This is a placeholder text
Group text
by ziegenfarm on 08 June 2009 - 00:06
oh, lookie what is on yahoo! i have been anxiously awaiting the EU elections to see how they are going to go.
they have been warning us not to go the direction they did.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/european_elections;_ylt=AvYBhOWfO61Jhn6nBGB75lR0fNdF
pjp
they have been warning us not to go the direction they did.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/european_elections;_ylt=AvYBhOWfO61Jhn6nBGB75lR0fNdF
pjp
by yellowrose of Texas on 08 June 2009 - 01:06
Ziegenfarm: YOu must have mental thelapathy...I was just getting ready to post this when you posted what you did today....Cut our Missile defense..spent 643, billion on useless things all over the usa, and spend money helping every country's poor , when we have kids here in our streets crying because they are hungry...men and women committing suicide. ,
Dairy farmers going broke, selling cows to produce milk for slaughter, because no one is buy milk and the government has put mandates on dairy farms..now.....You better buy a cow now for your pen so if you want milk in 5 yrs you can milk your cow.....todays news update. on dairy farmers going out of business.........
1. Missile Threat Grows Against U.S.
A new report by the National Air and Space Intelligence Center reveals that the missile threat to the U.S. from potentially hostile nations is growing.
The report, "Ballistic and Cruise Missile Threat," details the dangers posed by the missile programs of North Korea, Iran, China, Russia and other nations.
It comes as the Obama administration is planning to reduce spending on missile defense systems, the Washington Times observes.
The NASIC report discloses that since 2006, North Korea has deployed nearly 50 new missiles with a range of more than 2,000 miles. It has also tested the Taepodong-2 missile, which has a range of 3,400 miles. Both tests of the missile have been failures, but the report says they demonstrate North Korea's "determination to achieve long-range ballistic missile and space launch capabilities."
It also warns that the Taepodong-2 could be exported to other countries in the future.
The NASIC report cites Iran's April launch of a missile that "can serve as a testbed for long-range ballistic missile technologies."
China, the report notes, has "the most active and diverse ballistic missile development program in the world," and the number of Chinese ICBM warheads capable of threatening the U.S. is expected to grow to "well over 100 in the next 15 years."
Russia has increased its arsenal of warheads on its SS-18 ICBMs by 250 in recent years. Russia is also developing new technology "to allow Russian strategic missiles to penetrate missile defense systems," according to the NASIC report obtained by the Times.
The Pentagon, meanwhile, recently announced that its next budget includes a $1.5 billion cut in missile defense funding.
Editor's Note:
•Report: Coming War With Iran — 6 Days of Hell
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Democrats Eye Vacated House Seat Amid 'Conspiracy' Talk
Democrats are hoping to capture a longtime GOP House seat in New York after President Barack Obama nominated the current congressman, John McHugh, to become Secretary of the Army.
The Empire State's 23rd District encompasses a large area in the northern reaches of the state and borders Canada. It's been in Republican hands since the 1992 election.
But if Republican McHugh is confirmed as Army Secretary, Gov. David Paterson would schedule a special election to be held between 30 and 40 days after McHugh's resignation from the House.
And Democrats feel they have a shot at taking the seat away from the GOP, according to Congressional Quarterly's Web site, CQ Politics.
On one hand, Republicans in the district outnumber Democrats on registration rolls by 46,500, and McHugh won in 2008 with 65 percent of the vote.
But Obama won the district last year with 52 percent of the vote. And earlier this year, Democrat Scott Murphy won electio
by RatPackKing on 08 June 2009 - 02:06
For the last 20 years we have allowed nations across the world to build terrorist networks largely unchecked except for some ineffective sanctions and a bit of finger wagging. In a world where rogue nations are developing weapons of mass destruction and are cultivating relationships with global terrorist organizations that can be used as human delivery systems, we can no longer afford to stick our heads in the sand. The only sane choice is to stop them, militarily if necessary. Pursuing this course of action is going to mean vociferous, shrill, and unending condemnation of America at worst and a general dislike of America in many quarters of the world at best for as long as the fighting continues. As distasteful as that might be to many of us, it´s much more important right now to instill “fear” in nations that seek to do us harm than to seek “love” and adulation that would eventually come at the price of countless American lives.
