Dan, I agree that it does not reflect well on the State. Now, answer me this, if you are billing me for something and then I change the rules and you continue billing me at the old rules, which cause me to over pay you. Who is at fault? You for over billing or me for not telling you I changed the rules.
The Speaker did repay about $450K of the $1.6 million after he was forced to sell his business.
Dan, I just didn't get you today. I have gotten you multiple times.
Hey, offer still stands, contact Patti if you think that the Obama's daughters were not listed as senior staffers and she can ban the user that was wrong or we can just mark that up as one of the times you were proven WRONG by me AGAIN. So, I guess you can just go on defending the scrupulous Keynesian President.
Dan, the reason you are passing is because you know that I am RIGHT and you are WRONG (AGAIN). If you are so sure that I am right, take me up on the offer and Patti can ban the account of the person who is wrong. Let her be the judge.
I'm not really surprised that Dan didn't take me up on my offer considering he "thinks" he is "always right", but it looks like he believes I'm right. One would think if he was actually right, he would jump at the chance of actually getting rid of me, but instead he appears to want to keep me. Oh, well ....
I'm not really surprised that Dan didn't take me up on my offer considering he "thinks" he is "always right", but it looks like he believes I'm right. One would think if he was actually right, he would jump at the chance of actually getting rid of me, but instead he appears to want to keep me. Oh, well ....
Dan, do I need to remind you when I mentioned the Keynesian President you went off on a tangent about the President of Kenya. Sounds pretty foolish to me.
Dan, are you sure that the daughters have never been listed as senior staffers. Being a betting man, and considering your track record of being wrong, I would wager the one who is wrong gets permanently banned. Feeling lucky?
Dan, by not addressing the FACT that I made you look foolish again, it appears that you are accepting the FACT that I have made you look foolish before.
Dan, you must really enjoy being wrong all the time. YOU, DAN BRETON, are the one who raised the issue of her qualification. It is YOUR responsibility to make YOUR case not MINE. I will not disclose where she resides, but I can assure you it is not the Blaine House.
As for your trying to save face, you are because there is no way you can prove anything you are saying. I have made you look foolish before and I am doing it again today.
PS. as for your statement about being a mouthpiece for FOX, it COMPLETELY false. I do not watch FOX or any of the other cable news stations.
Dan, if the Blaine House is ONLY for the governor, can his wife live there? If he had children that were minor can they live there?
Dan, you are the one in FANTASY LAND. I know that if we let you pull your liberal line, you'll hang yourself.
You are now just trying to save face after I've made you look foolish AGAIN. What makes you think she is unqualified for her job?
Dan, I know Lauren personally and I KNOW for a FACT that she does not reside in the Blaine House. Please get your "FACTS" straight before going to the keyboard.
Dan, if she was not doing that job, someone else would have to. That job was not create for her.
Dan, the money wasn't there before the Republicans took over, so your statement is completely false.
I've asked you multiple times and you still haven't answered. Dan, the tax break for the "wealthy" are for those earning over 30K. Since when is that wealthy?
Dan,I've done an excellent job of explaining President Bush's response. It is you who is failing to understand it.
The Federal response is predicated on what happens at the local level. That is not an extraneous issue. IT IS FACT. You see it as such an extraneous issue because it blows a hole in your view of reality and you are refusing to accept actual reality. The Feds cannot act until the state government acts. THAT IS A FACT. So, how could President Bush do anything until the State government acted? The reason President Obama's response is good, was because the States did there part.
I've explained to you the order things must occur. During Katrina, the State of Louisiana FAILED to act so the hands of the Federal government was tied. You seem forget that things were done correctly in Mississippi. During Irene, the States responded with their emergency declarations therefore allowing for the Federal response to occur.
Dan, that is a load! At least I can show respect for both sides, you only show respect for one. And you call me bias! You were the one who brought up the failures of Katrina, not me. I simply set the record right.
Dan, President Bush was limited by what was done at the state level and that was controlled by Democrats. Last week you complained that Governor LePage declared a state of emergency. Look at what happens when you don't, you get the response of Katrina.
Dan, there are laws in this country and the President cannot simply send in help to a state until it is requested. So your attempt to blame President Bush for the failure of the Louisiana Governor to declare the state of emergency is simply foolish.
Dan, what I stated were FACTS about what happened with Katrina and you simple cannot or simple refuse to understand them. That is your problem not mine.
Dan, it was not a matter of biting, but to show how bias you are.
In your view, you believe that Republicans are always wrong and Democrats are always right. Sorry, but that is not the case. In this case, when looking at Katrina, the Democrats in control have a major level of responsibility. President Bush asked the Louisiana Governor to declare a state of emergency in advance of the storm so Federal resource be deployed. The Governor did not do that. So, can't exactly blame that on President Bush. Remember the pictures of the school buses flooded. Those buses were not used to evacuate New Orleans. It was not and is not the responsibility of the Federal government to oversee evacuations. That is a State and local responsibility. Dan, like it or not those are the facts. You can choose to ignore them, but it does not change the fact that failure to evacuate New Orleans properly and in a timely fashion was the responsibility of the Democrats in charge and not President Bush.
Dan, yes that would be complaint but show me the proof you said that about Governor Baldacci! GIVE ME A LINK TO IT! Otherwise you are just making up guano!
My education is find and did include reading comprehension. It is you who appears to have the comprehension problem. When we ask you to prove something you simple don't.
Dan, you did not complain. Follow the link and you did not complain.
Again, PROVE IT! Copy and paste a link to your complaint. I'm not expecting one because it does exist! Saying you did is not PROOF. You've been wrong sooooo, soooo, sooooooo many times that you need back up what you say!
The roads are washed out, 2 bridges out. Not the case for Governor Baldacci. What could possible be the difference? Oh, Governor Baldacci was a Democrat and that made it okay!
Dan, no I did not attend Husson to get my degree. Where did you get yours? Do you even have one? In the Drupal system there is NO such thing as a suspension. You can only BAN someone to prevent them from posting. If you were prevented from posting YOU WERE BANNED!!!!!!!!!
Dan, banned and allowed to come back, that is a suspension. If he was banned, that means you can't come back. The way the system works, is a user is marked banned and therefore not allowed to post. The system admin can remove the ban at the end of the suspension. That is how Drupal works.
And you're right, for once, I don't believe you. Heck, even a clock that doesn't work is right twice in day, but you only got one. You've been wrong on soooo, soooo, soooo many things, why would I think you were right this time.
When you can't defend your position you simple look foolish. But, he this isn't the first time I've made you look foolish and I know it won't be the last.
Dan, without declaring the state of emergency there are things here is the State that simply could not happen. Opening of shelters, opening the emergency response center. It had nothing to do with Federal aide.
Dan, by any chance are you a farmer? I've never seen anyone with soooo much manure.
Not splitting hears, distinguishing between fact and your fiction. Again, he never said he would, he said the MEDIA would say he did. Learn the difference.
The tax cuts for the "rich" are for those who earn over $30,000 per year. Since when is that considered rich! I am by no means rich, except the fact the I earn over $30K.
Dan, must suck being wrong all the time, but by now you must have had a lot of practice. I NEVER said that I want to decrease the size of the House and eliminate the Senate.
If I did PROVE IT!!!!! Find the post where I said that, otherwise what you just posted is a FLAT OUT LIE!!!
Dan, where does it say that the members of commission were Republican. Since the Androscoggin County is primarily Democrat, the odds are most members are Democrats and not Republicans. Besides, I believed in larger government, or is that larger government that favors YOU!
Dan, you are really starting to look foolish. Any Governor would have done this. Governor Baldacci declared a state of emergency on Dec 26,2010 for a snow storm on Dec 27,2010 and closed all state offices. Don't remember you complaining about getting Federal aide there. If Governor LePage would not have done this and something would have happened you would then be complaining about that. You just enjoy complaining about anything this Governor does. This will also allow power crew to work long hours, deployment of the Guard if necessarily and yes Federal aide. The last time a Governor failed to declare a state of emergency was in 2005. The Federal government was not able to assist in advance and hundreds died. When that happened you blamed the President and not the Governor. Why? Republican President and Democrat Governor.
You simply HATRED of Republicans and Conservatives. No matter what a Republican does it is wrong, but we NEVER hear a peep out of you when a Democrat or Liberal does the same thing.
Ahh, another day to make you look foolish. When are you going to stop making yourself look so foolish and base your comments on facts and not what you wish.
Dan, we are not "insulting" the Governor. We are stating FACTS. The article clearly states the problem occurred in a town office, not a State office.
Please PROVE that what happened in a town office is some how connected to the Governor or any member of his administration. Since I KNOW you CAN'T I'm expecting anything, except more foolishness.
Dan, please do a little research before posting. In your previous post there is not ONE FACT only your daily tripe. This had nothing to do with the State, it was a failure in a town office.
But, please do let facts get in the way of uninformed BS rants. I enjoy the laughs.
Dan, at the risk of making you look foolish again. The article does not say they were fired by email, but that the DHHS staff was notified of the staff changes.
Dan, you sit there and accuse people of saying thing that they did not say and then when asked to back it up you leave the blog. So if you want to be taken seriously, accept my wager and prove your point. I'll even help you, there is the link to the story where this started. http://www.sunjournal.com/letters/story/1038722 Please point out the time I made the reference to the President of Kenya. I did after you. The question is if I prove you wrong, will you leave? My guess is no.
Dan, you never accepted my wager. Beside I do not lose. If I was the one to make that reference, please quote me. Better yet, just post "I accept" and then I'm gone.
Dan, last week you made the statement you were against mandates, and here you espousing the values the Affordable Care Act which is full of mandates. Which is it, are you oppose to mandates or are you in favor of them, or is it you favor the ones from a Keynesian President.
Jonathan your subject line was right on because everything after that was just that. Were you wearing hip waders when you wrote that. Could it be most Republicans are at work on election day and therefore it is harder to get volunteers? As for closing their office early, that is not what I saw here. The Democrats closed their office about two hours before we did. An if you think it is Republicans think it is their "right", then please explain why we had a Democratic candidate in our office on election night asking our candidate to concede after she won two of the six towns in the district. She said she wanted to get home. Our candidate said "NO" and when the votes were counted the Democrat lost and big.
ACORN. That should be self explanatory. Do we want to allow that to occur here in our state?
There are approximately 250 other days for someone to register. If someone is truly interested, they will make the effort and can register on one of those other 250 days. The proposal is talking about removing 2 day. Those who oppose this, appear as if they are in favor a voter fraud.
Dan, If you are so certain take the bet and I am out of here. You would never hear from me again. Say, yes I accept the challenge and I am gone if I'm wrong, otherwise if you say yes and you are wrong you leave. It appears you are the one who is not certain of who raised the issue first. You do realize by not taking the challenge you are the one who looks like feel you raised the issue first. Take the challenge and I could be out of here, otherwise, I'm staying around.
so are you admitting you raised the it first and leaving for good or are you taking your typical approach and avoiding the debate? I'm guessing the latter.
Dan, I am honourable. If I am the one who raised the issue of the President of Kenya first, I am man enough to admit it and leave the site. The question is are you honourable and man enough to do the same. I'm guessing not.
The ball is in your court, do you accept my challenge or do you want me here daily pestering you about your support of our Keynesian President. If I'm wrong I'm gone. If you are wrong, you leave. If you are so certain that I am the one who raised the issue, one would think you would accept my offer.
If we lower taxes, we can increase the number of taxpayers by keeping business in the state and bringing business to the state. There are two benefits from increasing the number of taxpayers, first more revenue and second, if you are paying taxes, you are probably not then going to need state aid.
What about my offer from yesterday, where the first one who mentioned the President of Kenya leaves this board for good? I figured you would jump at the chance to get rid of me. Guess not.
Dan, I'm not the one off an a tangent. That is you constantly referring to the President of Kenya.
In your first post you came out against mandates and then I asked you if you were opposed to the mandates in the health care reform past and signed into law by President Obama. No where in my post did I say anything about the President of Kenya, that was you at 10:46.
I have read what you wrote and you are the one constantly bring up the President of Kenya, not me.
Dan, if you were wise you would understand what I'm talking about.
My mind is working fine, you are the one who appears not to be able to answer a simple question.
In your first post you said you were against mandates from the Republicans, but you still have not defended the mandates in the health care reform pushed by our President who is Keynesian.
Dan, it appears you have done what you do when you cannot defend your point. You leave the site for the day.
I did not ignore the topic like you did. I'm still waiting for your defence of the mandates in the health care reform pushed by our Keynesian President.
Dan so Republican mandates are bad but Democrats are good. I'm confused now, in the past you sang the praises of President Obama's health care reform, which has mandates, and now you are saying mandates are bad. So have you changed your position on the President's plan? I doubt it, this just goes to prove your leftist partisan viewpoint. I'll be interest on how you spin and defend the Keynesian President's mandated laced plan.
Dan, you "comment" before I get the chance. As, I showed you yesterday, last week and may times in the past that I don't make personal attacks, but I am able to show that you are wrong using facts. When you realize that I showed you up yesterday, you left the board for the day.
I leave the personal attacks to the master, you. Your post never address the issue. You rant against the messenger, you never show respect for those whom you disagree with. If you disagree with someone you call them names. Your opening post did not address anything that Dr. Shields said. Yet, I addressed the content of your post.
Terry,
Anthem sells 3 health insurance policies. One policy they can sell in 47 states, another in 2 states and the third only here in Maine. In the neighbouring state of New Hampshire, you can purchase insurance for much less. Why, competition! Anthem had to create a special policy for Maine because of the excessive regulation placed on insurers.
Increased competition leading to lower prices is Economics 101.
Dan, these days were scheduled before Governor LePage took office. It is that simple. We are currently working under the budget pasted two years ago by the Democrats and signed in by Governor Baldacci. That is not a deflection but the statement of facts. Governor LePage has eliminated shutdown days in his budget, not Governor Baldacci's budgets.
Please don't let facts get in the way of a good baseless rant though.
And if you think it is a deflection, I'm just taking a cue from our Keynesian President.
Dan, These shutdown days were in the budget signed in my Governor Baldacci two years ago. Governor LePage is eliminating shutdown days in the new budget. So, yes, the Governor IS keeping his word.
Dan, did the Commissioner say something racist or this just your typical hatred of the right? I pretty sure I know it is the later since that what most of your post are based on.
Dan, of course I'm right! But why did they atone, because the realized the screwed up or they WERE CAUGHT. I'm done here. I'm not sure if you don't know the facts or simple cannot comprehend them.
They paid because they were CAUGHT!!!! And the reason you never said a word about them in the past, is because they espouse the same leftist agenda as yourself.
Dan, I'm standing by my comments. The only reason Rep. Rangel and Treasurer Geithner paid their taxes is because they were caught. Senator Kerry tried to register his boat in Rhode Island so he wouldn't have to pay taxes. There is a huge difference in what the three I'm listing verses what the Speaker did. The State failed and waited so long that the amount caused him to declare bankruptcy that is why he has not been able to repay it. If those at the State had done their job, we would not be having this discussion. It was failure in the bureaucracy and yet you espouse we need more.
Dan, are you serious? You honestly cannot think of Democrats in high positions that have knowing cheated on their taxes? I love how you try to manipulate what I said. I never said all high ranking Maine Democrats are tax cheats. Kudos on the spin. What I said there where higher ranking Dems. How about Representative Rangel, Treasurer Geithner, Senator John Kerry have all cheated on their taxes. Never heard you complain about these. The difference is they knowingly did it and the Speaker did it by accident.
The problem was the State changed their billing system, and there was inappropriate over site of the process. Please explain, if the process changes and you are not notified, you are willingly committing fraud.
Dan, your line about the Speaker is getting old and tired. Don't forget there are a lot of tax cheats among the Democrats in much higher positions than the Speaker. Yet, I never hear you say they should be removed. Why is that?
There is a difference when one knowingly cheats on their taxes, and what happened to the Speaker. The State is was complicate in this case. When the Speaker filed his claims, the State processed his claims using the old method and did not correct the Speaker until it was too late. By the time it came to light to the Speaker, the amount was so large that he lost his business. If the State had done their job correctly, this would be a non issue. At the time this occurred the Democrats where in control of the State, so it is the Democrats that allowed the defrauding.
Terry, your assumption that this bill was designed by the insurance company is wrong. Anthem was against the bill. Why would they push a bill that would introduce competition when they currently have none. That would be simply bad business.
Currently, Anthem offers 3 health care policies. One policy they can sell in 47 states, the second in two states and the third is only available in Maine. If Anthem want to make more money, they would charge those in the other states that same as they charge here in Maine. The reason they don't is because of competition. Competition has always lower cost. It is a simple rule of supply and demand. The lack of competition and more mandates placed in Anthem has forced them to increase their cost.
We have tried it with only one insurance company and the price has gone up. Now that we will have more choices, the price will go down. It will take time to Anthem to react, but as soon as other companies come into Maine and start offering similar polices to Anthem at a lower price, Anthem will lower their prices as well. This is one that we will just have to wait and see.
Dan, I never said you lied. Besides, everyone here can see it for themselves. You have have never shown any respect for others that disagree with you. When you refer to President Bush, you refer to him as "bush", yet you referred to President Obama as "President Obama".
I disagree with President Obama's philosophy, but I can at least pay the man the respect he deserves. You simple can't and refuse to! Where because you disagree with someone, you have to try and diminish them by calling them names "taliban paul".
Dan, your views are NOT moderate. Yes, I might be right wing, but I am also intelligent enough and man enough to recognize it.
Dan do you believe in President Obama's Health care?
Do you believe in high taxes?
Do you believe that we should limit drilling for oil off our shores?
Do you believe that the government can improve the lives of individual?
Dan, you are right that you have no respect for the Governor. The difference between you and I, is that I will at least show respect for he office, which you cannot. For you it is partisan. You have NO RESPECT for anyone who does not support your leftist political agenda. It is that simple.
Again, you fail to comprehend my point about the President. I was giving you LEFT WING WACKO talking points. You and your left wing comrades keep saying it is going to take time to clean up from the 8 years of President Bush. THE POINT I AM MAKING IS THAT YOU AND YOUR LEFT WING COMRADES WANT TO GIVE THE PRESIDENT TIME TO FIX 8 YEARS BUT DON'T WANT TO GIVE THE GOVERNOR TIME TO FIX 40 YEARS OF LEFT WING DESTRUCTIVE POLICIES. Sorry to tell you this, but it will take more than 5 months to fix 40 YEARS of disastrous policies. When unemployment drops in this state, who will you give credit to?
Terry,
I cannot not find anything to show where Maine lost 5000 jobs in March. From what I can find unemployment was 8.5% in both February and March. If we lost 5000 jobs in March, unemployment would have gone up to probably 15 to 20% in Maine. The only reference I can find to the number 5000 is that there are 5000 more people working than a year ago.
Dan, what does the race of the President have to do with this?
It is obvious that you have not respect for our Governor. Unemployment is going DOWN in this state. It took 40 years for the Dems to mess it up and it will take more than 5 months to clean it up. Unemployment is down from a year ago in Maine.
Now back to my point on President Obama. I was pointing out the left wing wacko talking point that those like yourself on the left like to point out. The other point I was making is you want Governor LePage to turn things around if 5 months yet President Obama has made things worse in his two years and yet we hear no complains for those of the left.
Dan, I'm not at all surprised by your comment. You cannot defend your position, so what do you do show no respect for the Governor and start name calling.
Dan, the point I was making, was that he has been in office 5 months and you want him to clean up 40 years of bad policies and that President Obama has been in office 2 plus years and the situation is now worse than when he took office and the left's talking points are "Well it is going to take time to clean up the 8 years of Bush".
There has been 40 years of failed policies in the state and it is going to take more than a few months to clear up. Unemployment in the state is going down slowly. It will take longer to attract businesses back to this state than it took to drive them away.
Dan, President Obama has been in office over 2 years and unemployment is now worse than when he took office. Unemployment in Maine is lower. Yeah, I know you've got that one line. "Bush screwed up the economy for the last eight years and it is going to take time". Well, the Democrats have been in control for 40 years here in Maine. Well, you are going to have to give the Governor a little more time to clean up the bad policies of the past 40 years. The question are, "Is Maine unemployment rate going down?" Yes. "Is the national rate going up?" Yes.
Ron,
I'll give the President a "brain fart" on the 57 states, but the other two were from prepared speeches. The 44 men came from his inauguration. He had time to proof read it and to have it fact checked. The auto came from his address to a joint session of Congress. Everyone knows that the auto was not invented by an American.
I find it interesting how you dismiss Democrats' gaffes as "brain farts", that explains why most of the post from those here on the left are real stinkers.
Ron,
How about President Obama's 57 states?
How about saying 44 men had taken the oath of office?
How about saying the automobile was invented in the United States?
Here are some of the BRILLIANT stuff the Gaffe in Chief has said.
President Obama said 43 men took the oath of office before him. WRONG!
President Obama said an American invented the auto. WRONG!
Then candidate Sen. Obama said he visited 57 states. WRONG!
He still have a way to go to over take Vice President Biden as the gaffe master, but he is well on his way.
Voisine, I find it interesting that you quote a blogger from the Huffington Post who doesn't site where he gets his info. So as far as we know, Bob Cesca is making that stuff up.
Dan, I'm not trying to defend him. I just want you to prove what you say. Again, what did he say that was so racist. If is so evident, it should be easy for you to give EXAMPLES.
Show me where I was bigoted or racist. I WANT SPECIFICS. ANOTHER WORD LINKS TO MY COMMENTS.
Dan that is all you do to avoid outright exposure is use the nuance of language.
Dan, here is what we don't like. We don't like seeing people being called racist, bigot, wacko. Then when asked to explain, you either ignore or say that we are stupid. Just look at what happened this week with the letter from Mr. Shields.
Here is something else we don't like. We don't like you little innuendos, like implying someone is on medication, been to a mental asylum, and other comments similar to that.
It is that behavior that we are sick and tired of. Anyone who disagrees with your "opinion" is a crackpot, racist, bigot or wacko. End that kind of BS and then we won't have anything to report.
Voisine,
"Their claims that their supply side tax cuts boosted revenues is a bold faced lie!" itself is a bold faced lie. Please go look at the Federal revenue and 1980 and then please look at the revenue and 1988. Report those numbers back here. I will gladly apologize to you if the number in 1988 is less than the number in 1980. While you're at it what was unemployment in 1980 and what was it in 1988. Without looking, I'm pretty sure they were lower in 1988. What was inflation in 1980 and what was it in 1988. Probably lower.
Dan and you forget that we don't elect our President by popular vote. If Al Gore had won his own state, he would have been President. Who would have been the last President elected that didn't carry their own state?
Dan,
So anyone who disagrees with you is a "crackpot"?
So, Rep. Michaud is only responsible to represent the people that voted for him? Please go back and review your civics lessons from junior high. And yes, I because I could not in good conscience vote for his opponent.
Dan, I am one of he people. I am a tax payer therefore I am one of the people. And as for the name calling, you implied I was a "crackpot messengers" What the heck is that?
Tron, you seem to forget that President Obama signed into law the "Health Care Reform". You know, the one tax payers will have to pay for 4 years before most of the benefits kick in. That is where the other taxes are going up.
Voisine, other than "REALITY" where did you get the number of 800,000 jobs per week. Please cite your source because that number does not make any sense.
PS Is unemployment higher now or under President Bush? I know your answer will be, "Well, it is Bush's fault". On what date does President Obama become responsible for the state of the economy?
Dan,
Why am I not surprised by your comment. There is a huge difference. Voisine is copying and pasting and not giving credit to the author. How would you like it if someone past off something as their own and did not give you credit?
Speaking of buzzwords, how about you with "wacko", "bigot", "racist", you love to throw them out, but when challenged you can NEVER back up your claim.
Sorry to tell you this, but don't watch Fox News. I watch NBC at 6:30pm when I have the time, maybe once or twice a week. I also do not read the Fox News website.
I have two challenges for you.
1. Find one example where I have copied and pasted from another website and did not create my source.
2. The next time, myself or one of my "ilk" rips off Fox News, or any other news source, flag it as inappropriate and explain to Patti where we got it and I'm sure she'll take it down.
Dan, you love to throw out terms like "racist", "bigot" and "wacko". Then when challenged you start hurling names, insults and innuendos. Sorry, but you are the one who needs to grow up. This is a forums for adults not children, if that is how you want to behave, then that is how you will be treated. Now GROW UP!!!
Tron, assuming for a moment that cutting taxes reduced revenues to the treasury, won't reducing spending solve that problem. If you had a reduction in your revenue, what would you do continue spending?
The problem in not the revenue. The problem is SPENDING. Government spending needs to be CUT.
Voisine, please enlighten us as to why we are better off today with President Obama. Last I checked when President Bush was President, unemployment averaged around 5% and in his last year was around 7%. Since President Obama has taken office, unemployment has rocketed towards double digits. We are looking at a massive tax increase because of the new health care taxes. Then there is the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, but taking more money out of the economy. Deficits are of a trillion dollars. Please, enlighten those who you claim are lost and ignorant.
Sorry, but if you think we are better off today, you are the lost, but please enlighten us.
