PoliticsFormerly About Advanced Micro Devices

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: tejek who wrote (646752)3/3/2012 1:43:36 PM
From: joseffy
   of 1073749
Detroit is Beirut.

Imbecile tejek doesn't know that.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: tejek who wrote (646757)3/3/2012 1:43:41 PM
From: i-node
2 Recommendations   of 1073749
>> And lets not forget that the disgusting Rush is calling her a slut because she uses birth control like millions of American women.

So were Letterman and Maher disgusting when they used similarly offensive language to describe Palin?

I must have missed your post on those events, you two-faced sack of crap.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (646763)3/3/2012 1:43:50 PM
From: Brumar89
   of 1073749
As regards contraception.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: tejek who wrote (646757)3/3/2012 1:45:09 PM
From: joseffy
   of 1073749
Fluke is a thirty-year-old longtime lefty activist.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: bentway3/3/2012 1:48:45 PM
   of 1073749
Worst Liars and Cheaters: Rich People


By Kevin Spak, Newser Staff
Posted Feb 28, 2012 10:42 AM CST

(NEWSER) – You might think that people who are comparatively well off would be less likely to lie and cheat to make a buck, but you'd be wrong. A series of experiments from UC Berkeley doctoral student Paul Piff found that time and again upper-class people were willing to do shady things for even the smallest rewards, MSNBC reports. In one test, participants were told to play an online dice game, recording their own scores. Upper-income people were much more likely to exaggerate their results.

The prize they were after? Extra entries in a drawing for a $50 gift card. "It was fairly remarkable," Piff says. "You wouldn't think that people reporting incomes of $150,000 per year would be so motivated to win this." In another survey, wealthy participants proved much more likely to lie to a hypothetical job applicant to get him to accept lower wages. Piff came up with the tests after a series of traffic studies in which he observed that people in expensive cars were less courteous drivers.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: bentway who wrote (646769)3/3/2012 2:09:56 PM
From: joseffy
   of 1073749
What juvenile stuff Soros' lefty sites puke out.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: bentway who wrote (646769)3/3/2012 2:12:00 PM
From: Brumar89
   of 1073749
That study was done in the San Fran area where the rich are mostly creepy sleazy immoral liberals.

Did you know some liberals think infanticide is okay?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: steve harris who wrote (646750)3/3/2012 2:17:08 PM
From: joseffy
1 Recommendation   of 1073749
Holder Wants Race Preferences and Benefits . . . Forever

March 2, 2012 | J. Christian Adams

Eric Holder has gone all-in supporting race-based hiring preferences and race-based benefits. Given that the majority of Americans despise this rot, surely the presidential candidates will pounce.

In a little noticed interview at the “World Leaders Forum,” Holder makes statements that should be the subject of a direct mail piece in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Virginia:

Holder expressed support for affirmative action, saying that he “can’t actually imagine a time in which the need for more diversity would ever cease.”

“Affirmative action has been an issue since segregation practices,” Holder said. “The question is not when does it end, but when does it begin. … When do people of color truly get the benefits to which they are entitled?”

Let me repeat: When do people of color truly get the benefits to which they are entitled? Again, the benefits to which they are entitled.

Ponder a moment the layers of rubbish in this philosophy.

Some are surprised by Holder’s brazenness. I am not. As I like to say, I wrote a bestseller about Holder’s racialist DOJ. Nothing surprises me anymore. The only surprise is the dumbfounded, stuck, GOP response — which would be none.

If the GOP nominee does not make this a presidential campaign issue because he is afraid to talk about such unpleasantries, then shame on him. In tough economic times, the last thing middle America wants to hear is the attorney general grousing about people of color getting benefits because of their color.

The Obama administration obviously exercises no restraint on racial issues, or perhaps has the courage of their convictions. What price is paid for this racial radicalism? None.

Instead, we have a whole assortment of Republicans, inside the government (oh and I could name so many names), afraid to pound Obama for this. Let’s hope they come out of their shells and fight.

Obama has paid no price for this rotted, unfair, and un-American employment philosophy, and continued GOP silence will preserve this peace.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: PROLIFE who wrote (646734)3/3/2012 2:19:58 PM
From: tejek
1 Recommendation   of 1073749

They hate the 'safety net' but they use it.

