads Europe in the proportion of single mothers and, as a consequence, also leads or co-leads the European Union in violent crime, alcohol and drug abuse, obesity and sexually transmitted diseases.
But liberal elites here and in Britain will blame anything but the welfare state they adore. They drone on about the strict British class system or the lack of jobs or the nation's history of racism.
None of that explains the sad lives of young Shannon Matthews and Scarlett Keeling, with their long English ancestry and perfect Anglo features.
Democrats would be delighted if violent mobs like those in Britain arose here -- perhaps in Wisconsin! That would allow them to introduce yet more government programs staffed by unionized public employees, as happened after the 1992 L.A. riots and the 1960s race riots, following the recommendations of the Kerner Commission.
MSNBC might even do the unthinkable and offer Al Sharpton his own TV show. (Excuse me -- someone's trying to get my attention ... WHAT?)
Inciting violent mobs is the essence of the left's agenda: Promote class warfare, illegitimate children and an utterly debased citizenry.
Like the British riot girls interviewed by the BBC, the Democrats tell us "all of this happened because of the rich people."
We're beginning to see the final result of that idea in Britain. The welfare state creates a society of beasts. Meanwhile, nonjudgmental elites don't dare condemn the animals their programs have created.
Rioters in England are burning century-old family businesses to the ground, stealing from injured children lying on the sidewalks and forcing Britons to strip to their underwear on the street.
I keep reading that it's because they don't have jobs -- which they're obviously anxious to hold. Or someone called them a "kaffir." Or their social services have been reduced. Or their Blackberries made them do it. Or they disapprove of a referee's call in a Manchester United game.
A few well-placed rifle rounds, and the rioting would end in an instant. A more sustained attack on the rampaging mob might save England from itself, finally removing shaved-head, drunken parasites from the benefits rolls that Britain can't find the will to abolish on moral or utilitarian grounds. We can be sure there's no danger of killing off the next Winston Churchill or Edmund Burke in these crowds.
But like Louis XVI, British authorities are paralyzed by their indifference to their own civilization. A half-century of berating themselves for the crime of being British has left them morally defenseless. They see nothing about England worth saving, certainly not worth fighting for -- which is fortunate since most of their cops don't have guns.
This is how civilizations die. It can happen overnight, as it did in Revolutionary France. If Britain of 1939 were composed of the current British population, the entirety of Europe would today be doing the "Heil Hitler" salute and singing the "Horst Wessel Song."
COPYRIGHT 2011 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK
1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106
August 10, 2011
Those of you following the barbaric rioting in Britain will not have failed to notice that a sizable proportion of the thugs are white, something not often seen in this country.
Not only that, but in a triumph of feminism, a lot of them are girls. Even the "disabled" (according to the British benefits system) seem to have miraculously overcome their infirmities to dash out and steal a few TVs.
Congratulations, Britain! You've barbarized your citizenry, without regard to race, gender or physical handicap!
With a welfare system far more advanced than the United States, the British have achieved the remarkable result of turning entire communities of ancestral British people into tattooed, drunken brutes.
I guess we now have the proof of what conservatives have been saying since forever: Looting is a result of liberal welfare policies. And Britain is in the end stages of the welfare state.
In 2008, a 9-year-old British girl, Shannon Matthews, disappeared on her way home from a school trip. The media leapt on the case -- only to discover that Shannon was one of seven children her mother, Karen, had produced with five different men.
The first of these serial sperm-donors explained: "Karen just goes from one bloke to the next, uses them to have a kid, grabs all the child benefits and moves on."
Poor little Shannon eventually turned up at the home of one of her many step-uncles -- whose ex-wife, by the way, was the mother of six children with three different fathers.
(Is Father's Day celebrated in England? If so, how?)
The Daily Mail (London) traced the family's proud Anglo ancestry of stable families back hundreds of years. The Nazi war machine couldn't break the British, but the modern welfare state has.
A year earlier, in 2007, another product of the new order, Fiona MacKeown, took seven of her eight children (by five different fathers) and her then-boyfriend, on a drug-fueled, six-month vacation to the Indian island of Goa. The trip was paid for -- like everything else in her life -- with government benefits.
(When was the last time you had a free, six-month vacation? I'm drawing a blank, too.)
While in Goa, Fiona took her entourage on a side-trip, leaving her 15-year-old daughter, Scarlett Keeling, in the capable hands of a 25-year-old local whom Scarlett had begun sleeping with, perhaps hoping to get a head-start on her own government benefits. A few weeks later, Scarlett turned up dead, full of drugs, raped and murdered.
Scarlett's estranged stepfather later drank himself to death, while her brother Silas announced on his social networking page: "My name is Si, n I spend most my life either out wit mates get drunk or at partys, playing rugby or going to da beach (pretty s**t really)."
It's a wonder that someone like Silas, who has never worked, and belongs to a family in which no one has ever worked, can afford a cellphone for social networking. No, actually, it's not.
Britain has a far more redistributive welfare system than France, which is why France's crime problem is mostly a matter of Muslim immigrants, not French nationals. Meanwhile, England's welfare state is fast returning the native population to its violent 18th-century highwaymen roots.
Needless to say, Britain leads Europe in the proportion of single mothers and, as a consequence, also leads or co-leads the European Union in violent crime, alcohol and drug abuse, obesity and sexually transmitted diseases.
But liberal elites here and in Britain will blame anything but the welfare state they adore. They drone on about the strict British class system or the lack of jobs or the nation's history of racism.
None of that explains the sad lives of young Shannon Matthews and Scarlett Keeling, with their long English ancestry and perfect Anglo features.
Democrats would be delighted if violent mobs like those in Britain arose here -- perhaps in Wisconsin! That would allow them to introduce yet more government programs staffed by unionized public employees, as happened after the 1992 L.A. riots and the 1960s race riots, following the recommendations of the Kerner Commission.
MSNBC might even do the unthinkable and offer Al Sharpton his own TV show. (Excuse me -- someone's trying to get my attention ... WHAT?)
Inciting violent mobs is the essence of the left's agenda: Promote class warfare, illegitimate children and an utterly debased citizenry.
Like the British riot girls interviewed by the BBC, the Democrats tell us "all of this happened because of the rich people."
We're beginning to see the final result of that idea in Britain. The welfare state creates a society of beasts. Meanwhile, nonjudgmental elites don't dare condemn the animals their programs have created.
Rioters in England are burning century-old family businesses to the ground, stealing from injured children lying on the sidewalks and forcing Britons to strip to their underwear on the street.
I keep reading that it's because they don't have jobs -- which they're obviously anxious to hold. Or someone called them a "kaffir." Or their social services have been reduced. Or their Blackberries made them do it. Or they disapprove of a referee's call in a Manchester United game.
A few well-placed rifle rounds, and the rioting would end in an instant. A more sustained attack on the rampaging mob might save England from itself, finally removing shaved-head, drunken parasites from the benefits rolls that Britain can't find the will to abolish on moral or utilitarian grounds. We can be sure there's no danger of killing off the next Winston Churchill or Edmund Burke in these crowds.
But like Louis XVI, British authorities are paralyzed by their indifference to their own civilization. A half-century of berating themselves for the crime of being British has left them morally defenseless. They see nothing about England worth saving, certainly not worth fighting for -- which is fortunate since most of their cops don't have guns.
This is how civilizations die. It can happen overnight, as it did in Revolutionary France. If Britain of 1939 were composed of the current British population, the entirety of Europe would today be doing the "Heil Hitler" salute and singing the "Horst Wessel Song."
COPYRIGHT 2011 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK
1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106
(12:34:57 AM) heycomedy: reaganomics IS economics (12:35:00 AM) heycomedy: cut taxes (12:35:04 AM) heycomedy: let people produce n trade (12:35:10 AM)
(12:34:57 AM) heycomedy: reaganomics IS economics
(12:35:00 AM) heycomedy: cut taxes
(12:35:04 AM) heycomedy: let people produce n trade
(12:35:10 AM) heycomedy: quit taking money from producers n traders
(12:35:11 AM) heycomedy: simple
(12:35:00 AM) heycomedy: cut taxes
(12:35:04 AM) heycomedy: let people produce n trade
(12:35:10 AM) heycomedy: quit taking money from producers n traders
(12:35:11 AM) heycomedy: simple
making monkey or rkeen in tcl irc
[00:21] privatize police
[00:21] n fire
[00:21] n post office
[00:21] n amtrack
[00:22] Post Office is already privatized.
[00:22] oh really?
[00:23] is that why 9 billion deficit is being fought oer with unions?
[00:23] ;)
[00:24] == VDHinferm [~VDHinferm@unaffiliated/vdhinferm] has joined #tcl
[00:24] Yes, really, despite it being one of the organizations explicitly created by the US Constitution it has not received tax-payer money for many years.
[00:25] * ijchain makr has become available
[00:25] <@ijchain> moinmoin
[00:26] <@ijchain> rkeene : they should let me runt he post office.
[00:26] <@ijchain> i could fix it
[00:26] Amtrak is a corporation that the US Government owns, but it is a private company -- I assume you knew this
[00:26] <@ijchain> and it *IS* constitutional, as you say
[00:26] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2763388/posts
[00:26] oh yeah!!
[00:26] lol
[00:26] LOL
[00:27] <@ijchain> rkeene : so are Fannie and Freddie... :P
[00:27] if governmetn owns it it is not a free market company liek for example microsoft
[00:27] <@ijchain> government business is an oxymoron.
[00:27] it is governemtn agency that incorperated for financial organization
[00:27] silly
[00:27] jsut as the fed is a governmetn agency
[00:27] congress created it
[00:27] silly
[00:27] <@ijchain> and "we're from the government and we're here to help you" is the scariest sentence in the english language.
[00:27] your comunism is showing bigtime
[00:27] * rkeene is from the Government and IS here to help, often
[00:27] if you cant tell diff between governemtn controlled agency and corp on free market
[00:28] <@ijchain> rkeene : hopefully, you don't go door-to-door.
[00:28] <@ijchain> :)
[00:28] fannei adn fredy are gov agencies who should be abolished
@ijchainalphageekandipandrewshaspectawbcafcaveat-ccapterCeriseChampiCIA-56curfontCyBexDeck`derchrisderchris^devi8dmpdnm_DossydRbiGealexpElfishex0afckgwfelipeFireEglfireglowFleckgavinogongoputchGotischGuest80423hrzHTJP|kanylleprechaulevi501dmadpingermanveruMelioratorMissionCriticalMoryantanelekoliver1804opellopi31415picassopikhqPixelzpoutineprzemocramokricalRiver_Ratrkeenerush2endrvncerrsaedelaereSetokshanisilassiybtabakhasethommeytiberiustjikkununfVDHinfermwebchain1wolfezwuehlmausxiata`home
[00:21]
[00:21]
[00:21]
[00:22]
[00:22]
[00:23]
[00:23]
[00:24] == VDHinferm [~VDHinferm@unaffiliated/vdhinferm] has joined #tcl
[00:24]
[00:25] * ijchain makr has become available
[00:25] <@ijchain>
[00:26] <@ijchain>
[00:26] <@ijchain>
[00:26]
[00:26] <@ijchain>
[00:26]
[00:26]
[00:26]
[00:26]
[00:27] <@ijchain>
[00:27]
[00:27] <@ijchain>
[00:27]
[00:27]
[00:27]
[00:27]
[00:27]
[00:27] <@ijchain>
[00:27]
[00:27] * rkeene is from the Government and IS here to help, often
[00:27]
[00:28] <@ijchain>
[00:28] <@ijchain>
[00:28]
@ijchainalphageekandipandrewshaspectawbcafcaveat-ccapterCeriseChampiCIA-56curfontCyBexDeck`derchrisderchris^devi8dmpdnm_DossydRbiGealexpElfishex0afckgwfelipeFireEglfireglowFleckgavinogongoputchGotischGuest80423hrzHTJP|kanylleprechaulevi501dmadpingermanveruMelioratorMissionCriticalMoryantanelekoliver1804opellopi31415picassopikhqPixelzpoutineprzemocramokricalRiver_Ratrkeenerush2endrvncerrsaedelaereSetokshanisilassiybtabakhasethommeytiberiustjikkununfVDHinfermwebchain1wolfezwuehlmausxiata`home
Sunday, August 14, 2011
best movies list
empire strikes back
star wars a new hope
return of the jedi
aliens
terminator
the thing by carpenter 82
iron man
blade runner harrison ford
dune by lynch
conan the barbarian by milus
inglorious basterds tarantino
pulp fiction tarantino
the shining nicholson
the departed scorcese
the godfather scorcese
resident evil 1 mila
american psycho
manhunter
the dark knight
batman begins
the wrath of kahn
new star trek by jj abrams
the road warrior
the holy grail
the naked gun
silence of the lambs
princess bride
history of world part 1
clockwork orange
blazing saddles
the matrix
saw
dawn of the dead
night of the living dead
the collector
rambo
star wars a new hope
return of the jedi
aliens
terminator
the thing by carpenter 82
iron man
blade runner harrison ford
dune by lynch
conan the barbarian by milus
inglorious basterds tarantino
pulp fiction tarantino
the shining nicholson
the departed scorcese
the godfather scorcese
resident evil 1 mila
american psycho
manhunter
the dark knight
batman begins
the wrath of kahn
new star trek by jj abrams
the road warrior
the holy grail
the naked gun
silence of the lambs
princess bride
history of world part 1
clockwork orange
blazing saddles
the matrix
saw
dawn of the dead
night of the living dead
the collector
rambo
Besieged Obama Launches Political Counteroffensive
Besieged Obama Launches Political Counteroffensive
Sunday, 14 Aug 2011 08:42 AM
Share:
More . . .
A A |
Email Us |
Print |
Forward Article
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama launches a political counteroffensive this week, weighed down by withering support among some of his most ardent backers, a stunted economy and a daily bashing from the slew of Republicans campaigning for his job.
"We've still got a long way to go to get to where we need to be. We didn't get into this mess overnight, and it's going to take time to get out of it," the president told the country over the weekend, all but pleading for people to stick with him.
A deeply unsettled political landscape, with voters in a fiercely anti-incumbent mood, is framing the 2012 presidential race 15 months before Americans decide whether to give Obama a second term or hand power to the Republicans. Trying to ride out what seems to be an unrelenting storm of economic anxiety, people in the United States increasingly are voicing disgust with most all of the men and women, Obama included, they sent to Washington to govern them.
With his approval numbers sliding, the Democratic president will try to ease their worries and sustain his resurrected fighting spirit when he sets off Monday on a bus tour of Minnesota, Iowa and Illinois. The trip is timed to dilute the GOP buzz emanating from the Midwest after Republicans gathered in Iowa over the weekend for a first test of the party's White House candidates. The state holds the nation's first nominating test in the long road toward choosing Obama's opponent.
"You have just sent a message that Barack Obama will be a one-term president," Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann told elated supporters minutes after winning Saturday's Iowa straw poll, essentially a fundraising event that also tests a candidate's organizational and financial strength. She spent heavily and traveled throughout the state where she was born, casting herself as the evangelical Christian voice of the deeply conservative small government, low tax tea party wing of the party.
So Bachmann won the test vote and Democrats probably rejoiced that her ultraconservative voice gained strength among Republican contenders. But at the same time, the contest to challenge Obama in November 2012 grew even more jumbled. While the voting was under way in Ames, Iowa, Republicans had to shift their gaze halfway across the country to South Carolina, where Texas Gov. Rick Perry made a cleverly timed entrance into the race.
Like Bachmann and all the other candidates, he ravaged Obama. Perry said the president was presiding over an "economic disaster," in a declaration that stole some of Bachmann's political thunder and undercut the front-runner status of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who didn't compete in the Iowa test vote. Perry clearly cast a broad shadow across the Republican contest.
Obama, expecting the political shelling he would take, fired pre-emptively in his weekly radio and Internet address to the nation on Saturday. He told listeners that it was the Republicans running for president and serving in Congress who were at work crushing voters' hopes and dreams.
The question for Obama and his backers remains: Will he sustain the counterattack? Of late, he's been seen by even his most staunch supporters as too ready to retreat from critical ground when confronted by intransigent Republicans.
Working in Obama's favor, however, is a Republican Party still struggling to find a presidential candidate who lights a fire with voters.
But Obama's re-election could be in peril for lack of a strong message about what he will do to lift the country out of economic malaise and political deadlock.
Polls show voters hold both parties to blame for the stunted economic recovery, an unseemly political fight over raising the limit on U.S. borrowing, an anemic deal to cut the government deficit, the subsequent and unprecedented downgrade of the country's credit rating, wild stock market gyrations and an unemployment rate stuck above 9 percent.