President Clinton was charged with a crime. His adultery became our business when he LIED. Understand he LIED to a grand jury, that is where the problem comes in. So far, Mr. LePage is not being investigated by a grand jury and if he perjures himself then, yes he deserves the same scrutiny. The problem you have here is President Clinton's adultery could have been a risk to national security, Mr. LePage's error in filing his taxes is not putting the country at risk. Monica could have bribed him for national secrets. Nothing was at risk with Mr. LePage's "filing error", deliberate or not.
By the way, why was President Clinton disbarred? It wasn't for not paying his dues.
Tron, nice spin but pardon the pun, close but no cigar. President Clinton was being sued in civil court and perjured himself. The question did not start from the Republicans, but from the civil trial. He committed perjury in his grand jury testimony. Last I checked, that is suppose to be non-partisan. Besides, we all know that he committed perjury, he was disbarred by the Arkansas Board for a number of years.
An yes, the President's personal life is everyone's business when it comes to national security. What if Monica had been a spy, she could have then tried to bribe him for information to keep it from going public. Look at Gov. Patterson, he came clean about an affair to make sure that it could not be used against him, politically or otherwise.
Tron, what did the Articles of Impeachment against President Clinton say? Were the charges that he had inappropriate relations or were the charges about perjury. If you take the time and look, you will see that they were the latter.
Lil, exactly why is Fox not a new source? I've asked you multiple times and have never gotten an answer. I am asking for one specific example.
Is it that they are wrong on everything? If they are so bad, you should be able to give me one example of where they have made up the news. I can give you examples of other news outlets making it up. New York Times, NBC and CBS have all made up new stories and have been called out by the other news outlets. If Fox is so wrong, why haven't other news outlets called them out.
Lil, of course you lost all credibility when you cannot even name the organization correctly. When you call names it means you have nothing to back your point.
But can you give one example of what they have reported incorrectly. This should be easy since seem to believe that they are always wrong.
Tron, I use to live on the Allen Pond Road. I was on call for a business located in the downtown. If called when asleep, I could get dress be out the door an in the office in 25 minutes traveling down 202 and without speeding. That is right you know when you assume, you make an ass out you and you.
I use to commute from downtown Lewiston to the north. I would travel out College St towards Greene, to College Rd and then to Rt 202. In 60 minutes I was well north of Augusta on I-95 and almost in Waterville.
Tron, please explain who saying having to test someone before they can vote is racist? She didn't say, "Blacks should be tested" or "Hispanics should be tested". She said "citizens should have to take a test before they vote." Last I checked, Blacks, Hispanics, White and other can all be citizens, so I don't see the racism in here statement.
Saying "Obama's black so it must be his fault." is an extremely racist thing to say. I've not seen anyone blame the President because of the color of his skin. I've only seen the President being blame for policies.
One mocks what one does not understand. It is your right not to believe God and I respect that. What I take offense to is your line "Loony tunes playing in the background". If you don't have faith fine, but please there is no need to mock those who do.
Voisine, exactly what has President Obama done to improve the economy. Be specific. You speak
For example, passing the Stimulus Package kept unemployment below 8% putting more people to work. More people are unemployed after that past. Okay, his tax policies will lower taxes. Damn, taxes are going up next year. Okay, he got health care. No, we have to pay for it for 4 years before we see benefits. He'll be out of office by the time we see an impact.
I have to admit that the President has done an "Exceptional Job" of more the country close to a socialist state. He tried and thankfully failed to nationalize health care. He successfully took over an auto industry. He successfully transferred the ownership of another auto industry from the bond holders to the unions. He has successful raised taxes to transfer the wealth of some to others. So, is socialism is what you want, then the President is doing an "Exceptional Job"
Voisine, I'm afraid you are off in left field(pun intended). That definition is closer you. You are the one who said President Obama is doing an "Exceptional Job". Unemployment hovering at 10%, tripling deficits, tax increases on the horizon. Sorry, but you are the one who cannot see the evidence right in front of you.
What is wrong with America are the uninformed of both parties.
Voisine, all your post are talking points from left wing websites. None of your post show any original thinking.
You claim President Obama is doing an "Exceptional Job". Well, let us take a look at how the economy is going since he has taken office. Unemployment is closing in on 10%. It wasn't suppose to go above 8% if the Stimulus package was past. Deficit spending has tripled in less than two years. Wow, and this is what you consider an "Exceptional Job".
Next year, taxes are going up, when this occurs we will see a decrease in revenue to the treasury which will increase the deficit more. If people and business have less money to spend because they are giving it to the government, unemployment will continue to rise.
Also, didn't the Obama Administration give BP and the Deep Water Horizon rig an award.
Sorry, Voisine, "ignorant Republicans" are not the problem. It is those who are uninformed from both parties.
xyz, do you know why the Republican Party keeps saying no to the bills presented by the Democrats? The reason is the bills are bad bills. The Stimulus was and is a bad bill. "Health Care Reform" was and is a bad bill. Republicans will not and should not take part in the destruction of America. There will come a time, and I believe that it is not that far off, Americans will realize the the Democrats are moving this great country to a socialist economy. Look at the bills the Dems have put forth since President Obama has taken office. We had the Stimulus Package which was suppose to keep unemployment below 8%. See bad bill, unemployment is 9.5%. They want to negate contracts between individuals and companies where they think the individual is paid to much. They did not honor the bond holders of Chyrsler. They proposed socializing health care. When bad ideas are presented, the answer is NO.
It become obvious when those of the left have nothing to offer, they start name calling.
Now to address "attacking people on welfare". Yes, it did help Mr. LePage, but he did not make it a life style. Welfare is there to help people for a short time. It is not suppose to be a lifestyle, that is the PROBLEM!!!
Voisine,
I have read many of your post and I cannot figure out your logic. You claim the President is correcting the failure of the Bush administration. I'm sorry, but as bad as the economy was under the Bush administration, it was better than today. Today, unemployment is nearing 10% and deficits are rising. Once the tax increases kick in next year, you will reduced revenue to the Treasury, higher unemployment and a contracting economy. If that happens, will you still be blaming President Bush or will you finally admit that President Obama's policies are a failure? Exactly when does President Obama take ownership of the economy?
Good analysis. With taxes going up next year and tax payers having to start paying for ObamaCare, the economy will suffer. You cannot keep taking money out of the economy and expect it to expand. I think that you will see the economy start sliding late Q3, early Q4 of this year as businesses start preparing for next year's tax increases. Unemployment will tick up, but will stay just below 10% this year. I predict you will see unemployment going above 10% in Q1 next year. If this happens the markets will not like it and you will see the DOW pull back to probably around 7500.
With the passing of Steinbrenner, baseball will never be the same. People either loved or loved to hate him. Regardless, his impact on baseball will be felt for years to come.
I am pretty sure that I am not the only one here that finds the bickering and personal attacks between Tron and Thinkingman, old, boring and childish. Some of these attacks from both of you are bordering on slander. The comments are almost abusive and they are definitely baseless personal attacks.
It is time for the SJ to give you both a time out and keep you from posting. This childish behavior between the two of you has been going on long enough and it is time for the SJ to step in and put and end to it.
While I do agree that teachers bear a large responsibility for the education of the children, there is another party that bears as large responsibility also and those are the parents. Too many times parents you the schools as day cares. Parents need to be aware of what the children are doing in the school, take part in Parent-Teacher conferences, volunteer in the school, just to name a few. At the last Parent-Teacher conferences at my son's school, only 7 of 19 parents showed up. Conferences could be scheduled over 3 days during afternoons and evenings. Parents have to do their part as well
Joe, do you care to elaborate on "It was a job offering that was as Bush had not done in the clear," When did President Bush offer anyone a job not to run for office?
Cutting taxes increases revenue. Revenues are not the problem, it is the out of control spending. Government spending is nearly 25% of GDP and if you include the states you are approaching 50%. You have to cut spending.
veritas, I don't have a lot of time here, I'm at work.
I already told you what I would have done to turn the economy around, cut taxes and put money back in the hands of the individuals. Since Freddie and Fanny are quasi government agency, I would have been forced to bail them out. Allowing GM to file for bankruptcy would have allowed them to file for protection from their creditors.
And one thing I would not have done, is blame my predecessor.
veritas, here is what I would have done differently. I don't believe in "too big to fail", I would have allowed GM to file bankruptcy. As for Fanny and Freddie, I would have stopped lending to those who could not afford the payments. Health care, let's start with tort reform, purchasing insurance across state lines. Instead of the Stimulus which is government spending, I would have done the opposite, cut taxes and put money in the hands of individuals who pay federal income tax.
First of all I'm not an elected official, so I there is nothing I could do to directly cause or prevent these things from happening.
For what I have done, I have contacted my elected officials and gave them my opinion. Other things, I have done that have been more visible, are things similar to what you have done here and advocated my position, ie not passing health care. Another thing that I am currently doing is working on getting conservatives elected. I realize you may disagree with that last one, but I am not sitting on the sidelines and complaining.
Here are 11 signs that our government is an overgrown monstrosity:
1. explosion of government bailouts
2. entitlement programs that threaten to destroy the US Government's finances
3. the government is now paying mortgages
4. Without The Student Loan Program A Huge Percentage Of College Students Would Not Get An Education
5. the bailout of AIG
6. "too big to fail" banks
7. bailout of GM
8. bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
9. US Government is the nation's largest employer
10. millions of Americans are employed by companies depended on government contracts
11. the US Government take over of the Health Care System
I said revenue doubled. In 1980, revenues was $500 million and in 1988 revenue was $1 Trillion. That is doubling. During the Carter years, double digit inflation. No thanks.
The problem is the spending on Social program. The increases in social programs grew at ridiculous rates during the Reagan years.
The tax cuts were not the problem during the Reagan Administration. Since when does doubling revenue increase deficits. If President Reagan had not cut taxes the deficits would have been worse. The problem in not the revenue. The problem in the out of control spending.
If you want to be taken seriously, don't use one of the most left wing websites out there and second don't call names.
"Ordered all federal agencies to undertake a study and make recommendations for ways to cut spending" really made me laugh after the President and the Democrats have gone a spending spree.
Dan, it is simple. There are two ways for immigrants to enter our country, 1. legally and 2. illegally. How does one come to our country legally? They would cross our borders at border crossing and let the authorities know they are here. How does one come here illegally? They cross our border where ever they want and do not let authorities know they are here. Try crossing into Canada without going through a border cross, let me know how that works for you.
I have not problem with immigrants come to this country. We are a country of immigrants. I just want them to come in a orderly fashion so we know who is here and who belongs here.
Tron, by the definition of bigot, which one intollerant of other beliefs and opinions, you are one of the largest bigot in these blogs. If some one does not agree you call the "wacko", "teabaggers" and ironically "bigots". Look at who does the name calling in these blogs, they are not the conservatives, but you a liberal.
Tron, I have challenged you to answer this multiple times but every time you simple play dumb and refuse to answer. I maintain you do not know what racism is and could not identify it when you saw or read it. So, I challenge you to answer this question:
Can I say the following: "You cannot go into a 7-11 unless you have a Pakistani accent". If I was to say that, would you call me a racist. I'm pretty sure you would, but for some reason you have refused to answer.
SSDD, what does your post attempt to address? It is completely off topic. The piece is discussing taxes in Maine. Those dolloars do not go to pay for the cost of the war in Iraq. Speaking of stupidity, we could have save Trillions if the Great Society would not have been created and we could save Trillions going foward if the President's "stimulus" and Health Care Reform had not been past. That is at least 8 Trilllion is savings. Your $748 Billion is a drop in the bucket compared to that spending.
Tron doesn't know what racist is. When asked if a statement is racist, he could not answer. So I'll ask him again.
Tron, if I say the following: "You can't go into a 7-11 without having an Pakistani accent". To clarify, I'm implying that those who work in a 7-11 are from Pakistan. Would you call me racist?
Don't forget, two of our the greatest Presidents also declared bankruptcy, President Jefferson and Lincoln. I'm not saying the Otten is the same calabier as President Jefferson and Lincoln, but if bankruptcy automatically eliminated someone from public service, our country would have missed out on two great men.
What thinkingman wrote was "This is what happens when you put people in powerr who have never served in the military and have no clue how wars actually are fought." President Bush did serve in Texas Air National Guard. Also, Vice President Cheney was the Secretary of Defense during the first Gulf War. Yeah, they had military experience.
President Obama did not serve in the military. Vice President Biden received 5 student draft deferments from 1963-1968. In 1968, he was reclassified by the Selective Service System as not being able to serve because as a teenager he had asthma.
Again Tron has to come out with an offensive term "teabaggers". Unless you can prove that members of the Tea Party Movement actually call themselves that, I recommend you stop using that term.
Is it me or does tron always have something bad to say about the Republicans? He has always bashed President Bush and other Republican Presidents. I cannot recall one post where he ever agreed with what a Republican did.
SSDD, somthing is telling me you are not the one who registered that site. Also, why would an out-of-stater be so concerned about what is going on here in Maine.
Sorry but I have an entitlement mentality as well. I believe that I am entitled to make my own decisions and that I don't need a bureaucrat telling me what to do. I also believe that I am entitled to keep the money that I earn and that I should not have to support those that refuse to work. I also believe that I am entitled to protest my government, regardless of the party in control. I guess my definition of entitlement is a lot different than those on the left.
voisine, how about taking a minute to answer my questions. How many states in the country? How many men took the oath of office before President Obama? Who invented the automobile? The President who you said was so brilliant did not know the answers to these. My guess since you are not answering, you are like the President and don't know. I earlier said you would go 2 for 3. I'm changing it you will get 1 out of three right.
I find the article newsworthy as a whole. Now, think back to the '92 election, the MTV report asking then candidate Bill Clinton, "boxers or briefs", somehow that was newsworthy to some, but I don't care what the candidate wears. The information in this article was not covered in another article in the paper. For example, Jason Leveque thanking the President for coming. That is the first coverage of that statement I have seen.
The First Amendment allows them. It also allows you the right to answer back. From 2001 to 2009 all we heard was the complaints from the left, now that the right is complaining we should not hear. Are you afraid the if the public hears what those on the right have to say, the public might be come educated and vote those on the left out?
Tron you are both wrong. Sorry that was what I was trying to point out. I should have stated it in my first post. As for Bob's post, I saw it at the same time as yours.
Voisine, let's see if you are as smart or smarter than the President. How many states in the country? How many men have taken the Presidential oath of office? How invented the automobile? By the way, the man you claim to be so brilliant got them all wrong.
voisine, thanks for the personal attack. I guess when one has nothing to offer that is what one does. "People like you are DISGUSTING, truly you are RSTonge, and you are just the most ignorant that America has to offer. That's the truth of it!!"
PS. By the way, I don't have time to watch or listen to Sean Hannity.
voisine, glad to see you read my post. I only wish you would take the time and actually research some of the stuff you post. When President Reagan took office unemployment was at a steady climb up it reached 10.8% at the end of 1982. The recession lasted from 1980-1982. Who was President when it started? (Hint: not Ronald Reagan). Not once did President Reagan say he "inherited this bad economy". Once we saw the benefits of his tax cuts the economy took off. Inflation was averaging over 13% in 1980 and by 1986 was less than 2%. Interest rates were between 12-13%. So you would rather return to that economy? As bad as things are now, they were worse then.
voisine, it is not that tax cuts that are the issue. The problem is the spending. I also see that you negleted to include the numbers for President Obama. Without seeing the numbers, something tells me the Democrats average will go up.
As for bring the economy back from the brink, President Reagan "inherited" a worse economy than President Obama. Inflation, unemployment and interest rates were much high in 1980 when the were in 2008.
By the time the elections of 2012 come around, President Obama will be wishing his numbers were as high as President Bush's were when he left office. Hopefully, he will be wishing for numbers as high as Congress has today.
voisine, I do see the Democrats have courage. I takes a lot of courage to destroy a country. But please, keep your ignoRANTS to yourself. With your name calling you prove you have nothing to offer but ignoRANTS.
I guess we will have to wait until November. My prediction is the Democrats will lose the House and will have an extremely small majority in the Senate. Since this will only hurt the economy, President Obama will be a one term President and the Republicans will then have both Chambers and will push to undo this disastrous legislation.
Well, checked Gallup's poll from the beginning of the month and it was 48-45 against the bill.
Republicans are trying to keep the country from going over the edge. Tron, Republicans are NOT OPPOSED to health care reform. No matter how many times you repeat it, it will not make it so. Republicans are opposed to this particular incrediably bad piece of legislation.
I know you believe the government is the answer, but it is not. Government is the problem.
voisine, if you would put half the effort in do actually finding out what is going on and not waste time cutting and pasting the same comment on all the stories, you might actually see the Republicans are trying to same the country from the disaster the the Democrats are pushing us towards.
The real reason Republicans want to stop the bill is because Republicans believe in free choice, personal responsiblity and a free market. In 10 years, our choice for health insurance will be gone, even the President admit that much. Open your eyes.
Voisine, it is obvious you can see history clearly. Please go back and look. Who claimed Saddam had WMDs? Saddam did. He never denied it.
As for tax cuts, please go back and look at the country in 1980, double digit interest rates, double digit unemployment, high inflation. President Reagan came in, cut taxes, the economy turned around.
When the question was posted, the bill had not yet been posted, so we did not know what is in it. Hard to lookup something that doesn't exist. Even Speaker Pelosi said, we have to past it so we can see what is in it.
SSDD, that link is not to the bill but what the President wants.
Bob, currently there is the bill that was past by the House and the bill that was past by the Senate. The two differ greatly. We do not know exactly what the House will be voting on or if they will be voting at all. We will probably see something later today or tomorrow and if they are true to there word and have it out for 72 there would be a vote late Sunday or early Monday morning.
veritas, you do make a good point that Steve indirectly proclaimed the people to be the problem. I think that it is partially true. In many cases, I believe people go to the ballot box without knowledge of the issues or candidates. You would probably agree that this occurs on both sides. If those voting took the time to educate themselves, not rely on just NBC or CNN or Fox or just their daily paper, but took time to get their information from multiple news sources, I think that you would see a completely different group of people in Washington and in Augusta.
I don't disagree that spending was not cut. That was the problem. Tron, I didn't say that the Reagan Budgets should have cut spending. What I said was that the increase did not have to be as large as they were. They could have increase the existing programs, but not introduce all the new programs that they did.
Not changing the subject, answering your question.
Tron, I'll go through this again. When President Reagan took office revenue was $517 Billion and when he left revenue had nearly doubled to $991 Billion. Now we both agree that a deficits grew and so did the debt. The reason they both grew was the increase in SPENDING. They were SPENDING MORE than revenues were increasing. What would have happened if revenues had not increased?
why is it necessary to balance the income with outlays? Just because you have more money coming in does not mean you need to spend it. When more money comes into a household, most people either pay down debt or save. They don't go on a spending spree which is more than the increase of income.
Tron, tax cuts increase revenue. We've established that. If the Reagan tax cuts would not have been past and spending would have increased at the rate it did, the deficit would have skyrocketed. The Reagan tax cuts doubled revenue during the 80's. Spending more than doubled. Revenue to the Treasury is not the problem even today. The problem is there is more going out then coming in.
President Reagan did not push through tax cuts using executive orders. If you have info to this, please supply links. I'm not saying the Dems are not responsible for the tax cuts, what I'm saying is they are responsible for the spending increase.
Then Speaker of the House Tip O'Neal and President Reagan agreed on the tax cuts. They also agreed to some of the spending increases. The problem was the spending increases were at much higher rates than the President wanted. So why didn't President Reagan use his veto pen at that point. Unemployment was over 10%, inflation was out of control and interest rates were in the high teens. He knew and understood that in order to get the economy moving, he need to get money back into circulation and the best way to do that was through tax cuts.
Your only half right. You are right when you say cutting taxes increases the revenue. If spending was kept flat, the deficit and debt would go down. The problem is and was that spend grew at a rate much faster than the rate of revenue. Even if President Obama increase taxes, he will still face the same problem. Revenue will not come in at a rate fast enough to offset the increase in spending. Revenue is not the problem, spending is.
"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."
– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference
The reason the economy grew was because of the tax cuts. Go back, research when the cuts took place and when the economy started growing. The economy grew after the tax cuts. Tax cuts cause the economy to grow. If President Kennedy was alive today, he would agree with me.
Lil, you know that is completely false. President Reagan's tax cuts double revenue to the Treasury. The problem was the spending that the Congress past, which was controlled by the Democrats.
veritas, there was an op-ed piece in the WSJ years ago. It looked at the argument you are making. The author went back recalculated the budgets during the Reagan years. The author left the military spending along but only increased the other parts of the budget at twice the rate of inflation which was about 6%. The largest deficit that would have occurred was only $25 Billion.
I have to ask, would you rather have the government spend money on buying a tank or pay for those who built the tank to be on unemployment?
Lil, the two are not related. Tax cuts increased revenue. The increase to the debt came the increase in spending grew a much faster rate than that of the income.
You are confusing the two. For example, a household earns $40,000 per year and has expenses of $50,000 per year. That house hold is running a debt. Now if over the next 8 years, the household income doubles to $80,000 but increase their spending to $120,000 their debt is going to grow. The same thing happened with the Federal Debt.
Lil, tax cuts work. Go back through history and check. Check what happened to revenue during the 1980's when President Reagan cut taxes. Check what happend in the 1960's when President Kennedy cut taxes.
The reason we did not see a "thriving, growing economy" had a lot to do with the aftermath of September 11th. If it hadn't been for President Bush's tax cuts the downward turn in the economy in late '01 and through '02 would have been much worse.
Senator Reid said:"Today is a big day in America. Only 36,000 people lost their jobs today, which is really good" What the heck would be a bad day? If only 36,000 Americans had found work. That would be 36,000 other Americans who are not relying on his parties failed ideas.
There are millions succeeding on the playing field as it is. Those that are not, have every opportunity to succeed but have opted not to succeed. Tron, even if the Democrats could take all of the wealth in America and re-distribute it evenly so that everyone starts out with exactly the same about, it would not take but a week when those who have more will still have more.
Try re-reading what I said afterwards. I said, "but when the individual Americans prosper that is good for the Republicans but bad for the Democrats. Why? If individual Americans prospers, Democrats and their program are not longer needed." What I was implying was that what is good for the Democrats is when the government grows, therefore bad for America.
"They cannot afford to let America prosper, it's bad for their party." You mean when the American Government propers that is bad for the Republicans, but when the individual Americans prosper that is good for the Republicans but bad for the Democrats. Why? If individual Americans prospers, Democrats and their program are not longer needed.
For someone who claims to be mostly right, you are dead wrong on this one. President Clinton was not charged with having sex or a BJ. The charge were obstruction of justice, pergury and malfeasance of office. The fact that he LIED under oath about it is the crime.
Personnally I don't care what he did with his personal life, that is between him and his wife.
It would be nice if they could only meet when they had something pending, but they had well over 1000 bills at the beginning of the session. They seem to create a need for themselve to be there.
You are partially right. The public option would create immediate competition for health insurance companies, but in the long run it would drive health insurance companies out of business and then we would be left with only the public option and no competition.
How long have warning been on cigarettes? Yet, people keep on smoking. Yes, I understand it is difficult to quit. The warning obviously in not very effective because people are still taking up the habit.
Currently there is the possiblity is there if restrictions of purchasing insurance across state lines is removed. President Obama said it himself, that the public option will eventually eliminate private insurance. Once that happens, the only option will be the public option and that means there will be no competition.
I for one am putting my money where my mouth is. I was just elected the vice-chair of my town caucus. I am attending my county caucus and in May will be at the State Convention. My guess, Tron, you did not or will not attend your caucus in Auburn nor the county caucus or your parties state convention. I will be looking for candidates that believe in the free market system and not in government controls.
Norman Thomas was a six time Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America once said, "The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." Looks like he was right.
You give up because you can not prove your point. You can not point to one web site where that is how they refer to themselves. I can be convinced if you can give me on piece of evidence, since you can't, I'm not convinced.
Tron, that is what you do, when asked to prove your point you refuse to. Just because it is so in your mind, does not make it so in the real world. I will ask you again. Where did you find a member of the Tea Party referring to themselves as a "teabagger"
First of all I am not a member of the Tea Party Movement. I have never seen a member of the movement call themselves a "teabagger". This is done by those on the left. If it is done all the time, you should be able to give me at least one web site where they call themselves "teabaggers".
SSDD, can you cite one source where members of the Tea Party Movement call themselves "teabaggers"? That is a term used by left wing wackos like Janeane Garofalo.
Centarie2000, I agree that more should be done for our Vets. I think they should have a card and be able to go up to any hospital, pharmacy, present their card and get the service they need.
Tron, you are the one avoiding responsiblity but then again that is the traditional liberal way. Congressman Wilson took responsiblity for what he did. Nothing happened to the Democrats how booed the President and nothing happened to Senator Reid.
How about the hatred of calling the President a loser or booing the President at a State of the Union. Take care of your house before you stick your nose in ours.
There is a lot of good info in there, but you have to remember the author is opposed to wind development. There was also a newsletter distributed through town that on occasions distorted or exaggerated the facts.
Tron, she never said she was a teabagger, those were YOUR words NOT hers. She said she was a member of the Tea Party movement. "Teabagger" is a derogatory term used by left wing moonbats like Janeane Garofalo.
