Friday, October 31, 2008
Ahnold takes his one shot
with a little twist
"Every year in March I come here to organize the Arnold Classic which is all about building the body and pumping,” said Schwarzenegger.
“That’s why I want to invite Senator Obama because he needs to do something about those skinny legs. I’m going to make him do some squats.
“And then we’re going to make him do some biceps curls to beef up those scrawny little arms. But if he could only do something about putting some meat on his ideas. Senator McCain on the other hand is built like a rock. His character and his views are solid."
No White House parties for YOU!
“I left Europe four decades ago because socialism has killed opportunities there,"
wow. like, wow…
"In recent years Europe has realized it’s mistakes ... and Senator Obama says he wants to pursue the same ‘spread the wealth’ ideas that Europe had decades ago."
nevermiiind....
I Gotcher Scary Right Here
boo hoo
A man who jumped 60 feet to his death from the Spaghetti Bowl on Thursday left a note with a message for Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama.
"I, I never thought this day would ever happen. I won’t have to worry about putting gas in my car, I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage, you know, if I help him, he’s gonna help me."
LLoyd
Happy Halloween!
BOO!
*clicky* for larger
We R Mushroom People & Mushroom People We Shall Be
kept in the dark and fed on feculence
A Federal Communications Commission investigation of on-air military analysts is providing a glimpse of what Democrats and an Obama administration will do to critics ...
...In the Oct. 2 letters to 19 analysts and various TV networks, the FCC cited a New York Times article which accused the analysts of receiving the Pentagon information in exchange for positive commentary on the air. The letters, signed by Hillary S. DeNigro, chief of the agency’s investigations and hearings division, said such an arrangement might violate the Communications Act of 1934.
The FCC sent the letters after receiving a complaint from Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro, (D-Conn.) and Rep. John Dingell, (D-Mich.). Dingellbawlz has a history of using committee staff to browbeat and investigate Republican administrations.
"In their complaint, Representatives DeLauro and Dingell express concern that the analysts and [TV stations] may have failed to disclose this exchange of consideration to the stations, as required by section 507 of the Communications Act of 1934,” said the FCC letter. “They also suggest that the stations may have aired your commentary without making appropriate sponsorship identification announcements at the time such material was aired, as required” by the act...."Our chief concern is that as a result of the analysts’ participation in this DoD program, which included the DoD’s paying for their commercial airfare on DoD-sponsored trips to Iraq, the analysts and the networks that hired them could have run afoul of certain laws or regulations."
...[Air Force Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney], a hawk on the Iraq war, said the information the Pentagon supplied him and other commentators was the same as provided to the news media.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates has ended the private analysts briefings. Besides the FCC probe, the Pentagon inspector general is reviewing the program, which was started by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld after the September 1, 2001 attacks.
...The FCC is giving the 19 analysts 30 days to respond to the charges. [HUMAN EVENTS Editor Jed Babbin was a member of the group of military analysts who met frequently with senior Pentagon officials and participated in the program. He did not receive a letter from the FCC.]
[emph mine - e~C]
Earlier this year, The New York Times reported that a Department of Defense program had ex-military officers presenting the Bush administration’s position on the War on Terror as objective analysis on major television news programs and 24-hour cable news networks.
"Given the revelations in the [New York Times] article, had the FCC not heeded our request for an investigation, it would have raised serious questions about their oversight capabilities. I am pleased with today’s news, but will continue to monitor the situation to ensure the FCC fully investigates the networks in addition to the analysts,” DeLauro said in a
statement Tuesday [presumably 10/7 - e~C].According to the Times report, Department of Defense documents described the analysts as “message force multipliers” instructed to deliver “administration themes and messages” to the public “in the form of their own opinions.” The report found that these analysts—who The Times called “a media Trojan horse” for the administration—were encouraged to convey specific Defense Department talking points to the public, even when they suspected the information could be exaggerated or false.
What evidence I could find of the encouragement to “convey specific DoD talking points to the public, even when they suspected the information could be exaggerated or false” is in the NYT article below [assumed to be the one DeLauro and Dingel found so compelling].
...Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.
The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.
...The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.
...Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.
...In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access.
A few expressed regret for participating in what they regarded as an effort to dupe the American public with propaganda dressed as independent military analysis.
“It was them saying, ‘We need to stick our hands up your back and move your mouth for you,’ ” Robert S. Bevelacqua, a retired Green Beret and former Fox News analyst, said.
Kenneth Allard, a former NBC military analyst who has taught information warfare at the National Defense University, said the campaign amounted to a sophisticated information operation. “This was a coherent, active policy,” he said.