In the face of that reality, Obama is tacking to put some wind in his re-election sails, apparently convinced that he can gather speed by turning up the attack on Congress.
"You've got a right to be frustrated," the president said in his weekly address. "I am. Because you deserve better. I don't think it's too much for you to expect that the people you send to this town start delivering."
He chastised Republicans for brinksmanship, saying "some in Congress would rather see their opponents lose than see America win."
That's an assessment that has some validity, particularly among the new class of Republicans in the House who have used their outsized legislative power to stymie Obama at every turn since their election last November.
In Iowa, Bachmann won narrowly over Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, looking for a strong showing to boost his struggling candidacy, ended a distant third. Still, it's important to remember that the straw poll has not been a reliable predictor of the eventual nominee and that not everyone competed in it this year.
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin wasn't on the ballot and isn't a candidate, yet. But she unexpectedly showed up at the Iowa State Fair a day before the vote, drawing huge crowds and saying she hadn't ruled out running.
She, like Bachmann and now Perry, is a tea party favorite, but her coyness about joining the race could hurt her chances should she finally declare. The 2008 vice presidential running mate to Arizona Sen. John McCain in 2008 promptly headed out for President Ronald Reagan's birthplace in neighboring Illinois.
Even as Obama's bus tour has designs on blunting the Iowa Republican festivities, it will have to compete for attention as the country digests Perry's rhetorical assault on Obama's presidency.
Perry, a former Democrat and the nation's longest-serving governor, told his appreciative audience that Obama's government had "an insatiable desire to spend our children's inheritance." He accused Obama of presiding over an "economic disaster" that has been "downgrading our hope for a better future."
"I'll work every day to try to make Washington, D.C., as inconsequential in your lives as I can," Perry said, clearly bowing to his tea party backing. Specifics for turning his promises into realities were absent.
By entering the race half way on the same day as the Iowa voting, Perry angered some Republicans, but he succeeded in diminishing attention to events in the heartland. What's more it saved him campaign cash and energy.
If nothing else, voters won't be able to ignore the fact that Perry's speaking style and swagger are eerily reminiscent of another Texas governor who made the transition to the national stage, President George W. Bush. Both men were Air Force pilots.
With his solid credentials on social as well as economic issues, Perry is an immediate threat to Bachmann in Iowa and to Romney just about everywhere else.
Romney did not participate in the Iowa poll, which he won four years ago before dropping out of the race when he failed to catch fire against McCain. Romney did join all the announced candidates Thursday at an Iowa debate.
But it was his pre-debate visit to the Iowa State Fair that produced a political gift to the Democrats.
Responding to a heckler who challenged him on tax policies that benefit big business, he blurted out that "corporations are people, my friend." The Democratic National Committee quickly used video of that remark in pre-straw poll television ads in Des Moines, the state capital. It was the kind of business friendly, Republican applause line that could haunt him with undecided voters and disaffected Democrats.
Obama and the other GOP hopefuls now face daily scrutiny as well as they try to avoid for the same kind of misstep. That's a nearly impossible task in the long, arduous and expensive path toward the White House.
© Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Sunday, 14 Aug 2011 08:42 AM
Share:
More . . .
A A |
Email Us |
Print |
Forward Article
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama launches a political counteroffensive this week, weighed down by withering support among some of his most ardent backers, a stunted economy and a daily bashing from the slew of Republicans campaigning for his job.
"We've still got a long way to go to get to where we need to be. We didn't get into this mess overnight, and it's going to take time to get out of it," the president told the country over the weekend, all but pleading for people to stick with him.
A deeply unsettled political landscape, with voters in a fiercely anti-incumbent mood, is framing the 2012 presidential race 15 months before Americans decide whether to give Obama a second term or hand power to the Republicans. Trying to ride out what seems to be an unrelenting storm of economic anxiety, people in the United States increasingly are voicing disgust with most all of the men and women, Obama included, they sent to Washington to govern them.
With his approval numbers sliding, the Democratic president will try to ease their worries and sustain his resurrected fighting spirit when he sets off Monday on a bus tour of Minnesota, Iowa and Illinois. The trip is timed to dilute the GOP buzz emanating from the Midwest after Republicans gathered in Iowa over the weekend for a first test of the party's White House candidates. The state holds the nation's first nominating test in the long road toward choosing Obama's opponent.
"You have just sent a message that Barack Obama will be a one-term president," Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann told elated supporters minutes after winning Saturday's Iowa straw poll, essentially a fundraising event that also tests a candidate's organizational and financial strength. She spent heavily and traveled throughout the state where she was born, casting herself as the evangelical Christian voice of the deeply conservative small government, low tax tea party wing of the party.
So Bachmann won the test vote and Democrats probably rejoiced that her ultraconservative voice gained strength among Republican contenders. But at the same time, the contest to challenge Obama in November 2012 grew even more jumbled. While the voting was under way in Ames, Iowa, Republicans had to shift their gaze halfway across the country to South Carolina, where Texas Gov. Rick Perry made a cleverly timed entrance into the race.
Like Bachmann and all the other candidates, he ravaged Obama. Perry said the president was presiding over an "economic disaster," in a declaration that stole some of Bachmann's political thunder and undercut the front-runner status of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who didn't compete in the Iowa test vote. Perry clearly cast a broad shadow across the Republican contest.
Obama, expecting the political shelling he would take, fired pre-emptively in his weekly radio and Internet address to the nation on Saturday. He told listeners that it was the Republicans running for president and serving in Congress who were at work crushing voters' hopes and dreams.
The question for Obama and his backers remains: Will he sustain the counterattack? Of late, he's been seen by even his most staunch supporters as too ready to retreat from critical ground when confronted by intransigent Republicans.
Working in Obama's favor, however, is a Republican Party still struggling to find a presidential candidate who lights a fire with voters.
But Obama's re-election could be in peril for lack of a strong message about what he will do to lift the country out of economic malaise and political deadlock.
Polls show voters hold both parties to blame for the stunted economic recovery, an unseemly political fight over raising the limit on U.S. borrowing, an anemic deal to cut the government deficit, the subsequent and unprecedented downgrade of the country's credit rating, wild stock market gyrations and an unemployment rate stuck above 9 percent.
In the face of that reality, Obama is tacking to put some wind in his re-election sails, apparently convinced that he can gather speed by turning up the attack on Congress.
"You've got a right to be frustrated," the president said in his weekly address. "I am. Because you deserve better. I don't think it's too much for you to expect that the people you send to this town start delivering."
He chastised Republicans for brinksmanship, saying "some in Congress would rather see their opponents lose than see America win."
That's an assessment that has some validity, particularly among the new class of Republicans in the House who have used their outsized legislative power to stymie Obama at every turn since their election last November.
In Iowa, Bachmann won narrowly over Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, looking for a strong showing to boost his struggling candidacy, ended a distant third. Still, it's important to remember that the straw poll has not been a reliable predictor of the eventual nominee and that not everyone competed in it this year.
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin wasn't on the ballot and isn't a candidate, yet. But she unexpectedly showed up at the Iowa State Fair a day before the vote, drawing huge crowds and saying she hadn't ruled out running.
She, like Bachmann and now Perry, is a tea party favorite, but her coyness about joining the race could hurt her chances should she finally declare. The 2008 vice presidential running mate to Arizona Sen. John McCain in 2008 promptly headed out for President Ronald Reagan's birthplace in neighboring Illinois.
Even as Obama's bus tour has designs on blunting the Iowa Republican festivities, it will have to compete for attention as the country digests Perry's rhetorical assault on Obama's presidency.
Perry, a former Democrat and the nation's longest-serving governor, told his appreciative audience that Obama's government had "an insatiable desire to spend our children's inheritance." He accused Obama of presiding over an "economic disaster" that has been "downgrading our hope for a better future."
"I'll work every day to try to make Washington, D.C., as inconsequential in your lives as I can," Perry said, clearly bowing to his tea party backing. Specifics for turning his promises into realities were absent.
By entering the race half way on the same day as the Iowa voting, Perry angered some Republicans, but he succeeded in diminishing attention to events in the heartland. What's more it saved him campaign cash and energy.
If nothing else, voters won't be able to ignore the fact that Perry's speaking style and swagger are eerily reminiscent of another Texas governor who made the transition to the national stage, President George W. Bush. Both men were Air Force pilots.
With his solid credentials on social as well as economic issues, Perry is an immediate threat to Bachmann in Iowa and to Romney just about everywhere else.
Romney did not participate in the Iowa poll, which he won four years ago before dropping out of the race when he failed to catch fire against McCain. Romney did join all the announced candidates Thursday at an Iowa debate.
But it was his pre-debate visit to the Iowa State Fair that produced a political gift to the Democrats.
Responding to a heckler who challenged him on tax policies that benefit big business, he blurted out that "corporations are people, my friend." The Democratic National Committee quickly used video of that remark in pre-straw poll television ads in Des Moines, the state capital. It was the kind of business friendly, Republican applause line that could haunt him with undecided voters and disaffected Democrats.
Obama and the other GOP hopefuls now face daily scrutiny as well as they try to avoid for the same kind of misstep. That's a nearly impossible task in the long, arduous and expensive path toward the White House.
© Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
dems goto maui on tax dime
http://nation.foxnews.com/hawaii/2011/08/12/senate-dems-head-hawaii-taxpayer-dime
overpaid over pensioned us postal unions bitchy for cuts
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/12/postal-unions-rip-cost-cutting-plan-to-slash-120000-jobs/#ixzz1UrKm9lrz
Saturday, August 13, 2011
pathfinder and d&D 4e really suck
what the hell happened to gaming?
now everything a wakky mix of rules where you can stack shit to sky
nothing is realish
You have shitty things liek dargonborn and warborn or whatever as playable races wha the fuck is this shit
I mean add them but dotn make them liek ho hum cuz who in hell will then play a human paladin etc?
to me here are some basics:
ability scores must be mathematically scalable so a gorilla wihich is 8x human strength has strength 80 not 10 like normal human.
dexerity/speed reflexes should be much more important as to reflect the massive advantage of speed is in combat or athletics
crossbow bolts can kill you, so damage must some how separate with hit to is it a direct hit or what, same with backstab, since knife in back can kill you fast
nothing seems to reflect an injury hriting your fighting ability
yes a wounded bull can still gore soemoen but one for a few seconds until he bleeds out
there should be no waky limits on weapons for clerics or magic users, thats bs
the world should reflect incentive a bit, and no there should nto be magic items sold liek tic tacs all over, supply aand dmeand would make them massively expensive and make robbing the creator a common thing unless massively defended
magic should have a spell icrease in level, duraction, effect etcetc so a smpel spell can kick some ass in time, doesn't just have to have higher level spells
money shoudl jsut be dollars, so a dm can price shit, and no every place wont have every damn item, you gota hunt for some shit, this isn't wal amrt this is midieval level technology and politics
tunnels and trolls is nice but ability scores are non math levelled but seems more rational system
I also disliek classes. A character should be able to train for any ability they liek but get that its not liek 3 days traingin and ready to go lol
The worlds should be exotic and reality of danger should prompt heavy defenses of cities if they are of any size.
Cities should also tax characters n stuff so not all fun fun to go there.
now everything a wakky mix of rules where you can stack shit to sky
nothing is realish
You have shitty things liek dargonborn and warborn or whatever as playable races wha the fuck is this shit
I mean add them but dotn make them liek ho hum cuz who in hell will then play a human paladin etc?
to me here are some basics:
ability scores must be mathematically scalable so a gorilla wihich is 8x human strength has strength 80 not 10 like normal human.
dexerity/speed reflexes should be much more important as to reflect the massive advantage of speed is in combat or athletics
crossbow bolts can kill you, so damage must some how separate with hit to is it a direct hit or what, same with backstab, since knife in back can kill you fast
nothing seems to reflect an injury hriting your fighting ability
yes a wounded bull can still gore soemoen but one for a few seconds until he bleeds out
there should be no waky limits on weapons for clerics or magic users, thats bs
the world should reflect incentive a bit, and no there should nto be magic items sold liek tic tacs all over, supply aand dmeand would make them massively expensive and make robbing the creator a common thing unless massively defended
magic should have a spell icrease in level, duraction, effect etcetc so a smpel spell can kick some ass in time, doesn't just have to have higher level spells
money shoudl jsut be dollars, so a dm can price shit, and no every place wont have every damn item, you gota hunt for some shit, this isn't wal amrt this is midieval level technology and politics
tunnels and trolls is nice but ability scores are non math levelled but seems more rational system
I also disliek classes. A character should be able to train for any ability they liek but get that its not liek 3 days traingin and ready to go lol
The worlds should be exotic and reality of danger should prompt heavy defenses of cities if they are of any size.
Cities should also tax characters n stuff so not all fun fun to go there.
I Am The State – You Must Beg Me For Permission To Engage In Productive Behavior
http://www.libertariannews.org/2011/08/12/i-am-the-state-you-must-beg-me-for-permission-to-engage-in-productive-behavior/
Being a Liberal Means You're Never Wrong Friday, 12 Aug 2011 12:28 PM By David Limbaugh Share: More . . . A A | Email Us |
Being a Liberal Means You're Never Wrong
Friday, 12 Aug 2011 12:28 PM
By David Limbaugh
Share:
More . . .
A A |
Email Us |
Print |
Forward Article
What is 2011 if not a dramatic global outworking of the abysmal failures of liberalism? Their failures are everywhere, but liberals are no closer to abandoning their political theology than they were, say, five years ago.
Every marginally intelligent person must know that events unfolding in Britain are a likely foreshadowing of what's in store for us if we don't radically alter our ways. Unchastened and undaunted, liberals keep their collective foot on the big-government accelerator. There's no governor on the liberal golf cart.
For years, the more responsible among us have been warning about spending and unsustainable entitlements, and the left has mocked. But this past year, it's as if God has been trying, with increasingly urgent alarms, to get our attention, to no avail.
Tea partyers tried to hold the line during the debates of the continuing resolutions and debt ceiling, only to be vilified. But the national debt continues to explode as if to resoundingly validate conservatives as reasonable and their spending-addicted opponents as extremists. For liberals, too much government is never enough.
We were told that unless we lifted the debt ceiling, our credit rating would be downgraded and the markets would collapse. Most Republicans signed on to the deal under duress, which ended up neither preventing nor delaying the downgrade or the market free fall. But that was no problem for liberals, who simply changed their warnings after the fact, now saying it was the wrangling over the ceiling, not the underlying debt, that was responsible. Liberals are not to be held to account for what they said yesterday.
In a move ostensibly aimed at containing the plummeting market, Obama bounced out once again to his trusted prompter. But instead of acknowledging his culpability for the unfolding national nightmare — for which he, at the very least, is blocking remedial action — he wagged his skinny finger of blame, saying it is everyone's fault but his. Being a liberal means never having to say you're sorry.
Meanwhile, we got another stern jolt of reality from across the pond as one of Europe's primary poster nations for the grand socialist experiment implodes into abject violence before our eyes. We witnessed the very beneficiaries of government largesse exhibiting their gratitude as they stole from an already beaten and bloodied man and forced people to strip naked to prove they'd not withheld any assets.
It was unnecessary to speculate as to the causes of this unrest. Audiotapes of the inebriated women justifying the despicable behavior on the basis of income inequality told us all we needed to know.
But British liberals are as impervious to proof as their American counterparts.
A video linked on National Review Online featured a British Labour Party liberal condemning the protesters' violence through one cheek and sympathizing with their plight on the other, thereby further excusing and enabling their behavior. Her party injected the addict with addictive substances yet castigates conservatives who call for an intervention.
There is just no satisfying liberals. No amount of money thrown at a project can ever be enough, because you can't solve problems by throwing money at them, especially when that money comes with federal demands attached and leads to diminished local control. They'll always demand more — even when we are wholly bankrupt. Always. No exceptions.
Indeed, if there were ever a test case to see whether exceptions exist, whether there are some limits to the rapacious liberal appetite for spending, our current debt picture and economic malaise provide it. But they won't even countenance the thought of counseling, much less patient rehab.
Like their addicted wards, liberals remain in perpetual denial, continually giving themselves a pass for their disastrous policies because of their allegedly good intentions. But how noble is it to stoke the dark human passions of greed, jealousy, envy, and covetousness? How commendable is it to foment resentment among the races, genders, and different income groups? How virtuous is it to promote policies that rarely, if ever, live up to their promises?
Should we lavish praise on President Obama for his simulated compassion when his press secretary, Jay Carney, insists that extending unemployment benefits creates jobs, willfully ignoring both common sense and empirical evidence, which contradict the claim? Must we laud Obama for his unrelenting demands for more "stimuli" that not only don't work but also will further impoverish us and our posterity?