Is "right wing wacko repubican bigots" name calling or a label? Just want to be sure so that if those of us want to use "left wing socialist moonbats", want to make sure we use it correctly.
The more I have been thinking about this, the more I realize that the Democrats are right. The price of health care is rising and a large government bureaucracy will definitely reduce the cost and increase efficiency. Not only is the price of health care rising, so is the cost of food, oil, gas and electricity. What we need to do is create more large government bureaucracies to make sure we distribute the misery evenly.
Damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead. Embrace socialism!!!
Tron, I will agree with you that the Republicans can now stop the Democrats in the Senate. Please explain how the Republicans could have stopped any of the Democrats ideas prior to the election of Senator Brown.
Lil, I know you are referring to Fox News, so I have to ask, according to a Public Policy Polling who is the most trusted name in news? Hint it is not MSNBC.
That is the problem. People in Maine are educating themselves. They are learning from those in Mars Hills and Vinalhaven. There is enough data though to start building them, but they must set back the proper distance from occupied structures.
Tron, remember the same rules that allowed his ancestors to immigrate here are the same rules to that allowed your ancestors to immigrate also.
I'm not sure when you family immigrated, but when mine came down from Canada, they were required to have sponsors saying that they would be productive members of society.
If you prefer a country without Republicans, Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea come to mind.
Tron, you are right the market did recover under President Obama but not to due to his accomplishments. The market does not like uncertainty. Once it became clear that Health Care Reform with the public option would not pass and the Senate and House version of reform probably were not reconcilable the market recovered.
Tron, I was correcting your statement of "however by the time Bush left office it was under 8,000".
"During the Bush administration the Dow plummeted tens of thousands of point", from the high it dropped less than 6000. At last check, 6000 is less than 10000 and since it is less than 10000, it is not "tens of thousands".
So what major event happened in May 2008 to cause the mark to do down?
Tron is correct that the Dow did close above 14,000 under President Bush. Looking at the numbers the Dow then had a slight correction, as most markets do when hitting a high. The Dow pulled back to just under 12,000 in early March. In mid-May it closed above 13,000 again. It hasn't seen those numbers again. So what happened in early May of 2008 that could have caused this to happen?
Tron for the last year the Democrats had a supermajority in the Senate. They did not need any Republican votes, so how in the world could the Republicans obstruct anything if all the Democrats agreed?
David, you are correct that the Democrats could do anything they wanted until the election of Senator Brown. The fact that Health Care Reform did not pass is strictly the fault of the Democrats. For the first year of the President's Administration, the Democrats could do anything they wanted because they did not need any Republicans to vote for cloture. Now, the Democrats will need one Republican to vote for cloture, but once that occurs they only need 51 of their members to pass anything.
Can't seem to fine anything where to Republicans filibustered any bills in the Senate late year.
veritas, I don't disagree with the media looking into what Govenor Palin stood for. What I was saying was that members of the media, for example Chris Matthews, focusing on her statement of seeing Russia from her backyard, but never took the time point out some of the foolish things then candidate Biden said.
Tron, the media did not take Joe Biden to task. During an interview, he refered to President Roosevelt going on TV when the market crashed in 1929. The interview said nothing. The media spent more time on the Govenor's comment on seeing Russia than the spent on the Senator saying that JOBS is a three letter word.
On the idea of experience which ticket had more executive experience, Obama/Biden or McCain/Palin?
Veritas, it would have been nice if the media would have covered this our existing VP said during the campaign in the same way they covered Gov. Palin.
Pirate, I find it interesting that those that are suppose to be tolerent of those that are different are so intolerent of those who disagree with them. So, if we see a post that we disagree with, can we call the poster a moonbat or would be intolerent?
veritas you are right they were found unconstitutional. You are forgetting about HR-6166 also known as the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and signed by the President on October 17, 2006.
Lil, you are right about Coakley's inability to campaign. The one thing you are forgetting is that a large number of those voting were concerned about health care and did not want it.
With regards to the CBO, they can only go out 10 years. Since the taxes start right way and the benifets don't start for years out, that is how they can make it work, but if you go out beyond the 10 years, the numbers change.
The reason the "right winger" don't want criminal trials for the terrorist is because these individuals were capture on the battlefield. Now if they were arrestted on U.S. soil, then yes a criminal trial is the correct way. Last I check, Afghanistan is not part of the United States.
For someone who doen't watch Fox News, you know a lot of what is on.
That is very similar to what I have at work. We are give a number of Paid Time Off and from that we have to take our holidays, sick, vacation and "I just need a sanity day" from. This for me has worked well since I don't take a lot of sick time.
Just image, it is Saturday, 1pm, a police car scanning the license plates of cars parked at the Maine Mall and one of those plates happens to be yours. Days later, you are pulled over and arrested because you and your car match the description of a criminal. You are charged with a crime that occured in Portland at 1pm on Saturday. You then inform the police that you were at the Maine Mall, but regretfully you don't have a recepit or witness to put you at the Mall. The police check the plates scanned and you plate proves you were there. They let you go. Yes, this is an isolated and highly improbable case, but it could happen. With any new technology there are benifets and disadvantages and they must be weighed out.
Law enforcement officals have abused the technologies they have had. Should we remove all their technology because of a few bad officers?
Senators are elected by the entire state, so in 2006 Senator Snowe was challenged by Jean Hay Bright, then in 2008 Senator Collins was challenged by then Rep. Tom Allen. Since it is two separate elections I can and did vote for both of them. Since I live in House District 2, I voted for Rep. Michaud and therefore I was not allowed to vote in House District 1.
Senator Snowe and Senator Collins are far from my ideal candidate, but I find myself voting for them because the alternative is simply not acceptable. Jean Hay Bright and Rep. Allen are just to far out in left field for me to even consider voting for them. I know the Senators will at least do the correct thing, 60-70% of the time, but I knew the Democrat would do the wrong thing 90% of the time. So for me there is really no choice.
Tron, you crack me up. Speaking of name calling, from this weekend "IF these republican baboons had any pride" and "right wing wackos". I guess baboons and wackos is not name calling.
Tron, my statement is not childish. It just goes to prove the hypocracy of the left. It is okay for a liberal to insult the President, but if a Republican does it, there will be hell to pay. I'm not saying jut because one did it makes it right for the other, just the opposite. What I'm asking for is consistency on how both are treated. What Rep. Wilson did was wrong and so were the Democrats who boo-ed President Bush and so was Senator Reid for calling him a liar.
Tron, don't try and paint the Republicans as the bad guys. The Democrats are no better. I suppose calling the President a "loser" or boing the President during a State of the Union speech is okay. But I'm guessing you are not going to call for the resignation of Senator Reid and most of the Democrats in Congress.
Voisine what you are failing to see is that there was a barrier put up between the CIA and the FBI not letting the dots to be connected. What you are failing to see is that barrier was put up during the administration of a Democrat, President Clinton.
Yes, unemployment was 10% but those were in the first or second year of his first term. After the tax cuts past, unemployment dropped, interest rates dropped and so did inflation.
From your first statement, I can see you believe in some sort of socialism, since you think it is okay to take money from one individual, which they earned, and give it to someone who did nothing to earn the money. Sorry, if I EARNED it is MINE, if you want some go out an EARN it. I'm not saying that I am in that tax bracket, but if and when I ever get there, I will have earned it and it will not have been handed to me.
Tron, how was the economy when President Reagan took office. When President Reagan cut taxes, revenues increased and at the same time the economy got better.
Paying down the debt will not increase revenue because you are spending less on interest, but instead reduce the amount you have to pay out. I do however like the idea of using the increase in revenue to pay down the debt.
I still stand by the fact that you can reduce taxes and reduce spending at the same time.
Which party had control of Congress when President Clinton was in office and which party had control on Congress during Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush? President George W. Bush added $1.1 Trillion by your numbers, could you please break that down for 2005-2006 and 2007-2008, the results might be interesting.
Tron, you have admitted that cutting taxes raises revenue. You are correct when saying that the government needs to wait to increase spending to match the increase in revenue. That has been the problem all along. Not only was spending increased but it was increased at a faster rate the the increase in revenue.
Yes, President Clinton and the Republican Congress did cut spending and did reduce taxes on the middle class and balanced the budget. I think both parties want to balance the budget, but how they are trying to get there are to different ways. Both parties believe they need an increase in revenue, just how they do that is where they differ. We have proven that while cutting taxes you can increase revenue, but increasing taxes does not necessarily increase revenue. For example, here in Maine, taxes on cigarettes keep going up and then we hear, that the revenue from cigarette taxes has gone done. The same thing would occur if you were to increase rate capital gains taxes. Individuals would either not sell their stocks and if they did they would move them to tax free municipal bonds.
If you have been hitting your head against the wall, this will drive it through wall for sure.
In 1980 before President Reagan took office total revenue was $517 Billion. Durning the Reagan-Bush years revenue rose to $ 1.091 Trillion. Double would have been $1.034 Trillion. So when President Clinton took office revenue for 1992 had been $1.091 Trillion. When he left office, revenue was $2.025 Trillion, nearly doubled. We also have to take into account the 1993 tax increase and a middle class tax cut. So when, President Bush took office, revenue for 2000 had been $2.025 Trillion and when he left revenue was $2.105 Trillion. I agree that the last round of tax cuts did not increase revenue like President Reagan's cuts, but the there was a lot of unknowns with regard to terrorism during his first term. In 2007 and 2008 revenues rose to $2.407 Trillion and $2.568 Trillion.
Tron, look at my previous post. Go look up the revenue to the Federal Treasury in 1980 and then look at the revenue in 1990. You will see a near doubling of revenue. The economy during the mid-80's was good. The problem is not the tax cuts but the spending.
Republicans push for tax cuts because it increases revenue to the Treasury. Please go look up what Federal Revenue was in 1980 whe President Reagan took office and what they where when they left. The issue in the 80's was not the tax cuts but instead the spending. Under President Bush, the economy was in the early stages of a recession when he past his tax cuts. Regretfully we will never know exactly how they would have worked since the economy was shaken by the September 11th attacks. Again during the Bush adminstration, the issue was not the cuts, revenue stayed rather flat, the issue was spending.
If you are thinking this comment is in the wrong thread, I would have to agree. When the statement was made to through them out, and Tron replied we tried that and it failed. If you were to replace every memeber in Congress with the other party, that would put the Republicans in charge and since Tron said that the Republicans had failed, my statem definetly belongs here.
Please explain how the following "Clinton's surplus was turned into an $8 TRILLION debt BEFORE he took the oath of office." Considering the national debt was approximately $5.7 trillion when President Clintion left office. Yes, the debt was approximately $8 Trillion when President Obama took office. So President Bush added a about $2.3 Trillion to the national debt. Since President Obama has taken office he as added about $1.6 Trillion to the national debt. If he does that again next year, his increase will be more than double that of President Bush in two years. Hopefully, President Obama is only a one term president, we won't be able to afford another 4 years.
Oh, yeah, he so smart that he does't know how states in the country. If he was so smart, why did he pick Joe Biden as Vice President?
Tron, if we give the Democrats 8 years of unchecked control, you will be yearning to return to the days that President Bush was president and the Republicans were in control. This country will go soooooo far to the left we will not recognize it. Socialism is a failed experiment. Obviously, the President, Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi were absent from school the day it was taught.
You could cancel Stimulus I, that hasn't work so well. In 2007 where were approximately, 138 million individuals paying taxes. If every taxpayer was given $10,000 that is $1.38 Trillion. I also proposed that it could not exceed what one paid in Federal taxes, so it would actually be less. Also, since this would stimulate the economy and create jobs, therefore more paying Federal taxes, the cost would be less, probably closer to $1 Trillion about $400 Billion less than was Stimulus I cost and there would be no need for Stimulus II.
It would probably be cheaper, but it should be limited to those who pay Federal Income taxes. Also, limit it to their tax burden not exceed their tax burden, that way we don't have a redistribution of wealth.
The billions to save Wall Street was past by a Congress controlled by the Democrats. Also, it was the Democrats who insisted on the rule changes that caused the problem in the first place. Under President Clinton, the rules for lending money to people were loosened. There was a push by the Administration to have loans given to people with even if there was no chance they could pay it back.
President Bush and the UN told Saddam to come clean or there would be consequences. You also seem to forget that it was Saddam is the one who lied to the UN and not the Bush Administration about WMDs. Remember, Saddam admitted to pretending to having WMDs. If Saddam had come clean on not having WMDs, President Bush would have no reason for attacking.
Al-Qaeda was already at war with us. Do you remember the attack on the Cole, World Trade Center bombing, embassy bombings? If memory serves me correctly, those occurred under President Clinton. The Clinton Administration did not see that Al-Qaeda was at war with us. You also seem to forget that President Bush told the Taliban to turn over those responsible for September 11th.
Jon, why should the Catholic Church lose their tax-exempt status over taking a position on Gay Marriage. Tax-exempt organizations can take a position on issues but not support a candidate. I don't recall anyone calling to have tax-exemption revoked for the Westboro Baptist Church. But then again, they were protesting against a Republican President. Maybe Trinity Unity should lose their tax-exempt status.
Back in August, President Obama said the following:
"My answer is that if the private insurance companies are providing a good bargain, and if the public option has to be self-sustaining…then I think private insurers should be able to compete. They do it all the time. I mean, if you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? No, they are. It's the Post Office that's always having problems."
The Postal Service posted a $3.8 Billion lose for fiscal year 2009 which ended in September. Can we trust the same government to run health care?
Tron, TIF's are local tax breaks and do not change the amount the state collects. Corporate welfare is a myth, it does not exist. The State never takes money from individuals and transfers that money to companies. When the State gives money to companies, it is for a service or product, the State gets something in return.
Tron, I don't make up the rules for how Social Security is handed out. But once you reach the age of retirement, you start receiving benefits. I agree one should be retired to receive those benefits, but those are not the rules.
One can always tell, they've won an argument with you is when you start with the name calling.
Once you reach the age of retirement, you start receiving your Social Security payments. My father was working full time past the age of retirement and he started receiving HIS Social Security money back.
Tron, it is not a double standard. The difference with Social Security, that is money I put in for MY retirement, therefore it is MY money. Those as you a say "sucking off the government teat" are still using MY money. One is I'm getting my money back, the second is some else is getting my money.
The individual is not sucking of the public teat. The individual as actually receiving the money they contributed to the system when they were working.
From the Medicare web site:
Part B: (Medical Insurance) Premium
Most beneficiaries will continue to pay the same $96.40 premium amount in 2010. Beneficiaries who currently have the Social Security Administration (SSA) withhold their Part B premium and have incomes of $85,000 or less (or $170,000 or less for joint filers) will not have an increase in their Part B premium in 2010. For additional details, see our FAQ titled: "Will my Medicare Part B premium increase in 2010?"
For all others, the standard Medicare Part B monthly premium will be $110.50 in 2010, which is a 15% increase over the 2009 premium. The Medicare Part B premium is increasing in 2010 due to possible increases in Part B costs. If your income is above $85,000 (single) or $170,000 (married couple), then your Medicare Part B premium may be higher than $110.50 per month. For additional details, see our FAQ titled: "2010 Part B Premium Amounts for Persons with Higher Income Levels".
So, yes for some the rate is going up, for others it is staying the same
President Teddy Roosevelt was a member of the Republican Party. He was elected President as member of the short-lived Bull Moose Party which he founded.
Gil, I have to disrespectfully disagree with you on "yet I don't believe that I 'earned' the right to someone else paying for my health care." The day you signed up you earned that. I did not serve, so I have nothing to personally gain, but I believe that when you signed your name either willingly or because you were drafted, you earned the right for me to contribute to your health care. You also earned the right to the best health care money can buy. You and all others who served deserve what those in Congress have. Now I do not believe that I should pay for those who did not serve.
cranky yankee, I take it from your post you do not like the fact the insurance companies are making a profit. As a percentage of their revenue, what would you consider to be excessive? Are profits 2% of revenue excessive? Is 6% of revenue to excessive? What is excessive?
You seem to think that Republicans are not in favor of increased competition, actually it is the Democrats that are opposing that. The Obama Administration does not want to allow insurance companies to sell across state lines.
As for the public option be competition, that would not be exactly fair competition. Insurance companies are required to remain solvent, where the government option can print more money if they don't have enough. The public option will eventually destroy the public insurance industry and personally, I don't want my insurance in the hands of a government pencil pusher.
Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year. The word fine is what is used in the bill.
all -pronoun :
a) the whole quantity or amount: He ate all of the peanuts. All are gone.
b) the whole number; every one: all of us.
c) everything: Is that all you want to say? All is lost.
Fact check: "yet virtually all the Republicans goosed step with Rep Boehner and voted against. " is completely false. Rep. Anh Cao of Louisiana a Republican that vote with the Democrats. So "virtually all" is false.
The last report from the CBO that I saw on Thursday said that only 96% will be covered. This will cost $1.05 Trillion over 10 years. This cost is offset by an estimated $161 billion over ten years from penalties to individuals, who do not purchase insurance and employer, who do not provide insurance to their employees. These fines brings the cost down to $894 billion over ten years. This estimate does not include $245 billion to stop Medicare payments to doctors from decreasing.
So how are they going to pay for this $894 billion. The bill is paid for by $426 billion in cuts for existing programs, such as Medicare Advantage. The difference of $572 billion would be made up by tax increases over a 10 year period of time. When you the cuts and tax increases, you get $998 billion. Subtract the $894 billion from $998 billion you get $104 billion. The decrease in the deficit is reduced not by savings, but by an increase in taxes. Now if you add back in the $245 billion in Medicare payments to doctors, you now add $141 billion over the same period to the deficit.
"the armed forces might finally be able to grab him, imprison him", well that should be easy if all they have to do is dig him up. The Shah of Iran has been dead for over 19 years.
Sirmel, I have to respectfully disagree with your answer of 501. First, they would blame the previous administration for burning it out, even though they new it was burnt out when they took office. Then they would second create a large government bureaucracy to study the bulb, come up with an estimate of $5.00 to change it. After it was changed, the actual cost would be more list $1,000. They would keep the bureaucracy around to make sure it doesn't burn out again. Oh, and how do they pay for it, they tax the rich.
Big difference between 166 and 200 pounds lost. One of my best friends lost about 140 pounds in about a year and half, by walking and changing his diet. My friend was in his late 20's when he did this, as he got light he started biking and jogging.
Did Sen. Daniel Inouye,Former Rep. Gus Savage,Rep. Barney Frank,Former Rep. Fred Richmond,Former Rep. John Young,Former Rep. Gerry Studds,Former Rep. Mel Reynolds and the last Sen. Teddy Kennedy resign over their sexual escapades?
Since there are many posters, sometimes we want to address our comment to a particular poster. Without using their name, how else do you propose we say we are addressing a comment? There is a link to the commenting policy at the bottom of the page. It is early and I might have missed it, but I didn't see where is says we cannot address each other. As for posting urls, it says that the "Personal or business URLs that could be viewed as an attempt to solicit business".
I rarely agree with Tron but he is right, look at the url and then decide if you want to go and look at it. With that said, it is still the readers responsibility to have their anti-virus and anti-spam software up to date. I have seen legitimate websites hacked and users who did not have anti-virus software have their machines compromised.
Jon, please go back and review the revenue to the government in 1980 and then please check the number in 1988. This would be the period of Reagan tax cuts. As you will see, revenue nearly doubled. So yes cutting federal taxes does increase revenue. The issue is the spending.
Tron, how could the PUC for see something that never happened. During the entire 8 years of the Bush Administration, GDP was down only 1 quarter, and that was Q4 of 2008. Since then Q1 of 2009 and Q2 of 2009 have both had declining GDP. Now we are officially in a recession. The economic conditions do not qualify for a depression. Numbers from http://www.bea.gov and the definition of a recession comes from http://recession.org.
First Amendment read:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The amendment is saying that one has the freedom OF religion, not the freedom FROM religion. Subtle but a major difference.
The individual might have a case, but not with the law you are referring to. That law deals with employment, rental housing and real estate transactions.
I said, "I have not been able to find anything on how he was in charge of a committe to keep St. Petersburg open." That is not from memory. Like I said, I was unable to find how he lobbied against BNAS. Go back, re-read what I said. I said his company was hired to analyze the data give to BRAC, not sure how that is lobbying against Maine. Where you are getting your info?
Thanks. I knew we was Sec. of Defense for 1997 to 2001 and the BNAS was on the BRAC list and 2005. The Cohen Group was hired to analyze the data sent to BRAC, for which his company was paid $350,000. I have not been able to find anything on how he was in charge of a committe to keep St. Petersburg open.
You may want to rephrase that. Google, mars hills wind power law suit, freedom wind power law suit. You might be surprised at what you find. These are large projects that don't belong near people's homes.
Tron, you are referring to analysis shows. Matthew and Olbermann are just as bad the other way.
I agree Alan Colmes was rather moderate, and I admit that I have watched less on Hannity since he has left the show. He was a good balance with Sean Hannity.
RpsNoMore, if I remember correctly all the other news outlets reported the same. What you are forgetting is that the original liar was Saddam. He admitted that he lied and acted like he had the weapons. He figured that the U.S. would not invade and that he could survive an aerial assault. The reason Saddam said he lied was his fear of Iran.
RpsNoMore, you are right about President Obama. He is intelligent. He knows that he visited 57 states while running for office. He is so intelligent that he doesn't even know how many men took the oath of office before him. He was smart enough to pick a VP that doesn't know who was President in 1929 or how many letters in the word JOBS. He is so smart that his VP and Secretary of State didn't think he was qualified. He is so smart that he could tell people he had socialist views and they didn't believe him. He is so smart that his administration didn't bother to vet their czar's properly.
Tron, the President admitted that the public option will eliminate private insurance. So if the private insurance is gone, and all that is left is the public option. What is the other option?
1. Saying that a government run health care is socialized health is a "stretch", may be if your a socialist it is.
2. What numbers do you want to use?
3. Prove it
4. How about Jennings? Geithner?
5. Sorry, the firefighters is a valid case. The U.S. Supreme Court said that the New Haven fire fighters were "unfairly denied promotions".
1. Socializing health care is radical.
2. Auto sales down 40% in September. Cash for Clunkers was a short term boost.
3. Auto union ended up with a 55% stake in Chrysler
4. Van Jones self proclaimed Communist
5. and yes, Judge Sotomayor since those votes has proven she is willing to legislate from the bench.
1. Health care reform
2. Cash for Clunkers
3. Auto industry bailout where the debtors where ignored and the companies given to the unions
4. Appointment of extreme left wing ideologues
5. Supreme Court Justice selection
Denny one small correction. Yes, the President portrayed himself as a moderate, but he did admit to Joe that he had extreme liberal ideas. It is just most of the people didn't hear him or those who heard him didn't believe him.
"Canadians do not come to the U S for their medical treatments as far as we know." is not true. Since President Obama has taken office over 17,000 Canadians have come to the U.S. for treatment.
Currently there are about 50 million U.S. residents are without health coverage. When the plan is completely in place in 2019, 25 million will still be without coverage. Of those 25 million, 17 million would be U.S. citizens or legal immigrants. The plan is estimate to cost $829 billion over 10 years. The government will spend about $3300 per individual per year for coverage. The government could probably purchase the insurance directly from insurance companies for about half that amount. With the saving, then be able to insure the remaining 25 million people.
Tron, I heard the audio, that is exactly what she said.
Here is what she said.
"I know it wasn't rape-rape. I think it was something else, but I don't believe it was rape-rape.
"He pled guilty to having sex with a minor and he went to jail, and when they let him out he said 'You know what, this guy's going to give me 100 years in jail. I'm not staying'. And that's why he left."
So how did Fox lie about what she said? Was this on O'Reilly, Beck or Hannity? I suppose that the other news channels are 100% accurate and never make up the news?
Tron, I know you can help with this. I have asked Lil, multiple times for an example of Fox's false or inaccurate reporting. Can you give me an example.
Legally, Polanski plead guilty to “unlawful sexual intercourse”.
The definition of "rape" is :
–noun
1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
3. statutory rape.
4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.
5. Archaic. the act of seizing and carrying off by force.
I guessing the legal definition is different.
From boston.com today,
"The grand jury charged Polanski with “rape by use of drugs,’’ “lewd and lascivious acts upon child under 14,’’ “perversion,’’ and “sodomy’’ (the latter two for acts that are now legal if consensual, and are sexual assault if not.) After pleading guilty to the mildest charge, Polanski - now a convicted sex offender - fled before sentencing."
Lil, again what "Faux" news did they report. Previously you said "Jennings", I never saw the report so I do not know what false statements were said about Mr. Jennings. If you are going to through out accusations you should be able to back them up.
Again I ask, could one of you give me a specific example of a false story reported on Fox. I know Lil you said Jennings, but never said what Fox said that was false about him. O'Reilly, Beck and Hannity are analysis shows and do tend to have a bias. The same can be said about Matthews and Olbermann. If their stories reported on their cast are false, this should be easy to prove.
If you are referring to TARP, financial institutions have to pay it back. So that eliminates the bailouts. For it to be "welfare", they have to be able to keep it and not pay it back.