LINDSTROM, minn. — Ki Gulbranson owns a logo apparel shop, deals in jewelry on the side and referees youth soccer games. He makes about $39,000 a year and wants you to know that he does not need any help from the federal government.

He says that too many Americans lean on taxpayers rather than living within their means. He supports politicians who promise to cut government spending. In 2010, he printed T-shirts for the Tea Party campaign of a neighbor, Chip Cravaack, who ousted this region's long-serving Democratic congressman.

Yet this year, as in each of the past three years, Gulbranson, 57, is counting on a payment of several thousand dollars from the federal government, a subsidy for working families called

SOMETIMES A SOURCE OF ANGER: Brian Qualley says some of his tattoo customers in Harris, Minn., pay with money from disability checks. Americans are divided on how to address the rising costs of a wide variety of safety net programs.

the earned income tax credit. He has signed up his three school-age children to eat free breakfast and lunch at federal expense. And Medicare paid for his mother, 88, to have hip surgery twice.

There is little poverty here in Chisago County, northeast of Minneapolis, where cheap housing for commuters is gradually replacing farmland. But Gulbranson and many other residents who describe themselves as self-sufficient members of the U.S. middle class and as opponents of government largess are drawing more deeply on that government with each passing year.

Dozens of benefits programs provided an average of $6,583 for each man, woman and child in the county in 2009, a 69 percent increase from 2000 after adjusting for inflation. In Chisago, and across the nation, the government now provides almost $1 in benefits for every $4 in other income.

Shifting distribution

Older people get most of the benefits, primarily through Social Security and Medicare, but aid for the rest of the population has increased about as quickly through programs for the disabled, the unemployed, veterans and children.

The government safety net was created to keep Americans from abject poverty, but the poorest

SOMETIMES A LIFESAVER: Barbara Sullivan lives on Social Security and relied on Medicare to pay for an operation. More middle-class families are landing in the government safety net that was created to keep Americans from abject poverty. (Photos by Jenn Ackerman, The New York Times)

households no longer receive a majority of government benefits. A secondary mission has gradually become primary: maintaining the middle class from childhood through retirement.

The share of benefits flowing to the least affluent households, the bottom fifth, has declined from 54 percent in 1979 to 36 percent in 2007, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis published last year.

The problem by now is familiar to most. Politicians have expanded the safety net without a commensurate increase in revenues, a primary reason for the government's annual deficits and mushrooming debt.

In 2000, federal and state governments spent about 37 cents on the safety net from every dollar they collected in revenue, according to a New York Times analysis. A decade later, after one Medicare expansion, two recessions and three rounds of tax cuts, spending on the safety net consumed nearly 66 cents of every dollar of revenue.

The recent recession increased dependence on government, and stronger economic growth would reduce demand for programs like unemployment benefits. But the long-term trend is clear. Over the next 25 years, as the population ages and medical costs climb, the budget office projects that benefits programs will grow faster than any other part of government, driving the federal debt to dangerous heights.

A nation divided

Americans are divided about the way forward. Seventy percent of respondents to a recent New York Times poll said the government should raise taxes. Fifty-six percent supported cuts in Medicare and Social Security. Forty-four percent favored both.

Bob Kopka and his wife often drive to the American Legion hall in North Branch on Thursday nights, joining the crowd gathered in the basement bar for the weekly meat raffle. Almost everyone present relies on the government to pay for their medical care.

Kopka, 74, has had three heart procedures in recent years. His wife recently had surgery to remove cataracts from both eyes.

Without Medicare, Kopka said, the couple could not have paid for the treatments.

"No. Never," he said. "She would have to go blind."

And him?

"I'd die."

Spending on medical benefits will account for a larger share of the projected increase in the federal budget over the next decade than any other kind of spending except interest payments on the federal debt.

Some of the fiercest advocates for spending cuts have drawn public benefits. Many have family members who rely on the government. They often cite that personal experience as the reason they want to cut government spending.

Barbara Nelson, 61, has little patience for people who say they will not need government help. She considers herself lucky she has not, and obligated to provide for those who do.