It must be easy to be a liberal. When your policies don't work, you just change the goal posts and say we haven't done enough — and then demand more.
Honestly, close your eyes and try to imagine a scenario in which liberals would ever say that enough money has been spent, enough federal government power exerted. You will fail — because there is just no satisfying liberals.
David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His latest book, "Crimes Against Liberty," was No. 1 on the New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction for its first two weeks. Follow him on Twitter @davidlimbaugh and his website at www.DavidLimbaugh.com.
© Creators Syndicate Inc.
Friday, 12 Aug 2011 12:28 PM
By David Limbaugh
Share:
More . . .
A A |
Email Us |
Print |
Forward Article
What is 2011 if not a dramatic global outworking of the abysmal failures of liberalism? Their failures are everywhere, but liberals are no closer to abandoning their political theology than they were, say, five years ago.
Every marginally intelligent person must know that events unfolding in Britain are a likely foreshadowing of what's in store for us if we don't radically alter our ways. Unchastened and undaunted, liberals keep their collective foot on the big-government accelerator. There's no governor on the liberal golf cart.
For years, the more responsible among us have been warning about spending and unsustainable entitlements, and the left has mocked. But this past year, it's as if God has been trying, with increasingly urgent alarms, to get our attention, to no avail.
Tea partyers tried to hold the line during the debates of the continuing resolutions and debt ceiling, only to be vilified. But the national debt continues to explode as if to resoundingly validate conservatives as reasonable and their spending-addicted opponents as extremists. For liberals, too much government is never enough.
We were told that unless we lifted the debt ceiling, our credit rating would be downgraded and the markets would collapse. Most Republicans signed on to the deal under duress, which ended up neither preventing nor delaying the downgrade or the market free fall. But that was no problem for liberals, who simply changed their warnings after the fact, now saying it was the wrangling over the ceiling, not the underlying debt, that was responsible. Liberals are not to be held to account for what they said yesterday.
In a move ostensibly aimed at containing the plummeting market, Obama bounced out once again to his trusted prompter. But instead of acknowledging his culpability for the unfolding national nightmare — for which he, at the very least, is blocking remedial action — he wagged his skinny finger of blame, saying it is everyone's fault but his. Being a liberal means never having to say you're sorry.
Meanwhile, we got another stern jolt of reality from across the pond as one of Europe's primary poster nations for the grand socialist experiment implodes into abject violence before our eyes. We witnessed the very beneficiaries of government largesse exhibiting their gratitude as they stole from an already beaten and bloodied man and forced people to strip naked to prove they'd not withheld any assets.
It was unnecessary to speculate as to the causes of this unrest. Audiotapes of the inebriated women justifying the despicable behavior on the basis of income inequality told us all we needed to know.
But British liberals are as impervious to proof as their American counterparts.
A video linked on National Review Online featured a British Labour Party liberal condemning the protesters' violence through one cheek and sympathizing with their plight on the other, thereby further excusing and enabling their behavior. Her party injected the addict with addictive substances yet castigates conservatives who call for an intervention.
There is just no satisfying liberals. No amount of money thrown at a project can ever be enough, because you can't solve problems by throwing money at them, especially when that money comes with federal demands attached and leads to diminished local control. They'll always demand more — even when we are wholly bankrupt. Always. No exceptions.
Indeed, if there were ever a test case to see whether exceptions exist, whether there are some limits to the rapacious liberal appetite for spending, our current debt picture and economic malaise provide it. But they won't even countenance the thought of counseling, much less patient rehab.
Like their addicted wards, liberals remain in perpetual denial, continually giving themselves a pass for their disastrous policies because of their allegedly good intentions. But how noble is it to stoke the dark human passions of greed, jealousy, envy, and covetousness? How commendable is it to foment resentment among the races, genders, and different income groups? How virtuous is it to promote policies that rarely, if ever, live up to their promises?
Should we lavish praise on President Obama for his simulated compassion when his press secretary, Jay Carney, insists that extending unemployment benefits creates jobs, willfully ignoring both common sense and empirical evidence, which contradict the claim? Must we laud Obama for his unrelenting demands for more "stimuli" that not only don't work but also will further impoverish us and our posterity?
It must be easy to be a liberal. When your policies don't work, you just change the goal posts and say we haven't done enough — and then demand more.
Honestly, close your eyes and try to imagine a scenario in which liberals would ever say that enough money has been spent, enough federal government power exerted. You will fail — because there is just no satisfying liberals.
David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His latest book, "Crimes Against Liberty," was No. 1 on the New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction for its first two weeks. Follow him on Twitter @davidlimbaugh and his website at www.DavidLimbaugh.com.
© Creators Syndicate Inc.
Newt Gingrich — Clear Winner in Debate Friday, 12 Aug 2011 10:11 AM By John LeBoutillier Share: More . . . A A | Email Us |
Newt Gingrich — Clear Winner in Debate
Friday, 12 Aug 2011 10:11 AM
By John LeBoutillier
Share:
More . . .
A A |
Email Us |
Print |
Forward Article
The clear winner — despite his heavy baggage — was Newt. He was the only one who seized his opportunities and really dominated the debate. He scored points, too, by going after Fox's Chris Wallace, not popular on the Right since attacking Michele Bachmann.
Fox, by the way, made a huge error by asking questions about jobs one hour and 25 minutes into the debate! The biggest issue in the nation — and it was asked last out of nine topics.
Romney, a weak front-runner, has survived.
Pawlenty simply needed to do better. Bachmann hurt herself by looking petty in attacking an already-finished Pawlenty. Santorum was unfairly ignored for most of the evening. And why is Huntsman even running as a Republican?
The big picture is that the nation is in despair — worried to death over our future and disgusted over the political class — and the eight GOP candidates quarreled like school kids in Ames. Only Newt — as flawed as he is as a candidate — rose above the petty stuff to act presidential. The rest were unable to do it.
This does not auger well for the Republican Party’s ability to defeat President Obama.
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Friday, 12 Aug 2011 10:11 AM
By John LeBoutillier
Share:
More . . .
A A |
Email Us |
Print |
Forward Article
The clear winner — despite his heavy baggage — was Newt. He was the only one who seized his opportunities and really dominated the debate. He scored points, too, by going after Fox's Chris Wallace, not popular on the Right since attacking Michele Bachmann.
Fox, by the way, made a huge error by asking questions about jobs one hour and 25 minutes into the debate! The biggest issue in the nation — and it was asked last out of nine topics.
Romney, a weak front-runner, has survived.
Pawlenty simply needed to do better. Bachmann hurt herself by looking petty in attacking an already-finished Pawlenty. Santorum was unfairly ignored for most of the evening. And why is Huntsman even running as a Republican?
The big picture is that the nation is in despair — worried to death over our future and disgusted over the political class — and the eight GOP candidates quarreled like school kids in Ames. Only Newt — as flawed as he is as a candidate — rose above the petty stuff to act presidential. The rest were unable to do it.
This does not auger well for the Republican Party’s ability to defeat President Obama.
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Boehner Blasts Obama for Trying to Blame Congress on Economy Friday, 12 Aug 2011 01:47 PM By Dan Weil Share: More . . . A A |
Boehner Blasts Obama for Trying to Blame Congress on Economy
Friday, 12 Aug 2011 01:47 PM
By Dan Weil
Share:
More . . .
A A |
Email Us |
Print |
Forward Article
President Barack Obama placed the blame on Congress for the nation’s economic problems in two speeches Thursday. But House Speaker John Boehner is having none of it, The Hill reports.
"President Obama likes to talk about being ‘the adult in the room’ — but there’s nothing ‘adult’ about political grandstanding," Boehner said in a statement Thursday.
Obama had said earlier in the day, “What we’ve seen in Washington the last few months has been the worst kind of partisanship, the worst kind of gridlock. And that gridlock has undermined public confidence and impeded our efforts to take the steps we need for our economy."
Boehner’s response: "If the president wants to do something productive, he can start by delivering on his promise to outline his own recommendations to rein in the massive deficits and debt that are undermining job creation in our country."
Friday, 12 Aug 2011 01:47 PM
By Dan Weil
Share:
More . . .
A A |
Email Us |
Print |
Forward Article
President Barack Obama placed the blame on Congress for the nation’s economic problems in two speeches Thursday. But House Speaker John Boehner is having none of it, The Hill reports.
"President Obama likes to talk about being ‘the adult in the room’ — but there’s nothing ‘adult’ about political grandstanding," Boehner said in a statement Thursday.
Obama had said earlier in the day, “What we’ve seen in Washington the last few months has been the worst kind of partisanship, the worst kind of gridlock. And that gridlock has undermined public confidence and impeded our efforts to take the steps we need for our economy."
Boehner’s response: "If the president wants to do something productive, he can start by delivering on his promise to outline his own recommendations to rein in the massive deficits and debt that are undermining job creation in our country."
I would vote for bachmann.
Bachmann: Cut Entitlements for Future Recipients
Friday, 12 Aug 2011 02:16 PM
Share:
More . . .
A A |
Email Us |
Print |
Forward Article
Representative Michele Bachmann said she would cut Social Security and Medicare benefits for all but current recipients as part of a broader effort to reduce the federal deficit.
“We will reform the entitlement programs now, not five years from now, not 26 years from now, now,” Bachmann said on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital With Al Hunt” airing this weekend. “Anyone who is not yet on those programs, we are going to change them.”
Bachmann, who is seeking the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 2012, also said her experience in creating jobs in the private sector gives her an advantage over Texas Republican Governor Rick Perry, who is set to announce his own White House candidacy tomorrow in South Carolina.
“We have created jobs. We’ve signed both sides of a paycheck. I get it,” Bachmann said, in a reference to a mental health care practice she founded with her husband, Marcus.
Her comments came on the eve of the Iowa Straw Poll in Ames, an event that analysts say will winnow the Republican field that wants to challenge President Barack Obama in 2012.
Bachmann also said she would have allowed Citigroup and General Motors to go bankrupt rather than intervene with a federal government bailout. “I am an unashamed apologist for the free market,” Bachmann said.
On the issue of entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security, Bachmann advocates cuts that would go deeper than those proposed earlier this year by Representative Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, and approved by the U.S. House.
Ryan’s Plan
Ryan’s plan would have excluded people who are 55 and older from any changes in benefits. Bachmann voted for it.
Ryan, who chairs the House Budget Committee, called for reducing the deficit by $4.4 trillion over 10 years with cuts including replacing Medicare with guaranteed benefits to pay for private insurance. Ryan’s plan would use means testing to give reduced payments to senior citizens with high incomes.
Bachmann said Social Security and Medicare spending should be reined in with reductions through means testing or eligibility age. “We all know it needs to be done,” she said.
The Minnesota Republican said Americans are poised to reject Obama’s re-election bid in favor of a challenger “who has the backbone to turn the economy around.”
Bachmann, who has a following among Tea Party supporters, is working to expand her base among Republican fiscal conservatives to compete against early frontrunner Mitt Romney, the former Republican governor of Massachusetts.
Business Experience
She said her strengths include experience with U.S. tax law and her experience running a business. “We figured out how to amass capital and how to create two locations in our business and how to employ people,” she said. “That’s a strong skill, to know how to run a profit.”
Bachmann said the government should not have intervened to bail out Citigroup and General Motors.
Although “no one likes the idea of a large corporation failing,” corporations fail because of their own bad decisions, she said. “Citibank for one made some very unwise loans,” she said. “When you look at GM, they made some very unwise union contract negotiation deals.
‘‘Why should the federal government come in and prop up inefficient burdensome deals that could never be met?’’ she said. Had the government allowed big banks and automakers to fail, she said, ‘‘we would have had a better, more efficient economy and certainly we wouldn’t have had the debt burden.’’
GM Bailout
GM last week reported second-quarter profit of $2.52 billion, its sixth consecutive quarterly profit. The automaker made $6.17 billion last year. Its bankrupt predecessor, General Motors Corp., lost $82 billion from 2005 to 2008.
The U.S. took a 61 percent ownership of GM as part of the automaker’s government-led bailout and bankruptcy reorganization in 2009. The Treasury sold shares equal to a 28 percent stake in a November initial public offering.
Bachmann was asked to explain why the bond market has rallied while Standard & Poor’s has downgraded U.S. debt -- one of only three ratings agencies to do so.
‘‘It’s kind of like, ‘choose your poison,’” she said. “Where do you want to invest? And right now, it’s still considered safest, but it’s not a great investment.”
On Friday, Treasuries rose, pushing the 10-year note weekly yield drop down the most since 2008, as investors snapped up Treasuries amid expectations that the Federal Reserve’s pledge to keep its benchmark rate on hold signals a slow economic recovery. Treasury 10-year yields headed for a weekly loss of 33 basis points, the most since December 2008.
‘Tougher on China’
Bachmann said she would be “a lot tougher on China” on the issue of currency manipulation than Obama has been. Pressed for details, she said the specifics would be in “negotiations and strategies” that presidents execute behind closed doors.
Bachmann, a Christian who earned her law degree at Tulsa, Oklahoma-based Oral Roberts University, was asked if a homosexual can be a good Christian.
“I’m running for the presidency of the United States,” she said. “I’m not running to be anyone’s judge.”
“I love people,” Bachmann said. “That’s up to God to make that decision. It’s not up to me. Of course, I think that, if they have a faith, that is between them and God. I can’t intervene.”
--With assistance from Craig Trudell in Detroit. Editors: Jeanne Cummings, Mark Silva
To contact the reporters on this story: Margaret Talev in Washington at mtalev@bloomberg.net; John McCormick in Chicago at jmccormick16@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Silva at msilva34@bloomberg.net
© Copyright 2011 Bloomberg News. All rights reserved.
Friday, 12 Aug 2011 02:16 PM
Share:
More . . .
A A |
Email Us |
Print |
Forward Article
Representative Michele Bachmann said she would cut Social Security and Medicare benefits for all but current recipients as part of a broader effort to reduce the federal deficit.
“We will reform the entitlement programs now, not five years from now, not 26 years from now, now,” Bachmann said on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital With Al Hunt” airing this weekend. “Anyone who is not yet on those programs, we are going to change them.”
Bachmann, who is seeking the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 2012, also said her experience in creating jobs in the private sector gives her an advantage over Texas Republican Governor Rick Perry, who is set to announce his own White House candidacy tomorrow in South Carolina.
“We have created jobs. We’ve signed both sides of a paycheck. I get it,” Bachmann said, in a reference to a mental health care practice she founded with her husband, Marcus.
Her comments came on the eve of the Iowa Straw Poll in Ames, an event that analysts say will winnow the Republican field that wants to challenge President Barack Obama in 2012.
Bachmann also said she would have allowed Citigroup and General Motors to go bankrupt rather than intervene with a federal government bailout. “I am an unashamed apologist for the free market,” Bachmann said.
On the issue of entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security, Bachmann advocates cuts that would go deeper than those proposed earlier this year by Representative Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, and approved by the U.S. House.
Ryan’s Plan
Ryan’s plan would have excluded people who are 55 and older from any changes in benefits. Bachmann voted for it.
Ryan, who chairs the House Budget Committee, called for reducing the deficit by $4.4 trillion over 10 years with cuts including replacing Medicare with guaranteed benefits to pay for private insurance. Ryan’s plan would use means testing to give reduced payments to senior citizens with high incomes.
Bachmann said Social Security and Medicare spending should be reined in with reductions through means testing or eligibility age. “We all know it needs to be done,” she said.
The Minnesota Republican said Americans are poised to reject Obama’s re-election bid in favor of a challenger “who has the backbone to turn the economy around.”
Bachmann, who has a following among Tea Party supporters, is working to expand her base among Republican fiscal conservatives to compete against early frontrunner Mitt Romney, the former Republican governor of Massachusetts.
Business Experience
She said her strengths include experience with U.S. tax law and her experience running a business. “We figured out how to amass capital and how to create two locations in our business and how to employ people,” she said. “That’s a strong skill, to know how to run a profit.”
Bachmann said the government should not have intervened to bail out Citigroup and General Motors.
Although “no one likes the idea of a large corporation failing,” corporations fail because of their own bad decisions, she said. “Citibank for one made some very unwise loans,” she said. “When you look at GM, they made some very unwise union contract negotiation deals.
‘‘Why should the federal government come in and prop up inefficient burdensome deals that could never be met?’’ she said. Had the government allowed big banks and automakers to fail, she said, ‘‘we would have had a better, more efficient economy and certainly we wouldn’t have had the debt burden.’’