Not sure where you got this quote, “One goes to Mass in order to receive Jesus Christ in the Holy Sacrament of the altar" but I don't know of any other place I can go to church to receive the Body and Blood of Jesus than to a church.
I read the British papers from time to time. I have seen enough articles where the elderly are being refused care. Just the other day, I read a story about a soldier who served in Iraq. He was given a lung transplant because he developed an illness while serving. The lungs he was given came from a heavy smoker. Now he has lung cancer. Since he has cancer, he now is not eligible for another transplant.
I don't disagree that our health care system needs help, but socializing it is not the answer.
Rex, you think it is bad now, wait until we get a system like the U.K. Of course unless you think the health care system in the U.K. is better than the one we have here.
I agree with what you are saying, but , let me play devil's advocate. "So really, it could be argued that the state is showing preferance to one religion by limiting marriage to heterosexual marriage" If the State limits marriage between two people, is it not limiting the religions that believe in polygamy?
veritas, is the person who said about then candidate Senator Obama, "The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training." racist?
Barb, I think your getting the debt and the deficit mixed up. It is the deficit that has tripled. In 2008 the deficit was $459 billion and is now has tripled to $1.4 trillion.
Quality can be used as an adjective. Verb: providing, Noun: education, Adjective (what kind of education) quality. Definition of quality as an adjective are: of or having superior quality: quality paper, producing or providing products or services of high quality or merit: a quality publisher, of or occupying high social status: a quality family, marked by a concentrated expenditure of involvement, concern, or commitment: Counselors are urging that working parents try to spend more quality time with their children.
WOW. I was mistaken, nominations closed on February 1st. Still what did he accomplish between Jan 20 and Feb 1? I still maintain Senator Mitchell currently more deserving.
Voting for the Nobel Peace Prize concluded two weeks after President Obama took office, exactly what did he do during those two weeks? I'm not saying he doesn't deserve it, but there are others, like Senator Mitchell, who have done more.
tron you may want to believe that President Clinton was impeached for sex, but again you would be wrong. President Clinton was impeach for perjury. That fact that he perjured himself about sex, well that is the only connection. The crime for which he was impeached was perjury.
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2005/02/27/etiquette_at_work/ says
"Q: I'm unhappy when I hear former presidents and other ex-officials addressed as ''Mister." Doesn't this belittle their importance? I was taught to address people with the highest title or position they've achieved in their career.
W.P., Chelmsford
A: You've waded into the quagmire of what's ''proper" here, so bear with me. When addressing a former president of the United States in a formal setting, the correct form is ''Mr. Last Name." (''President LastName" or ''Mr. President" are terms reserved for the current head of state.) This is true for other ex-officials, as well.
When talking about the person to a third party, on the other hand, it's appropriate to say, ''former president Last Name." This holds for introductions, as well: A current state governor is introduced as ''Governor Tom Smith," while you'd introduce an ex-governor as ''former Governor Jim Bell."
Now, let's wade a bit deeper. In an informal setting (such as a private lunch), it's acceptable to use the title the ex-official held. Here, you could refer to former president Jimmy Carter as either ''President Carter" or ''Mr. Carter."
Finally, if the person you're lunching with held more than one previous position -- say, judge and ambassador -- you'll want to know which title he or she prefers"
Senator Mitchell has actually done more for world peace. It woudl be different if this had been 2012, when President Obama would have had time to actually do something, currently he has only talked about what he wants do.
Here's a question, when announcing elections results, if an anchor rolls their eyes when announcing that a particular candidate won another state, is that okay?
Everyone keeps saying Fox News is bias and false news. When asked for one story that was false, no seems to have an answer. O'Reilly, Beck and Hannity are commentators and analysts, of course their will be bias. Listening to those three is like reading an op-ed page in a newspaper.
So again, could someone please give me an example of a false news story by Fox News.
Oh yeah, "anything they report" does not count. I want a specific example.
Cars cannot and do not causes accidents. I have never seen a car suddenly just crash. People cause the accidents. Someone has to be behind the wheel to operate the car.
Tron you are one to talk. First of all, I do not believe you are old enough to remember President Eisenhower. My guess you were born under President Johnson or President Nixon's first term. Secondly, I have never said any thing to disrespect the President, while you on the other hand cannot even refer to them correctly, you refer to "Bush". NEVER do you say President Bush.
Tron, not to rehash old news, but it was not the responsibility of the Bush Administration to evacuate New Orleans. That responsibility belonged to Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco.
This "intelligent President" didn't even know how many states in the country or how many men had taken the oath of office before him. He might be smart, but I think he skipped a few Social Studies classes.
If the government option is run like the USPS, God help those on that plan.
When the President made that comparison, I was thinking, "That's not the best example" The USPS is not the most efficient organization, that's why UPS and FedEx aren't worried about competing with them.
Also, that comparison is not really valid. USPS guarantees that every town in the US has daily mail service and that every mailbox is pasted by daily in case there pickups. UPS and FedEx don't do that.
T your right. Unions have done a lot of good for the American workers. I believe unions have served their purpose and now a harming the American worker and businesses. Unions share a large part of the blame for the issues in Detroit. Back in the '70s the unions did a lot of damage to the rail industry. During the '70s, unions insisted on keeping a crew in a caboose even though they were no longer needed. Unions are hurting the large newspapers. Look at the Boston Globe, by trying to protect a few people, thy might all lose their jobs.
Spock was right, "The needs of the many, out weight the needs of the few." It is time that unions and their members take this to heart.
Jon, the Democrat Party is no better. Look at my post from last night. You can add Van Jones to that list. Don't forget, the is a Senator who was a from Grand Dragon of the KKK, can't get more racist and radical than that.
veritas, I'm guessing you are referring to Fox News. Can you cite one story they have made up or one fact that was wrong? Now this has to be a news piece not an analysis piece. Don't quote something that someone said on O'Reilly or on Hannity, that is not news, that is opinion.
"These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades." from the USA Today op-ed piece written my Speaker Pelosi and Rep. Steny Hoyer.(http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/08/unamerican-attacks-cant-derail-he...)
President Bush appointed 46 over 8 years. Most of the czars were temporary appointments for a few years. President Obama is already at 35 in just over 8 months. Many of the 46 were replacements for a czar who left. For example, President Bush had 3 AIDS Czars each serving 2 years. He also had 3 Budget Czars from 2001-07, 2 clean up czars each serving a 4 years. President Bush also appointed a Bird Flu Czar who served from 2004-06. I will agree that President Bush appointed more Czars, but it took 8 years. Also the most czar jobs was 31. President Obama has appointed 35 individuals to 32 jobs. President Obama already has more czar jobs.
Lil, I love how you have no respect for the office of the President or for the truth. President Bush had 31 over his eight years, but never 31 at any one time. President Obama has been in office 8 months yesterday and he has 32.
ojhuig and Lil, before saying the right is full of "whack jobs", take a look inward at those on the left. Look at some of the people the President associated with in the past, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Father Pfleger, and Louis Farrakhan.
I am on the Planning Board for our town. We are currently looking at an ordinance for wind turbines. The town to our north and to our south are both looking at ordinances as well. Their boards are both looking at 1 mile set backs. We are also considering a 1 mile set back. For the record, I will be about 2 miles from the turbines. When we started this process, I thought 1000ft would be fine. With the more research I have been doing, the more I realize that these things don't belong in someone's backyard.
We had a presentation where a sound expert presented a recording of a turbine. The recording was done inside a home 1800ft away from a turbine. The sound level inside a home at night is about 25 - 30 dba. The sound of the wind turbine was 52 dba. That is equivalent to a normal conversion 3-5 feet away. The lowest ambient sound levels in a urban area is 40dba. These turbines are going in rural areas and the lowest ambient sound levels in a rural area is about 25 dba.
It is not the noise of the turbines that is the issue, but the noise that the blades make as they cut through the air. The speed of the wind mill tips are moving at about 6 times the incoming wind speed.
I have been researching Industrial Wind for the past year for our town.
I just love it how those on the left resort to name calling. That is typical of those on the left, when they start losing an argument, start calling those on the other side names and if that doesn't work, play the race card. The problem with Lil's statement is those of us "republiclowns" were aware of ACORN before this last election. It is just that this time what they are doing is just so over the top.
What I don't understand is now that this has been revealed how anyone can defend them.
Tron, it is nice to see that you are quick to go into to the gutter with name calling, "extreme right wing wacko's like yourself". I guess if you cannot make your point with facts, I guess restoring to name calling is all you have left. Classy, very classy.
Old Bill your so right. Here is a great quote from one of his speeches.
"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."
– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference
Tron, the first line says "disaster loans available" which means they business will have to pay it back. Where if it was truly welfare, they would not. It is by definition impossible to give welfare to a business The definition of welfare "financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government" from dictionary.com. Welfare is paid to individuals and families not to businesses. I think David is right.
The term "corporate welfare" has been hi-jacket by the left. Here is how those on the left define welfare. If a company gets to keep more of what they earned, that is considered "welfare". But if an individual who does not pay income tax gets money back, that is considered a "refund". How can you get a income tax refund, if one does not pay income tax.
cajunandmex, you missed the point. Sen. Dodd and his socialist friends want to force a socialized health care system on us. The point I was making was since he thinks socialized medicine is such a great idea, why doesn't he go to a country that has socialized medicine and get treated. I agree with you that Federal employees have a great health care plan and that will not change if President Obama passes his plan. What will change is the health care system for the rest of us. President Obama wants to eliminate employer provide health care. cajunandmex, you have nothing to lose, the rest of us have a lot to lose.
I'm not sure why everyone is opposed to government run health care. It is not like the government has a bad track record of running things. Look at MediCare, Social Security, and AmTrack. I'm sure most veterans are just pleased with their government run health care. Oh wait, I guess those programs are not run very well.
I remember watching Walter Cronkite with my Grandfather. I remember watching him report on Vietnam, Watergate, Iranian Hostages and many other stories. Walter Cronkite, even on his worst day will always be better than today's journalist on their best day.
Gil, I agree. It is said. I have to disagree with everyone comparing his death with that of President Kennedy. I would compare his death more to Elvis.
Recent Comments
Please clarify
Dan,
Just to be clear. Are you saying political groups, such as Democrats or Republicans, should be not be using public buildings for meeting spaces.
valid point
Dan, I agree that it does not reflect well on the State. Now, answer me this, if you are billing me for something and then I change the rules and you continue billing me at the old rules, which cause me to over pay you. Who is at fault? You for over billing or me for not telling you I changed the rules.
The Speaker did repay about $450K of the $1.6 million after he was forced to sell his business.
are you sure?
Dan, are you sure he never paid back any of the money? I almost positive a portion of the $1.6 million was paid back after he liquidated his business.
too bad
Heck, if Dan had done some research, he could of produced the same, but instead, he just post and leaves it to you to prove his case.
Well then I guess the offer is off the table, sorry Dan. Maybe next time you bite.
so wrong
Dan, I just didn't get you today. I have gotten you multiple times.
Hey, offer still stands, contact Patti if you think that the Obama's daughters were not listed as senior staffers and she can ban the user that was wrong or we can just mark that up as one of the times you were proven WRONG by me AGAIN. So, I guess you can just go on defending the scrupulous Keynesian President.
what?
Dan, the 124th Legislature did not do that. What are you talking about?
your passing because
Dan, the reason you are passing is because you know that I am RIGHT and you are WRONG (AGAIN). If you are so sure that I am right, take me up on the offer and Patti can ban the account of the person who is wrong. Let her be the judge.
curious
is the following statement racist:
"You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent."
word of honor
Dan, we'll have Patti ban the user who is wrong. Sounds to me, that you think I'm right and you appear to be WRONG AGAIN.
no surprise
I'm not really surprised that Dan didn't take me up on my offer considering he "thinks" he is "always right", but it looks like he believes I'm right. One would think if he was actually right, he would jump at the chance of actually getting rid of me, but instead he appears to want to keep me. Oh, well ....
Dan, just accept the offer and I'm out of here.
no surprise
I'm not really surprised that Dan didn't take me up on my offer considering he "thinks" he is "always right", but it looks like he believes I'm right. One would think if he was actually right, he would jump at the chance of actually getting rid of me, but instead he appears to want to keep me. Oh, well ....
Dan, just accept the offer and I'm out of here.
wrong again
Dan, do I need to remind you when I mentioned the Keynesian President you went off on a tangent about the President of Kenya. Sounds pretty foolish to me.
are you sure
Dan, are you sure that the daughters have never been listed as senior staffers. Being a betting man, and considering your track record of being wrong, I would wager the one who is wrong gets permanently banned. Feeling lucky?
by not addressing
Dan, by not addressing the FACT that I made you look foolish again, it appears that you are accepting the FACT that I have made you look foolish before.
I wonder
Mark,
I wonder what his position would be in the Obama's were to list their daughters as senior staff members.
wrong again
Dan, you must really enjoy being wrong all the time. YOU, DAN BRETON, are the one who raised the issue of her qualification. It is YOUR responsibility to make YOUR case not MINE. I will not disclose where she resides, but I can assure you it is not the Blaine House.
As for your trying to save face, you are because there is no way you can prove anything you are saying. I have made you look foolish before and I am doing it again today.
PS. as for your statement about being a mouthpiece for FOX, it COMPLETELY false. I do not watch FOX or any of the other cable news stations.
Dan, if the Blaine House is ONLY for the governor, can his wife live there? If he had children that were minor can they live there?
sorry
Dan, you are the one in FANTASY LAND. I know that if we let you pull your liberal line, you'll hang yourself.
You are now just trying to save face after I've made you look foolish AGAIN. What makes you think she is unqualified for her job?
wrong again
Dan, I know Lauren personally and I KNOW for a FACT that she does not reside in the Blaine House. Please get your "FACTS" straight before going to the keyboard.
Dan, if she was not doing that job, someone else would have to. That job was not create for her.
Completely false
Dan, First for the amount of work Lauren does $41K is not that much. Second how do you figure she is getting free room and board at your expense.
not their job
Dan, it is not the job of the SOS to declare the law null and void. That is the job for the courts.
Lie alert!!!!
Dan, "eliminate a person's right to vote," is an out right lie and you know it! No one's right to vote is being eliminated and you know that.
what?
Dan, the money wasn't there before the Republicans took over, so your statement is completely false.
I've asked you multiple times and you still haven't answered. Dan, the tax break for the "wealthy" are for those earning over 30K. Since when is that wealthy?
there is a link
Dan,I've done an excellent job of explaining President Bush's response. It is you who is failing to understand it.
The Federal response is predicated on what happens at the local level. That is not an extraneous issue. IT IS FACT. You see it as such an extraneous issue because it blows a hole in your view of reality and you are refusing to accept actual reality. The Feds cannot act until the state government acts. THAT IS A FACT. So, how could President Bush do anything until the State government acted? The reason President Obama's response is good, was because the States did there part.
I've explained to you the order things must occur. During Katrina, the State of Louisiana FAILED to act so the hands of the Federal government was tied. You seem forget that things were done correctly in Mississippi. During Irene, the States responded with their emergency declarations therefore allowing for the Federal response to occur.
Sorry, I've laid out the facts for you.
Guano flag on you
Dan, that is a load! At least I can show respect for both sides, you only show respect for one. And you call me bias! You were the one who brought up the failures of Katrina, not me. I simply set the record right.
Dan, President Bush was limited by what was done at the state level and that was controlled by Democrats. Last week you complained that Governor LePage declared a state of emergency. Look at what happens when you don't, you get the response of Katrina.
Dan, there are laws in this country and the President cannot simply send in help to a state until it is requested. So your attempt to blame President Bush for the failure of the Louisiana Governor to declare the state of emergency is simply foolish.
Dan, what I stated were FACTS about what happened with Katrina and you simple cannot or simple refuse to understand them. That is your problem not mine.
not a matter of biting
Dan, it was not a matter of biting, but to show how bias you are.
In your view, you believe that Republicans are always wrong and Democrats are always right. Sorry, but that is not the case. In this case, when looking at Katrina, the Democrats in control have a major level of responsibility. President Bush asked the Louisiana Governor to declare a state of emergency in advance of the storm so Federal resource be deployed. The Governor did not do that. So, can't exactly blame that on President Bush. Remember the pictures of the school buses flooded. Those buses were not used to evacuate New Orleans. It was not and is not the responsibility of the Federal government to oversee evacuations. That is a State and local responsibility. Dan, like it or not those are the facts. You can choose to ignore them, but it does not change the fact that failure to evacuate New Orleans properly and in a timely fashion was the responsibility of the Democrats in charge and not President Bush.
Have a good day.
Tangents, that was you went on about Mwai Kibaki.
attributing it to what
Dan, who are attributing the incompetence of Katrina to? During Katrina, who was responsible for the executing the evacuation plan in Louisiana?
okay
Okay, I'll admit you were correct this ONE time. You were critical of Governor Baldacci.
maybe
Dan, yes that would be complaint but show me the proof you said that about Governor Baldacci! GIVE ME A LINK TO IT! Otherwise you are just making up guano!
My education is find and did include reading comprehension. It is you who appears to have the comprehension problem. When we ask you to prove something you simple don't.
gotta through the BS Flag again
Dan, you know that is BS! The tax cuts are for those making over $30K a year. Since when is earning $30K wealthy?
Route 27 has two bridges out which is a major through way to Quebec and to Sugarloaf. That road need to be fixed before winter.
Again, you are simply showing for your HATRED of anything Republican!
it was a typo
Hey, Dan you have typos all the time. Besides, you answered as though I said DID NOT.
Still no proof! You NEVER COMPLAINED when the Democrat did it. You have two set of standards one for the Democrats and one for Republicans!
throwing the BS flag on this
Dan, you did not complain. Follow the link and you did not complain.
Again, PROVE IT! Copy and paste a link to your complaint. I'm not expecting one because it does exist! Saying you did is not PROOF. You've been wrong sooooo, soooo, sooooooo many times that you need back up what you say!
interesting
Dan, I noticed you did complain when a Governor Baldacci did it in Acadia.
http://www.sunjournal.com/node/193765
See no comment from you. Double standard Dan!!!!
The roads are washed out, 2 bridges out. Not the case for Governor Baldacci. What could possible be the difference? Oh, Governor Baldacci was a Democrat and that made it okay!
wrong again
Dan, no I did not attend Husson to get my degree. Where did you get yours? Do you even have one? In the Drupal system there is NO such thing as a suspension. You can only BAN someone to prevent them from posting. If you were prevented from posting YOU WERE BANNED!!!!!!!!!
banned but allowed to come back?
Dan, banned and allowed to come back, that is a suspension. If he was banned, that means you can't come back. The way the system works, is a user is marked banned and therefore not allowed to post. The system admin can remove the ban at the end of the suspension. That is how Drupal works.
And you're right, for once, I don't believe you. Heck, even a clock that doesn't work is right twice in day, but you only got one. You've been wrong on soooo, soooo, soooo many things, why would I think you were right this time.
not the complete truth
Dan, that is not the complete truth because you were also banned last year for violating the posting policy.
not closed minded
Must suck being wrong with everyone of your post. Sorry, I'm not the closed mined you. I leave that to the pro, YOU!
done with small minds
Dan, I'm sick and tire of you for today! I've got too much to do today to deal with immature individual like you. GROW UP!
PS. Have you realize our President is Keynesian yet?
wrong again
Dan take your own advice and you keep quiet. Between the two of us only one us knows what he is talking about and it is NOT YOU!!!
still waiting
Hey where is my apology for calling me a liar.
When you can't defend your position you simple look foolish. But, he this isn't the first time I've made you look foolish and I know it won't be the last.
No tangent
Dan, without declaring the state of emergency there are things here is the State that simply could not happen. Opening of shelters, opening the emergency response center. It had nothing to do with Federal aide.
You are the one that goes off on tangents.
Are you a farmer?
Dan, by any chance are you a farmer? I've never seen anyone with soooo much manure.
Not splitting hears, distinguishing between fact and your fiction. Again, he never said he would, he said the MEDIA would say he did. Learn the difference.
The tax cuts for the "rich" are for those who earn over $30,000 per year. Since when is that considered rich! I am by no means rich, except the fact the I earn over $30K.
wrong again
Man, I must really suck being this wrong. The Governor never told the President to go to hell. He said that is how the media would play it.
NO YOU ARE THE HYPOCRITE THROUGH AND THROUGH!!!!
Expect apology for your lie
Dan, I expect an apology for your lie. If you can prove give me a link to a post where I said that, then I'll apologize.
I'll be surprised if I get either.
wrong again
Dan, must suck being wrong all the time, but by now you must have had a lot of practice. I NEVER said that I want to decrease the size of the House and eliminate the Senate.
If I did PROVE IT!!!!! Find the post where I said that, otherwise what you just posted is a FLAT OUT LIE!!!
What?
Dan, where does it say that the members of commission were Republican. Since the Androscoggin County is primarily Democrat, the odds are most members are Democrats and not Republicans. Besides, I believed in larger government, or is that larger government that favors YOU!
wrong again
Dan, you are really starting to look foolish. Any Governor would have done this. Governor Baldacci declared a state of emergency on Dec 26,2010 for a snow storm on Dec 27,2010 and closed all state offices. Don't remember you complaining about getting Federal aide there. If Governor LePage would not have done this and something would have happened you would then be complaining about that. You just enjoy complaining about anything this Governor does. This will also allow power crew to work long hours, deployment of the Guard if necessarily and yes Federal aide. The last time a Governor failed to declare a state of emergency was in 2005. The Federal government was not able to assist in advance and hundreds died. When that happened you blamed the President and not the Governor. Why? Republican President and Democrat Governor.
You simply HATRED of Republicans and Conservatives. No matter what a Republican does it is wrong, but we NEVER hear a peep out of you when a Democrat or Liberal does the same thing.
condition normal
Pirate, I love it when he said he was wrong again, condition normal.
If you really want to get him going, ask him about our Keynesian President and goes off on a tangent about he President of Kenya.
looking foolish again
Ahh, another day to make you look foolish. When are you going to stop making yourself look so foolish and base your comments on facts and not what you wish.
Dan, we are not "insulting" the Governor. We are stating FACTS. The article clearly states the problem occurred in a town office, not a State office.
Please PROVE that what happened in a town office is some how connected to the Governor or any member of his administration. Since I KNOW you CAN'T I'm expecting anything, except more foolishness.
another uninformed post
Dan, please do a little research before posting. In your previous post there is not ONE FACT only your daily tripe. This had nothing to do with the State, it was a failure in a town office.
But, please do let facts get in the way of uninformed BS rants. I enjoy the laughs.
wrong
Dan, at the risk of making you look foolish again. The article does not say they were fired by email, but that the DHHS staff was notified of the staff changes.
of course
Dan, you express the typical view of a Keynesian support. How is $30,000 wealthy?
Speaking of lying
Dan, you sit there and accuse people of saying thing that they did not say and then when asked to back it up you leave the blog. So if you want to be taken seriously, accept my wager and prove your point. I'll even help you, there is the link to the story where this started. http://www.sunjournal.com/letters/story/1038722 Please point out the time I made the reference to the President of Kenya. I did after you. The question is if I prove you wrong, will you leave? My guess is no.
you never accepted
Dan, you never accepted my wager. Beside I do not lose. If I was the one to make that reference, please quote me. Better yet, just post "I accept" and then I'm gone.
What?
Dan, last week you made the statement you were against mandates, and here you espousing the values the Affordable Care Act which is full of mandates. Which is it, are you oppose to mandates or are you in favor of them, or is it you favor the ones from a Keynesian President.
your subject line was right on
Jonathan your subject line was right on because everything after that was just that. Were you wearing hip waders when you wrote that. Could it be most Republicans are at work on election day and therefore it is harder to get volunteers? As for closing their office early, that is not what I saw here. The Democrats closed their office about two hours before we did. An if you think it is Republicans think it is their "right", then please explain why we had a Democratic candidate in our office on election night asking our candidate to concede after she won two of the six towns in the district. She said she wanted to get home. Our candidate said "NO" and when the votes were counted the Democrat lost and big.
Do you follow the news?
Mark, seriously, did you not follow the news in 2008-2009.
Here is a link for you.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124182750646102435.html
ACORN
ACORN. That should be self explanatory. Do we want to allow that to occur here in our state?
There are approximately 250 other days for someone to register. If someone is truly interested, they will make the effort and can register on one of those other 250 days. The proposal is talking about removing 2 day. Those who oppose this, appear as if they are in favor a voter fraud.
please your facts straight
Dan, again you don't have your facts straight. I have explained it to you before but you refuse to understand.
take the bet
Dan, If you are so certain take the bet and I am out of here. You would never hear from me again. Say, yes I accept the challenge and I am gone if I'm wrong, otherwise if you say yes and you are wrong you leave. It appears you are the one who is not certain of who raised the issue first. You do realize by not taking the challenge you are the one who looks like feel you raised the issue first. Take the challenge and I could be out of here, otherwise, I'm staying around.
so...........
so are you admitting you raised the it first and leaving for good or are you taking your typical approach and avoiding the debate? I'm guessing the latter.
I am honorable
Dan, I am honourable. If I am the one who raised the issue of the President of Kenya first, I am man enough to admit it and leave the site. The question is are you honourable and man enough to do the same. I'm guessing not.