RPK
RPK
by horoceo on 08 June 2009 - 04:06
Trace,
You continue to talk about the fact that Reaganomics didn't work because the debt tripled. Under Reagan the GDP grew an average of about 3.5% per year from 81-88. Bear in mind that he inherited a huge recession from Carter. Listen to all the stats about unemployment. They are not the worst since the great depression, but the worst since 1983, just before tax cuts started their intended effect. If you only consider Reagan's expansion years, the GDP grew by about 4.3% annually. By comparison the Clinton years yeilded about 3.55%. The downturn that Bush inherited from Clinton did not start in Bush's first term. If you remember, the feds began cutting interest rates in late 2000 to stimulate the economy. Clinton was advised by Robert Reich that he could implement some keynesian techniques to further stimulate a slowing economy, but he chose rather to add any surplus to the other side of the balance sheet, thus a balanced budget. In order to go on about democrats creating more jobs than republican since WWII, you would have to attribute job losses experienced in the first part of Reagan's term to Reagan, before anything that he enacted had time to take effect. That would be like saying that Obama is responsible for the millions of jobs that have been lost already in his term. To your point that cutting taxes cannot happen without acruing more debt, you should acquaint yourself with the term "The Laffer Curve". Obama also cut taxes to stimulate the economy. In a robust economy the government actually sees increased revenue with lower taxes. And alot of right wingers were adamant in their stance against GWB's spending. I believe that I am a pretty even handed conservative, but at this point I can't point to a single Obama policy that gives me any confidence. We are now monetizing our own debt. (google Zimbabwe currency) We have spent more than we will ever be able to repay without purposely devaluing our currency. And now he wants to add socialized medicine to boot. It scares me for my children. We have to turn off the spigot.
You continue to talk about the fact that Reaganomics didn't work because the debt tripled. Under Reagan the GDP grew an average of about 3.5% per year from 81-88. Bear in mind that he inherited a huge recession from Carter. Listen to all the stats about unemployment. They are not the worst since the great depression, but the worst since 1983, just before tax cuts started their intended effect. If you only consider Reagan's expansion years, the GDP grew by about 4.3% annually. By comparison the Clinton years yeilded about 3.55%. The downturn that Bush inherited from Clinton did not start in Bush's first term. If you remember, the feds began cutting interest rates in late 2000 to stimulate the economy. Clinton was advised by Robert Reich that he could implement some keynesian techniques to further stimulate a slowing economy, but he chose rather to add any surplus to the other side of the balance sheet, thus a balanced budget. In order to go on about democrats creating more jobs than republican since WWII, you would have to attribute job losses experienced in the first part of Reagan's term to Reagan, before anything that he enacted had time to take effect. That would be like saying that Obama is responsible for the millions of jobs that have been lost already in his term. To your point that cutting taxes cannot happen without acruing more debt, you should acquaint yourself with the term "The Laffer Curve". Obama also cut taxes to stimulate the economy. In a robust economy the government actually sees increased revenue with lower taxes. And alot of right wingers were adamant in their stance against GWB's spending. I believe that I am a pretty even handed conservative, but at this point I can't point to a single Obama policy that gives me any confidence. We are now monetizing our own debt. (google Zimbabwe currency) We have spent more than we will ever be able to repay without purposely devaluing our currency. And now he wants to add socialized medicine to boot. It scares me for my children. We have to turn off the spigot.
by yellowrose of Texas on 08 June 2009 - 04:06
I am sure you are already well aware how many Drs. have left the profession and many on the way out fast as they can find the proper place to get their profession on another reahlm. PHd teaching, research..anything but the have to fill out 345 pages of paperwork for SSDI , medicaid , medicare, and then social services, and now the mandates pushed in the front door in little packages addressed to DR> . I now am in control..signed
Uncle Sam
The food industry is falling apart, the money market is devalued. , the utilities are getting higher each month and more new laws and more new taxes on everything we touch, new dog laws, new driving license laws and requirements now, new postal office requirements now to rent a box., and the list goes on>>>>>>>and we have not even begun...or as the popular song goes....""WE have only Just Begun""
by trace755 on 08 June 2009 - 15:06
According to The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001. A peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession. The determination of a peak date in March is thus a determination that the expansion that began in March 1991 ended in March 2001 and a recession began. The expansion lasted exactly 10 years, the longest in the NBER's chronology [1]. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), which is the private, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization charged with determining economic recessions, the U.S. economy was in recession from March 2001 to November 2001, a period of eight months at the beginning of President George W. Bush's term of office. However, economic conditions did not satisfy the common shorthand definition of recession, which is "a fall of a country's real gross domestic product in two or more successive quarters," and has led to some confusion about the procedure for determining the starting and ending dates of a recession.