GM Bailout
GM last week reported second-quarter profit of $2.52 billion, its sixth consecutive quarterly profit. The automaker made $6.17 billion last year. Its bankrupt predecessor, General Motors Corp., lost $82 billion from 2005 to 2008.
The U.S. took a 61 percent ownership of GM as part of the automaker’s government-led bailout and bankruptcy reorganization in 2009. The Treasury sold shares equal to a 28 percent stake in a November initial public offering.
Bachmann was asked to explain why the bond market has rallied while Standard & Poor’s has downgraded U.S. debt -- one of only three ratings agencies to do so.
‘‘It’s kind of like, ‘choose your poison,’” she said. “Where do you want to invest? And right now, it’s still considered safest, but it’s not a great investment.”
On Friday, Treasuries rose, pushing the 10-year note weekly yield drop down the most since 2008, as investors snapped up Treasuries amid expectations that the Federal Reserve’s pledge to keep its benchmark rate on hold signals a slow economic recovery. Treasury 10-year yields headed for a weekly loss of 33 basis points, the most since December 2008.
‘Tougher on China’
Bachmann said she would be “a lot tougher on China” on the issue of currency manipulation than Obama has been. Pressed for details, she said the specifics would be in “negotiations and strategies” that presidents execute behind closed doors.
Bachmann, a Christian who earned her law degree at Tulsa, Oklahoma-based Oral Roberts University, was asked if a homosexual can be a good Christian.
“I’m running for the presidency of the United States,” she said. “I’m not running to be anyone’s judge.”
“I love people,” Bachmann said. “That’s up to God to make that decision. It’s not up to me. Of course, I think that, if they have a faith, that is between them and God. I can’t intervene.”
--With assistance from Craig Trudell in Detroit. Editors: Jeanne Cummings, Mark Silva
To contact the reporters on this story: Margaret Talev in Washington at mtalev@bloomberg.net; John McCormick in Chicago at jmccormick16@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Silva at msilva34@bloomberg.net
© Copyright 2011 Bloomberg News. All rights reserved.
Limbaugh: Debaters Should Have Hit Obama Harder
Limbaugh: Debaters Should Have Hit Obama Harder
Friday, 12 Aug 2011 04:19 PM
By Amy Woods
Fox News tried to "prove its chops" during the presidential debate Thursday night by asking scripted questions that led the candidates to lambaste each other instead of the Democrat in the White House, Rush Limbaugh said on his radio show Friday.
Limbaugh said the mainstream media probably delighted in the slickly produced format because Obama did not appear to be the intended target.
"That debate last night was produced," he said on his "Open-Line Friday" radio broadcast. "The only thing spontaneous, obviously last night, were the answers."
The fact that the Republicans were "tearing each other up" during the debate, when the Democrats never seem to be pitted against each other, was the result of weeks of meticulous planning by Fox News to appeal to the major networks, Limbaugh said.
Correspondent Byron York's question to Michele Bachmann about whether the Minnesota congresswoman would remain submissive to her husband if she won the election was provacative, he said.
"The stuff that was embarrassing, they liked," Limbaugh said. "Fox is trying to prove its chops with its tough questions."
The debate should have been themed "Get Rid of Obama," he said.
"We're here to save America," he said. "We're here to revive the ecomony. The problem with our country, Mr. President, is you."
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Friday, 12 Aug 2011 04:19 PM
By Amy Woods
Fox News tried to "prove its chops" during the presidential debate Thursday night by asking scripted questions that led the candidates to lambaste each other instead of the Democrat in the White House, Rush Limbaugh said on his radio show Friday.
Limbaugh said the mainstream media probably delighted in the slickly produced format because Obama did not appear to be the intended target.
"That debate last night was produced," he said on his "Open-Line Friday" radio broadcast. "The only thing spontaneous, obviously last night, were the answers."
The fact that the Republicans were "tearing each other up" during the debate, when the Democrats never seem to be pitted against each other, was the result of weeks of meticulous planning by Fox News to appeal to the major networks, Limbaugh said.
Correspondent Byron York's question to Michele Bachmann about whether the Minnesota congresswoman would remain submissive to her husband if she won the election was provacative, he said.
"The stuff that was embarrassing, they liked," Limbaugh said. "Fox is trying to prove its chops with its tough questions."
The debate should have been themed "Get Rid of Obama," he said.
"We're here to save America," he said. "We're here to revive the ecomony. The problem with our country, Mr. President, is you."
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
commies trying to fuck with guy who in AZ said hey we can check you if illegal
Judge OKs High-Profile Ariz. Senator's Recall Vote
Friday, 12 Aug 2011 10:17 PM
Share:
More . . .
A A |
Email Us |
Print |
Forward Article
PHOENIX — A recall election against a politician who authored Arizona's controversial immigration enforcement law can go ahead as planned, a judge ruled Friday.
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Hugh Hegyi threw out nearly all of the lawsuit that alleged flaws in the recall drive against state Senate President Russell Pearce.
The lawsuit by Pearce supporter Franklin Bruce Ross sought to have the Nov. 8 election called off on the grounds that recall supporters fell short of the required 7,756 voter signatures from Pearce's district in Mesa. Election officials say recall backers handed in 10,365 valid signatures.
The lawsuit alleged that there were flaws with signatures on petitions calling for the election, on affidavits completed by people who collected signatures, and on other paperwork associated with the recall drive.
Recall organizers contended they had "substantially complied" with all requirements for calling a recall election, while Pearce supporters said recall organizers should be held to a "strict compliance" standard and that the election should be called off because of errors.
Hegyi ruled that strict compliance is not the law in Arizona, except in unusual circumstances that aren't present in the Pearce recall challenge.
"The law relegates consideration of a change of this nature to the Supreme Court, and not to this trial court," Hegyi said.
Lisa Hauser, the attorney who pressed the challenge in court, said she expected this decision from Hegyi and she plans to appeal the ruling to the Arizona Supreme Court, likely over the weekend.
"There are a number of issues that we raised to the court that are either matters of first impression or matters that the judge himself acknowledged that a court more powerful than him needs to address," Hauser said.
Thomas Ryan, an attorney representing recall organizers, said the ruling found that the recall drive substantially complied with the rules on all counts.
"I think we are in very good position to defend this on appeal," Ryan said.
Pearce is one of the nation's most outspoken advocates for tougher border enforcement. The Republican was the driving force behind several Arizona immigration laws, including last year's immigration enforcement law that is the focus of a federal lawsuit, and a 2007 law that prohibits employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. Lawmakers in other states have tried to enact some immigration proposals first championed by Pearce.
He tried to win passage this year of other immigration measures, but he and his allies suffered a major defeat on the Senate floor. A majority of the chamber killed five bills after business leaders urged lawmakers to step back from the contentious issue.
Despite the setback, Pearce is still seen as a powerful figure at the state Capitol, with significant influence over the fate of the state budget and other legislative proposals.
Recall organizers have been critical of Pearce's views on confronting the state's border woes and say he has failed to focus on protecting public education and ensuring access to health care. Pearce has said he strives to promote schools, job creation, balanced budgets, law enforcement and secure borders.
Pearce was first elected to the Legislature in 2000 when he won a state House seat, and he has been re-elected to the House and Senate every two years since. He crushed a fellow Republican in a 2008 race who tried to capitalize on businesses' pushback to the state's employer sanctions law. He also won re-election in November 2010, finishing more than 20 percentage points ahead of the nearest challenger.
Charter school executive Jerry Lewis, a Republican from Mesa, is running against Pearce in the recall election. Republican Olivia Cortes also has made initial filings to run in the Nov. 8 race.
The challenge said county officials should have disqualified the signatures of voters who didn't write their address or the date when they signed the recall petition. County officials, who along with recall organizers and state officials asked for the lawsuit to be thrown out, argued that there's no evidence to determine that people collecting petition signatures had completed that information.
The lawsuit also said there were more than 700 petition signatures of people whose addresses were outside of Pearce's legislative district in Mesa. County attorneys say election officials don't have the authority to throw out signatures simply because a voter's registration address hasn't been updated.
© Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Friday, 12 Aug 2011 10:17 PM
Share:
More . . .
A A |
Email Us |
Print |
Forward Article
PHOENIX — A recall election against a politician who authored Arizona's controversial immigration enforcement law can go ahead as planned, a judge ruled Friday.
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Hugh Hegyi threw out nearly all of the lawsuit that alleged flaws in the recall drive against state Senate President Russell Pearce.
The lawsuit by Pearce supporter Franklin Bruce Ross sought to have the Nov. 8 election called off on the grounds that recall supporters fell short of the required 7,756 voter signatures from Pearce's district in Mesa. Election officials say recall backers handed in 10,365 valid signatures.
The lawsuit alleged that there were flaws with signatures on petitions calling for the election, on affidavits completed by people who collected signatures, and on other paperwork associated with the recall drive.
Recall organizers contended they had "substantially complied" with all requirements for calling a recall election, while Pearce supporters said recall organizers should be held to a "strict compliance" standard and that the election should be called off because of errors.
Hegyi ruled that strict compliance is not the law in Arizona, except in unusual circumstances that aren't present in the Pearce recall challenge.
"The law relegates consideration of a change of this nature to the Supreme Court, and not to this trial court," Hegyi said.
Lisa Hauser, the attorney who pressed the challenge in court, said she expected this decision from Hegyi and she plans to appeal the ruling to the Arizona Supreme Court, likely over the weekend.
"There are a number of issues that we raised to the court that are either matters of first impression or matters that the judge himself acknowledged that a court more powerful than him needs to address," Hauser said.
Thomas Ryan, an attorney representing recall organizers, said the ruling found that the recall drive substantially complied with the rules on all counts.
"I think we are in very good position to defend this on appeal," Ryan said.
Pearce is one of the nation's most outspoken advocates for tougher border enforcement. The Republican was the driving force behind several Arizona immigration laws, including last year's immigration enforcement law that is the focus of a federal lawsuit, and a 2007 law that prohibits employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. Lawmakers in other states have tried to enact some immigration proposals first championed by Pearce.
He tried to win passage this year of other immigration measures, but he and his allies suffered a major defeat on the Senate floor. A majority of the chamber killed five bills after business leaders urged lawmakers to step back from the contentious issue.
Despite the setback, Pearce is still seen as a powerful figure at the state Capitol, with significant influence over the fate of the state budget and other legislative proposals.
Recall organizers have been critical of Pearce's views on confronting the state's border woes and say he has failed to focus on protecting public education and ensuring access to health care. Pearce has said he strives to promote schools, job creation, balanced budgets, law enforcement and secure borders.
Pearce was first elected to the Legislature in 2000 when he won a state House seat, and he has been re-elected to the House and Senate every two years since. He crushed a fellow Republican in a 2008 race who tried to capitalize on businesses' pushback to the state's employer sanctions law. He also won re-election in November 2010, finishing more than 20 percentage points ahead of the nearest challenger.
Charter school executive Jerry Lewis, a Republican from Mesa, is running against Pearce in the recall election. Republican Olivia Cortes also has made initial filings to run in the Nov. 8 race.
The challenge said county officials should have disqualified the signatures of voters who didn't write their address or the date when they signed the recall petition. County officials, who along with recall organizers and state officials asked for the lawsuit to be thrown out, argued that there's no evidence to determine that people collecting petition signatures had completed that information.
The lawsuit also said there were more than 700 petition signatures of people whose addresses were outside of Pearce's legislative district in Mesa. County attorneys say election officials don't have the authority to throw out signatures simply because a voter's registration address hasn't been updated.
© Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Appeals Court Rules Against Obamacare Insurance Mandate Friday, 12 Aug 2011 01:33 PM Share: More . . . A A | Email Us |
Appeals Court Rules Against Obamacare Insurance Mandate
Friday, 12 Aug 2011 01:33 PM
Share:
More . . .
A A |
Email Us |
Print |
Forward Article
A federal appeals court panel on Friday struck down the requirement in President Barack Obama's health care overhaul package that virtually all Americans must carry health insurance or face penalties.
The divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the so-called individual mandate, siding with 26 states that had sued to block the law. But the panel didn't go as far as a lower court that had invalidated the entire overhaul as unconstitutional.
The states and other critics argued the law violates people's rights, while the Justice Department countered that the legislative branch was exercising a "quintessential" power.
The decision, penned by Chief Judge Joel Dubina and Circuit Judge Frank Hull, found that "the individual mandate contained in the Act exceeds Congress's enumerated commerce power."
"What Congress cannot do under the Commerce Clause is mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die," the opinion said.
Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus disagreed in a dissent.
The 11th Circuit isn't the first appeals court to weigh in on the issue. The federal appeals court in Cincinnati upheld the government's new requirement that most Americans buy health insurance, and an appeals court in Richmond has heard similar legal constitutional challenges to the law.
But the Atlanta-based court is considered by many observers to be the most pivotal legal battleground yet because it reviewed a sweeping ruling by a Florida judge.
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson's ruling not only struck down a requirement that nearly all Americans carry health insurance, but he also threw out other provisions ranging from Medicare discounts for some seniors to a change that allows adult children up to age 26 to remain on their parents' coverage.
The states urged the 11th Circuit to uphold Vinson's ruling, saying in a court filing that letting the law stand would set a troubling precedent that "would imperil individual liberty, render Congress's other enumerated powers superfluous, and allow Congress to usurp the general police power reserved to the states."
The Justice Department countered that Congress had the power to require most people to buy health insurance or face tax penalties because Congress has the authority to regulate interstate business. It said the legislative branch was exercising its "quintessential" rights when it adopted the new law.
During oral arguments in June, the three-judge panel repeatedly raised questions about the overhaul and expressed unease with the insurance requirement. Each of the three worried aloud if upholding the landmark law could open the door to Congress adopting other sweeping economic mandates.
The arguments unfolded in what's considered one of the nation's most conservative appeals courts. But the randomly selected panel represents different judicial perspectives. None of the three is considered either a stalwart conservative or an unfaltering liberal.
Dubina, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, is not considered to be as reflexively conservative as some of his colleagues. But he's been under particular scrutiny because of his daughter's outspoken opposition to the health care overhaul. U.S. Rep. Martha Dubina Roby, a Montgomery, Ala., Republican elected in November, voted to repeal the health care law.
Marcus and Hull were both tapped by President Bill Clinton to join the court. But Marcus was also previously appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan to serve on the Florida bench after several years as Miami's lead federal prosecutor. And Hull, a former county judge in Atlanta, is known for subjecting both sides of the counsel table to challenging questions.
© 2011 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.
Friday, 12 Aug 2011 01:33 PM
Share:
More . . .
A A |
Email Us |
Print |
Forward Article
A federal appeals court panel on Friday struck down the requirement in President Barack Obama's health care overhaul package that virtually all Americans must carry health insurance or face penalties.
The divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the so-called individual mandate, siding with 26 states that had sued to block the law. But the panel didn't go as far as a lower court that had invalidated the entire overhaul as unconstitutional.
The states and other critics argued the law violates people's rights, while the Justice Department countered that the legislative branch was exercising a "quintessential" power.
The decision, penned by Chief Judge Joel Dubina and Circuit Judge Frank Hull, found that "the individual mandate contained in the Act exceeds Congress's enumerated commerce power."
"What Congress cannot do under the Commerce Clause is mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die," the opinion said.
Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus disagreed in a dissent.
The 11th Circuit isn't the first appeals court to weigh in on the issue. The federal appeals court in Cincinnati upheld the government's new requirement that most Americans buy health insurance, and an appeals court in Richmond has heard similar legal constitutional challenges to the law.
But the Atlanta-based court is considered by many observers to be the most pivotal legal battleground yet because it reviewed a sweeping ruling by a Florida judge.
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson's ruling not only struck down a requirement that nearly all Americans carry health insurance, but he also threw out other provisions ranging from Medicare discounts for some seniors to a change that allows adult children up to age 26 to remain on their parents' coverage.
The states urged the 11th Circuit to uphold Vinson's ruling, saying in a court filing that letting the law stand would set a troubling precedent that "would imperil individual liberty, render Congress's other enumerated powers superfluous, and allow Congress to usurp the general police power reserved to the states."
The Justice Department countered that Congress had the power to require most people to buy health insurance or face tax penalties because Congress has the authority to regulate interstate business. It said the legislative branch was exercising its "quintessential" rights when it adopted the new law.
During oral arguments in June, the three-judge panel repeatedly raised questions about the overhaul and expressed unease with the insurance requirement. Each of the three worried aloud if upholding the landmark law could open the door to Congress adopting other sweeping economic mandates.
The arguments unfolded in what's considered one of the nation's most conservative appeals courts. But the randomly selected panel represents different judicial perspectives. None of the three is considered either a stalwart conservative or an unfaltering liberal.