The ball is in your court, do you accept my challenge or do you want me here daily pestering you about your support of our Keynesian President. If I'm wrong I'm gone. If you are wrong, you leave. If you are so certain that I am the one who raised the issue, one would think you would accept my offer.
Wrong again
Typical response for a Keynesian supporter.
If we lower taxes, we can increase the number of taxpayers by keeping business in the state and bringing business to the state. There are two benefits from increasing the number of taxpayers, first more revenue and second, if you are paying taxes, you are probably not then going to need state aid.
What about my offer from yesterday, where the first one who mentioned the President of Kenya leaves this board for good? I figured you would jump at the chance to get rid of me. Guess not.
make a deal
Dan, I'll make a deal with you.
The one who first raised the issue of the President of Kenya leaves these blogs for good.
Deal?
Not off on a tangent
Dan, I'm not the one off an a tangent. That is you constantly referring to the President of Kenya.
In your first post you came out against mandates and then I asked you if you were opposed to the mandates in the health care reform past and signed into law by President Obama. No where in my post did I say anything about the President of Kenya, that was you at 10:46.
I have read what you wrote and you are the one constantly bring up the President of Kenya, not me.
not wise at all
Dan, if you were wise you would understand what I'm talking about.
My mind is working fine, you are the one who appears not to be able to answer a simple question.
In your first post you said you were against mandates from the Republicans, but you still have not defended the mandates in the health care reform pushed by our President who is Keynesian.
Didn't ignore the top
Dan, it appears you have done what you do when you cannot defend your point. You leave the site for the day.
I did not ignore the topic like you did. I'm still waiting for your defence of the mandates in the health care reform pushed by our Keynesian President.
What Kenyian President?
Who is talking about the president of Kenya? I'm talking about our President who happens to be Keynesian.
what?
Dan, who is the CPA?
You did not answer the question about the mandates from the Keynesian President's plan. It is either you are for mandates or not, which is it?
Mandate is bad?
Dan so Republican mandates are bad but Democrats are good. I'm confused now, in the past you sang the praises of President Obama's health care reform, which has mandates, and now you are saying mandates are bad. So have you changed your position on the President's plan? I doubt it, this just goes to prove your leftist partisan viewpoint. I'll be interest on how you spin and defend the Keynesian President's mandated laced plan.
you usually comment first
Dan, you "comment" before I get the chance. As, I showed you yesterday, last week and may times in the past that I don't make personal attacks, but I am able to show that you are wrong using facts. When you realize that I showed you up yesterday, you left the board for the day.
I leave the personal attacks to the master, you. Your post never address the issue. You rant against the messenger, you never show respect for those whom you disagree with. If you disagree with someone you call them names. Your opening post did not address anything that Dr. Shields said. Yet, I addressed the content of your post.
regretfully
Instead of refuting what he said, you attack him. Classy!
Dr. Shields is spot on.
Regretfully, we have to read your tripe nearly daily. Oh, well!
try other states
Terry,
Anthem sells 3 health insurance policies. One policy they can sell in 47 states, another in 2 states and the third only here in Maine. In the neighbouring state of New Hampshire, you can purchase insurance for much less. Why, competition! Anthem had to create a special policy for Maine because of the excessive regulation placed on insurers.
Increased competition leading to lower prices is Economics 101.
oh, yeah
Oh, by the way, who's budget was he supplementing?
Wrong again
Dan, again you are wrong. Again, you simply you do not comprehend or refuse to comprehend the simple facts.
I am not the one living in a fantasy world, that I leave to you.
I'm glad to hear that you will not be talking to yourself today.
Nice try yourselft
Dan, these days were scheduled before Governor LePage took office. It is that simple. We are currently working under the budget pasted two years ago by the Democrats and signed in by Governor Baldacci. That is not a deflection but the statement of facts. Governor LePage has eliminated shutdown days in his budget, not Governor Baldacci's budgets.
Please don't let facts get in the way of a good baseless rant though.
And if you think it is a deflection, I'm just taking a cue from our Keynesian President.
Previous budget
Dan, These shutdown days were in the budget signed in my Governor Baldacci two years ago. Governor LePage is eliminating shutdown days in the new budget. So, yes, the Governor IS keeping his word.
funny
Dan, for someone who does not like this news outlet you spend an incredible amount of time commenting.
What?
Dan, did the Commissioner say something racist or this just your typical hatred of the right? I pretty sure I know it is the later since that what most of your post are based on.
of course I'm right
Dan, of course I'm right! But why did they atone, because the realized the screwed up or they WERE CAUGHT. I'm done here. I'm not sure if you don't know the facts or simple cannot comprehend them.
Because they were caught
They paid because they were CAUGHT!!!! And the reason you never said a word about them in the past, is because they espouse the same leftist agenda as yourself.
On this we'll have to agree to disagree!
I'm standing by my comments
Dan, I'm standing by my comments. The only reason Rep. Rangel and Treasurer Geithner paid their taxes is because they were caught. Senator Kerry tried to register his boat in Rhode Island so he wouldn't have to pay taxes. There is a huge difference in what the three I'm listing verses what the Speaker did. The State failed and waited so long that the amount caused him to declare bankruptcy that is why he has not been able to repay it. If those at the State had done their job, we would not be having this discussion. It was failure in the bureaucracy and yet you espouse we need more.
Dems in higher position,
Dan, are you serious? You honestly cannot think of Democrats in high positions that have knowing cheated on their taxes? I love how you try to manipulate what I said. I never said all high ranking Maine Democrats are tax cheats. Kudos on the spin. What I said there where higher ranking Dems. How about Representative Rangel, Treasurer Geithner, Senator John Kerry have all cheated on their taxes. Never heard you complain about these. The difference is they knowingly did it and the Speaker did it by accident.
The problem was the State changed their billing system, and there was inappropriate over site of the process. Please explain, if the process changes and you are not notified, you are willingly committing fraud.
old and tired
Dan, your line about the Speaker is getting old and tired. Don't forget there are a lot of tax cheats among the Democrats in much higher positions than the Speaker. Yet, I never hear you say they should be removed. Why is that?
There is a difference when one knowingly cheats on their taxes, and what happened to the Speaker. The State is was complicate in this case. When the Speaker filed his claims, the State processed his claims using the old method and did not correct the Speaker until it was too late. By the time it came to light to the Speaker, the amount was so large that he lost his business. If the State had done their job correctly, this would be a non issue. At the time this occurred the Democrats where in control of the State, so it is the Democrats that allowed the defrauding.
wrong assumptions
Terry, your assumption that this bill was designed by the insurance company is wrong. Anthem was against the bill. Why would they push a bill that would introduce competition when they currently have none. That would be simply bad business.
Currently, Anthem offers 3 health care policies. One policy they can sell in 47 states, the second in two states and the third is only available in Maine. If Anthem want to make more money, they would charge those in the other states that same as they charge here in Maine. The reason they don't is because of competition. Competition has always lower cost. It is a simple rule of supply and demand. The lack of competition and more mandates placed in Anthem has forced them to increase their cost.
We have tried it with only one insurance company and the price has gone up. Now that we will have more choices, the price will go down. It will take time to Anthem to react, but as soon as other companies come into Maine and start offering similar polices to Anthem at a lower price, Anthem will lower their prices as well. This is one that we will just have to wait and see.
Now I will call you a liar
Dan, I never said you lied. Besides, everyone here can see it for themselves. You have have never shown any respect for others that disagree with you. When you refer to President Bush, you refer to him as "bush", yet you referred to President Obama as "President Obama".
I disagree with President Obama's philosophy, but I can at least pay the man the respect he deserves. You simple can't and refuse to! Where because you disagree with someone, you have to try and diminish them by calling them names "taliban paul".
Dan, your views are NOT moderate. Yes, I might be right wing, but I am also intelligent enough and man enough to recognize it.
Dan do you believe in President Obama's Health care?
Do you believe in high taxes?
Do you believe that we should limit drilling for oil off our shores?
Do you believe that the government can improve the lives of individual?
Thanks
Terry,
Thanks. I did not find that. Thanks again for citing your sources.
Well you are partly right
Dan, you are right that you have no respect for the Governor. The difference between you and I, is that I will at least show respect for he office, which you cannot. For you it is partisan. You have NO RESPECT for anyone who does not support your leftist political agenda. It is that simple.
Again, you fail to comprehend my point about the President. I was giving you LEFT WING WACKO talking points. You and your left wing comrades keep saying it is going to take time to clean up from the 8 years of President Bush. THE POINT I AM MAKING IS THAT YOU AND YOUR LEFT WING COMRADES WANT TO GIVE THE PRESIDENT TIME TO FIX 8 YEARS BUT DON'T WANT TO GIVE THE GOVERNOR TIME TO FIX 40 YEARS OF LEFT WING DESTRUCTIVE POLICIES. Sorry to tell you this, but it will take more than 5 months to fix 40 YEARS of disastrous policies. When unemployment drops in this state, who will you give credit to?
can you site a source
Terry,
I cannot not find anything to show where Maine lost 5000 jobs in March. From what I can find unemployment was 8.5% in both February and March. If we lost 5000 jobs in March, unemployment would have gone up to probably 15 to 20% in Maine. The only reference I can find to the number 5000 is that there are 5000 more people working than a year ago.
what does race have to do with this
Dan, what does the race of the President have to do with this?
It is obvious that you have not respect for our Governor. Unemployment is going DOWN in this state. It took 40 years for the Dems to mess it up and it will take more than 5 months to clean it up. Unemployment is down from a year ago in Maine.
Now back to my point on President Obama. I was pointing out the left wing wacko talking point that those like yourself on the left like to point out. The other point I was making is you want Governor LePage to turn things around if 5 months yet President Obama has made things worse in his two years and yet we hear no complains for those of the left.
not surprised by your comments
Dan, I'm not at all surprised by your comment. You cannot defend your position, so what do you do show no respect for the Governor and start name calling.
Dan, the point I was making, was that he has been in office 5 months and you want him to clean up 40 years of bad policies and that President Obama has been in office 2 plus years and the situation is now worse than when he took office and the left's talking points are "Well it is going to take time to clean up the 8 years of Bush".
There has been 40 years of failed policies in the state and it is going to take more than a few months to clear up. Unemployment in the state is going down slowly. It will take longer to attract businesses back to this state than it took to drive them away.
and ...
Dan, President Obama has been in office over 2 years and unemployment is now worse than when he took office. Unemployment in Maine is lower. Yeah, I know you've got that one line. "Bush screwed up the economy for the last eight years and it is going to take time". Well, the Democrats have been in control for 40 years here in Maine. Well, you are going to have to give the Governor a little more time to clean up the bad policies of the past 40 years. The question are, "Is Maine unemployment rate going down?" Yes. "Is the national rate going up?" Yes.
are you kidding me
Ron,
I'll give the President a "brain fart" on the 57 states, but the other two were from prepared speeches. The 44 men came from his inauguration. He had time to proof read it and to have it fact checked. The auto came from his address to a joint session of Congress. Everyone knows that the auto was not invented by an American.
I find it interesting how you dismiss Democrats' gaffes as "brain farts", that explains why most of the post from those here on the left are real stinkers.
Where to start
Ron,
How about President Obama's 57 states?
How about saying 44 men had taken the oath of office?
How about saying the automobile was invented in the United States?
Brilliant?
Brilliant? You have to be kidding me?
Here are some of the BRILLIANT stuff the Gaffe in Chief has said.
President Obama said 43 men took the oath of office before him. WRONG!
President Obama said an American invented the auto. WRONG!
Then candidate Sen. Obama said he visited 57 states. WRONG!
He still have a way to go to over take Vice President Biden as the gaffe master, but he is well on his way.
Only need to say it once
Voisine, plastering the same post all over the place don't make your post any more factual or true.
Interesting
Voisine, I find it interesting that you quote a blogger from the Huffington Post who doesn't site where he gets his info. So as far as we know, Bob Cesca is making that stuff up.
Way to go
Congratulations! Way to go!
Just prove it
Dan, I'm not trying to defend him. I just want you to prove what you say. Again, what did he say that was so racist. If is so evident, it should be easy for you to give EXAMPLES.
Show me where I was bigoted or racist. I WANT SPECIFICS. ANOTHER WORD LINKS TO MY COMMENTS.
Dan that is all you do to avoid outright exposure is use the nuance of language.
What we don't like
Dan, here is what we don't like. We don't like seeing people being called racist, bigot, wacko. Then when asked to explain, you either ignore or say that we are stupid. Just look at what happened this week with the letter from Mr. Shields.
Here is something else we don't like. We don't like you little innuendos, like implying someone is on medication, been to a mental asylum, and other comments similar to that.
It is that behavior that we are sick and tired of. Anyone who disagrees with your "opinion" is a crackpot, racist, bigot or wacko. End that kind of BS and then we won't have anything to report.
Do some research
Voisine,
"Their claims that their supply side tax cuts boosted revenues is a bold faced lie!" itself is a bold faced lie. Please go look at the Federal revenue and 1980 and then please look at the revenue and 1988. Report those numbers back here. I will gladly apologize to you if the number in 1988 is less than the number in 1980. While you're at it what was unemployment in 1980 and what was it in 1988. Without looking, I'm pretty sure they were lower in 1988. What was inflation in 1980 and what was it in 1988. Probably lower.
Where are you getting that number?
Voisine, please supply a link to where you are getting 800,000 jobs a week.
and you forget
Dan and you forget that we don't elect our President by popular vote. If Al Gore had won his own state, he would have been President. Who would have been the last President elected that didn't carry their own state?
Heck, even Walter Mondale won his own state.
You have no clue
Dan,
So anyone who disagrees with you is a "crackpot"?
So, Rep. Michaud is only responsible to represent the people that voted for him? Please go back and review your civics lessons from junior high. And yes, I because I could not in good conscience vote for his opponent.
Wrong as usual
Dan, I am one of he people. I am a tax payer therefore I am one of the people. And as for the name calling, you implied I was a "crackpot messengers" What the heck is that?
again
Dan, again with the name calling. How mature.
And yes, I do deserve a response to my questions, he is in Washington to represent me and my question is just as important as anyone else.
So have I
I have also gotten email response, but they didn't say anything. The were canned responses that did not address my issues.
Amnesia
Tron, again with the name calling. Is that the best you have?
Instead of coming up with childish comments, why don't you supply evidence to that number.
ENLIGHTEN US OH MIGHTY tron
Health Care
Tron, you seem to forget that President Obama signed into law the "Health Care Reform". You know, the one tax payers will have to pay for 4 years before most of the benefits kick in. That is where the other taxes are going up.
Makes no sense
Voisine, other than "REALITY" where did you get the number of 800,000 jobs per week. Please cite your source because that number does not make any sense.
PS Is unemployment higher now or under President Bush? I know your answer will be, "Well, it is Bush's fault". On what date does President Obama become responsible for the state of the economy?
how would you like it
[This comment was removed at the request of the poster]
There is a difference
Dan,
Why am I not surprised by your comment. There is a huge difference. Voisine is copying and pasting and not giving credit to the author. How would you like it if someone past off something as their own and did not give you credit?
Speaking of buzzwords, how about you with "wacko", "bigot", "racist", you love to throw them out, but when challenged you can NEVER back up your claim.
Sorry to tell you this, but don't watch Fox News. I watch NBC at 6:30pm when I have the time, maybe once or twice a week. I also do not read the Fox News website.
I have two challenges for you.
1. Find one example where I have copied and pasted from another website and did not create my source.
2. The next time, myself or one of my "ilk" rips off Fox News, or any other news source, flag it as inappropriate and explain to Patti where we got it and I'm sure she'll take it down.
It was verbatim
Voisine, it was verbatim from their website and that is the definition of plagiarism.
I can always tell when you copy and paste something, it is well written and the comments lack your childish attacks.
Actually
Dan, it is SOOOO obvious, then you should be able to copy and paste one simple example from the above letter.
Wrong as usual
Dan, you love to throw out terms like "racist", "bigot" and "wacko". Then when challenged you start hurling names, insults and innuendos. Sorry, but you are the one who needs to grow up. This is a forums for adults not children, if that is how you want to behave, then that is how you will be treated. Now GROW UP!!!
Assuming for a moment
Tron, assuming for a moment that cutting taxes reduced revenues to the treasury, won't reducing spending solve that problem. If you had a reduction in your revenue, what would you do continue spending?
The problem in not the revenue. The problem is SPENDING. Government spending needs to be CUT.
Be specific in the future
Dan, try being specific if you call someone a racist.
EXACTLY WHAT DID MR. SHIELDS SAY THAT WAS RACISTS?
can't google that
Voisine, I can't google that. I am asking for a link to a website.
Where are you getting your numbers?
Voisine, please tell me where you are getting your numbers or are you just making them up.
Explain
Voisine, please enlighten us as to why we are better off today with President Obama. Last I checked when President Bush was President, unemployment averaged around 5% and in his last year was around 7%. Since President Obama has taken office, unemployment has rocketed towards double digits. We are looking at a massive tax increase because of the new health care taxes. Then there is the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, but taking more money out of the economy. Deficits are of a trillion dollars. Please, enlighten those who you claim are lost and ignorant.
Sorry, but if you think we are better off today, you are the lost, but please enlighten us.
Doen't make sense
Tron, see is a bigot because she wants people to obey the laws?
What?
Tron, please explain what makes her a bigot?
Not the same thing
President Clinton was charged with a crime. His adultery became our business when he LIED. Understand he LIED to a grand jury, that is where the problem comes in. So far, Mr. LePage is not being investigated by a grand jury and if he perjures himself then, yes he deserves the same scrutiny. The problem you have here is President Clinton's adultery could have been a risk to national security, Mr. LePage's error in filing his taxes is not putting the country at risk. Monica could have bribed him for national secrets. Nothing was at risk with Mr. LePage's "filing error", deliberate or not.
By the way, why was President Clinton disbarred? It wasn't for not paying his dues.
Nice spin
Tron, nice spin but pardon the pun, close but no cigar. President Clinton was being sued in civil court and perjured himself. The question did not start from the Republicans, but from the civil trial. He committed perjury in his grand jury testimony. Last I checked, that is suppose to be non-partisan. Besides, we all know that he committed perjury, he was disbarred by the Arkansas Board for a number of years.
An yes, the President's personal life is everyone's business when it comes to national security. What if Monica had been a spy, she could have then tried to bribe him for information to keep it from going public. Look at Gov. Patterson, he came clean about an affair to make sure that it could not be used against him, politically or otherwise.
What was in the Articles of Impeachment?
Tron, what did the Articles of Impeachment against President Clinton say? Were the charges that he had inappropriate relations or were the charges about perjury. If you take the time and look, you will see that they were the latter.
exactly why
Lil, exactly why is Fox not a new source? I've asked you multiple times and have never gotten an answer. I am asking for one specific example.
Is it that they are wrong on everything? If they are so bad, you should be able to give me one example of where they have made up the news. I can give you examples of other news outlets making it up. New York Times, NBC and CBS have all made up new stories and have been called out by the other news outlets. If Fox is so wrong, why haven't other news outlets called them out.
one example
xyz, can you give me one specific example of what Fox has made up the news. If they are always so wrong, this should be easy.
By the way, where do you get your national news?
One example
Lil, of course you lost all credibility when you cannot even name the organization correctly. When you call names it means you have nothing to back your point.
But can you give one example of what they have reported incorrectly. This should be easy since seem to believe that they are always wrong.
By the way, where do you get your national news?
did the trip
Tron, I use to live on the Allen Pond Road. I was on call for a business located in the downtown. If called when asleep, I could get dress be out the door an in the office in 25 minutes traveling down 202 and without speeding. That is right you know when you assume, you make an ass out you and you.
commuted
I use to commute from downtown Lewiston to the north. I would travel out College St towards Greene, to College Rd and then to Rt 202. In 60 minutes I was well north of Augusta on I-95 and almost in Waterville.
please explain
Tron, please explain who saying having to test someone before they can vote is racist? She didn't say, "Blacks should be tested" or "Hispanics should be tested". She said "citizens should have to take a test before they vote." Last I checked, Blacks, Hispanics, White and other can all be citizens, so I don't see the racism in here statement.
racist?
Saying "Obama's black so it must be his fault." is an extremely racist thing to say. I've not seen anyone blame the President because of the color of his skin. I've only seen the President being blame for policies.
mockery
One mocks what one does not understand. It is your right not to believe God and I respect that. What I take offense to is your line "Loony tunes playing in the background". If you don't have faith fine, but please there is no need to mock those who do.
you don't know that
Tron, you don't know my situation. How can you claim it will not affect me?
By the way, the tax increase will affect you.
he is letting it happen
Tron, President Obama is not stopping from happening. Also, taxes will be going up to pay for the health care fiasco that was past.
question?
Tron, will taxes be higher, lower or the same next year?
you just don't get it
Voisine, exactly what has President Obama done to improve the economy. Be specific. You speak
For example, passing the Stimulus Package kept unemployment below 8% putting more people to work. More people are unemployed after that past. Okay, his tax policies will lower taxes. Damn, taxes are going up next year. Okay, he got health care. No, we have to pay for it for 4 years before we see benefits. He'll be out of office by the time we see an impact.
I have to admit that the President has done an "Exceptional Job" of more the country close to a socialist state. He tried and thankfully failed to nationalize health care. He successfully took over an auto industry. He successfully transferred the ownership of another auto industry from the bond holders to the unions. He has successful raised taxes to transfer the wealth of some to others. So, is socialism is what you want, then the President is doing an "Exceptional Job"
off in left field
Voisine, I'm afraid you are off in left field(pun intended). That definition is closer you. You are the one who said President Obama is doing an "Exceptional Job". Unemployment hovering at 10%, tripling deficits, tax increases on the horizon. Sorry, but you are the one who cannot see the evidence right in front of you.
What is wrong with America are the uninformed of both parties.
doesn't sound right
Voisine, that definition sounds more like a liberal than a Republican, but thanks for the laugh.
also allows
Voisine, that ruling you dislike also gives the unions the ability to advertise. It cuts both ways.
Heck, unions have done more to destroy businesses in this country than Republicans ever could do.
Where does this stuff come from?
Voisine, all your post are talking points from left wing websites. None of your post show any original thinking.
You claim President Obama is doing an "Exceptional Job". Well, let us take a look at how the economy is going since he has taken office. Unemployment is closing in on 10%. It wasn't suppose to go above 8% if the Stimulus package was past. Deficit spending has tripled in less than two years. Wow, and this is what you consider an "Exceptional Job".
Next year, taxes are going up, when this occurs we will see a decrease in revenue to the treasury which will increase the deficit more. If people and business have less money to spend because they are giving it to the government, unemployment will continue to rise.
Also, didn't the Obama Administration give BP and the Deep Water Horizon rig an award.
Sorry, Voisine, "ignorant Republicans" are not the problem. It is those who are uninformed from both parties.
Do you know why?
xyz, do you know why the Republican Party keeps saying no to the bills presented by the Democrats? The reason is the bills are bad bills. The Stimulus was and is a bad bill. "Health Care Reform" was and is a bad bill. Republicans will not and should not take part in the destruction of America. There will come a time, and I believe that it is not that far off, Americans will realize the the Democrats are moving this great country to a socialist economy. Look at the bills the Dems have put forth since President Obama has taken office. We had the Stimulus Package which was suppose to keep unemployment below 8%. See bad bill, unemployment is 9.5%. They want to negate contracts between individuals and companies where they think the individual is paid to much. They did not honor the bond holders of Chyrsler. They proposed socializing health care. When bad ideas are presented, the answer is NO.
Nothing to offer
It become obvious when those of the left have nothing to offer, they start name calling.
Now to address "attacking people on welfare". Yes, it did help Mr. LePage, but he did not make it a life style. Welfare is there to help people for a short time. It is not suppose to be a lifestyle, that is the PROBLEM!!!
What do you consider a success?
Voisine,
I have read many of your post and I cannot figure out your logic. You claim the President is correcting the failure of the Bush administration. I'm sorry, but as bad as the economy was under the Bush administration, it was better than today. Today, unemployment is nearing 10% and deficits are rising. Once the tax increases kick in next year, you will reduced revenue to the Treasury, higher unemployment and a contracting economy. If that happens, will you still be blaming President Bush or will you finally admit that President Obama's policies are a failure? Exactly when does President Obama take ownership of the economy?
good analysis
Good analysis. With taxes going up next year and tax payers having to start paying for ObamaCare, the economy will suffer. You cannot keep taking money out of the economy and expect it to expand. I think that you will see the economy start sliding late Q3, early Q4 of this year as businesses start preparing for next year's tax increases. Unemployment will tick up, but will stay just below 10% this year. I predict you will see unemployment going above 10% in Q1 next year. If this happens the markets will not like it and you will see the DOW pull back to probably around 7500.
Baseball will never be the same
With the passing of Steinbrenner, baseball will never be the same. People either loved or loved to hate him. Regardless, his impact on baseball will be felt for years to come.
enough already
I am pretty sure that I am not the only one here that finds the bickering and personal attacks between Tron and Thinkingman, old, boring and childish. Some of these attacks from both of you are bordering on slander. The comments are almost abusive and they are definitely baseless personal attacks.