"Catastrophes happen in life," she said, sitting in a coffee shop in Taylors Falls. "To be so arrogant that you think it won't happen to you, that somehow you're going to be one of the special ones, I disagree with that."

$6,583: Average provided to each man, woman and child in Chisago County Minnesota in 2009 through dozens of benefits programs

66 cents: Share of each dollar in federal revenue that went to safety net programs in 2010

Copyright 2012 The Denver Post. All rights reserved.

Read more: Growing assistance for middle class strains the safety net - The Denver Post

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: Taro3/3/2012 2:25:15 PM
   of 1073749

Had this happened in Russia, in our minds no doubts Putin had been behind it, right?

Thank God we are so much different (better!) in the US!


Will We Ever Know The True Cause Of Andrew Breitbart’s Death?


The news yesterday has been replete with the explanation that conservative media mogul Andrew Breitbart’s death was the result of “natural causes.” How can that possibly be?” An announcement on his website reads in part, “Andrew passed away unexpectedly from natural causes shortly after midnight this morning in Los Angeles. We have lost a husband, a father, a son, a brother, a dear friend, a patriot and a happy warrior.”

He began his meteoric rise as the counter force to the media cover-ups and government lies constantly bombarding us by a left leaning media. He became a major voice of the conservative movement that was helping to reshape our country.
Breitbart began his career as a citizen journalist at The Drudge Report before launching his own series of websites to expose media bias. He created a platform for citizen journalists to bypass the traditional media and break the stories that they tried to hide. They include (citizen journalism and news clips), Big Government (corruption in American politics), Big Journalism (media bias), Big Hollywood (bias in the entertainment industry), and Big Peace (foreign policy and world events). Of course he had a back up plan; Breitbart‘s Tapes of Obama’s College Years to Be Released in a week

Let’s discuss death by natural causes. As mentioned above, yesterday’s media, likely in haste to get the story of his untimely death in print and television as soon as possible, said that the cause of death was from “natural causes,” when factually no cause had been determined.

The Los Angeles Coroner said via e-mail Thursday morning, at 8:54 a.m. PST, that Andrew Breitbart’s cause of death had not yet been determined pending the examination of his body. Craig R. Harvey, chief coroner investigator and chief of operations for the Los Angeles Coroner’s Office, confirmed Andrew Breitbart’s time of death as being 12:19 a.m. Thursday at UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles. He went on to offer the following short comment via e-mail: “Body not yet examined. No final cause of death yet established by the Coroner.”
An autopsy is planned for today, but the Los Angeles Police Department said it is not investigating the circumstances of his death. Isn’t this a bit odd? No mention has been made that this investigation by the police happened by normal investigative protocol.

According to the Center for Disease Control’s ( CDC) Manual for medical examiner and coroners handbook on death registration, natural death is defined as ‘‘due solely or nearly totally to disease and/or the aging process.’’ It’s fair to say that at the age of 43, age would not have been a significant factor.

ABC reported yesterday, in a story for the AP, that Andrew Brietbart suffered from heart problems. The AP report said nothing concerning a previous heart attack, how long he had heart disease, what type, and it is at this point the allegation remains unsubstantiated by additional corroborating information from credible sources. Was there a familial history of heart disease?

In a very short time, Brietbart became a legend. He was a one-man powerhouse who changed the way we received the news. Recently Breitbart had publicly denounced the mainstream media’s performance in vetting Barack Obama for the Presidency in 2008. As noted on Andrew Breitbart recently vowed to make sure such a travesty did not happen again in 2012.

It’s entirely possible that natural causes may have resulted in his death. It’s also possible that his death could have been caused by covert unnatural causes. I’m not proposing a conspiracy here; I’m proposing a theory, resting on a number of serious questions with no answers at this point.

What if sinister forces had arranged the death of Andrew Breitbart? Could he have become a significant risk to the Obama administration that Obama’s handlers might have deemed his continued presence and reach a threat that must be silenced?