Dubina, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, is not considered to be as reflexively conservative as some of his colleagues. But he's been under particular scrutiny because of his daughter's outspoken opposition to the health care overhaul. U.S. Rep. Martha Dubina Roby, a Montgomery, Ala., Republican elected in November, voted to repeal the health care law.
Marcus and Hull were both tapped by President Bill Clinton to join the court. But Marcus was also previously appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan to serve on the Florida bench after several years as Miami's lead federal prosecutor. And Hull, a former county judge in Atlanta, is known for subjecting both sides of the counsel table to challenging questions.
© 2011 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.
Betsy McCaughey: Court Ruling 'Slams the Brakes' on Obamacare Friday, 12 Aug 2011 06:59 PM By David A. Patten Share: More . . . A A
Betsy McCaughey: Court Ruling 'Slams the Brakes' on Obamacare
Friday, 12 Aug 2011 06:59 PM
By David A. Patten
Share:
More . . .
A A |
Email Us |
Print |
Forward Article
Opponents of Obamacare rejoiced Friday after a federal appeals court in Atlanta ruled the individual mandate at the heart of President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform legislation is unconstitutional.
The 2-to-1 verdict in the 11th Circuit court in Atlanta sets up a dramatic, seemingly inevitable election-year showdown in the U.S. Supreme Court over the legality of President Obama’s signature legislative initiative.
Former New York lieutenant governor and healthcare expert Betsy McCaughey said the ruling effectively puts the brakes on cash-strapped states’ implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
“Many more states now will slow down or entirely halt their current efforts to create state insurance exchanges,” said McCaughey, who hailed the decision as “a very important day for all Americans who care about individual liberty, and a very important day for those who are concerned about the economic growth urgently needed by this nation.”
McCaughey predicted states won’t spend scare resources preparing to implement a law that appears very vulnerable to being thrown out as unconstitutional.
Asked if the decision slams the brakes on implementation efforts at the state level, McCaughey replied: “Oh yes. They will be obligated to make that decision, because that’s the prudent decision in the best interest of their own local taxpayers.”
Friday’s ruling gave ObamaCare opponents a much-needed victory. In June, a Cincinnati court ruled in favor of the law in a case brought by the Thomas More Law Center. That ruling was notable because one of the judges in the majority was a Republican.
So far, federal judges in Florida and Virginia have ruled against the Act, while judges in Michigan and Virginia upheld it. Judges appointed by Democrats have consistently upheld the law, while Republican judges generally ruled against it. But Friday, one Republican judicial appointee and one Democratic judicial appointee concurred that the individual mandate is unconstitutional.
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who has been leading a separate legal challenge to ObamaCare in the Old Dominion, issued a statement congratulating the 26 state attorneys general who successfully brought the constitutional challenge to the 11th Circuit Court.
"The court determined that the power to force one citizen to purchase a good or service from another is outside the established outer limits of both the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause,” Cuccinelli stated.
“The court also ruled that although the president and Congress want to now call the penalty a tax to make it pass constitutional muster, the penalty cannot be sustained under the federal government's taxing authority because the penalty is clearly not a tax,” he said.
In May, the separate suit brought by Cuccinelli was heard by Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, which has yet to issue a ruling.
The setback on its legislative centerpiece put an exclamation point on another tough political week for the administration. The White House issued a statement Friday that it “strongly” disagrees with the 11th Circuit’s decision, and predicted its ruling will be overturned.
Considering the decisive language used in the 11th Circuit’s majority opinion, however, that could prove difficult.
“The individual mandate was enacted as a regulatory penalty, not a revenue-raising tax, and is therefore unconstitutional,” wrote Chief Judge Joel Dubina. “This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potential unbounded assertion of congressional authority: The ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives.”
McCaughey’s reaction: “That’s very accurate. If Congress can force individuals to buy health insurance, Congress can force individuals to buy stocks and bonds to prop up Wall Street, or American-made automobiles to prop up Detroit.”
In one setback to ObamaCare opponents, the 11th Circuit Court also ruled that the individual mandate is “severable” from the rest of the 2,700-page law. That means the other provisions can remain in effect.
Legal experts say it is almost inevitable now that the Supreme Court will hear the challenge to ObamaCare prior to the election.
“There are a few minor procedural tools the solicitor general might try to use to delay things,” McCaughey said. “But I think the Supreme Court will understand that this is very much in the nation’s interest, not simply because of the presidential election. A reasonably timely decision is needed because of the timetable within in the law itself, states are expending huge amounts of money preparing for a law that might never go into effect.
“States are crippled with uncertainty over the future impact of this law. So it is very important for the welfare of the nation that this decision be made,” she said.
Robert Alt, senior legal fellow and deputy director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, estimates an 85 percent chance the Supreme Court will rule on the various appeals in June 2012.
“It was sharply worded,” Alt said of the 11th Circuit ruling. “But I think it was sharply worded in part because of the very serious constitutional problems that are inherent in the statute.”
Alt said the 11th Circuit rejected the constitutionality of the individual mandate based what he called the administration’s “broccoli problem.”
In January, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson of Florida issued a sweeping ruling tossing out the entire law. If the federal government could mandate a health-insurance purchase because it somehow affects interstate commerce, he asked, what purchase couldn’t it require? Vinson said by that logic the federal government could require citizens to purchase broccoli -- a point widely mocked by the left but one the administration has yet to overcome legally.
McCaughey said the 11th Circuit ruling could have major implications for the looming Congressional “supercommittee” debate over deficits and entitlements. Obamacare drastically expanded Medicaid to cover an estimated 85 million people by 2018, and counted on billions in projected revenue from individual-mandate penalties to help defray that cost, she said.
“And now the question is, what is the administration going to do about that? They’ve been ardently, vocally calling for entitlement reform and cuts in entitlements. But they’re only talking about Medicare,” said McCaughey.
“The new deal that was passed on Aug. 2nd bars this supercommittee from cutting Medicaid,” she said. “But Medicaid is the big elephant in the room. Medicaid is the huge entitlement just created.
“So it’s going to be very interesting to see how the Obama administration handles this,” she said, adding: “The best way to reform entitlements is not to put newly created ones into effect.”
McCaughey said the economically viable portions of the new law many consumers find desirable, such as allowing children to stay on their parents’ policies until age 26, and altering the lifetime caps on reimbursements to patients, “could be retained in a 20-page bill in plain English, if consumers want these features.”
Alt predicted that if the Supreme Court invalidates the individual mandate but leaves intact other provisions of the bill such as the stipulation that consumers must be covered for pre-existing conditions, Congress would have no choice but to act to keep insurance firms in business.
“The Obama administration has argued that if you strike down the mandate and require everything else, it will lead to what they call ‘the ineluctable failure’ of the healthcare market in the United States,” he said.
“Essentially, the health insurers couldn’t continue to operate like that. That’s an example of why Judge Vinson got it right in the lower court. … The statute just doesn’t operate without the mandate. You can’t really carve that out and make it work.”
Alt predicted a mixed Supreme Court verdict along the lines of the 11th Circuit ruling would lead to “pretty heavy lifting right away by Congress. Otherwise the insurance industry would get gutted by this.”
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Friday, 12 Aug 2011 06:59 PM
By David A. Patten
Share:
More . . .
A A |
Email Us |
Print |
Forward Article
Opponents of Obamacare rejoiced Friday after a federal appeals court in Atlanta ruled the individual mandate at the heart of President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform legislation is unconstitutional.
The 2-to-1 verdict in the 11th Circuit court in Atlanta sets up a dramatic, seemingly inevitable election-year showdown in the U.S. Supreme Court over the legality of President Obama’s signature legislative initiative.
Former New York lieutenant governor and healthcare expert Betsy McCaughey said the ruling effectively puts the brakes on cash-strapped states’ implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
“Many more states now will slow down or entirely halt their current efforts to create state insurance exchanges,” said McCaughey, who hailed the decision as “a very important day for all Americans who care about individual liberty, and a very important day for those who are concerned about the economic growth urgently needed by this nation.”
McCaughey predicted states won’t spend scare resources preparing to implement a law that appears very vulnerable to being thrown out as unconstitutional.
Asked if the decision slams the brakes on implementation efforts at the state level, McCaughey replied: “Oh yes. They will be obligated to make that decision, because that’s the prudent decision in the best interest of their own local taxpayers.”
Friday’s ruling gave ObamaCare opponents a much-needed victory. In June, a Cincinnati court ruled in favor of the law in a case brought by the Thomas More Law Center. That ruling was notable because one of the judges in the majority was a Republican.
So far, federal judges in Florida and Virginia have ruled against the Act, while judges in Michigan and Virginia upheld it. Judges appointed by Democrats have consistently upheld the law, while Republican judges generally ruled against it. But Friday, one Republican judicial appointee and one Democratic judicial appointee concurred that the individual mandate is unconstitutional.
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who has been leading a separate legal challenge to ObamaCare in the Old Dominion, issued a statement congratulating the 26 state attorneys general who successfully brought the constitutional challenge to the 11th Circuit Court.
"The court determined that the power to force one citizen to purchase a good or service from another is outside the established outer limits of both the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause,” Cuccinelli stated.
“The court also ruled that although the president and Congress want to now call the penalty a tax to make it pass constitutional muster, the penalty cannot be sustained under the federal government's taxing authority because the penalty is clearly not a tax,” he said.
In May, the separate suit brought by Cuccinelli was heard by Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, which has yet to issue a ruling.
The setback on its legislative centerpiece put an exclamation point on another tough political week for the administration. The White House issued a statement Friday that it “strongly” disagrees with the 11th Circuit’s decision, and predicted its ruling will be overturned.
Considering the decisive language used in the 11th Circuit’s majority opinion, however, that could prove difficult.
“The individual mandate was enacted as a regulatory penalty, not a revenue-raising tax, and is therefore unconstitutional,” wrote Chief Judge Joel Dubina. “This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potential unbounded assertion of congressional authority: The ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives.”
McCaughey’s reaction: “That’s very accurate. If Congress can force individuals to buy health insurance, Congress can force individuals to buy stocks and bonds to prop up Wall Street, or American-made automobiles to prop up Detroit.”
In one setback to ObamaCare opponents, the 11th Circuit Court also ruled that the individual mandate is “severable” from the rest of the 2,700-page law. That means the other provisions can remain in effect.
Legal experts say it is almost inevitable now that the Supreme Court will hear the challenge to ObamaCare prior to the election.
“There are a few minor procedural tools the solicitor general might try to use to delay things,” McCaughey said. “But I think the Supreme Court will understand that this is very much in the nation’s interest, not simply because of the presidential election. A reasonably timely decision is needed because of the timetable within in the law itself, states are expending huge amounts of money preparing for a law that might never go into effect.
“States are crippled with uncertainty over the future impact of this law. So it is very important for the welfare of the nation that this decision be made,” she said.
Robert Alt, senior legal fellow and deputy director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, estimates an 85 percent chance the Supreme Court will rule on the various appeals in June 2012.
“It was sharply worded,” Alt said of the 11th Circuit ruling. “But I think it was sharply worded in part because of the very serious constitutional problems that are inherent in the statute.”
Alt said the 11th Circuit rejected the constitutionality of the individual mandate based what he called the administration’s “broccoli problem.”
In January, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson of Florida issued a sweeping ruling tossing out the entire law. If the federal government could mandate a health-insurance purchase because it somehow affects interstate commerce, he asked, what purchase couldn’t it require? Vinson said by that logic the federal government could require citizens to purchase broccoli -- a point widely mocked by the left but one the administration has yet to overcome legally.
McCaughey said the 11th Circuit ruling could have major implications for the looming Congressional “supercommittee” debate over deficits and entitlements. Obamacare drastically expanded Medicaid to cover an estimated 85 million people by 2018, and counted on billions in projected revenue from individual-mandate penalties to help defray that cost, she said.
“And now the question is, what is the administration going to do about that? They’ve been ardently, vocally calling for entitlement reform and cuts in entitlements. But they’re only talking about Medicare,” said McCaughey.
“The new deal that was passed on Aug. 2nd bars this supercommittee from cutting Medicaid,” she said. “But Medicaid is the big elephant in the room. Medicaid is the huge entitlement just created.
“So it’s going to be very interesting to see how the Obama administration handles this,” she said, adding: “The best way to reform entitlements is not to put newly created ones into effect.”
McCaughey said the economically viable portions of the new law many consumers find desirable, such as allowing children to stay on their parents’ policies until age 26, and altering the lifetime caps on reimbursements to patients, “could be retained in a 20-page bill in plain English, if consumers want these features.”
Alt predicted that if the Supreme Court invalidates the individual mandate but leaves intact other provisions of the bill such as the stipulation that consumers must be covered for pre-existing conditions, Congress would have no choice but to act to keep insurance firms in business.
“The Obama administration has argued that if you strike down the mandate and require everything else, it will lead to what they call ‘the ineluctable failure’ of the healthcare market in the United States,” he said.
“Essentially, the health insurers couldn’t continue to operate like that. That’s an example of why Judge Vinson got it right in the lower court. … The statute just doesn’t operate without the mandate. You can’t really carve that out and make it work.”
Alt predicted a mixed Supreme Court verdict along the lines of the 11th Circuit ruling would lead to “pretty heavy lifting right away by Congress. Otherwise the insurance industry would get gutted by this.”
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
newt gingrich is awesome
http://www.libertariannews.org/2011/08/12/all-of-ron-pauls-iowa-fox-gop-debate-question-answers/
let iran have nukes, santorum schooled by ron paul
http://www.libertariannews.org/2011/08/12/all-of-ron-pauls-iowa-fox-gop-debate-question-answers/
ron paul won debate apparently
http://www.libertariannews.org/2011/08/12/all-of-ron-pauls-iowa-fox-gop-debate-question-answers/
I love how commies hate machmann I just love it
slaughter all communists aka democrats!!!
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20091816-503544.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20091816-503544.html
awk to compute steve nash point per shot efficiency by year
stats placed in file called nash
http://basketballreference.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=NASHST01
$ awk '{g=$5;p=$8;f=$10/g;t=$13/g;s=f+t/2;if (s) printf "%6.2f %-8s %2d\n", p/s,
$1, p}' nash
1.07 1996-97 3
1.10 1997-98 9
0.94 1998-99 7
1.19 1999-00 8
1.19 2000-01 15
1.19 2001-02 17
1.13 2002-03 17
1.17 2003-04 14
1.19 2004-05 15
1.24 2005-06 18
1.29 2006-07 18
1.26 2007-08 16
1.22 2008-09 15
1.22 2009-10 16
http://basketballreference.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=NASHST01
$ awk '{g=$5;p=$8;f=$10/g;t=$13/g;s=f+t/2;if (s) printf "%6.2f %-8s %2d\n", p/s,
$1, p}' nash
1.07 1996-97 3
1.10 1997-98 9
0.94 1998-99 7
1.19 1999-00 8
1.19 2000-01 15
1.19 2001-02 17
1.13 2002-03 17
1.17 2003-04 14
1.19 2004-05 15
1.24 2005-06 18
1.29 2006-07 18
1.26 2007-08 16
1.22 2008-09 15
1.22 2009-10 16
obama care declared un constitutional by atlanta court oh yeah fuck obama!!! election year showdown!!
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Court-Ruling-Slams-Breaks/2011/08/12/id/407163
awesoem pery calls global warming BS love it
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/aug/12/rick-perry-climate-sceptics-president
Thursday, August 11, 2011
“Every day, every week and every month that goes by, there’s another story about a school that’s turned the corner, where they actually saved so much
“Every day, every week and every month that goes by, there’s another story about a school that’s turned the corner, where they actually saved so much money with our reforms that they can hire more teachers, lower the classroom size, set money aside for more pay,” he said.
Read more on Newsmax.com: Gov. Scott Walker: Wisconsin Vote Proves GOP Reforms are Working
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
reaganomics works!!
Read more on Newsmax.com: Gov. Scott Walker: Wisconsin Vote Proves GOP Reforms are Working
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
reaganomics works!!
(4:37:13 PM) bootiack: got linux 3 on archlinux (4:37:16 PM) bootiack: oh yay yah (4:37:19 PM) bootiack: feel the power!!!!!!! (4:37:22 PM) bootiack:
(4:37:13 PM) bootiack: got linux 3 on archlinux
(4:37:16 PM) bootiack: oh yay yah
(4:37:19 PM) bootiack: feel the power!!!!!!!
(4:37:22 PM) bootiack: stable pacakge
(4:37:24 PM) bootiack: binary isntall!!
(4:37:16 PM) bootiack: oh yay yah
(4:37:19 PM) bootiack: feel the power!!!!!!!