It is time for the SJ to give you both a time out and keep you from posting. This childish behavior between the two of you has been going on long enough and it is time for the SJ to step in and put and end to it.
not all teachers fault
While I do agree that teachers bear a large responsibility for the education of the children, there is another party that bears as large responsibility also and those are the parents. Too many times parents you the schools as day cares. Parents need to be aware of what the children are doing in the school, take part in Parent-Teacher conferences, volunteer in the school, just to name a few. At the last Parent-Teacher conferences at my son's school, only 7 of 19 parents showed up. Conferences could be scheduled over 3 days during afternoons and evenings. Parents have to do their part as well
Last I checked
The fact that Ari Flischer took a job in the private sector verses running for office is not illegal.
You still haven't shown that the Bush Administration offered anyone a government job in exchange for not running.
Care to elaborate
Joe, do you care to elaborate on "It was a job offering that was as Bush had not done in the clear," When did President Bush offer anyone a job not to run for office?
real quick
Cutting taxes increases revenue. Revenues are not the problem, it is the out of control spending. Government spending is nearly 25% of GDP and if you include the states you are approaching 50%. You have to cut spending.
don't have lots of time
veritas, I don't have a lot of time here, I'm at work.
I already told you what I would have done to turn the economy around, cut taxes and put money back in the hands of the individuals. Since Freddie and Fanny are quasi government agency, I would have been forced to bail them out. Allowing GM to file for bankruptcy would have allowed them to file for protection from their creditors.
And one thing I would not have done, is blame my predecessor.
starting next year
I am currently a Planning Board member in my town. I am planning on making a run for Selectman as soon as a seat opens.
batter up
veritas, here is what I would have done differently. I don't believe in "too big to fail", I would have allowed GM to file bankruptcy. As for Fanny and Freddie, I would have stopped lending to those who could not afford the payments. Health care, let's start with tort reform, purchasing insurance across state lines. Instead of the Stimulus which is government spending, I would have done the opposite, cut taxes and put money in the hands of individuals who pay federal income tax.
not elected
First of all I'm not an elected official, so I there is nothing I could do to directly cause or prevent these things from happening.
For what I have done, I have contacted my elected officials and gave them my opinion. Other things, I have done that have been more visible, are things similar to what you have done here and advocated my position, ie not passing health care. Another thing that I am currently doing is working on getting conservatives elected. I realize you may disagree with that last one, but I am not sitting on the sidelines and complaining.
11 signs
Here are 11 signs that our government is an overgrown monstrosity:
1. explosion of government bailouts
2. entitlement programs that threaten to destroy the US Government's finances
3. the government is now paying mortgages
4. Without The Student Loan Program A Huge Percentage Of College Students Would Not Get An Education
5. the bailout of AIG
6. "too big to fail" banks
7. bailout of GM
8. bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
9. US Government is the nation's largest employer
10. millions of Americans are employed by companies depended on government contracts
11. the US Government take over of the Health Care System
comparing apples and oranges
I said revenue doubled. In 1980, revenues was $500 million and in 1988 revenue was $1 Trillion. That is doubling. During the Carter years, double digit inflation. No thanks.
The problem is the spending on Social program. The increases in social programs grew at ridiculous rates during the Reagan years.
not the problem
The tax cuts were not the problem during the Reagan Administration. Since when does doubling revenue increase deficits. If President Reagan had not cut taxes the deficits would have been worse. The problem in not the revenue. The problem in the out of control spending.
you can't be serious
If you want to be taken seriously, don't use one of the most left wing websites out there and second don't call names.
"Ordered all federal agencies to undertake a study and make recommendations for ways to cut spending" really made me laugh after the President and the Democrats have gone a spending spree.
Simple answer the question
Tron, simple answer the question. Is it racist or not.
As for the day you can explain something to me, you're right for once that day has not arrived and never will arrive.
Tron, still no answer
It is a rather simple question. You simple refuse to answer.
legal vs illegal
Dan, it is simple. There are two ways for immigrants to enter our country, 1. legally and 2. illegally. How does one come to our country legally? They would cross our borders at border crossing and let the authorities know they are here. How does one come here illegally? They cross our border where ever they want and do not let authorities know they are here. Try crossing into Canada without going through a border cross, let me know how that works for you.
I have not problem with immigrants come to this country. We are a country of immigrants. I just want them to come in a orderly fashion so we know who is here and who belongs here.
now you've introduced ID theft
So, now you are introducing another crime ID theft if the use the SSN of a legal US resident.
by definition
Tron, by the definition of bigot, which one intollerant of other beliefs and opinions, you are one of the largest bigot in these blogs. If some one does not agree you call the "wacko", "teabaggers" and ironically "bigots". Look at who does the name calling in these blogs, they are not the conservatives, but you a liberal.
Challenge to Tron
Tron, I have challenged you to answer this multiple times but every time you simple play dumb and refuse to answer. I maintain you do not know what racism is and could not identify it when you saw or read it. So, I challenge you to answer this question:
Can I say the following: "You cannot go into a 7-11 unless you have a Pakistani accent". If I was to say that, would you call me a racist. I'm pretty sure you would, but for some reason you have refused to answer.
This deals with what?
SSDD, what does your post attempt to address? It is completely off topic. The piece is discussing taxes in Maine. Those dolloars do not go to pay for the cost of the war in Iraq. Speaking of stupidity, we could have save Trillions if the Great Society would not have been created and we could save Trillions going foward if the President's "stimulus" and Health Care Reform had not been past. That is at least 8 Trilllion is savings. Your $748 Billion is a drop in the bucket compared to that spending.
Can't identify racist when sees one
Tron doesn't know what racist is. When asked if a statement is racist, he could not answer. So I'll ask him again.
Tron, if I say the following: "You can't go into a 7-11 without having an Pakistani accent". To clarify, I'm implying that those who work in a 7-11 are from Pakistan. Would you call me racist?
it's an editorial
Will, editorials don't not follow the same rules as a news article. Editorials tend to be more opinion based.
don't forget
Don't forget, two of our the greatest Presidents also declared bankruptcy, President Jefferson and Lincoln. I'm not saying the Otten is the same calabier as President Jefferson and Lincoln, but if bankruptcy automatically eliminated someone from public service, our country would have missed out on two great men.
At least one did
What thinkingman wrote was "This is what happens when you put people in powerr who have never served in the military and have no clue how wars actually are fought." President Bush did serve in Texas Air National Guard. Also, Vice President Cheney was the Secretary of Defense during the first Gulf War. Yeah, they had military experience.
President Obama did not serve in the military. Vice President Biden received 5 student draft deferments from 1963-1968. In 1968, he was reclassified by the Selective Service System as not being able to serve because as a teenager he had asthma.
it appears
it appears that tron cannot answer this simple question
you forgot
you also forgot that it is the anniversary of Waco. I sure that was just an oversight on you part.
simple question
Never said you said that. If I said the following, would you say I was a racist?
"You cannot walk into a a 7-11 unless you have a Pakistani accent"
If I said that would I be a racist? Simple yes or no.
so you admit?
so you are admitting that would be a racist statement?
is this racist?
Tron, can I say the following and not be a racist?
"You can not walk into a 7-11 without having a Pakistani accent"
One Grand Dragon coming up
You wanted a racist liberal, how about the Grand Dragon from West Virigina.
still not proof
you still have proven where they call themselves that. The only ones I've seen use that term have been moonbats like Geroferlo.
so...
by your logic, you would be a racist also. You have never disavowed racist liberals.
Did you ever stop to think that the reason they are denying it is because it didn't happen.
offensive comment
Again Tron has to come out with an offensive term "teabaggers". Unless you can prove that members of the Tea Party Movement actually call themselves that, I recommend you stop using that term.
first post
You have never posted that before. The only reason you are now saying something is because you are being called on the carpet.
has never said anything nice
Is it me or does tron always have something bad to say about the Republicans? He has always bashed President Bush and other Republican Presidents. I cannot recall one post where he ever agreed with what a Republican did.
where else?
Where else do you get your news?
I've asked this multiple times of multiple people and no one yet has given a specific example where Fox was wrong, maybe you have one.
Something is telling me ...
SSDD, somthing is telling me you are not the one who registered that site. Also, why would an out-of-stater be so concerned about what is going on here in Maine.
my entitlement mentality
Sorry but I have an entitlement mentality as well. I believe that I am entitled to make my own decisions and that I don't need a bureaucrat telling me what to do. I also believe that I am entitled to keep the money that I earn and that I should not have to support those that refuse to work. I also believe that I am entitled to protest my government, regardless of the party in control. I guess my definition of entitlement is a lot different than those on the left.
voisine, how about answering the questions
voisine, how about taking a minute to answer my questions. How many states in the country? How many men took the oath of office before President Obama? Who invented the automobile? The President who you said was so brilliant did not know the answers to these. My guess since you are not answering, you are like the President and don't know. I earlier said you would go 2 for 3. I'm changing it you will get 1 out of three right.
what is newsworthy
I find the article newsworthy as a whole. Now, think back to the '92 election, the MTV report asking then candidate Bill Clinton, "boxers or briefs", somehow that was newsworthy to some, but I don't care what the candidate wears. The information in this article was not covered in another article in the paper. For example, Jason Leveque thanking the President for coming. That is the first coverage of that statement I have seen.
what you call tripe
tron, what you call tripe I call news. What the NYT called news during the Bush Administration, I called tripe. It depends on your perspective.
First Amendment.
The First Amendment allows them. It also allows you the right to answer back. From 2001 to 2009 all we heard was the complaints from the left, now that the right is complaining we should not hear. Are you afraid the if the public hears what those on the right have to say, the public might be come educated and vote those on the left out?
you were both wrong
Tron you are both wrong. Sorry that was what I was trying to point out. I should have stated it in my first post. As for Bob's post, I saw it at the same time as yours.
noticed you didn't answer
vosine, I noticed you have not answered my questions from yesterday.
How many states in the country? How many men took the oath of office before President Obama? and Who invented the automobile?
Is it you don't want to show the President up? Is it you don't know? My guess is that you will go 2-3 if you answer the questions.
tron, you claimed 50 and
tron, you claimed 50 and wcsh6.com said about 200, 50 is not near 200, so what if it was 190, it could have been 210 or 220. Still that is about 200.
took it straight from their site as is
tron, took it directly from their site. no editing was done.
http://www.wcsh6.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=116143&catid=2
for wcsh6.com
UPDATE: An official with the White House spoke with NEWS CENTER and said about 200 people were left outside.
Are you smarter than ..
Voisine, let's see if you are as smart or smarter than the President. How many states in the country? How many men have taken the Presidential oath of office? How invented the automobile? By the way, the man you claim to be so brilliant got them all wrong.
So brilliant ...
How many states in the country? How many men have taken the Presidential oath of office? How invented the automobile?
Scary words
Definitely some of the scariest words in the English language, "We are the government and we're here to help,"
funny
tron, it is funny how many of the Democrats elected believe the same. I guess you just forgot to mention it.
nice personal attack
voisine, thanks for the personal attack. I guess when one has nothing to offer that is what one does.
"People like you are DISGUSTING, truly you are RSTonge, and you are just the most ignorant that America has to offer. That's the truth of it!!"
PS.
By the way, I don't have time to watch or listen to Sean Hannity.
voisine, do some research
voisine, glad to see you read my post. I only wish you would take the time and actually research some of the stuff you post. When President Reagan took office unemployment was at a steady climb up it reached 10.8% at the end of 1982. The recession lasted from 1980-1982. Who was President when it started? (Hint: not Ronald Reagan). Not once did President Reagan say he "inherited this bad economy". Once we saw the benefits of his tax cuts the economy took off. Inflation was averaging over 13% in 1980 and by 1986 was less than 2%. Interest rates were between 12-13%. So you would rather return to that economy? As bad as things are now, they were worse then.
not tax cuts
voisine, it is not that tax cuts that are the issue. The problem is the spending. I also see that you negleted to include the numbers for President Obama. Without seeing the numbers, something tells me the Democrats average will go up.
As for bring the economy back from the brink, President Reagan "inherited" a worse economy than President Obama. Inflation, unemployment and interest rates were much high in 1980 when the were in 2008.
we will have to wait and see
I guess we will have to wait and see what he does when he gets sick
He will be wishing for
By the time the elections of 2012 come around, President Obama will be wishing his numbers were as high as President Bush's were when he left office. Hopefully, he will be wishing for numbers as high as Congress has today.
your are right
voisine, I do see the Democrats have courage. I takes a lot of courage to destroy a country. But please, keep your ignoRANTS to yourself. With your name calling you prove you have nothing to offer but ignoRANTS.
I guess we will have to wait
I guess we will have to wait until November. My prediction is the Democrats will lose the House and will have an extremely small majority in the Senate. Since this will only hurt the economy, President Obama will be a one term President and the Republicans will then have both Chambers and will push to undo this disastrous legislation.
check other polls
Well, checked Gallup's poll from the beginning of the month and it was 48-45 against the bill.
Republicans are trying to keep the country from going over the edge. Tron, Republicans are NOT OPPOSED to health care reform. No matter how many times you repeat it, it will not make it so. Republicans are opposed to this particular incrediably bad piece of legislation.
I know you believe the government is the answer, but it is not. Government is the problem.
half the effort
voisine, if you would put half the effort in do actually finding out what is going on and not waste time cutting and pasting the same comment on all the stories, you might actually see the Republicans are trying to same the country from the disaster the the Democrats are pushing us towards.
No here is the real reason
The real reason Republicans want to stop the bill is because Republicans believe in free choice, personal responsiblity and a free market. In 10 years, our choice for health insurance will be gone, even the President admit that much. Open your eyes.
WOW
Voisine, it is obvious you can see history clearly. Please go back and look. Who claimed Saddam had WMDs? Saddam did. He never denied it.
As for tax cuts, please go back and look at the country in 1980, double digit interest rates, double digit unemployment, high inflation. President Reagan came in, cut taxes, the economy turned around.
Bill released
When the question was posted, the bill had not yet been posted, so we did not know what is in it. Hard to lookup something that doesn't exist. Even Speaker Pelosi said, we have to past it so we can see what is in it.
Walgreens
According to the Seattle Times, it is only the stores in Washington.
not the bill
SSDD, that link is not to the bill but what the President wants.
Bob, currently there is the bill that was past by the House and the bill that was past by the Senate. The two differ greatly. We do not know exactly what the House will be voting on or if they will be voting at all. We will probably see something later today or tomorrow and if they are true to there word and have it out for 72 there would be a vote late Sunday or early Monday morning.
wrong again
Angus King never was a Republican. He was a life time Democrat until he ran for office.
That people on both sides go
That people on both sides go to the ballot box uninformed on the issues and the candidates
Thanks
Tron, thanks I was unfamiliar with Community Concepts. Did a little digging and less than half of their revenue is from grants.
need to explaing that
Tron, please explain how this is corporate welfare. I didn't see where they got funding from the government. Did I miss something?
you have a point
veritas, you do make a good point that Steve indirectly proclaimed the people to be the problem. I think that it is partially true. In many cases, I believe people go to the ballot box without knowledge of the issues or candidates. You would probably agree that this occurs on both sides. If those voting took the time to educate themselves, not rely on just NBC or CNN or Fox or just their daily paper, but took time to get their information from multiple news sources, I think that you would see a completely different group of people in Washington and in Augusta.
wrong again
I don't disagree that spending was not cut. That was the problem. Tron, I didn't say that the Reagan Budgets should have cut spending. What I said was that the increase did not have to be as large as they were. They could have increase the existing programs, but not introduce all the new programs that they did.
one more time
Not changing the subject, answering your question.
Tron, I'll go through this again. When President Reagan took office revenue was $517 Billion and when he left revenue had nearly doubled to $991 Billion. Now we both agree that a deficits grew and so did the debt. The reason they both grew was the increase in SPENDING. They were SPENDING MORE than revenues were increasing. What would have happened if revenues had not increased?
what?
why is it necessary to balance the income with outlays? Just because you have more money coming in does not mean you need to spend it. When more money comes into a household, most people either pay down debt or save. They don't go on a spending spree which is more than the increase of income.
Never said that
Never claimed the Presidents veto the budget or that the Democrats overrode the veto. Please show where I said that.
wrong
Tron, tax cuts increase revenue. We've established that. If the Reagan tax cuts would not have been past and spending would have increased at the rate it did, the deficit would have skyrocketed. The Reagan tax cuts doubled revenue during the 80's. Spending more than doubled. Revenue to the Treasury is not the problem even today. The problem is there is more going out then coming in.
President Reagan did not push
President Reagan did not push through tax cuts using executive orders. If you have info to this, please supply links. I'm not saying the Dems are not responsible for the tax cuts, what I'm saying is they are responsible for the spending increase.
Then Speaker of the House Tip
Then Speaker of the House Tip O'Neal and President Reagan agreed on the tax cuts. They also agreed to some of the spending increases. The problem was the spending increases were at much higher rates than the President wanted. So why didn't President Reagan use his veto pen at that point. Unemployment was over 10%, inflation was out of control and interest rates were in the high teens. He knew and understood that in order to get the economy moving, he need to get money back into circulation and the best way to do that was through tax cuts.
half right
Your only half right. You are right when you say cutting taxes increases the revenue. If spending was kept flat, the deficit and debt would go down. The problem is and was that spend grew at a rate much faster than the rate of revenue. Even if President Obama increase taxes, he will still face the same problem. Revenue will not come in at a rate fast enough to offset the increase in spending. Revenue is not the problem, spending is.
The words from President Kennedy
Here is what President Kennedy said:
"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."
– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference
The reason the economy grew
The reason the economy grew was because of the tax cuts. Go back, research when the cuts took place and when the economy started growing. The economy grew after the tax cuts. Tax cuts cause the economy to grow. If President Kennedy was alive today, he would agree with me.
Common Lil
Lil, you know that is completely false. President Reagan's tax cuts double revenue to the Treasury. The problem was the spending that the Congress past, which was controlled by the Democrats.
Go easy
taxpayer, go easy on veritas. He might be on the other side, but he is level-head and someone you can have an intelligent exchange with.
Tron, I will come back with
Tron, I will come back with economist that disagree with you if I have to. That is called debate.
veritas, there was an op-ed
veritas, there was an op-ed piece in the WSJ years ago. It looked at the argument you are making. The author went back recalculated the budgets during the Reagan years. The author left the military spending along but only increased the other parts of the budget at twice the rate of inflation which was about 6%. The largest deficit that would have occurred was only $25 Billion.
I have to ask, would you rather have the government spend money on buying a tank or pay for those who built the tank to be on unemployment?
I agree with your argument
I agree with your argument for vouchers.
Can you cite an economist
Can you cite an economist that agrees with you?
No, President Reagan undid
No, President Reagan undid the disaster of President Carter.
Please go back and look at
Please go back and look at what the money was spend on during the '80s. It was to increase social programs.
Not related
Lil, the two are not related. Tax cuts increased revenue. The increase to the debt came the increase in spending grew a much faster rate than that of the income.
You are confusing the two. For example, a household earns $40,000 per year and has expenses of $50,000 per year. That house hold is running a debt. Now if over the next 8 years, the household income doubles to $80,000 but increase their spending to $120,000 their debt is going to grow. The same thing happened with the Federal Debt.
Lil, tax cuts work. Go back
Lil, tax cuts work. Go back through history and check. Check what happened to revenue during the 1980's when President Reagan cut taxes. Check what happend in the 1960's when President Kennedy cut taxes.
The reason we did not see a "thriving, growing economy" had a lot to do with the aftermath of September 11th. If it hadn't been for President Bush's tax cuts the downward turn in the economy in late '01 and through '02 would have been much worse.
What is a bad day
Senator Reid said:"Today is a big day in America. Only 36,000 people lost their jobs today, which is really good" What the heck would be a bad day? If only 36,000 Americans had found work. That would be 36,000 other Americans who are not relying on his parties failed ideas.
Wouldn't matter
There are millions succeeding on the playing field as it is. Those that are not, have every opportunity to succeed but have opted not to succeed. Tron, even if the Democrats could take all of the wealth in America and re-distribute it evenly so that everyone starts out with exactly the same about, it would not take but a week when those who have more will still have more.
re-read
Try re-reading what I said afterwards. I said, "but when the individual Americans prosper that is good for the Republicans but bad for the Democrats. Why? If individual Americans prospers, Democrats and their program are not longer needed." What I was implying was that what is good for the Democrats is when the government grows, therefore bad for America.
Close
"They cannot afford to let America prosper, it's bad for their party." You mean when the American Government propers that is bad for the Republicans, but when the individual Americans prosper that is good for the Republicans but bad for the Democrats. Why? If individual Americans prospers, Democrats and their program are not longer needed.
I agree
Old Bill, exactly. I welcome all immigrants, those that came here following the rules, but those that just walked over the border, send them home.
For some who claims to be mostly right
For someone who claims to be mostly right, you are dead wrong on this one. President Clinton was not charged with having sex or a BJ. The charge were obstruction of justice, pergury and malfeasance of office. The fact that he LIED under oath about it is the crime.
Personnally I don't care what he did with his personal life, that is between him and his wife.
It would be nice if they
It would be nice if they could only meet when they had something pending, but they had well over 1000 bills at the beginning of the session. They seem to create a need for themselve to be there.
Curious
Tron, if in trying to better their lot in life they are found to have broken any laws, would you agree that they should be deported?
Scary words
Some of the scariest words in the any language.
not the whole truth
two things
1.) "Where the hell was Reagan during all the planning?" I head been out of office for 4 years. Kinda hard to put it at his feet.
2.) "Mission Accomplished" was in reference to major combat operations. The Iraqi army had been defeated.
I think you need to cite
I think you need to cite where that 70% comes from.
Seem to remember
I seem to remember Democrats saying to no to President Bush, but that's okay since it was Democrats saying no to a Republican.
Your reality is not real
You are partially right. The public option would create immediate competition for health insurance companies, but in the long run it would drive health insurance companies out of business and then we would be left with only the public option and no competition.
How long
How long have warning been on cigarettes? Yet, people keep on smoking. Yes, I understand it is difficult to quit. The warning obviously in not very effective because people are still taking up the habit.
Part time legislators
xyz, Maine has a part-time legislature. You are right this is just another foolish law.
The possiblity
Currently there is the possiblity is there if restrictions of purchasing insurance across state lines is removed. President Obama said it himself, that the public option will eventually eliminate private insurance. Once that happens, the only option will be the public option and that means there will be no competition.
Walking the walk and talking the talk
I for one am putting my money where my mouth is. I was just elected the vice-chair of my town caucus. I am attending my county caucus and in May will be at the State Convention. My guess, Tron, you did not or will not attend your caucus in Auburn nor the county caucus or your parties state convention. I will be looking for candidates that believe in the free market system and not in government controls.
Typical
SSDD, typical answer from a liberal. Ask they to prove something and out comes the name calling. Sorry your are pathetic.
From the mouth of a Socialist
Norman Thomas was a six time Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America once said, "The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." Looks like he was right.
You give up
You give up because you can not prove your point. You can not point to one web site where that is how they refer to themselves. I can be convinced if you can give me on piece of evidence, since you can't, I'm not convinced.
Not a defense
That is not a defense. You still have not shown where they call themselves "teabaggers", probably because it doesn't exist.
Nice Reference
Tron, that is what you do, when asked to prove your point you refuse to. Just because it is so in your mind, does not make it so in the real world. I will ask you again. Where did you find a member of the Tea Party referring to themselves as a "teabagger"
Cite it
First of all I am not a member of the Tea Party Movement. I have never seen a member of the movement call themselves a "teabagger". This is done by those on the left. If it is done all the time, you should be able to give me at least one web site where they call themselves "teabaggers".
SSDD, can you cite one source
SSDD, can you cite one source where members of the Tea Party Movement call themselves "teabaggers"? That is a term used by left wing wackos like Janeane Garofalo.
Team USA has nothing to be
Team USA has nothing to be ashamed of. They did a great job.
Centarie2000, I agree that
Centarie2000, I agree that more should be done for our Vets. I think they should have a card and be able to go up to any hospital, pharmacy, present their card and get the service they need.
Dan, you are the childish one
Dan, you are the childish one here. You refuse to admit the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans.
Tron, you are the one
Tron, you are the one avoiding responsiblity but then again that is the traditional liberal way. Congressman Wilson took responsiblity for what he did. Nothing happened to the Democrats how booed the President and nothing happened to Senator Reid.
Tron, it was Senator Reid
Tron, it was Senator Reid that called the President a loser and it was the Democrats the booed President Bush.
How about the hatred of
How about the hatred of calling the President a loser or booing the President at a State of the Union. Take care of your house before you stick your nose in ours.
There is a lot of good info
There is a lot of good info in there, but you have to remember the author is opposed to wind development. There was also a newsletter distributed through town that on occasions distorted or exaggerated the facts.
No Saddam lied about the WMDs
No Saddam lied about the WMDs because he feared an invasion from Iran more than an invasion from the US.
Tron, please cite where
Tron, please cite where members of the Tea Pary Movement refer to themselves as "teabaggers"
No Saddam did.
No Saddam did.
