PoliticsPolitics for Pros- moderated

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: DMaA who wrote (473289)2/21/2012 5:38:21 PM
From: Maurice Winn
1 Recommendation   of 657201
Good point. But that's probably because they don't have loads of shovel-ready opm to hand out to newbies: < Funny you never hear anyone griping about black African countries not being diverse enough. >


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Neeka who wrote (473046)2/21/2012 5:41:31 PM
From: Alan Smithee
   of 657201
The premium and copay for your "free" mamogram, physical and blood work is still there. It's just buried in the overall plan premium which wouldn't be as much but for the "free" stuff.

I see that in our own plan. It's a catastrophic plan but we're allowed "free" mammogram and bone density tests, annual physical + lab work, prostate exam and colonoscopies. No copay, no deductible.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: LindyBill who wrote (473039)2/21/2012 5:42:57 PM
From: Alan Smithee
   of 657201
I've more a mind to "float" the surf on Waikiki.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Farmboy who wrote (473297)2/21/2012 5:50:44 PM
9 Recommendations   of 657201
RE: the one incident which was a lie from the get-go.

Armitage admitted to be the leaker. I admire his service in Vietnam, but it would have been the right thing to speak up when Scooter was being prosecuted.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: FUBHO who wrote (473294)2/21/2012 5:56:34 PM
From: goldworldnet
2 Recommendations   of 657201
I never have liked Rahm Emanuel much, but if he has the Chicago Teachers Union protesting, he must be doing something right.

* * *

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Sea Otter who wrote (473298)2/21/2012 6:08:58 PM
From: Maurice Winn
3 Recommendations   of 657201
Please stop attributing things to me that I did not write. I didn't write that you favoured ethanol. I quoted you, here again for ease of reference: < . < Encourage and fund alternatives (much like we've encouraged and funded oil exploration, through tax credits, subsidies etc), encourage R&D, and gradually encourage marketable alternatives. I'm about as hard core market-based as a gal can get ... > > Then I pointed out some shovel-ready opm alt-energy projects including ethanol which have taken $billions, as examples of why governments should NOT get involved with investment in such things. Please apologize for making things up.

You didn't mention CO2 but it was the elephant in the room which I pointed out. Without the CO2 shroud waving your alt-energy projects won't get you any shovel-ready opm.

You should have been able to understand my points: < And your point was? > To labour the point, shovel-ready opm and your comment above were the point. I explained why your idea, as stated above and in your post from which I got that, is bung. Governments should NOT be doing what you wrote they should do. Which, you can see in that quote above from you. My point was that your idea of "encouraging and funding alternatives, etc...." is a really bad idea. I gave examples. And pointed out that you wanting shovel-ready opm is NOT something that a hard-core market-based gal would want. You wanting Big Government to fund alt-energy is commie.

Free market people, including gals, prefer that Obama play golf, not bother flying around in Air Force One and not opening new Solyndra or other alt-energy efforts. Free market people want voluntary financing by people who put up their OWN money, not opm. If you can trick people into giving you money to invest in your alt-energy ideas, that's up to them. It's fashionable to invest in alt-energy and to believe the CO2 mantra, so you can probably con loads of people into handing over loot. But you should not be seeking government money. Maybe not enough people are believing the CO2/alt-energy story now that the planet is preparing to freeze up [and did so this winter in Europe...brrr... with many dead from cold].

Not at all - I just pointed out how you are wrong: <As for the rest of your post, it's just more of the same from you. Irrelevant to the topic and just an excuse so you can argue ceaselessly > The topic was exactly what you posted - opm for alt-energy to save the world from CO2 and OPEC and middle east mayhem. I explained that there is loads of methane and Athabasca tar right there in North America. So there's no need for silly alt-energy ideas.

Would that job have something to do with getting people to give you money for alt-energy? <However I (unlike you, apparently) have a job and have no further time to engage with you now. In fact, your quota is up for this year. > You are right, I have not had a job for many years [having been highly successful in investments]. I last had a "real" job briefly in the early 1990s. But I do have plenty to do and had better go and do it. If my next "big thing" is as successful as my CDMA, you will hear about it. And use it.


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: FUBHO who wrote (473302)2/21/2012 6:37:41 PM
From: Farmboy
1 Recommendation   of 657201
We don't know the real truth of that incident any more than the press tells us about other crap ...