(4:37:22 PM) bootiack: stable pacakge
(4:37:24 PM) bootiack: binary isntall!!
Gov. Scott Walker: Wisconsin Vote Proves GOP Reforms are Working Thursday, 11 Aug 2011 06:35 PM By Martin Gould and Ashley Martella Share: More . .
Gov. Scott Walker: Wisconsin Vote Proves GOP Reforms are Working
Thursday, 11 Aug 2011 06:35 PM
By Martin Gould and Ashley Martella
Share:
More . . .
A A |
Email Us |
Print |
Forward Article
The union-busting reforms that have pushed Wisconsin to national attention are working and the proof came in the recall elections this week that reaffirmed Republican control of the state Senate, Gov. Scott Walker tells Newsmax.TV in an exclusive interview.
But if voters had gone to the polls just a couple of months ago, the results would probably have been different, he admitted, as the effects of his policies had not had time to go into effect.
“Every day, every week and every month that goes by, there’s another story about a school that’s turned the corner, where they actually saved so much money with our reforms that they can hire more teachers, lower the classroom size, set money aside for more pay,” he said.
Story continues below.
Walker said it’s not just in smaller cities such as Fond du Lac, New Berlin or Wauwatosa where his own two children go to public school, but in Milwaukee too, people are seeing the benefits.
“City leaders early this year, attacked us for the budget reforms,” Walker said. But just this week those same people have admitted that they will have a minimum net savings of $11 million this year in Milwaukee, he added.
“What we see is, over time, what once was viewed as a negative has now become a positive, and the more time goes by, the more the public will clearly see that those reforms are working.”
Walker said he when he went to Kenosha County for an election day function he found himself surrounded by as many Democrats as Republicans.
“When we are doing things that attract and grow jobs in our state, people want to be there,” he said.
Walker said his policies helped create 39,000 new jobs in the state in his first six months in office, double the national average. He had pledged to create a total of 250,000 during his full term and he said he was ahead of target.
“Very clearly for us, the voters affirmed on Tuesday what they told us last November. They said they wanted a government, at least in Wisconsin, that focused on jobs and focused on fixing the financial mess we inherited, and we did just that.”
In Tuesday’s elections, Democrats snagged two Republican seats, but they needed three to take control of the Senate. Walker said the two seats that went blue were expected.
“But you look at all the other races – the other four – Republicans, particularly Republican senators who reaffirmed their commitment to the reforms we put in place, won.
“Two of those senators won by big margins, the other two …actually won by a larger percentage now than they did at the last election.”
Two Democrats, who were among the group that fled the state to deny the Senate a quorum to pass the Walker plan earlier this year face recalls themselves on Tuesday. Walker said the race in Kenosha is virtually a lost cause for Republicans, but the other in the northeastern part of the state will be close.
“There is a real shot that Kim Simac might win that election. But it all boils down to whether or not she can have the same impact that the four senators had this last Tuesday.
“They had to get beyond the attack ads, get beyond the personal attacks and get to the point that the reforms in Wisconsin are working and if voters want those reforms to continue they need to send lawmakers to Madison who are going to focus on that, who are going to think more about the next generation than they do about the next election.”
He said an estimated $30-$35 million was poured into the recall elections by outside, pro-union groups pushing the Democratic candidates. But in the end Wisconsin voters were not swayed.
“More than anything, on Wednesday morning the people of this state were happy, not just because of who won, but they were happy because the elections were over and they didn’t have to be bombarded with hour after hour of negative attacks,” he said.
“You had people who wanted to come in from Washington and New York and other places to try to determine the future of the state of Wisconsin.
Thankfully the majority of voters said they want to make the decision.
“It was a lesson for other places around the country that in the end you need to listen to the interests of middle-class taxpayers in your own community and not let people come in and try to bully you from somewhere else.”
He said the results of Tuesday’s votes will probably put the kibosh on plans to make him face a recall election next year. But if it comes, he is confident he can survive.
“If I continue to do things every day I am in office, that makes it easier for people in the private sector to create more jobs and put the people of our state back to work, I have no doubt whether there’s an election in 2012 or 2014, we’re going to do well with the voters, because what I hear overwhelmingly is they want help with jobs.”
And looking further into the future, he accepted that people are seeing him as a potential presidential candidate one day.
“I’ll be judged in my state and, I suppose, ultimately by anybody else, by how effective I am at helping the people of our state in creating 250,000 jobs.”
He said what he tries to do is provide leadership, particularly in times of crisis.
“We need courage and leadership in our statehouses and in the halls of Congress now more than ever and if in some small way our success here helps inspire others to be courageous and do things more about the long term than about the short term, I am certainly happy to help out with that cause.
“But I’ll let the pundits decide what that means beyond that.”
Read more on Newsmax.com: Gov. Scott Walker: Wisconsin Vote Proves GOP Reforms are Working
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
Thursday, 11 Aug 2011 06:35 PM
By Martin Gould and Ashley Martella
Share:
More . . .
A A |
Email Us |
Print |
Forward Article
The union-busting reforms that have pushed Wisconsin to national attention are working and the proof came in the recall elections this week that reaffirmed Republican control of the state Senate, Gov. Scott Walker tells Newsmax.TV in an exclusive interview.
But if voters had gone to the polls just a couple of months ago, the results would probably have been different, he admitted, as the effects of his policies had not had time to go into effect.
“Every day, every week and every month that goes by, there’s another story about a school that’s turned the corner, where they actually saved so much money with our reforms that they can hire more teachers, lower the classroom size, set money aside for more pay,” he said.
Story continues below.
Walker said it’s not just in smaller cities such as Fond du Lac, New Berlin or Wauwatosa where his own two children go to public school, but in Milwaukee too, people are seeing the benefits.
“City leaders early this year, attacked us for the budget reforms,” Walker said. But just this week those same people have admitted that they will have a minimum net savings of $11 million this year in Milwaukee, he added.
“What we see is, over time, what once was viewed as a negative has now become a positive, and the more time goes by, the more the public will clearly see that those reforms are working.”
Walker said he when he went to Kenosha County for an election day function he found himself surrounded by as many Democrats as Republicans.
“When we are doing things that attract and grow jobs in our state, people want to be there,” he said.
Walker said his policies helped create 39,000 new jobs in the state in his first six months in office, double the national average. He had pledged to create a total of 250,000 during his full term and he said he was ahead of target.
“Very clearly for us, the voters affirmed on Tuesday what they told us last November. They said they wanted a government, at least in Wisconsin, that focused on jobs and focused on fixing the financial mess we inherited, and we did just that.”
In Tuesday’s elections, Democrats snagged two Republican seats, but they needed three to take control of the Senate. Walker said the two seats that went blue were expected.
“But you look at all the other races – the other four – Republicans, particularly Republican senators who reaffirmed their commitment to the reforms we put in place, won.
“Two of those senators won by big margins, the other two …actually won by a larger percentage now than they did at the last election.”
Two Democrats, who were among the group that fled the state to deny the Senate a quorum to pass the Walker plan earlier this year face recalls themselves on Tuesday. Walker said the race in Kenosha is virtually a lost cause for Republicans, but the other in the northeastern part of the state will be close.
“There is a real shot that Kim Simac might win that election. But it all boils down to whether or not she can have the same impact that the four senators had this last Tuesday.
“They had to get beyond the attack ads, get beyond the personal attacks and get to the point that the reforms in Wisconsin are working and if voters want those reforms to continue they need to send lawmakers to Madison who are going to focus on that, who are going to think more about the next generation than they do about the next election.”
He said an estimated $30-$35 million was poured into the recall elections by outside, pro-union groups pushing the Democratic candidates. But in the end Wisconsin voters were not swayed.
“More than anything, on Wednesday morning the people of this state were happy, not just because of who won, but they were happy because the elections were over and they didn’t have to be bombarded with hour after hour of negative attacks,” he said.
“You had people who wanted to come in from Washington and New York and other places to try to determine the future of the state of Wisconsin.
Thankfully the majority of voters said they want to make the decision.
“It was a lesson for other places around the country that in the end you need to listen to the interests of middle-class taxpayers in your own community and not let people come in and try to bully you from somewhere else.”
He said the results of Tuesday’s votes will probably put the kibosh on plans to make him face a recall election next year. But if it comes, he is confident he can survive.
“If I continue to do things every day I am in office, that makes it easier for people in the private sector to create more jobs and put the people of our state back to work, I have no doubt whether there’s an election in 2012 or 2014, we’re going to do well with the voters, because what I hear overwhelmingly is they want help with jobs.”
And looking further into the future, he accepted that people are seeing him as a potential presidential candidate one day.
“I’ll be judged in my state and, I suppose, ultimately by anybody else, by how effective I am at helping the people of our state in creating 250,000 jobs.”
He said what he tries to do is provide leadership, particularly in times of crisis.
“We need courage and leadership in our statehouses and in the halls of Congress now more than ever and if in some small way our success here helps inspire others to be courageous and do things more about the long term than about the short term, I am certainly happy to help out with that cause.
“But I’ll let the pundits decide what that means beyond that.”
Read more on Newsmax.com: Gov. Scott Walker: Wisconsin Vote Proves GOP Reforms are Working
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
remember there are no righs: work or starve mofo
work or starve
eveyone lazy
when last time knew someone who had read jsut 10 books on 1 subject?
ya thought so
eveyone lazy
when last time knew someone who had read jsut 10 books on 1 subject?
ya thought so
onesolution for poor idiots: have galdiator show to the death homy get rich or die trying and rating thru the roof!
onesolution for poor idiots: have galdiator show to the death
homy get rich or die trying and rating thru the roof!
homy get rich or die trying and rating thru the roof!
3:31:07 PM) bootiack: I have economy idea: build 100 new hospitals in each state but demadn new health car erpices fall by total now/(current number
3:31:07 PM) bootiack: I have economy idea: build 100 new hospitals in each state but demadn new health car erpices fall by total now/(current number +100)
(3:31:21 PM) bootiack: all unemplyemd msut work at some hospital
(3:31:21 PM) bootiack: all unemplyemd msut work at some hospital
Idea for the Economy that will Freak Out a lot of People but could be Fun to Discuss.
http://blogmaverick.com/2011/08/10/an-idea-for-the-economy-that-will-freak-out-a-lot-of-people-but-could-be-fun-to-discuss/
An Idea for the Economy that will Freak Out a lot of People but could be Fun to Discuss.
Aug 10th 2011 9:40PM
The US Treasury is currently borrowing money at a Negative Real Yield. In any normal environment, if you can borrow money at a negative rate you should borrow as much as you can. The premise is that any idiot should be able to earn a return of greater than zero with the money. That’s a premise that should make the Democrats happy.
The problem for the Democrats is that the government hasn’t shown that they can earn a positive or even a break even return on their spending. (Stunningly, bailouts excluded).
As the Republicans and Tea-Party will tell you, we have a spending problem. The reality is that the problem isn’t how much we spend, it’s what we spend it on. Our government is not very good at funding projects/investments that generate much if any return. Our government is so overhead laden that just to get the money from the Treasury to a project automatically starts it in a hole. Plus our federal government loves to hire people. That isn’t a problem in and of itself. The problem is that they over pay and let them keep their jobs forever. A basic tenet of business is that it is rarely a good idea to borrow short term funds for long term projects or employees unless you are damn sure of the returns. Our government never is.
So what to do ?
First we pick a goal. I want the goal to be employment. I want to help companies hire employees. I think the first problem to solve is creating jobs.
The Republican/ Tea-Party approach to job creation is to cut taxes. The theory being that more money in the pocket of individuals will cause people to spend more money in the economy thereby creating more jobs. Nope. Not happening. Why ? Because individuals have too much debt. Any money they get goes to pay credit cards, student loans and for the smart and fortunate into savings.
Individuals now have debt = to about 119pct of income vs historical levels of .17pct in the 40s, 55pct in the 50s , 65pct in the 60s and a high of 133pct in 2007). It didn’t create enough jobs to have an impact and it won’t in this environment. They also think the same applied to corporations will translate into more jobs. Nope. That is not the case. Big companies in particular are not cash poor. Whether its re-patriation of cash in foreign countries or lower tax rates, neither lead to the creation of new jobs in this economy. It just leads to more cash in the bank.
So the Democrats are right, we should borrow more money. The Dems are wrong that the government knows how to spend the money. The Republicans/Tea Party are right that we have a spending problem. The Republicans/Tea Party are wrong that cutting taxes will result in more jobs.
So IMHO, creating jobs isn’t about the government spending money on jobs /projects, nor is it about cutting taxes. It’s about taking a page from the technology and common sense world.
How is this for a revolutionary thought: Companies that would create jobs if they had more cash know who they are. Right ? If you own a company and are thinking to yourself “Self, if I could borrow or get an investment into my company I could hire X more people to grow the company/meet demand/release a new product/whatever” So rather than guessing and hoping what might happen, why don’t we let companies self identify themselves ?
And not only should they self-identify themselves as companies, they should be able to bid on Government Loans or even actual equity investments. Call me crazy, but I think we should be playing a game of “I Can Name that Tune in X Notes” re-named and reformatted as “I Can Create X Jobs for Y Amount of Money”
Seriously. Call me crazy (and Im sure many of you will), but there is no reason why we can’t quickly create a federal website that allows existing companies to say to the Federal Government how much money they need and how many jobs they can create for that money and for what duration are they committing to maintain those jobs for the money.
Of course you will have to set some minimum parameters in order to prevent the dreamers, crazies and who knows whats from clogging up the system. I would set those minimums including: The company must be in business for at least 10 years. They must be have at least 100 full time employees. They must do 100mm in revenues. And of course they must be up to date on their taxes and Im sure there are other things to think of as well.
I’m sure I have pissed off everyone who doesn’t qualify. Sorry.
The reality is that for this to work the universe of companies has to be small enough so that the system put in place is not overwhelmed. The companies must be big enough to be able to respond to any required due diligence information. If this is made to work, the qualifications could be reduced to expand the universe of eligible companies.
Who would be the decision makers ? I would set up multiple 5 person regional committees across the country. I’m not quite sure who would pick the members, or what their exact qualifications should be, but I can tell you what I would set as a requirement. People would only be eligible to be on the committee if they had not made a political contribution of any kind directly to a politician or to a PAC of any sort in the last 5 years. This can not be a politically dominated decision process.
The committees would then look at the submissions, starting with the ones that promised the most jobs at the least cost. Then they would do their due diligence about the company and request and make a decision. Yes or No. Equity or Debt. Terms of repayment or ownership (exit or return of capital on par with other equity partners) Then on to the next. Funding would come from short term treasury borrowings. As long as the program had submissions and those submissions resulted in positive returns, the program would continue.
Oh, and one more important element. Transparency. You apply and get your money, the amount of money you got and the jobs you committed to and for how long will be published publicly. Visibility has a way of keeping people honest.
I know this is just a rough idea, but I wanted to put it out there for consideration. Rather than having Dems and Republicans fight ideological battles about job creation, lets get direct. Lets just ask companies to tell us how many jobs they would create and how much they need and see what it all adds up to and go from there
What do you think ?
An Idea for the Economy that will Freak Out a lot of People but could be Fun to Discuss.
Aug 10th 2011 9:40PM
The US Treasury is currently borrowing money at a Negative Real Yield. In any normal environment, if you can borrow money at a negative rate you should borrow as much as you can. The premise is that any idiot should be able to earn a return of greater than zero with the money. That’s a premise that should make the Democrats happy.
The problem for the Democrats is that the government hasn’t shown that they can earn a positive or even a break even return on their spending. (Stunningly, bailouts excluded).
As the Republicans and Tea-Party will tell you, we have a spending problem. The reality is that the problem isn’t how much we spend, it’s what we spend it on. Our government is not very good at funding projects/investments that generate much if any return. Our government is so overhead laden that just to get the money from the Treasury to a project automatically starts it in a hole. Plus our federal government loves to hire people. That isn’t a problem in and of itself. The problem is that they over pay and let them keep their jobs forever. A basic tenet of business is that it is rarely a good idea to borrow short term funds for long term projects or employees unless you are damn sure of the returns. Our government never is.
So what to do ?
First we pick a goal. I want the goal to be employment. I want to help companies hire employees. I think the first problem to solve is creating jobs.
The Republican/ Tea-Party approach to job creation is to cut taxes. The theory being that more money in the pocket of individuals will cause people to spend more money in the economy thereby creating more jobs. Nope. Not happening. Why ? Because individuals have too much debt. Any money they get goes to pay credit cards, student loans and for the smart and fortunate into savings.