Before pointing out the
Before pointing out the splinter in my eye, please remove the log in your own.
You left out my personal
You left out my personal favorite, "right wing wackos"
Tron, she never said she was
Tron, she never said she was a teabagger, those were YOUR words NOT hers. She said she was a member of the Tea Party movement. "Teabagger" is a derogatory term used by left wing moonbats like Janeane Garofalo.
Is "right wing wacko
Is "right wing wacko repubican bigots" name calling or a label? Just want to be sure so that if those of us want to use "left wing socialist moonbats", want to make sure we use it correctly.
Mary Jane, you must be right.
Mary Jane, you must be right. Once Tron and Lil start name calling they have run out of valid arguements.
The more I have been thinking
The more I have been thinking about this, the more I realize that the Democrats are right. The price of health care is rising and a large government bureaucracy will definitely reduce the cost and increase efficiency. Not only is the price of health care rising, so is the cost of food, oil, gas and electricity. What we need to do is create more large government bureaucracies to make sure we distribute the misery evenly.
Damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead. Embrace socialism!!!
Tron, I will agree with you
Tron, I will agree with you that the Republicans can now stop the Democrats in the Senate. Please explain how the Republicans could have stopped any of the Democrats ideas prior to the election of Senator Brown.
Senator Dodd and Congressman
Senator Dodd and Congressman Franks ARE elected officials.
There were many in town that
There were many in town that wanted wind development in town. Those that opposed wind development basically shouted down those that opposed them.
northwoods, it was probably
northwoods, it was probably one of his poorly construct double entendres.
I'll decide for myself. What
I'll decide for myself. What is the name of the paper?
What is the name of the local
What is the name of the local weekly you are referring to? If Tron thinks it as "communist toilet paper", it might be worth picking up.
Lil, I know you are referring
Lil, I know you are referring to Fox News, so I have to ask, according to a Public Policy Polling who is the most trusted name in news? Hint it is not MSNBC.
That is the problem. People
That is the problem. People in Maine are educating themselves. They are learning from those in Mars Hills and Vinalhaven. There is enough data though to start building them, but they must set back the proper distance from occupied structures.
It was nice to see that
It was nice to see that President Obama is making $8 Billion available in federal loan guarentees to build two reactors in Georgia.
If it weren't for us evil
If it weren't for us evil Repubicans with all the money, who would you be taxing?
Tron, remember the same rules
Tron, remember the same rules that allowed his ancestors to immigrate here are the same rules to that allowed your ancestors to immigrate also.
I'm not sure when you family immigrated, but when mine came down from Canada, they were required to have sponsors saying that they would be productive members of society.
If you prefer a country without Republicans, Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea come to mind.
skippy, look at the dateline
skippy, look at the dateline on the story. It was posted 2 days before you posted you comment.
Tron, you are right the
Tron, you are right the market did recover under President Obama but not to due to his accomplishments. The market does not like uncertainty. Once it became clear that Health Care Reform with the public option would not pass and the Senate and House version of reform probably were not reconcilable the market recovered.
No Tron, after he took office
No Tron, after he took office the market went to 6626.94 in the middle of March. It did not see 9000 again until July.
Tron the dramatic down turn
Tron the dramatic down turn in May of 2008 coinsides with then Sen. Obama taking the lead in delagates in primary.
Tron, I was correcting your
Tron, I was correcting your statement of "however by the time Bush left office it was under 8,000".
"During the Bush administration the Dow plummeted tens of thousands of point", from the high it dropped less than 6000. At last check, 6000 is less than 10000 and since it is less than 10000, it is not "tens of thousands".
So what major event happened in May 2008 to cause the mark to do down?
On January 20, 2009 the Dow
On January 20, 2009 the Dow opened at 8279.63 which is greater than 8000.
Tron is correct that the Dow
Tron is correct that the Dow did close above 14,000 under President Bush. Looking at the numbers the Dow then had a slight correction, as most markets do when hitting a high. The Dow pulled back to just under 12,000 in early March. In mid-May it closed above 13,000 again. It hasn't seen those numbers again. So what happened in early May of 2008 that could have caused this to happen?
So just because someone is
So just because someone is arrested that makes them a Republican?
And you came to this
And you came to this conclusion how?
Tron for the last year the
Tron for the last year the Democrats had a supermajority in the Senate. They did not need any Republican votes, so how in the world could the Republicans obstruct anything if all the Democrats agreed?
David, you are correct that
David, you are correct that the Democrats could do anything they wanted until the election of Senator Brown. The fact that Health Care Reform did not pass is strictly the fault of the Democrats. For the first year of the President's Administration, the Democrats could do anything they wanted because they did not need any Republicans to vote for cloture. Now, the Democrats will need one Republican to vote for cloture, but once that occurs they only need 51 of their members to pass anything.
Can't seem to fine anything where to Republicans filibustered any bills in the Senate late year.
Nope. But I did stub my toe.
Nope. But I did stub my toe.
Yes it governs those who
Yes it governs those who signed, but I believe it does not specify how we are to deal with those who did not sign.
But that revision tweak the
But that revision tweak the definition of those who are eligibale for military commissions.
veritas, I don't disagree
veritas, I don't disagree with the media looking into what Govenor Palin stood for. What I was saying was that members of the media, for example Chris Matthews, focusing on her statement of seeing Russia from her backyard, but never took the time point out some of the foolish things then candidate Biden said.
Tron, the media did not take
Tron, the media did not take Joe Biden to task. During an interview, he refered to President Roosevelt going on TV when the market crashed in 1929. The interview said nothing. The media spent more time on the Govenor's comment on seeing Russia than the spent on the Senator saying that JOBS is a three letter word.
On the idea of experience which ticket had more executive experience, Obama/Biden or McCain/Palin?
Queenie, then you must have
Queenie, then you must have loved the one the Vice President Biden did.
Veritas, it would have been
Veritas, it would have been nice if the media would have covered this our existing VP said during the campaign in the same way they covered Gov. Palin.
How about a specific example.
How about a specific example. Quote me.
When have I ever made fun of
When have I ever made fun of you?
Tron I guess you are right. I
Tron I guess you are right. I guess from now on I'll just agree with you no matter how wrong you are.
The Geneva Convention
The Geneva Convention protects those who are fighting under a flag. What flag are the terrorist fighting under?
Pirate, I find it interesting
Pirate, I find it interesting that those that are suppose to be tolerent of those that are different are so intolerent of those who disagree with them. So, if we see a post that we disagree with, can we call the poster a moonbat or would be intolerent?
veritas you are right they
veritas you are right they were found unconstitutional. You are forgetting about HR-6166 also known as the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and signed by the President on October 17, 2006.
Lil, you are right about
Lil, you are right about Coakley's inability to campaign. The one thing you are forgetting is that a large number of those voting were concerned about health care and did not want it.
With regards to the CBO, they can only go out 10 years. Since the taxes start right way and the benifets don't start for years out, that is how they can make it work, but if you go out beyond the 10 years, the numbers change.
The reason the "right winger" don't want criminal trials for the terrorist is because these individuals were capture on the battlefield. Now if they were arrestted on U.S. soil, then yes a criminal trial is the correct way. Last I check, Afghanistan is not part of the United States.
For someone who doen't watch Fox News, you know a lot of what is on.
Exactly where did it say he
Exactly where did it say he was gay. "homosexual acts ... are immoral." sounds like he is anti-gay.
Please define "welfare".
Please define "welfare".
No, I have to be a Democrat
No, I have to be a Democrat because I did something to help those in Haiti.
Wow and all this time I
Wow and all this time I thought I was a Republican. Thanks to Tron, I now know I am a Democrat.
That is very similar to what
That is very similar to what I have at work. We are give a number of Paid Time Off and from that we have to take our holidays, sick, vacation and "I just need a sanity day" from. This for me has worked well since I don't take a lot of sick time.
Just image, it is Saturday,
Just image, it is Saturday, 1pm, a police car scanning the license plates of cars parked at the Maine Mall and one of those plates happens to be yours. Days later, you are pulled over and arrested because you and your car match the description of a criminal. You are charged with a crime that occured in Portland at 1pm on Saturday. You then inform the police that you were at the Maine Mall, but regretfully you don't have a recepit or witness to put you at the Mall. The police check the plates scanned and you plate proves you were there. They let you go. Yes, this is an isolated and highly improbable case, but it could happen. With any new technology there are benifets and disadvantages and they must be weighed out.
Law enforcement officals have abused the technologies they have had. Should we remove all their technology because of a few bad officers?
xyz, what voter fraud are you
xyz, what voter fraud are you talking about?
Senators are elected by the entire state, so in 2006 Senator Snowe was challenged by Jean Hay Bright, then in 2008 Senator Collins was challenged by then Rep. Tom Allen. Since it is two separate elections I can and did vote for both of them. Since I live in House District 2, I voted for Rep. Michaud and therefore I was not allowed to vote in House District 1.
Dan, believe me when I say,
Dan, believe me when I say, these posts will come back to haunt you. I almost posted the same thing yesterday
Sorry, I don't see being called a Republican an insult.
This is an open forum and I just call them as I see them and I will continue to participate whether you like it or not.
Senator Snowe and Senator
Senator Snowe and Senator Collins are far from my ideal candidate, but I find myself voting for them because the alternative is simply not acceptable. Jean Hay Bright and Rep. Allen are just to far out in left field for me to even consider voting for them. I know the Senators will at least do the correct thing, 60-70% of the time, but I knew the Democrat would do the wrong thing 90% of the time. So for me there is really no choice.
And the identifier of
And the identifier of "republican" was applied to you like you applied "baboon" and "right wing wackos" to others.
Tron, when I read your post, a simialr thought ran through my mine.
Tron, you crack me up.
Tron, you crack me up. Speaking of name calling, from this weekend "IF these republican baboons had any pride" and "right wing wackos". I guess baboons and wackos is not name calling.
One mocks what one does not
One mocks what one does not understand.
Tron, my statement is not
Tron, my statement is not childish. It just goes to prove the hypocracy of the left. It is okay for a liberal to insult the President, but if a Republican does it, there will be hell to pay. I'm not saying jut because one did it makes it right for the other, just the opposite. What I'm asking for is consistency on how both are treated. What Rep. Wilson did was wrong and so were the Democrats who boo-ed President Bush and so was Senator Reid for calling him a liar.
Tron, don't try and paint the
Tron, don't try and paint the Republicans as the bad guys. The Democrats are no better. I suppose calling the President a "loser" or boing the President during a State of the Union speech is okay. But I'm guessing you are not going to call for the resignation of Senator Reid and most of the Democrats in Congress.
Regretfully you lost all
Regretfully you lost all credibility when you said "Shrub". Don't forget, CIA and FBI also obeyed the law under the Clinton administration.
Question: How do you know you won an arguement against a liberal?
Answer: They start calling names. i.e. "reptile", "Shrub"
And this has to do with what?
And this has to do with what?
Voisine what you are failing
Voisine what you are failing to see is that there was a barrier put up between the CIA and the FBI not letting the dots to be connected. What you are failing to see is that barrier was put up during the administration of a Democrat, President Clinton.
"Then tax the rich until they
"Then tax the rich until they say Momma", spoken like a true socialist.
Paris Patrioit, thanks for
Paris Patrioit, thanks for the laugh. That is so far out in left field that I don't know where to start.
The opposite of the Republicans and their policies are socialist and we have seen historically that does not work either.
Yes, unemployment was 10% but
Yes, unemployment was 10% but those were in the first or second year of his first term. After the tax cuts past, unemployment dropped, interest rates dropped and so did inflation.
From your first statement, I can see you believe in some sort of socialism, since you think it is okay to take money from one individual, which they earned, and give it to someone who did nothing to earn the money. Sorry, if I EARNED it is MINE, if you want some go out an EARN it. I'm not saying that I am in that tax bracket, but if and when I ever get there, I will have earned it and it will not have been handed to me.
Tron, how was the economy
Tron, how was the economy when President Reagan took office. When President Reagan cut taxes, revenues increased and at the same time the economy got better.
Paying down the debt will not increase revenue because you are spending less on interest, but instead reduce the amount you have to pay out. I do however like the idea of using the increase in revenue to pay down the debt.
I still stand by the fact that you can reduce taxes and reduce spending at the same time.
President Carter left the
President Carter left the economy in the toilet.
Which party had control of Congress when President Clinton was in office and which party had control on Congress during Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush? President George W. Bush added $1.1 Trillion by your numbers, could you please break that down for 2005-2006 and 2007-2008, the results might be interesting.
Tron, you have admitted that
Tron, you have admitted that cutting taxes raises revenue. You are correct when saying that the government needs to wait to increase spending to match the increase in revenue. That has been the problem all along. Not only was spending increased but it was increased at a faster rate the the increase in revenue.
Yes, President Clinton and the Republican Congress did cut spending and did reduce taxes on the middle class and balanced the budget. I think both parties want to balance the budget, but how they are trying to get there are to different ways. Both parties believe they need an increase in revenue, just how they do that is where they differ. We have proven that while cutting taxes you can increase revenue, but increasing taxes does not necessarily increase revenue. For example, here in Maine, taxes on cigarettes keep going up and then we hear, that the revenue from cigarette taxes has gone done. The same thing would occur if you were to increase rate capital gains taxes. Individuals would either not sell their stocks and if they did they would move them to tax free municipal bonds.
ERGO, by your own admission
ERGO, by your own admission you said revenue increased under President Reagan and President Bush (41).
Last I checked $1.091 Trillion is larger than $517 Billion.
The reason it went up was not
The reason it went up was not because there was a lack of income, it was because spending went up faster than the increase in revenu
If you have been hitting your
If you have been hitting your head against the wall, this will drive it through wall for sure.
In 1980 before President Reagan took office total revenue was $517 Billion. Durning the Reagan-Bush years revenue rose to $ 1.091 Trillion. Double would have been $1.034 Trillion. So when President Clinton took office revenue for 1992 had been $1.091 Trillion. When he left office, revenue was $2.025 Trillion, nearly doubled. We also have to take into account the 1993 tax increase and a middle class tax cut. So when, President Bush took office, revenue for 2000 had been $2.025 Trillion and when he left revenue was $2.105 Trillion. I agree that the last round of tax cuts did not increase revenue like President Reagan's cuts, but the there was a lot of unknowns with regard to terrorism during his first term. In 2007 and 2008 revenues rose to $2.407 Trillion and $2.568 Trillion.
Tron, look at my previous
Tron, look at my previous post. Go look up the revenue to the Federal Treasury in 1980 and then look at the revenue in 1990. You will see a near doubling of revenue. The economy during the mid-80's was good. The problem is not the tax cuts but the spending.
Republicans push for tax cuts
Republicans push for tax cuts because it increases revenue to the Treasury. Please go look up what Federal Revenue was in 1980 whe President Reagan took office and what they where when they left. The issue in the 80's was not the tax cuts but instead the spending. Under President Bush, the economy was in the early stages of a recession when he past his tax cuts. Regretfully we will never know exactly how they would have worked since the economy was shaken by the September 11th attacks. Again during the Bush adminstration, the issue was not the cuts, revenue stayed rather flat, the issue was spending.
It is not that the
It is not that the Republicans insistence on getting 60 votes, those are the rules of the Senate.
If you are thinking this
If you are thinking this comment is in the wrong thread, I would have to agree. When the statement was made to through them out, and Tron replied we tried that and it failed. If you were to replace every memeber in Congress with the other party, that would put the Republicans in charge and since Tron said that the Republicans had failed, my statem definetly belongs here.
Who is directed to: "You're
Who is directed to: "You're not even in this thread, start your own. You've got nothing pertinent to say."
Please explain how the
Please explain how the following "Clinton's surplus was turned into an $8 TRILLION debt BEFORE he took the oath of office." Considering the national debt was approximately $5.7 trillion when President Clintion left office. Yes, the debt was approximately $8 Trillion when President Obama took office. So President Bush added a about $2.3 Trillion to the national debt. Since President Obama has taken office he as added about $1.6 Trillion to the national debt. If he does that again next year, his increase will be more than double that of President Bush in two years. Hopefully, President Obama is only a one term president, we won't be able to afford another 4 years.
Oh, yeah, he so smart that he does't know how states in the country. If he was so smart, why did he pick Joe Biden as Vice President?
Tron, if we give the
Tron, if we give the Democrats 8 years of unchecked control, you will be yearning to return to the days that President Bush was president and the Republicans were in control. This country will go soooooo far to the left we will not recognize it. Socialism is a failed experiment. Obviously, the President, Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi were absent from school the day it was taught.
Looks like you did a lot of
Looks like you did a lot of copying and pasting yourself below.
You could cancel Stimulus I,
You could cancel Stimulus I, that hasn't work so well. In 2007 where were approximately, 138 million individuals paying taxes. If every taxpayer was given $10,000 that is $1.38 Trillion. I also proposed that it could not exceed what one paid in Federal taxes, so it would actually be less. Also, since this would stimulate the economy and create jobs, therefore more paying Federal taxes, the cost would be less, probably closer to $1 Trillion about $400 Billion less than was Stimulus I cost and there would be no need for Stimulus II.
It would probably be
It would probably be cheaper, but it should be limited to those who pay Federal Income taxes. Also, limit it to their tax burden not exceed their tax burden, that way we don't have a redistribution of wealth.
The billions to save Wall
The billions to save Wall Street was past by a Congress controlled by the Democrats. Also, it was the Democrats who insisted on the rule changes that caused the problem in the first place. Under President Clinton, the rules for lending money to people were loosened. There was a push by the Administration to have loans given to people with even if there was no chance they could pay it back.
veritas, you seem to have
veritas, you seem to have forgotten your history.
President Bush and the UN told Saddam to come clean or there would be consequences. You also seem to forget that it was Saddam is the one who lied to the UN and not the Bush Administration about WMDs. Remember, Saddam admitted to pretending to having WMDs. If Saddam had come clean on not having WMDs, President Bush would have no reason for attacking.
Al-Qaeda was already at war with us. Do you remember the attack on the Cole, World Trade Center bombing, embassy bombings? If memory serves me correctly, those occurred under President Clinton. The Clinton Administration did not see that Al-Qaeda was at war with us. You also seem to forget that President Bush told the Taliban to turn over those responsible for September 11th.
Jon, why should the Catholic
Jon, why should the Catholic Church lose their tax-exempt status over taking a position on Gay Marriage. Tax-exempt organizations can take a position on issues but not support a candidate. I don't recall anyone calling to have tax-exemption revoked for the Westboro Baptist Church. But then again, they were protesting against a Republican President. Maybe Trinity Unity should lose their tax-exempt status.
Jon, the $547 Billion comes
Jon, the $547 Billion comes from the CBO.
Back in August, President
Back in August, President Obama said the following:
"My answer is that if the private insurance companies are providing a good bargain, and if the public option has to be self-sustaining…then I think private insurers should be able to compete. They do it all the time. I mean, if you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? No, they are. It's the Post Office that's always having problems."
The Postal Service posted a $3.8 Billion lose for fiscal year 2009 which ended in September. Can we trust the same government to run health care?
If your house burns down,
If your house burns down, should you be able to buy fire insurance at that point?
Tron, TIF's are local tax
Tron, TIF's are local tax breaks and do not change the amount the state collects. Corporate welfare is a myth, it does not exist. The State never takes money from individuals and transfers that money to companies. When the State gives money to companies, it is for a service or product, the State gets something in return.
Tron, I don't make up the
Tron, I don't make up the rules for how Social Security is handed out. But once you reach the age of retirement, you start receiving benefits. I agree one should be retired to receive those benefits, but those are not the rules.
One can always tell, they've won an argument with you is when you start with the name calling.
Once you reach the age of
Once you reach the age of retirement, you start receiving your Social Security payments. My father was working full time past the age of retirement and he started receiving HIS Social Security money back.
Tron, it is not a double
Tron, it is not a double standard. The difference with Social Security, that is money I put in for MY retirement, therefore it is MY money. Those as you a say "sucking off the government teat" are still using MY money. One is I'm getting my money back, the second is some else is getting my money.
The individual is not
The individual is not sucking of the public teat. The individual as actually receiving the money they contributed to the system when they were working.
Sorry, misread the post I
Sorry, misread the post I was looking at. You are correct, he found the Bull Moose Party after he was President.
From the Medicare web
From the Medicare web site:
Part B: (Medical Insurance) Premium
Most beneficiaries will continue to pay the same $96.40 premium amount in 2010. Beneficiaries who currently have the Social Security Administration (SSA) withhold their Part B premium and have incomes of $85,000 or less (or $170,000 or less for joint filers) will not have an increase in their Part B premium in 2010. For additional details, see our FAQ titled: "Will my Medicare Part B premium increase in 2010?"
For all others, the standard Medicare Part B monthly premium will be $110.50 in 2010, which is a 15% increase over the 2009 premium. The Medicare Part B premium is increasing in 2010 due to possible increases in Part B costs. If your income is above $85,000 (single) or $170,000 (married couple), then your Medicare Part B premium may be higher than $110.50 per month. For additional details, see our FAQ titled: "2010 Part B Premium Amounts for Persons with Higher Income Levels".
So, yes for some the rate is going up, for others it is staying the same
President Teddy Roosevelt
President Teddy Roosevelt was a member of the Republican Party. He was elected President as member of the short-lived Bull Moose Party which he founded.
Thanks. I needed a good
Thanks. I needed a good laugh. Mostly a good rewrite of history.
Gil, I have to
Gil, I have to disrespectfully disagree with you on "yet I don't believe that I 'earned' the right to someone else paying for my health care." The day you signed up you earned that. I did not serve, so I have nothing to personally gain, but I believe that when you signed your name either willingly or because you were drafted, you earned the right for me to contribute to your health care. You also earned the right to the best health care money can buy. You and all others who served deserve what those in Congress have. Now I do not believe that I should pay for those who did not serve.
Since when does the U.S.
Since when does the U.S. Constitution extend to people who are in another country?
cranky yankee, I take it
cranky yankee, I take it from your post you do not like the fact the insurance companies are making a profit. As a percentage of their revenue, what would you consider to be excessive? Are profits 2% of revenue excessive? Is 6% of revenue to excessive? What is excessive?
You seem to think that Republicans are not in favor of increased competition, actually it is the Democrats that are opposing that. The Obama Administration does not want to allow insurance companies to sell across state lines.
As for the public option be competition, that would not be exactly fair competition. Insurance companies are required to remain solvent, where the government option can print more money if they don't have enough. The public option will eventually destroy the public insurance industry and personally, I don't want my insurance in the hands of a government pencil pusher.
This is where I got
This is where I got it.
http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?Docum...
Bob67, who claimed they had
Bob67, who claimed they had weapons of mass destruction? If Saddam had come clean instead of lying, President Bush would not have invaded.
Section 7203 – misdemeanor
Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year. The word fine is what is used in the bill.
• Section 7201 – felony
• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.”
all -pronoun : a) the whole
all -pronoun :
a) the whole quantity or amount: He ate all of the peanuts. All are gone.
b) the whole number; every one: all of us.
c) everything: Is that all you want to say? All is lost.
not all since one did not it is not a whole.
Lil, the President himself
Lil, the President himself admitted that the public option would take 10-15 years for eliminate private insurance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk
That's right. If you don't
That's right. If you don't pay have health insurance you can face fines and jail time.
Remember, President Obama said he was in favor of spreading the wealth, so I guess we are heading to a socialist-like economy.
Fact check: "yet virtually
Fact check: "yet virtually all the Republicans goosed step with Rep Boehner and voted against. " is completely false. Rep. Anh Cao of Louisiana a Republican that vote with the Democrats. So "virtually all" is false.
The House Bill is now
The House Bill is now totaling $1.2 Trillion and it still does not cover 36 million Americans.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091102/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul
"government funded private
"government funded private health insurance program" what kind of oxymoron is that. If it is government funded it is not private.
Rinoblast, here in the State
Rinoblast, here in the State of Maine, we do have the right to petition our government regardless of who gained consent at the ballot box.
Found this online, it was
Found this online, it was started in 2004.
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/banhetero/
The last report from the CBO
The last report from the CBO that I saw on Thursday said that only 96% will be covered. This will cost $1.05 Trillion over 10 years. This cost is offset by an estimated $161 billion over ten years from penalties to individuals, who do not purchase insurance and employer, who do not provide insurance to their employees. These fines brings the cost down to $894 billion over ten years. This estimate does not include $245 billion to stop Medicare payments to doctors from decreasing.
So how are they going to pay for this $894 billion. The bill is paid for by $426 billion in cuts for existing programs, such as Medicare Advantage. The difference of $572 billion would be made up by tax increases over a 10 year period of time. When you the cuts and tax increases, you get $998 billion. Subtract the $894 billion from $998 billion you get $104 billion. The decrease in the deficit is reduced not by savings, but by an increase in taxes. Now if you add back in the $245 billion in Medicare payments to doctors, you now add $141 billion over the same period to the deficit.
"the armed forces might
"the armed forces might finally be able to grab him, imprison him", well that should be easy if all they have to do is dig him up. The Shah of Iran has been dead for over 19 years.
Question, should not caring
Question, should not caring health care insurance be punishable by a fine or prison time?