The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee (BCDC) uses monthly, rather than quarterly, indicators to determine peaks and troughs in business activity[1], as can be seen by noting that starting and ending dates are given by month and year, not quarters. However, controversy over the precise dates of the recession led to the characterization of the recession as the "Clinton Recession" by Republicans, if it could be traced to the final term of President Bill Clinton. A move in the recession date in a 2004 report by the Council of Economic Advisors to several months before the one given by the NBER was seen as politically motivated.[2] BCDC members suggested they would be open to revisiting the dates of the recession as newer and more definitive data became available.[3] In early 2004, NBER President Martin Feldstein said:
"It is clear that the revised data have made our original March date for the start of the recession much too late. We are still waiting for additional monthly data before making a final judgment. Until we have the additional data, we cannot make a decision."[3]
Nonetheless, as of early 2008, no further revision to the dates has been made
So, the non profit says recession starts March 2001 and ends Nov 2001. Republican butt boys appointed by Bush push the numbers back into Clinton's last qtr. Why would republican butt boys do that?But, the non profit and nonpartisan never change their date. If, you look at their data they are even handed. Clinton claimed Bush 41 recession but under NBER last 2 years of Bush 41 saw small growth.
The reason my numbers are employment are correct there's no way to say x numbers loss/gain are because of previous president. So you get what you get at the end of your term. The rightwing kooks on here already blame Obama for job loss. Let's be honest it takes a minimum 2 years for a new president to change course. It took Reagan a couple years and it took a couple years for Clinton. But, these morons are blaming Obama instead of Bush. We will see in 2 to 3 years if his policies work or fail.
The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee (BCDC) uses monthly, rather than quarterly, indicators to determine peaks and troughs in business activity[1], as can be seen by noting that starting and ending dates are given by month and year, not quarters. However, controversy over the precise dates of the recession led to the characterization of the recession as the "Clinton Recession" by Republicans, if it could be traced to the final term of President Bill Clinton. A move in the recession date in a 2004 report by the Council of Economic Advisors to several months before the one given by the NBER was seen as politically motivated.[2] BCDC members suggested they would be open to revisiting the dates of the recession as newer and more definitive data became available.[3] In early 2004, NBER President Martin Feldstein said:
"It is clear that the revised data have made our original March date for the start of the recession much too late. We are still waiting for additional monthly data before making a final judgment. Until we have the additional data, we cannot make a decision."[3]
Nonetheless, as of early 2008, no further revision to the dates has been made
So, the non profit says recession starts March 2001 and ends Nov 2001. Republican butt boys appointed by Bush push the numbers back into Clinton's last qtr. Why would republican butt boys do that?But, the non profit and nonpartisan never change their date. If, you look at their data they are even handed. Clinton claimed Bush 41 recession but under NBER last 2 years of Bush 41 saw small growth.
The reason my numbers are employment are correct there's no way to say x numbers loss/gain are because of previous president. So you get what you get at the end of your term. The rightwing kooks on here already blame Obama for job loss. Let's be honest it takes a minimum 2 years for a new president to change course. It took Reagan a couple years and it took a couple years for Clinton. But, these morons are blaming Obama instead of Bush. We will see in 2 to 3 years if his policies work or fail.
by Uglydog on 08 June 2009 - 15:06
Carter was the 'Fall guy' for Nixon & Milton Friedman, who took America Off the Gold Standard to print worthless Fed Reserve Notes, fiat IOUs, causing Massive Inflation.
We also backed Israel in 1973 Yom Kippur War, causing OPEC embargo. Cost to taxpayers? $1.2 Trillion/yr in gas surcharge to support an Apartheid, terrorist State aka IsraHell.