(Editor’s Note: Interestingly, at yesterday’s Cold Case Posse Press Conference, Jerome Corsi pointed out that Andrew Breibart’s Last Interview Was With Sheriff Joe Arpaio, The Night Before)

Could he have been ready to unleash another bombshell? Remember his speech at C-PAC where he admonished that he had the videos of Obama’s college years and this time he would be vetted? Time will tell. Where are those videos now? Will they ever be seen? Breitbart’s focus had been of finding the truth and exposing the lies and corruption of the current administration.

It wasn’t just the administration he continually exposed; Andrew Brietbart took an in your face approach in confronting the “Occupy Wall Street” movement and derided the participants for their cluelessness.

On one occasion, he crossed the line of a mob protesting its pro union cause and challenged the sign holders to explain what was on their signs. They couldn’t, so he began moving to the center of this group of cowards resulting in their moving away from him (as if Moses had once again appeared to part the Red Sea.) Finally, as they were leaving, one participant slurred an epithet about Andrew’s sexual preferences, to which he laughed at the kid and told him he was being so politically correct and insensitive.

Remember the James O’Keefe videos on ACORN? That was Andrew Breitbart. He helped James O’Keefe and his friend Hannah Giles as they went walking in portraying a pimp and a prostitute looking for ways to scam the system, and there was ACORN telling them how to do it. All caught on video tape, it caused ACORN to “theoretically shut down,” while they changed their names and came back to life morphed as a number of separate organizations. These groups are the result of community organizing still using our tax dollars “to help get out the vote” even if fraudulent applications as well as the dead were counted among Obama’s supporters.

Breitbart exposed the texting of sexually explicit pictures by Anthony Weiner, a congressman who was forced to resign for putting pictures of his anatomy out on Twitter. Weiner blamed Breitbart for displaying his body parts in text messages, alleging Mr. Breitbart hacked his computer and was involved.

At the time of his death, Breitbart was still waiting for Anthony Weiner’s apology that likely would have never been given. In the end, we are left with the saga of Weinergate and a fallen, mentally unbalanced former congressman.

In the case of former Georgia State Director of Rural Development Shirley Sherrod, who was forced to resign from her post after giving what was a racist speech, Breitbart released a heavily-edited video of her. Breitbart was again owed an apology,will not be receiving it, nor was any apology planned as Mrs. Sherrod was suing him over the incident.

Andrew spent the last hour before his death discussing his passion, politics, with marketing executive Arthur Sando at the Brentwood, a local bar. They said good-bye around 11:30 p.m., 50 minutes before Breitbart was pronounced dead by physicians at UCLA.

What was Andrew doing walking from the Brentwood to his home? It’s plausible that Breitbart’s home was nearby, although we don’t know the exact distance. According to Sando, he had stopped in for a drink, “was on his Black Berry a lot, and hadn’t really been drinking. ”

Andrew Breitbart’s fans numbered in the millions. Covering the issues he had since Obama came to town, he likely made a significant number of enemies. Would one of them want to see him silenced?

Talk show host Michael Savage just asked the question, “Was Breitbart assassinated?” Savage noted that Breitbart told the CPAC crowd last month that the videos would reveal Obama during a time when he was meeting a “bunch of silver ponytails,” referring to Weather Underground terror group members Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn.

Ayers and Dohrn reportedly launched Obama’s political career with a fundraiser in their Chicago home. Savage noted that Breitbart had dinner with Ayers and Dorhn three weeks ago at the couple’s Hyde Park residence on Chicago’s South Side, which is near Obama’s home.

Daily Caller editor-in-chief Tucker Carlson, who won an Internet auction for a dinner party with the couple, invited Breitbart. Breitbart said again to Carlson, “I’ve got videos – this election we’re going to vet him,” Breitbart said at CPAC, promising they would show how “racial division and class warfare are central” to the “hope and change” that Obama “sold in 2008.”

According to an article posted yesterday by Jared Morgan of the Brentwood Patch, “Breitbart’s Sudden Death Sparks Call for Investigation,” Journalist and film producer Dan Gifford (a Brentwood resident who writes for Breitbart’s site said that “he and Breitbart had shared stories about death threats that they had both received.”

With some saying he may have been assassinated, the Los Angeles commented...

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2018 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.