StoshDosh, I've never seen a
StoshDosh, I've never seen a gun kill someone by itself. It needs a someone to pull the trigger. What are you proposing, we ban guns?
Lil, try telling the whole
Lil, try telling the whole story. The reason the insurance company refused to pay was because the procedure was considered experimental.
Sirmel, I have to
Sirmel, I have to respectfully disagree with your answer of 501. First, they would blame the previous administration for burning it out, even though they new it was burnt out when they took office. Then they would second create a large government bureaucracy to study the bulb, come up with an estimate of $5.00 to change it. After it was changed, the actual cost would be more list $1,000. They would keep the bureaucracy around to make sure it doesn't burn out again. Oh, and how do they pay for it, they tax the rich.
Big difference between 166
Big difference between 166 and 200 pounds lost. One of my best friends lost about 140 pounds in about a year and half, by walking and changing his diet. My friend was in his late 20's when he did this, as he got light he started biking and jogging.
Lil, I don't remember
Lil, I don't remember President Clinton stepping down and neither had Gov. Patterson.
Did Sen. Daniel
Did Sen. Daniel Inouye,Former Rep. Gus Savage,Rep. Barney Frank,Former Rep. Fred Richmond,Former Rep. John Young,Former Rep. Gerry Studds,Former Rep. Mel Reynolds and the last Sen. Teddy Kennedy resign over their sexual escapades?
Lil, prove it. Where can I
Lil, prove it. Where can I find this info.
Since there are many
Since there are many posters, sometimes we want to address our comment to a particular poster. Without using their name, how else do you propose we say we are addressing a comment? There is a link to the commenting policy at the bottom of the page. It is early and I might have missed it, but I didn't see where is says we cannot address each other. As for posting urls, it says that the "Personal or business URLs that could be viewed as an attempt to solicit business".
I rarely agree with Tron but
I rarely agree with Tron but he is right, look at the url and then decide if you want to go and look at it. With that said, it is still the readers responsibility to have their anti-virus and anti-spam software up to date. I have seen legitimate websites hacked and users who did not have anti-virus software have their machines compromised.
Some of us post links, to
Some of us post links, to prove what we are saying is not an opinion and the links serve as proof.
Jon, please go back and
Jon, please go back and review the revenue to the government in 1980 and then please check the number in 1988. This would be the period of Reagan tax cuts. As you will see, revenue nearly doubled. So yes cutting federal taxes does increase revenue. The issue is the spending.
Tron, how could the PUC for
Tron, how could the PUC for see something that never happened. During the entire 8 years of the Bush Administration, GDP was down only 1 quarter, and that was Q4 of 2008. Since then Q1 of 2009 and Q2 of 2009 have both had declining GDP. Now we are officially in a recession. The economic conditions do not qualify for a depression. Numbers from http://www.bea.gov and the definition of a recession comes from http://recession.org.
Bigot: –noun a person who
Bigot: –noun a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
ben427, you are entitled to
ben427, you are entitled to your opinion about my faith. But you know what they say about opinions, there like b-holes; they all stink.
Jon, that is why it is
Jon, that is why it is called FAITH.
Joe, Cal does not live in
Joe, Cal does not live in France. I cannot find any info about that. He lives in Alexandria,VA. Where did you get that?
First Amendment
First Amendment read:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The amendment is saying that one has the freedom OF religion, not the freedom FROM religion. Subtle but a major difference.
This new system doesn't seem
This new system doesn't seem to like long urls. Can you try re-pasting it, but I think if you cut it up, it might trick the system.
The individual might have a
The individual might have a case, but not with the law you are referring to. That law deals with employment, rental housing and real estate transactions.
I said, "I have not been
I said, "I have not been able to find anything on how he was in charge of a committe to keep St. Petersburg open." That is not from memory. Like I said, I was unable to find how he lobbied against BNAS. Go back, re-read what I said. I said his company was hired to analyze the data give to BRAC, not sure how that is lobbying against Maine. Where you are getting your info?
Thanks. I knew we was Sec.
Thanks. I knew we was Sec. of Defense for 1997 to 2001 and the BNAS was on the BRAC list and 2005. The Cohen Group was hired to analyze the data sent to BRAC, for which his company was paid $350,000. I have not been able to find anything on how he was in charge of a committe to keep St. Petersburg open.
Tron, I agree with you on
Tron, I agree with you on Sen. Mitchel, but I'm missing the connection between Sec. Cohen and the closing of BNAS.
You may want to rephrase
You may want to rephrase that. Google, mars hills wind power law suit, freedom wind power law suit. You might be surprised at what you find. These are large projects that don't belong near people's homes.
Jon, Our laws are based on
Jon,
Our laws are based on Judeo-Christian values.
Thou shall not steal.
Thou shall not kill.
Thou shall not bear false witness.
For all those who are say
For all those who are say Fox News is not real news, could you please give me a specific example of a news story that they made up.
Tron, you are referring to
Tron, you are referring to analysis shows. Matthew and Olbermann are just as bad the other way.
I agree Alan Colmes was rather moderate, and I admit that I have watched less on Hannity since he has left the show. He was a good balance with Sean Hannity.
Didn't get it from Fox. Did
Didn't get it from Fox. Did my own research.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk
Wasn't no Child Left Behind
Wasn't no Child Left Behind sponsored by the Liberal Lion?
you forgot Chris "thrill
you forgot Chris "thrill runs up my leg" Matthews.
Just curious, how many jobs
Just curious, how many jobs you actually created?
RpsNoMore, if I remember
RpsNoMore, if I remember correctly all the other news outlets reported the same. What you are forgetting is that the original liar was Saddam. He admitted that he lied and acted like he had the weapons. He figured that the U.S. would not invade and that he could survive an aerial assault. The reason Saddam said he lied was his fear of Iran.
RpsNoMore, you are right
RpsNoMore, you are right about President Obama. He is intelligent. He knows that he visited 57 states while running for office. He is so intelligent that he doesn't even know how many men took the oath of office before him. He was smart enough to pick a VP that doesn't know who was President in 1929 or how many letters in the word JOBS. He is so smart that his VP and Secretary of State didn't think he was qualified. He is so smart that he could tell people he had socialist views and they didn't believe him. He is so smart that his administration didn't bother to vet their czar's properly.
Tron, the President admitted
Tron, the President admitted that the public option will eliminate private insurance. So if the private insurance is gone, and all that is left is the public option. What is the other option?
what do you thing the public
what do you thing the public option is?
Jon, you had me for a second
Jon, you had me for a second there until I re-read it.
The difference is if a corporation raise the price on a product, you don't have to buy it, but you have to pay your taxes.
1. Saying that a government
1. Saying that a government run health care is socialized health is a "stretch", may be if your a socialist it is.
2. What numbers do you want to use?
3. Prove it
4. How about Jennings? Geithner?
5. Sorry, the firefighters is a valid case. The U.S. Supreme Court said that the New Haven fire fighters were "unfairly denied promotions".
1. Socializing health care
1. Socializing health care is radical.
2. Auto sales down 40% in September. Cash for Clunkers was a short term boost.
3. Auto union ended up with a 55% stake in Chrysler
4. Van Jones self proclaimed Communist
5. and yes, Judge Sotomayor since those votes has proven she is willing to legislate from the bench.
1. Health care reform 2.
1. Health care reform
2. Cash for Clunkers
3. Auto industry bailout where the debtors where ignored and the companies given to the unions
4. Appointment of extreme left wing ideologues
5. Supreme Court Justice selection
just to name a few
Denny one small correction.
Denny one small correction. Yes, the President portrayed himself as a moderate, but he did admit to Joe that he had extreme liberal ideas. It is just most of the people didn't hear him or those who heard him didn't believe him.
"Canadians do not come to
"Canadians do not come to the U S for their medical treatments as far as we know." is not true. Since President Obama has taken office over 17,000 Canadians have come to the U.S. for treatment.
Currently there are about 50
Currently there are about 50 million U.S. residents are without health coverage. When the plan is completely in place in 2019, 25 million will still be without coverage. Of those 25 million, 17 million would be U.S. citizens or legal immigrants. The plan is estimate to cost $829 billion over 10 years. The government will spend about $3300 per individual per year for coverage. The government could probably purchase the insurance directly from insurance companies for about half that amount. With the saving, then be able to insure the remaining 25 million people.
Tax-exempt groups like the
Tax-exempt groups like the Church can take a position on an issue. They are not allowed to support a candidate.
That's an ad not a news
That's an ad not a news report. What have the reported that was false?
Tron, I heard the audio,
Tron, I heard the audio, that is exactly what she said.
Here is what she said.
"I know it wasn't rape-rape. I think it was something else, but I don't believe it was rape-rape.
"He pled guilty to having sex with a minor and he went to jail, and when they let him out he said 'You know what, this guy's going to give me 100 years in jail. I'm not staying'. And that's why he left."
So how did Fox lie about what she said? Was this on O'Reilly, Beck or Hannity? I suppose that the other news channels are 100% accurate and never make up the news?
Tron, I know you can help
Tron, I know you can help with this. I have asked Lil, multiple times for an example of Fox's false or inaccurate reporting. Can you give me an example.
Legally, Polanski plead
Legally, Polanski plead guilty to “unlawful sexual intercourse”.
The definition of "rape" is :
–noun
1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
3. statutory rape.
4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.
5. Archaic. the act of seizing and carrying off by force.
I guessing the legal definition is different.
From boston.com today,
"The grand jury charged Polanski with “rape by use of drugs,’’ “lewd and lascivious acts upon child under 14,’’ “perversion,’’ and “sodomy’’ (the latter two for acts that are now legal if consensual, and are sexual assault if not.) After pleading guilty to the mildest charge, Polanski - now a convicted sex offender - fled before sentencing."
I'll go out on a limb here,
I'll go out on a limb here, but those who say Fox is not fair and balaced would say that the New York Times is fair and balanced.
Lil, again what "Faux" news
Lil, again what "Faux" news did they report. Previously you said "Jennings", I never saw the report so I do not know what false statements were said about Mr. Jennings. If you are going to through out accusations you should be able to back them up.
queenhoneeybee, please turn
queenhoneeybee, please turn off your CAPS Lock. When you post in all caps it is interpreted as shouting, besides it makes it difficult to read.
Again I ask, could one of
Again I ask, could one of you give me a specific example of a false story reported on Fox. I know Lil you said Jennings, but never said what Fox said that was false about him. O'Reilly, Beck and Hannity are analysis shows and do tend to have a bias. The same can be said about Matthews and Olbermann. If their stories reported on their cast are false, this should be easy to prove.
If you are referring to
If you are referring to TARP, financial institutions have to pay it back. So that eliminates the bailouts. For it to be "welfare", they have to be able to keep it and not pay it back.
Exactly how do corporations
Exactly how do corporations get welfare?
Thx. The thread is getting
Thx. The thread is getting long and I must have missed it.
Not sure where you got this
Not sure where you got this quote, “One goes to Mass in order to receive Jesus Christ in the Holy Sacrament of the altar" but I don't know of any other place I can go to church to receive the Body and Blood of Jesus than to a church.
I read the British papers
I read the British papers from time to time. I have seen enough articles where the elderly are being refused care. Just the other day, I read a story about a soldier who served in Iraq. He was given a lung transplant because he developed an illness while serving. The lungs he was given came from a heavy smoker. Now he has lung cancer. Since he has cancer, he now is not eligible for another transplant.
I don't disagree that our health care system needs help, but socializing it is not the answer.
Senator Snowe, the next time
Senator Snowe, the next time history calls, please let it go to voice mail.
Rex, you think it is bad
Rex, you think it is bad now, wait until we get a system like the U.K. Of course unless you think the health care system in the U.K. is better than the one we have here.
Publikwerks, I may not agree
Publikwerks, I may not agree with you, but I do appreciate how you are able to state your opinion without name calling or taking digs.
Rex, time for a mirror.
Rex, time for a mirror. Definition of bigot: –noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
I agree with what you are
I agree with what you are saying, but , let me play devil's advocate. "So really, it could be argued that the state is showing preferance to one religion by limiting marriage to heterosexual marriage" If the State limits marriage between two people, is it not limiting the religions that believe in polygamy?
veritas, is the person who
veritas, is the person who said about then candidate Senator Obama, "The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training." racist?
The $20 million was lost in
The $20 million was lost in 2007 when Treasurer David Lemoine "lost" in fund that had a high rating and then quickly went to junk bond status.
Barb, I think your getting
Barb, I think your getting the debt and the deficit mixed up. It is the deficit that has tripled. In 2008 the deficit was $459 billion and is now has tripled to $1.4 trillion.
Sirmel, sorry about that. I
Sirmel, sorry about that. I was googling it while you were posting.
April 6, 2009, Glenn Beck
April 6, 2009, Glenn Beck interviewed an editor from Popular Mechanics who disproved the "FEMA concentration camps".
Quality can be used as an
Quality can be used as an adjective. Verb: providing, Noun: education, Adjective (what kind of education) quality. Definition of quality as an adjective are: of or having superior quality: quality paper, producing or providing products or services of high quality or merit: a quality publisher, of or occupying high social status: a quality family, marked by a concentrated expenditure of involvement, concern, or commitment: Counselors are urging that working parents try to spend more quality time with their children.
WOW. I was mistaken,
WOW. I was mistaken, nominations closed on February 1st. Still what did he accomplish between Jan 20 and Feb 1? I still maintain Senator Mitchell currently more deserving.
Voting for the Nobel Peace
Voting for the Nobel Peace Prize concluded two weeks after President Obama took office, exactly what did he do during those two weeks? I'm not saying he doesn't deserve it, but there are others, like Senator Mitchell, who have done more.
You cannot impeach someone
You cannot impeach someone for an "EXCUSE". Why was President Clinton disbarred by the Arkansas Bar?
tron you may want to believe
tron you may want to believe that President Clinton was impeached for sex, but again you would be wrong. President Clinton was impeach for perjury. That fact that he perjured himself about sex, well that is the only connection. The crime for which he was impeached was perjury.
tron, 10 years later and you
tron, 10 years later and you have no idea why President Clinton was impeached. Having sex with an intern is not a crime.
Scotty_O when tron and Lil
Scotty_O when tron and Lil start with the name calling you know that they have lost the argument and that you're right.
http://www.boston.com/busines
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2005/02/27/etiquette_at_work/ says
"Q: I'm unhappy when I hear former presidents and other ex-officials addressed as ''Mister." Doesn't this belittle their importance? I was taught to address people with the highest title or position they've achieved in their career.
W.P., Chelmsford
A: You've waded into the quagmire of what's ''proper" here, so bear with me. When addressing a former president of the United States in a formal setting, the correct form is ''Mr. Last Name." (''President LastName" or ''Mr. President" are terms reserved for the current head of state.) This is true for other ex-officials, as well.
When talking about the person to a third party, on the other hand, it's appropriate to say, ''former president Last Name." This holds for introductions, as well: A current state governor is introduced as ''Governor Tom Smith," while you'd introduce an ex-governor as ''former Governor Jim Bell."
Now, let's wade a bit deeper. In an informal setting (such as a private lunch), it's acceptable to use the title the ex-official held. Here, you could refer to former president Jimmy Carter as either ''President Carter" or ''Mr. Carter."
Finally, if the person you're lunching with held more than one previous position -- say, judge and ambassador -- you'll want to know which title he or she prefers"
You know I love to correct
You know I love to correct you when you are wrong but, Scotty_O and MomOfTwo beat me to it.
Oh, by the way the President has a "c" in his name.
Hey Tron, I though you said
Hey Tron, I though you said you always respected the office of the President, but here you are referring to "Bush" and not President Bush.
Senator Mitchell has
Senator Mitchell has actually done more for world peace. It woudl be different if this had been 2012, when President Obama would have had time to actually do something, currently he has only talked about what he wants do.
Sorry Lil, when you said
Sorry Lil, when you said "Jennings" my first thought was Perter.
And what did they say about him that was false? I did not see that story on Fox.
Jon, I agree with some of
Jon, I agree with some of your statements, but I am curious where you got the $32,000/year by 2019.
Jennings what?
Jennings what?
Here's a question, when
Here's a question, when announcing elections results, if an anchor rolls their eyes when announcing that a particular candidate won another state, is that okay?
Jon, by your logic Dan
Jon, by your logic Dan Rather would be a Conservative pundit.
I know CNN and NBC also
I know CNN and NBC also covered that story.
Everyone keeps saying Fox
Everyone keeps saying Fox News is bias and false news. When asked for one story that was false, no seems to have an answer. O'Reilly, Beck and Hannity are commentators and analysts, of course their will be bias. Listening to those three is like reading an op-ed page in a newspaper.
So again, could someone please give me an example of a false news story by Fox News.
Oh yeah, "anything they report" does not count. I want a specific example.
Cars cannot and do not
Cars cannot and do not causes accidents. I have never seen a car suddenly just crash. People cause the accidents. Someone has to be behind the wheel to operate the car.
Tron you are one to talk.
Tron you are one to talk. First of all, I do not believe you are old enough to remember President Eisenhower. My guess you were born under President Johnson or President Nixon's first term. Secondly, I have never said any thing to disrespect the President, while you on the other hand cannot even refer to them correctly, you refer to "Bush". NEVER do you say President Bush.
I see your Abramoff, and
I see your Abramoff, and raise you a Grand Dragon.
Barb, I can hear Lil, Tron
Barb, I can hear Lil, Tron and company now if eight years ago school children had been sing the praises of President Bush.
Lil, I see your "Scooter"
Lil, I see your "Scooter" and raise you a Geithner and a Sebelius.
Tron, not to rehash old
Tron, not to rehash old news, but it was not the responsibility of the Bush Administration to evacuate New Orleans. That responsibility belonged to Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco.
Doreen, saying that
Doreen, saying that President Obama is a socialist is not a lie. As a candidate he admitted to having socialist beliefs.
This "intelligent President"
This "intelligent President" didn't even know how many states in the country or how many men had taken the oath of office before him. He might be smart, but I think he skipped a few Social Studies classes.
I believe there were some
I believe there were some "right wingnuts" in the Democrat Party that voted for the war in Iraq.
If the government option is
If the government option is run like the USPS, God help those on that plan.
When the President made that comparison, I was thinking, "That's not the best example" The USPS is not the most efficient organization, that's why UPS and FedEx aren't worried about competing with them.
Also, that comparison is not really valid. USPS guarantees that every town in the US has daily mail service and that every mailbox is pasted by daily in case there pickups. UPS and FedEx don't do that.
T your right. Unions have
T your right. Unions have done a lot of good for the American workers. I believe unions have served their purpose and now a harming the American worker and businesses. Unions share a large part of the blame for the issues in Detroit. Back in the '70s the unions did a lot of damage to the rail industry. During the '70s, unions insisted on keeping a crew in a caboose even though they were no longer needed. Unions are hurting the large newspapers. Look at the Boston Globe, by trying to protect a few people, thy might all lose their jobs.
Spock was right, "The needs of the many, out weight the needs of the few." It is time that unions and their members take this to heart.
MSNBC, and CNN come to mind.
MSNBC, and CNN come to mind.
Dan Rather.
Just for good measure, let's throw in the New York Times.
Hey Lil, exactly what has Fox News said that bad months President Obama.
PS. the correct spelling of "Dubya" is "President Bush"
Jon, the Democrat Party is
Jon, the Democrat Party is no better. Look at my post from last night. You can add Van Jones to that list. Don't forget, the is a Senator who was a from Grand Dragon of the KKK, can't get more racist and radical than that.
Lil, I don't watch CBS News,
Lil, I don't watch CBS News, who said that?
veritas, I'm guessing you
veritas, I'm guessing you are referring to Fox News. Can you cite one story they have made up or one fact that was wrong? Now this has to be a news piece not an analysis piece. Don't quote something that someone said on O'Reilly or on Hannity, that is not news, that is opinion.
"These disruptions are
"These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades." from the USA Today op-ed piece written my Speaker Pelosi and Rep. Steny Hoyer.(http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/08/unamerican-attacks-cant-derail-he...)
President Bush appointed 46
President Bush appointed 46 over 8 years. Most of the czars were temporary appointments for a few years. President Obama is already at 35 in just over 8 months. Many of the 46 were replacements for a czar who left. For example, President Bush had 3 AIDS Czars each serving 2 years. He also had 3 Budget Czars from 2001-07, 2 clean up czars each serving a 4 years. President Bush also appointed a Bird Flu Czar who served from 2004-06. I will agree that President Bush appointed more Czars, but it took 8 years. Also the most czar jobs was 31. President Obama has appointed 35 individuals to 32 jobs. President Obama already has more czar jobs.
Lil, you get MSNBC, NBC,
Lil, you get MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN.
Lil, I love how you have no
Lil, I love how you have no respect for the office of the President or for the truth. President Bush had 31 over his eight years, but never 31 at any one time. President Obama has been in office 8 months yesterday and he has 32.
ojhuig and Lil, before
ojhuig and Lil, before saying the right is full of "whack jobs", take a look inward at those on the left. Look at some of the people the President associated with in the past, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Father Pfleger, and Louis Farrakhan.
I am on the Planning Board
I am on the Planning Board for our town. We are currently looking at an ordinance for wind turbines. The town to our north and to our south are both looking at ordinances as well. Their boards are both looking at 1 mile set backs. We are also considering a 1 mile set back. For the record, I will be about 2 miles from the turbines. When we started this process, I thought 1000ft would be fine. With the more research I have been doing, the more I realize that these things don't belong in someone's backyard.
We had a presentation where a sound expert presented a recording of a turbine. The recording was done inside a home 1800ft away from a turbine. The sound level inside a home at night is about 25 - 30 dba. The sound of the wind turbine was 52 dba. That is equivalent to a normal conversion 3-5 feet away. The lowest ambient sound levels in a urban area is 40dba. These turbines are going in rural areas and the lowest ambient sound levels in a rural area is about 25 dba.
It is not the noise of the turbines that is the issue, but the noise that the blades make as they cut through the air. The speed of the wind mill tips are moving at about 6 times the incoming wind speed.
I have been researching Industrial Wind for the past year for our town.
I just love it how those on
I just love it how those on the left resort to name calling. That is typical of those on the left, when they start losing an argument, start calling those on the other side names and if that doesn't work, play the race card. The problem with Lil's statement is those of us "republiclowns" were aware of ACORN before this last election. It is just that this time what they are doing is just so over the top.
What I don't understand is now that this has been revealed how anyone can defend them.
Tron, I agree that what Rep.
Tron, I agree that what Rep. Wilson did was wrong, but it wasn't racist. Definitely stupid but far from racist.
You can attach a black
You can attach a black streamer using a bow-knot to the top of the pole.
Tron, if he had boo-ed the
Tron, if he had boo-ed the President, would he still be fit?
Tron, it is nice to see that
Tron, it is nice to see that you are quick to go into to the gutter with name calling, "extreme right wing wacko's like yourself". I guess if you cannot make your point with facts, I guess restoring to name calling is all you have left. Classy, very classy.
Old Bill your so right. Here
Old Bill your so right. Here is a great quote from one of his speeches.
"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."
– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference
Tron, the first line says
Tron, the first line says "disaster loans available" which means they business will have to pay it back. Where if it was truly welfare, they would not. It is by definition impossible to give welfare to a business The definition of welfare "financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government" from dictionary.com. Welfare is paid to individuals and families not to businesses. I think David is right.
The term "corporate welfare" has been hi-jacket by the left. Here is how those on the left define welfare. If a company gets to keep more of what they earned, that is considered "welfare". But if an individual who does not pay income tax gets money back, that is considered a "refund". How can you get a income tax refund, if one does not pay income tax.
cajunandmex, you missed the
cajunandmex, you missed the point. Sen. Dodd and his socialist friends want to force a socialized health care system on us. The point I was making was since he thinks socialized medicine is such a great idea, why doesn't he go to a country that has socialized medicine and get treated. I agree with you that Federal employees have a great health care plan and that will not change if President Obama passes his plan. What will change is the health care system for the rest of us. President Obama wants to eliminate employer provide health care. cajunandmex, you have nothing to lose, the rest of us have a lot to lose.
Since the Senator is such a
Since the Senator is such a fan of national health care, will he be getting his treatment in Canada or Great Britain?
I'm not sure why everyone is
I'm not sure why everyone is opposed to government run health care. It is not like the government has a bad track record of running things. Look at MediCare, Social Security, and AmTrack. I'm sure most veterans are just pleased with their government run health care. Oh wait, I guess those programs are not run very well.
I remember watching Walter
I remember watching Walter Cronkite with my Grandfather. I remember watching him report on Vietnam, Watergate, Iranian Hostages and many other stories. Walter Cronkite, even on his worst day will always be better than today's journalist on their best day.
"And that is the way it is"
I never thought that I would
I never thought that I would say this, but I hope that Rev. Jackson is right and that there is a special place in hell for these guys.
Scotty_O my fear is as he
Scotty_O my fear is as he and the rest of us finds out he sucks as a Senator, he is going to help President Obama do a lot of damage to the country.
Even the cows don't want the
Even the cows don't want the tax increases that Governor Patrick just signed.
Gil, I agree. It is said. I
Gil, I agree. It is said. I have to disagree with everyone comparing his death with that of President Kennedy. I would compare his death more to Elvis.