Obama stated his Uncle 'Liberated Auschwitz' yet Auschwitz was Liberated BY the Russians!
Second World War started by Poland, says Russian researcher
By Mike Eckel in Moscow
AS THE Kremlin presses a campaign to recast Russia's 20th century history in a more favourable light, a research paper published yesterday on the Defence Ministry's website has blamed Poland for starting the Second World War.
The unorthodox reading of history appears to be the latest effort by Russian historians to defend the Soviet Union and its leaders, especially their role in what Russians call the Great Patriotic War.
The research paper is not an official government statement. But the author is listed as Colonel Sergei Kovalyov, director of the scientific research department of military history, part of the Institute of Military History of the Ministry of Defence.
The paper, titled Fictions and Falsifications in Evaluating the USSR's Role On the Eve of the Second World War, recounts how in the run-up to Germany's invasion of Poland on 1 September, 1939, Hitler demanded that Poland turn over control of the city of Danzig as well as a land corridor between Germany and the territory now known as Kaliningrad.
"Everyone who has studied the history of the Second World War without bias knows that the war began because of Poland's refusal to satisfy Germany's claims," he writes.
Kovalyov called the demands "quite reasonable". He observed: "The overwhelming majority of residents of Danzig were Germans who sincerely wished for reunification with their historical homeland."
http://news.scotsman.com/world/Second-World-War-started-by.5337666.jp
http://judicial-inc.biz/Broomberg.htm
We also backed Israel in 1973 Yom Kippur War, causing OPEC embargo. Cost to taxpayers? $1.2 Trillion/yr in gas surcharge to support an Apartheid, terrorist State aka IsraHell.
Obama stated his Uncle 'Liberated Auschwitz' yet Auschwitz was Liberated BY the Russians!
Second World War started by Poland, says Russian researcher
By Mike Eckel in Moscow
AS THE Kremlin presses a campaign to recast Russia's 20th century history in a more favourable light, a research paper published yesterday on the Defence Ministry's website has blamed Poland for starting the Second World War.
The unorthodox reading of history appears to be the latest effort by Russian historians to defend the Soviet Union and its leaders, especially their role in what Russians call the Great Patriotic War.
The research paper is not an official government statement. But the author is listed as Colonel Sergei Kovalyov, director of the scientific research department of military history, part of the Institute of Military History of the Ministry of Defence.
The paper, titled Fictions and Falsifications in Evaluating the USSR's Role On the Eve of the Second World War, recounts how in the run-up to Germany's invasion of Poland on 1 September, 1939, Hitler demanded that Poland turn over control of the city of Danzig as well as a land corridor between Germany and the territory now known as Kaliningrad.
"Everyone who has studied the history of the Second World War without bias knows that the war began because of Poland's refusal to satisfy Germany's claims," he writes.
Kovalyov called the demands "quite reasonable". He observed: "The overwhelming majority of residents of Danzig were Germans who sincerely wished for reunification with their historical homeland."
http://news.scotsman.com/world/Second-World-War-started-by.5337666.jp
http://judicial-inc.biz/Broomberg.htm
by MaggieMae on 08 June 2009 - 15:06
.
by Uglydog on 08 June 2009 - 15:06
Raymond..
Obama's First Name is BARAK. It is a Jewish Name.
His mother was a Jewess. By blood, he is a Jew.
His father was an African, and a Muslim. He is a Mullato Jew.
Not that I care WHAT he is. I dont. But Im tired of the haters, bigots and fools to call him something he is not.
Israelis caled him a 'P*ssy, N*gger, F*aggot, Assh*le' and you dont seem to care about that either.
I posted the video from Youtube which is going Viral.
A mind is a terible thing to waste.
Obama's First Name is BARAK. It is a Jewish Name.
His mother was a Jewess. By blood, he is a Jew.
His father was an African, and a Muslim. He is a Mullato Jew.
Not that I care WHAT he is. I dont. But Im tired of the haters, bigots and fools to call him something he is not.
Israelis caled him a 'P*ssy, N*gger, F*aggot, Assh*le' and you dont seem to care about that either.
I posted the video from Youtube which is going Viral.
A mind is a terible thing to waste.
by MaggieMae on 08 June 2009 - 16:06
.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top