Individuals now have debt = to about 119pct of income vs historical levels of .17pct in the 40s, 55pct in the 50s , 65pct in the 60s and a high of 133pct in 2007). It didn’t create enough jobs to have an impact and it won’t in this environment. They also think the same applied to corporations will translate into more jobs. Nope. That is not the case. Big companies in particular are not cash poor. Whether its re-patriation of cash in foreign countries or lower tax rates, neither lead to the creation of new jobs in this economy. It just leads to more cash in the bank.
So the Democrats are right, we should borrow more money. The Dems are wrong that the government knows how to spend the money. The Republicans/Tea Party are right that we have a spending problem. The Republicans/Tea Party are wrong that cutting taxes will result in more jobs.
So IMHO, creating jobs isn’t about the government spending money on jobs /projects, nor is it about cutting taxes. It’s about taking a page from the technology and common sense world.
How is this for a revolutionary thought: Companies that would create jobs if they had more cash know who they are. Right ? If you own a company and are thinking to yourself “Self, if I could borrow or get an investment into my company I could hire X more people to grow the company/meet demand/release a new product/whatever” So rather than guessing and hoping what might happen, why don’t we let companies self identify themselves ?
And not only should they self-identify themselves as companies, they should be able to bid on Government Loans or even actual equity investments. Call me crazy, but I think we should be playing a game of “I Can Name that Tune in X Notes” re-named and reformatted as “I Can Create X Jobs for Y Amount of Money”
Seriously. Call me crazy (and Im sure many of you will), but there is no reason why we can’t quickly create a federal website that allows existing companies to say to the Federal Government how much money they need and how many jobs they can create for that money and for what duration are they committing to maintain those jobs for the money.
Of course you will have to set some minimum parameters in order to prevent the dreamers, crazies and who knows whats from clogging up the system. I would set those minimums including: The company must be in business for at least 10 years. They must be have at least 100 full time employees. They must do 100mm in revenues. And of course they must be up to date on their taxes and Im sure there are other things to think of as well.
I’m sure I have pissed off everyone who doesn’t qualify. Sorry.
The reality is that for this to work the universe of companies has to be small enough so that the system put in place is not overwhelmed. The companies must be big enough to be able to respond to any required due diligence information. If this is made to work, the qualifications could be reduced to expand the universe of eligible companies.
Who would be the decision makers ? I would set up multiple 5 person regional committees across the country. I’m not quite sure who would pick the members, or what their exact qualifications should be, but I can tell you what I would set as a requirement. People would only be eligible to be on the committee if they had not made a political contribution of any kind directly to a politician or to a PAC of any sort in the last 5 years. This can not be a politically dominated decision process.
The committees would then look at the submissions, starting with the ones that promised the most jobs at the least cost. Then they would do their due diligence about the company and request and make a decision. Yes or No. Equity or Debt. Terms of repayment or ownership (exit or return of capital on par with other equity partners) Then on to the next. Funding would come from short term treasury borrowings. As long as the program had submissions and those submissions resulted in positive returns, the program would continue.
Oh, and one more important element. Transparency. You apply and get your money, the amount of money you got and the jobs you committed to and for how long will be published publicly. Visibility has a way of keeping people honest.
I know this is just a rough idea, but I wanted to put it out there for consideration. Rather than having Dems and Republicans fight ideological battles about job creation, lets get direct. Lets just ask companies to tell us how many jobs they would create and how much they need and see what it all adds up to and go from there
What do you think ?
My Suggestion on Patent Law Aug 7th 2011 1:58PM nlgomarerick mark cuban web log
http://blogmaverick.com/2011/08/07/my-suggestion-on-patent-law/
My Suggestion on Patent Law
Aug 7th 2011 1:58PM
It is easy to complain. Much harder to come up with solutions. Many won’t like what I propose, but who wants to make lawyers happy anyway ?
The solution ?
1. End all software patents. Don’t make them shorter, eliminate them.
I have no problem with software being copyrightable just as it always has been. That is more than enough protection and keeps enough lawyers un-gainfully employed.
2. End all process patents. They serve absolutely no purpose. None.
If you create a new process, use it. The benefit is from creating the idea and using it in a business to your advantage. Afraid that some big company might steal the idea ? That is life. When you run with the elephants there are the quick and the dead. That is a challenge every small company faces. A process patent is not going to make your business successful. The successful execution of business processes will. If we had process patents or the culture of software litigation in the 1980′s as we have today current technology would consist of running terminals on DEC and Wang Computers at the local library for $10 per hour and there probably would not be a world-wide web.
No doubt that by the mid 90′s someone would have sued Marc Andreessen and his friends at the University of Illinois long before Mosaic could ever turn into Netscape. My guess is that the patent attorneys at British Telecom would have been all over them contending that hyperlinking was protected, but for $10 per download they could use them in their new browser…
Some of the benefits of eliminating process and software ?
a. Reduce the court room costs associated with process and software patent litigation. That is taxpayer money saved.
b. Improve the efficiency of the Patent Office.
Process patents are a magnet for everyone who has ever dreamed of being awarded a patent. The flood of applications not only slows the speed at which inventions that deserve patents are awarded, it reduces the quality of investigation into applications. That is a lose lose situation. Patents that shouldn’t be awarded are awarded, which in turn creates more work as those patents are challenged.
c. End the ridiculousness of the current Patent Arms Race.
Companies are buying patent collections as a way to defer litigation or to support their litigation efforts rather than to benefit from the intellectual property purchased. Billions of dollars are being spent on this arms race. Billions of dollars that without question impact consumer prices from these companies.
d. Patent costs cost jobs.
Uncertainty is never good. Certainty of risk is even worse. What i mean by that is that almost every major corporation is this country has ongoing patent litigation and many, many small companies (my companies included) have ongoing patent litigation as well.
How does this impact jobs and job creation ? The thing about patent litigation is that it is unlimited and unquantifiable. There is absolutely no way to look at your business and say “this is where and what my risk is”. Because of software and process patents any company could be sued for almost anything. It is impossible to know what the next patent to be issued will be and whether or not your company will be at complete risk. It is impossible to go through the entire catalog of patents issued over the last 10, 15, 20 years and determine which will be used to initiate a suit against your company.
It’s impossible to quantify just how much and how often you will be sued and what the costs associated with those lawsuit(s) will be.
The risks are unlimited.
Unlimited risk in any environment will force a company to hold back resources in an attempt to protect itself. In the case of several of my companies, it means that we have held off hiring people so that we have cash in the back to deal with current and future patent litigation.
It’s a joke, but that is the reality of doing business in this country.
e. Look overseas
Pick any country that is currently doing well, China is a perfect example. In China the Intellectual Property Laws are so weak that someone thought it was a good idea to completely replicate Apple retail stores. Compare their economy to ours. As much as I hate to compare other economies to ours, it’s worth taking a look .
It is time to change. This country needs the change.
Eliminating software and process patents won’t end patent litigation, but it certainly will be a good first step. And while it may only be a step, it will be a positive step towards improving the economy and adding jobs.
Update: I wanted to re post a comment from my last post. I think it is important. It obviously doesn’t go as far as I would like, but if you care about patent reform let your representatives know.
Unfortunately, the patent reform bill that President Obama just encouraged Congress to pass, does nothing to address the problem of patent trolls. (The full text of the bill, H.R. 1249, can be read here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-1249).
This bill passed the House 304-117 and it’s companion bill (S.23:http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-23 ) passed the senate 95-5, vitally assuring that the two bills will be reconciled and signed into law in early September, once congress returns from recess. This is “reform” in name only, as the bills will do nothing to discourage the job-killing litigation tactics of the patent trolls that Mr. Cuban references above.
If you care about the issue of patent trolls, you have one month to encourage your Congressperson to amend S.23 and/or H.R. 1249 to include limiting damages from “non-practicing entities” (aka, trolls).
My Suggestion on Patent Law
Aug 7th 2011 1:58PM
It is easy to complain. Much harder to come up with solutions. Many won’t like what I propose, but who wants to make lawyers happy anyway ?
The solution ?
1. End all software patents. Don’t make them shorter, eliminate them.
I have no problem with software being copyrightable just as it always has been. That is more than enough protection and keeps enough lawyers un-gainfully employed.
2. End all process patents. They serve absolutely no purpose. None.
If you create a new process, use it. The benefit is from creating the idea and using it in a business to your advantage. Afraid that some big company might steal the idea ? That is life. When you run with the elephants there are the quick and the dead. That is a challenge every small company faces. A process patent is not going to make your business successful. The successful execution of business processes will. If we had process patents or the culture of software litigation in the 1980′s as we have today current technology would consist of running terminals on DEC and Wang Computers at the local library for $10 per hour and there probably would not be a world-wide web.
No doubt that by the mid 90′s someone would have sued Marc Andreessen and his friends at the University of Illinois long before Mosaic could ever turn into Netscape. My guess is that the patent attorneys at British Telecom would have been all over them contending that hyperlinking was protected, but for $10 per download they could use them in their new browser…
Some of the benefits of eliminating process and software ?
a. Reduce the court room costs associated with process and software patent litigation. That is taxpayer money saved.
b. Improve the efficiency of the Patent Office.
Process patents are a magnet for everyone who has ever dreamed of being awarded a patent. The flood of applications not only slows the speed at which inventions that deserve patents are awarded, it reduces the quality of investigation into applications. That is a lose lose situation. Patents that shouldn’t be awarded are awarded, which in turn creates more work as those patents are challenged.
c. End the ridiculousness of the current Patent Arms Race.
Companies are buying patent collections as a way to defer litigation or to support their litigation efforts rather than to benefit from the intellectual property purchased. Billions of dollars are being spent on this arms race. Billions of dollars that without question impact consumer prices from these companies.
d. Patent costs cost jobs.
Uncertainty is never good. Certainty of risk is even worse. What i mean by that is that almost every major corporation is this country has ongoing patent litigation and many, many small companies (my companies included) have ongoing patent litigation as well.
How does this impact jobs and job creation ? The thing about patent litigation is that it is unlimited and unquantifiable. There is absolutely no way to look at your business and say “this is where and what my risk is”. Because of software and process patents any company could be sued for almost anything. It is impossible to know what the next patent to be issued will be and whether or not your company will be at complete risk. It is impossible to go through the entire catalog of patents issued over the last 10, 15, 20 years and determine which will be used to initiate a suit against your company.
It’s impossible to quantify just how much and how often you will be sued and what the costs associated with those lawsuit(s) will be.
The risks are unlimited.
Unlimited risk in any environment will force a company to hold back resources in an attempt to protect itself. In the case of several of my companies, it means that we have held off hiring people so that we have cash in the back to deal with current and future patent litigation.
It’s a joke, but that is the reality of doing business in this country.
e. Look overseas
Pick any country that is currently doing well, China is a perfect example. In China the Intellectual Property Laws are so weak that someone thought it was a good idea to completely replicate Apple retail stores. Compare their economy to ours. As much as I hate to compare other economies to ours, it’s worth taking a look .
It is time to change. This country needs the change.
Eliminating software and process patents won’t end patent litigation, but it certainly will be a good first step. And while it may only be a step, it will be a positive step towards improving the economy and adding jobs.
Update: I wanted to re post a comment from my last post. I think it is important. It obviously doesn’t go as far as I would like, but if you care about patent reform let your representatives know.
Unfortunately, the patent reform bill that President Obama just encouraged Congress to pass, does nothing to address the problem of patent trolls. (The full text of the bill, H.R. 1249, can be read here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-1249).
This bill passed the House 304-117 and it’s companion bill (S.23:http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-23 ) passed the senate 95-5, vitally assuring that the two bills will be reconciled and signed into law in early September, once congress returns from recess. This is “reform” in name only, as the bills will do nothing to discourage the job-killing litigation tactics of the patent trolls that Mr. Cuban references above.
If you care about the issue of patent trolls, you have one month to encourage your Congressperson to amend S.23 and/or H.R. 1249 to include limiting damages from “non-practicing entities” (aka, trolls).
awk to compute moses malone point per shot per game efficiency
[g@archgav awk]$ awk '{g=$5;p=$8;f=$10/g;t=$13/g;s=f+t/2;if (s) printf "%6.2f %-8s %2d\n", p/s, $1, p}' mos
1.17 1974-75 18
1.06 1975-76 14
1.05 1976-77 13
1.09 1977-78 19
1.18 1978-79 24
1.09 1979-80 25
1.14 1980-81 27
1.13 1981-82 31
1.12 1982-83 24
1.10 1983-84 22
1.12 1984-85 24
1.08 1985-86 23
1.06 1986-87 24
1.12 1987-88 20
1.13 1988-89 20
1.10 1989-90 18
1.11 1990-91 10
1.08 1991-92 15
0.86 1992-93 4
1.00 1993-94 5
0.97 1994-95 2
[g@archgav awk]$ awk '{g=$5;p=$8;f=$10/g;t=$13/g;s=f+t/2;if (s) printf "%6.2f %-8s %2d\n", p/s, $1, p}' mos|sort -rn
1.18 1978-79 24
1.17 1974-75 18
1.14 1980-81 27
1.13 1988-89 20
1.13 1981-82 31
1.12 1987-88 20
1.12 1984-85 24
1.12 1982-83 24
1.11 1990-91 10
1.10 1989-90 18
1.10 1983-84 22
1.09 1979-80 25
1.09 1977-78 19
1.08 1991-92 15
1.08 1985-86 23
1.06 1986-87 24
1.06 1975-76 14
1.05 1976-77 13
1.00 1993-94 5
0.97 1994-95 2
0.86 1992-93 4
1.17 1974-75 18
1.06 1975-76 14
1.05 1976-77 13
1.09 1977-78 19
1.18 1978-79 24
1.09 1979-80 25
1.14 1980-81 27
1.13 1981-82 31
1.12 1982-83 24
1.10 1983-84 22
1.12 1984-85 24
1.08 1985-86 23
1.06 1986-87 24
1.12 1987-88 20
1.13 1988-89 20
1.10 1989-90 18
1.11 1990-91 10
1.08 1991-92 15
0.86 1992-93 4
1.00 1993-94 5
0.97 1994-95 2
[g@archgav awk]$ awk '{g=$5;p=$8;f=$10/g;t=$13/g;s=f+t/2;if (s) printf "%6.2f %-8s %2d\n", p/s, $1, p}' mos|sort -rn
1.18 1978-79 24
1.17 1974-75 18
1.14 1980-81 27
1.13 1988-89 20
1.13 1981-82 31
1.12 1987-88 20
1.12 1984-85 24
1.12 1982-83 24
1.11 1990-91 10
1.10 1989-90 18
1.10 1983-84 22
1.09 1979-80 25
1.09 1977-78 19
1.08 1991-92 15
1.08 1985-86 23
1.06 1986-87 24
1.06 1975-76 14
1.05 1976-77 13
1.00 1993-94 5
0.97 1994-95 2
0.86 1992-93 4
lakers dallas 2011 playoffs points per shot efficientcy per player all 4 games
awk '{f=$5;t=$9;p=$19;s=f+(t/2);e=p/s;if ($19>0) print e, $1, $2}' gm1_lak_dal_11 |sort -rn
awk 'gsub(/-/, " ")' gm1_lak_dal_11 > gm1_lak_dal_11a
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore?gid=2011050213 I edited out the F c or G on each line then removed the - using the gsub above
the the awking began
awk '{if ($19>0) f=$5;t=$9;p=$19;s=f+(t/2);e=p/s;print e" "$1, $2, $19}' gm3_lak_dal_11 |sort -rn
awk '{f=$5; t=$9; p=$19; s=f+t/2; if (s) printf "%6.4f %-20s %2d\n", p/s, $1" "$2, p}' gm3_lak_dal_11 |sort -rn
awk '{f=$5; t=$9; p=$19; s=f+t/2; if (s) printf "%4.2f %-20s %2d\n", p/s, $1" "$2, p}' gm3_lak_dal_11 |sort -rn
awk '{f=$5; t=$9; p=$19; s=f+t/2; if (s) printf "%2d %-20s %6.2f\n", p, $1" "$2, p/s}' gm3_lak_dal_11 |sort -rn
$ awk '{f=$5; t=$9; p=$19; s=f+t/2; if (s) printf "%6.2f %-20s %2d\n", p/s, $1" "$2, p}' gm4_lak_dal_11 |sort -rn
3.00 B. Cardinal(notes) 3
2.62 P. Stojakovic(notes) 21
2.13 J. Terry(notes) 32
1.60 B. Haywood(notes) 4
1.42 J.J. Barea(notes) 22
1.42 D. Nowitzki(notes) 17
1.33 L. Odom(notes) 10
1.30 S. Brown(notes) 15
1.20 M. Barnes(notes) 9
1.16 R. Artest(notes) 11
1.11 T. Chandler(notes) 5
1.00 S. Marion(notes) 8
1.00 I. Mahinmi(notes) 2
1.00 C. Brewer(notes) 2
0.91 P. Gasol(notes) 10
0.85 K. Bryant(notes) 17
0.75 S. Blake(notes) 3
0.75 A. Bynum(notes) 6
0.50 J. Kidd(notes) 3
0.50 D. Stevenson(notes) 3
0.50 D. Fisher(notes) 5
0.00 T. Johnson(notes) 0
0.00 L. Walton(notes) 0
0.00 J. Smith(notes) 0
awk 'gsub(/-/, " ")' gm1_lak_dal_11 > gm1_lak_dal_11a
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore?gid=2011050213 I edited out the F c or G on each line then removed the - using the gsub above
the the awking began
awk '{if ($19>0) f=$5;t=$9;p=$19;s=f+(t/2);e=p/s;print e" "$1, $2, $19}' gm3_lak_dal_11 |sort -rn
awk '{f=$5; t=$9; p=$19; s=f+t/2; if (s) printf "%6.4f %-20s %2d\n", p/s, $1" "$2, p}' gm3_lak_dal_11 |sort -rn
awk '{f=$5; t=$9; p=$19; s=f+t/2; if (s) printf "%4.2f %-20s %2d\n", p/s, $1" "$2, p}' gm3_lak_dal_11 |sort -rn
awk '{f=$5; t=$9; p=$19; s=f+t/2; if (s) printf "%2d %-20s %6.2f\n", p, $1" "$2, p/s}' gm3_lak_dal_11 |sort -rn
$ awk '{f=$5; t=$9; p=$19; s=f+t/2; if (s) printf "%6.2f %-20s %2d\n", p/s, $1" "$2, p}' gm4_lak_dal_11 |sort -rn
3.00 B. Cardinal(notes) 3
2.62 P. Stojakovic(notes) 21
2.13 J. Terry(notes) 32
1.60 B. Haywood(notes) 4
1.42 J.J. Barea(notes) 22
1.42 D. Nowitzki(notes) 17
1.33 L. Odom(notes) 10
1.30 S. Brown(notes) 15
1.20 M. Barnes(notes) 9
1.16 R. Artest(notes) 11
1.11 T. Chandler(notes) 5
1.00 S. Marion(notes) 8
1.00 I. Mahinmi(notes) 2
1.00 C. Brewer(notes) 2
0.91 P. Gasol(notes) 10
0.85 K. Bryant(notes) 17
0.75 S. Blake(notes) 3
0.75 A. Bynum(notes) 6
0.50 J. Kidd(notes) 3
0.50 D. Stevenson(notes) 3
0.50 D. Fisher(notes) 5
0.00 T. Johnson(notes) 0
0.00 L. Walton(notes) 0
0.00 J. Smith(notes) 0
Group that Attacks Republicans Exposed! Hide Details FROM: Townhall Spotlight TO: friend Message flagged Thursday, August 11, 2
Group that Attacks Republicans Exposed!