He accomplished a hell of a lot more than just go to Vietnam .... I witnessed some of it.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Triffin who wrote (473260)2/21/2012 6:38:29 PM
From: robert a belfer
   of 657201
Seems to me that if one does not do it clear the rubble out with another and follow up with a third. Repeat as necessary.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: DMaA who wrote (473248)2/21/2012 6:38:47 PM
From: Maurice Winn
1 Recommendation   of 657201
Yes, but peak speed was 500kph < One segment of Shanghai's transit system is maglev. > And China is a good place for maglevs to get going. I was there a few years ago and wanted to visit Shanghai and have a ride on it but time ran out. Superconductor maglevs are very appealing.

20 years ago I visited Tokyo and they had toy superconductor trains at a science museum there. It was great to see even a toy in operation. It was a superconductor demonstration rather than a train demonstration and they had various things such as a melon suspended on a ring floating in air.

Even ambient temperature maglev is fun. I've been a superconductor/maglev fan club member for quarter of a century. But liking the technology for its own sake is different from building economic transport.

Going back to the original discussion = high speed rail in the USA with shovel-ready opm funding for it, I can't see that it would make sense any time soon, other than on highways [as mentioned].


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: Brumar892/21/2012 6:44:46 PM
5 Recommendations   of 657201
Poll: Carter 63%, Reagan 32%

February 21, 2012 by Don Surber

As I look at the Real Clear Politics averages of the polls of the various match-ups between President Obama and the various Republican candidates, I know I am supposed to feel impending doom. But I don’t. Let’s see, the numbers this morning are:

Obama 49.0%
Romney 43.3%

Obama 50.0%
Santorum 42.5%

Obama 53.0%
Gingrich 39.1%

Obama 48.6 %
Paul 40.4%

But I don’t feel doom. Here are 9 reasons why: February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September and October.

A couple could copulate today and still have a baby by Election Day.

President Obama’s leads of 5.7% to 13.9% over each candidate do not scare me. In fact, they are rather puny.

At this point 8 years ago this month, John Kerry was ahead of Bush by 12 points in the Gallup Poll: 55%-43%.

And in January 1980, the Gallup Poll showed:

Carter 63%
Reagan 32%

That was followed 8 years later with a July 1988 poll by Newsweek that had Mike Dukakis up by 17 points over the first President Bush. Ah yes, the Dukakis presidency when we all rode around in tanks and watched Olympia Dukakis film festivals.

A blogger known only as SteveT wrote on September 23, 2007:

In my lifetime, I can recount many instances where early national polling has shown itself to be less than useful. In the summer and fall of 1991, George H. W. Bush was leading all Democrats by 20 points or more. The pundits all saw Bush cruising to reelection the following year. Obviously, Bush’s second term never arrived.

In 1995, US Senator Robert Dole continuously led President Clinton in head to head matchups. Throughout that year we were subjected to arguments from Dole supporters, “Bob Dole can beat Clinton. Let’s win this thing!” Even as late as January of 1996, one poll had him ahead by several points. Of course, Dole lost that race by about 8 percent that November.

When, in 1999 the Presidential race was heating up, many saw George W. Bush as the only hope. He led the polls over Al Gore all year and even had a substantial lead in the summer of 2000. As almost all of us now know, he won that race by perhaps the smallest margin possible. Perhaps a less well known, but stronger candidate might have been able to win a clear victory against the hapless Al Gore?

Even polling a few months out can be less than valuable. In August 1988, Mike Dukakis was leading George H. W. Bush by 17 points in one poll. Of course Bush went on to win that race by 8 percent.

As national polling measures little more than name recognition at this point in the game, it is important to look at other indicators to gauge electability. When the decision comes down to who I support, current head to head poll numbers do not factor in. I look for someone who has shown proven leadership, projects optimism, fights for things that I believe in, and can unite the party. In my view, the one candidate that matches all of the criteria is Mitt Romney.

The purpose of this post is not to endorse Mitt Romney or anyone. At various times various people have demanded that candidates drop out. Rick Santorum was written off. Newt Gingrich was written off. Now some say if Mitt Romney doesn’t win big in Michigan he should drop out. And while no one has asked Ron Paul to leave, let’s face it no one gives him a chance to win except his wife.

I will let readers in on a little secret: Most voters are paying little attention to this race and won’t until after Labor Day.

Keep fighting, keep believing in your candidate. He’ll leave when he decides to leave.

My prediction: Republicans will nominate someone and he will defeat President Obama. I just don’t know who that Republican will be.

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.