Hide Details
FROM:
Townhall Spotlight
TO:
friend
Message flagged
Thursday, August 11, 2011 4:47 AM
Message body
Group that Attacks Republicans Exposed! Perhaps you’ve heard of the organization called the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). The mainstream media (and Rachel Maddow) darling is often described as a
Group that Attacks Republicans Exposed!
Perhaps you’ve heard of the organization called the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). The mainstream media (and Rachel Maddow) darling is often described as a “nonpartisan watchdog.” Newspaper reporters and cable news commentators want you to think that this collective is keeping tabs on Washington and making sure that both sides of the aisle play fair. Don’t be fooled: CREW is as partisan as they come.
To find out the truth about CREW, go to CREWExposed.com. Here you’ll find a wealth of information about the hyper-partisan activities of this “nonpartisan” group. Among the nuggets:
• Overall, CREW targets Republicans or right-leaning organizations with Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Federal Election Commission (FEC), and congressional ethics complaints eight times more frequently than Democrats;
• 76 percent of CREW FEC complaints were aimed at Republicans/right-leaning groups,
• 100 percent of CREW IRS complaints were aimed at Republicans/right-leaning groups,
• 75 percent of CREW complaints/requests for action with the House Ethics Committee, and 83 percent of CREW complaints/requests for action with the Senate Ethics Committee, were targeted at Republicans;
• CREW has filed 51 lawsuits, 75 percent of which have been aimed at Republicans or the Bush Administration. Only 18 percent were aimed at Democrats.
When one looks at those who work at CREW, these facts aren’t surprising: An analysis of current and past staff members revealed that exactly zero had worked for Republicans or right-leaning organizations before joining CREW. Many of them had worked for Democratic legislators like Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden or liberal organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. And the organization was founded by, among others, Mark Penn, a close ally of the Clintons.
Where does CREW get their funding? You may or may not be surprised. Here’s a hint: A billionaire originally from Eastern Europe has kicked in some funds. Click here to find out more.
So is CREW a nonpartisan watchdog or Democratic lapdog? Go to CREWExposed.com and you’ll find the answer is pretty obvious. Check out the site and share this with your friends so they aren’t duped by the next news article that features CREW propaganda.
Hide Details
FROM:
Townhall Spotlight
TO:
friend
Message flagged
Thursday, August 11, 2011 4:47 AM
Message body
Group that Attacks Republicans Exposed! Perhaps you’ve heard of the organization called the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). The mainstream media (and Rachel Maddow) darling is often described as a
Group that Attacks Republicans Exposed!
Perhaps you’ve heard of the organization called the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). The mainstream media (and Rachel Maddow) darling is often described as a “nonpartisan watchdog.” Newspaper reporters and cable news commentators want you to think that this collective is keeping tabs on Washington and making sure that both sides of the aisle play fair. Don’t be fooled: CREW is as partisan as they come.
To find out the truth about CREW, go to CREWExposed.com. Here you’ll find a wealth of information about the hyper-partisan activities of this “nonpartisan” group. Among the nuggets:
• Overall, CREW targets Republicans or right-leaning organizations with Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Federal Election Commission (FEC), and congressional ethics complaints eight times more frequently than Democrats;
• 76 percent of CREW FEC complaints were aimed at Republicans/right-leaning groups,
• 100 percent of CREW IRS complaints were aimed at Republicans/right-leaning groups,
• 75 percent of CREW complaints/requests for action with the House Ethics Committee, and 83 percent of CREW complaints/requests for action with the Senate Ethics Committee, were targeted at Republicans;
• CREW has filed 51 lawsuits, 75 percent of which have been aimed at Republicans or the Bush Administration. Only 18 percent were aimed at Democrats.
When one looks at those who work at CREW, these facts aren’t surprising: An analysis of current and past staff members revealed that exactly zero had worked for Republicans or right-leaning organizations before joining CREW. Many of them had worked for Democratic legislators like Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden or liberal organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. And the organization was founded by, among others, Mark Penn, a close ally of the Clintons.
Where does CREW get their funding? You may or may not be surprised. Here’s a hint: A billionaire originally from Eastern Europe has kicked in some funds. Click here to find out more.
So is CREW a nonpartisan watchdog or Democratic lapdog? Go to CREWExposed.com and you’ll find the answer is pretty obvious. Check out the site and share this with your friends so they aren’t duped by the next news article that features CREW propaganda.
george gervin points per shot efficiency with free throws factored in
stats for gervin from http://basketballreference.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=GERVIGE01 placed into text file ger
[g@archgav awk]$ awk '{g=$5;p=$8;f=$10/g;t=$13/g/2;e=p/(f+t);print e, $1}' ger
1.0575 1972-73
1.04439 1973-74
1.04331 1974-75
1.09439 1975-76
1.18314 1976-77
1.165 1977-78
1.16421 1978-79
1.15439 1979-80
1.08985 1980-81
1.10559 1981-82
1.10108 1982-83
1.08482 1983-84
1.11092 1984-85
1.05345 1985-86
[g@archgav awk]$ awk '{g=$5;p=$8;f=$10/g;t=$13/g/2;e=p/(f+t);print e, $1}' ger
1.0575 1972-73
1.04439 1973-74
1.04331 1974-75
1.09439 1975-76
1.18314 1976-77
1.165 1977-78
1.16421 1978-79
1.15439 1979-80
1.08985 1980-81
1.10559 1981-82
1.10108 1982-83
1.08482 1983-84
1.11092 1984-85
1.05345 1985-86
from #awkon freenode come solutions to economy
[01:20] gavino: Fear not, the solution has already been found. http://i.imgur.com/gD5zT.png
[01:22] awesome and round up the communists and execute them!!
[01:22] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlLZE23EJKs wow the dymaxion car!!!
[01:22] 1933!
[01:23] insane in the membrane!
[01:23] just cut taxes n spending liek reagan did, it snot like this stuff is witout precedent, it worked then will work now
[01:23] easy
[01:23] end all capital gains
[01:23] end incoem tax and install 10% federal sales tax
[01:23] end irs
[01:23] end public school
[01:23] end fed
[01:24] end land taxes
[01:24] how own a house if it can taxed otu from under u?
[01:25] just sales tax 10%
[01:25] done
[01:22]
[01:22]
[01:22]
[01:23]
[01:23]
[01:23]
[01:23]
[01:23]
[01:23]
[01:23]
[01:23]
[01:24]
[01:24]
[01:25]
[01:25]
Future Car of 1913 Predicts Future Car of 1933 In 1913, Walter Baunard introduced Scientific American's readers to "The Future Car." Completely enclo
http://io9.com/355313/future-car-of-1913-predicts-future-car-of-1933
Future Car of 1913 Predicts Future Car of 1933
In 1913, Walter Baunard introduced Scientific American's readers to "The Future Car." Completely enclosed, "dust-proof, silent, and comfortable," Baunard's car resembled "a submarine boat more than it does a carriage." But what it really looked like was Buckminster Fuller's Dymaxion Car of twenty years later.
The Future Car, 1913:
Full size
Patent Drawing, Dymaxion Car, 1933:
Full size
P.S. You can watch videos of the Dymaxion car in action here.
Future Car of 1913 Predicts Future Car of 1933
In 1913, Walter Baunard introduced Scientific American's readers to "The Future Car." Completely enclosed, "dust-proof, silent, and comfortable," Baunard's car resembled "a submarine boat more than it does a carriage." But what it really looked like was Buckminster Fuller's Dymaxion Car of twenty years later.
The Future Car, 1913:
Full size
Patent Drawing, Dymaxion Car, 1933:
Full size
P.S. You can watch videos of the Dymaxion car in action here.
Rasmussen Poll: Tea Party Favored Over Congress Wednesday, 10 Aug 2011 01:19 PM By Greg McDonald Share: More . . . A A | Email Us | Pri
Rasmussen Poll: Tea Party Favored Over Congress
Wednesday, 10 Aug 2011 01:19 PM
By Greg McDonald
Share:
More . . .
A A |
Email Us |
Print |
Forward Article
More voters say the average tea party movement backer in Congress understands America’s problems better than the average congressman, although Republicans and Democrats have sharp differences of opinion.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone poll released Wednesday found that 42 percent of likely U.S. voters believe tea partiers get it, while 34 percent say the average congressman and senator isn’t clued in at all to the economic and other problems facing the country. Meanwhile, 24 percent of those surveyed said they were undecided about who knows what.
The survey of 1,000 likely voters conducted Aug. 5-6 might sound like fairly good news for House Republicans who held their ground with their no-tax, spending-cuts-only position during the debt ceiling negotiations with the White House. But it marks a 10-point drop in confidence in the tea party from March of last year when 52 percent thought its lawmakers understood the nation’s problems.
Overall, the poll found that just 36 percent of voters now have a favorable opinion of the tea party. Forty-four percent view the tea party in an unfavorable light, while 20 percent are undecided about how they feel.
The survey highlighted once again the huge differences in how Americans, who identify themselves as either Democrats or Republicans, view things.
For example, 60 percent of those identifying themselves as Democrats said they have more confidence in the average lawmaker than in tea party members. On the other hand, 68 percent of the Republicans polled gave thumbs up to the conservative GOP members.
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Read more on Newsmax.com: Rasmussen Poll: Tea Party Favored Over Congress
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
Wednesday, 10 Aug 2011 01:19 PM
By Greg McDonald
Share:
More . . .
A A |
Email Us |
Print |
Forward Article
More voters say the average tea party movement backer in Congress understands America’s problems better than the average congressman, although Republicans and Democrats have sharp differences of opinion.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone poll released Wednesday found that 42 percent of likely U.S. voters believe tea partiers get it, while 34 percent say the average congressman and senator isn’t clued in at all to the economic and other problems facing the country. Meanwhile, 24 percent of those surveyed said they were undecided about who knows what.
The survey of 1,000 likely voters conducted Aug. 5-6 might sound like fairly good news for House Republicans who held their ground with their no-tax, spending-cuts-only position during the debt ceiling negotiations with the White House. But it marks a 10-point drop in confidence in the tea party from March of last year when 52 percent thought its lawmakers understood the nation’s problems.
Overall, the poll found that just 36 percent of voters now have a favorable opinion of the tea party. Forty-four percent view the tea party in an unfavorable light, while 20 percent are undecided about how they feel.
The survey highlighted once again the huge differences in how Americans, who identify themselves as either Democrats or Republicans, view things.
For example, 60 percent of those identifying themselves as Democrats said they have more confidence in the average lawmaker than in tea party members. On the other hand, 68 percent of the Republicans polled gave thumbs up to the conservative GOP members.
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Read more on Newsmax.com: Rasmussen Poll: Tea Party Favored Over Congress
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
Don't Worry About Trump, Folks August 10, 2011 Listen To It! WMP | Flash Audio clips available for Rush 24/7 members only -- Join Now! BEGIN TRANSCR
Don't Worry About Trump, Folks
August 10, 2011
Listen To It! WMP | Flash
Audio clips available for Rush 24/7 members only -- Join Now!
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Jerry in Hermitage, Pennsylvania.
CALLER: Rush, it's an honor to talk to you.
RUSH: I know. Thank you very much.
CALLER: And I just wanted to say this. I've been listening for 22 years. I want to go back to the dittos, triple-L dittos to you and your brother, David.
RUSH: Thank you.
CALLER: That's "long live Limbaugh."
RUSH: Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate that.
CALLER: Okay, Rush, you said about an hour ago or so about the only way the Democrats and Obama can win is through fraud, and you're right about that. But there's another way they can win and that's what I'm worried about. Donald Trump says he might run as an independent.
RUSH: Yeah, I saw that. I did. If the Republicans don't nominate the right guy Trump said that he might get be back in and do it as an independent. Don't worry. I'm gonna talk to him about that.
CALLER: I'm glad about that but he's gonna determine who the "right" guy is.
RUSH: Well...
CALLER: And he also said one other thing. He said he'll run if the economy is bad. Well, what does he expect? Obama's gonna still be president; the Democrats are still gonna control the Senate. Of course the economy is gonna be bad.
RUSH: Yeah. I know, a lot of people are concerned. Some people do want a third-party; they just don't want it to be Trump. Others are worried third party altogether. I did hear him say that, but I'll have a talk with him. It'll be okay.
END TRANSCRIPT
August 10, 2011
Listen To It! WMP | Flash
Audio clips available for Rush 24/7 members only -- Join Now!
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Jerry in Hermitage, Pennsylvania.
CALLER: Rush, it's an honor to talk to you.
RUSH: I know. Thank you very much.
CALLER: And I just wanted to say this. I've been listening for 22 years. I want to go back to the dittos, triple-L dittos to you and your brother, David.
RUSH: Thank you.
CALLER: That's "long live Limbaugh."
RUSH: Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate that.
CALLER: Okay, Rush, you said about an hour ago or so about the only way the Democrats and Obama can win is through fraud, and you're right about that. But there's another way they can win and that's what I'm worried about. Donald Trump says he might run as an independent.
RUSH: Yeah, I saw that. I did. If the Republicans don't nominate the right guy Trump said that he might get be back in and do it as an independent. Don't worry. I'm gonna talk to him about that.
CALLER: I'm glad about that but he's gonna determine who the "right" guy is.
RUSH: Well...
CALLER: And he also said one other thing. He said he'll run if the economy is bad. Well, what does he expect? Obama's gonna still be president; the Democrats are still gonna control the Senate. Of course the economy is gonna be bad.
RUSH: Yeah. I know, a lot of people are concerned. Some people do want a third-party; they just don't want it to be Trump. Others are worried third party altogether. I did hear him say that, but I'll have a talk with him. It'll be okay.
END TRANSCRIPT
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