As conditions in Iraq deteriorated, Mr. Allard recalled, he saw a yawning gap between what analysts were told in private briefings and what subsequent inquiries and books later revealed.
...Many analysts strongly denied that they had either been co-opted or had allowed outside business interests to affect their on-air comments, and some have used their platforms to criticize the conduct of the war.
...Though many analysts are paid network consultants, making $500 to $1,000 per appearance, in Pentagon meetings they sometimes spoke as if they were operating behind enemy lines, interviews and transcripts show. Some offered the Pentagon tips on how to outmaneuver the networks, or as one analyst put it to Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, “the Chris Matthewses and the Wolf Blitzers of the world.” Some warned of planned stories or sent the Pentagon copies of their correspondence with network news executives. Many — although certainly not all — faithfully echoed talking points intended to counter critics.
So there was disagreement with DOD/Administration policies; while many of the old military guys agreed with… uhm, the military PoV. Shocking, that. And also disagreed with the sniping undermining disagreement from the Barking Media. Shocking 2, I suppose.
Again and again, records show, the administration has enlisted analysts as a rapid reaction force to rebut what it viewed as critical news coverage, some of it by the networks’ own Pentagon correspondents. For example, when news articles revealed that troops in Iraq were dying because of inadequate body armor, a senior Pentagon official wrote to his colleagues: “I think our analysts — properly armed — can push back in that arena.”
The documents released by the Pentagon do not show any quid pro quo between commentary and contracts. But some analysts said they had used the special access as a marketing and networking opportunity or as a window into future business possibilities.
Whyinhell would they b so audacious as to fight back against negative coverage?!? Why not just go ahead and lose in the media? Hey - it worked for Viet Nam! [depending on your definition of “worked,” I suppose]
Have these folks ever even heard about the enormous control over information and the media exercised by the gubbmint during WWII? That would give ‘em the heebie-jeebies.
Some of these analysts were on the mission to Cuba on June 24, 2005 — the first of six such Guantánamo trips — which was designed to mobilize analysts against the growing perception of Guantánamo as an international symbol of inhumane treatment. On the flight to Cuba, for much of the day at Guantánamo and on the flight home that night, Pentagon officials briefed the 10 or so analysts on their key messages — how much had been spent improving the facility, the abuse endured by guards, the extensive rights afforded detainees.
“Key messages” could also be read as “relevant facts.” But not so much by folks inclined to use language in this manner:
The analysts, they noticed, often got more airtime than network reporters, and they were not merely explaining the capabilities of Apache helicopters. They were framing how viewers ought to interpret events. What is more, while the analysts were in the news media, they were not of the news media. They were military men, many of them ideologically in sync with the administration’s neoconservative brain trust, many of them important players in a military industry anticipating large budget increases to pay for an Iraq war.
"the administration’s neoconservative brain trust" ?!? I wonder how many times they’ve ever used the phrase "Obamna’s neoliberal brain trust?” Just, yanno, for laffs…
a strategic decision was made in 2002 to make the analysts the main focus of the public relations push to construct a case for war. Journalists were secondary. “We didn’t want to rely on them to be our primary vehicle to get information out,”
Maybe because it wouldn’t happen?
The decision recalled other administration tactics that subverted traditional journalism.
“Subverted?” Being that “traditional journalism” had completely abandoned straight factual reporting and was therefore already “subverted,” I hardly think that’s an apt phrase…
Federal agencies, for example, have paid columnists to write favorably about the administration. They have distributed to local TV stations hundreds of fake news segments with fawning accounts of administration accomplishments. The Pentagon itself has made covert payments to Iraqi newspapers to publish coalition propaganda.
Proof? *pfaff* The NYT said it. They believe it. That’s it.
Rather than complain about the “media filter,” each of these techniques simply converted the filter into an amplifier. This time, Mr. Krueger said, the military analysts would in effect be “writing the op-ed” for the war.
Sounds lie a necessary defensive strategy to me, a bitter hawkish clinging raaaacist...
Snippets of their evidence: [The article is a worthwhile read]
There were also ideological ties. ...
This was a major theme, for example, with Paul E. Vallely, a Fox News analyst from 2001 to 2007. A retired Army general who had specialized in psychological warfare, Mr. Vallely co-authored a paper in 1980 that accused American news organizations of failing to defend the nation from “enemy” propaganda during Vietnam.
“We lost the war — not because we were outfought, but because we were out Psyoped,” he wrote. He urged a radically new approach to psychological operations in future wars — taking aim at not just foreign adversaries but domestic audiences, too. He called his approach “MindWar” — using network TV and radio to “strengthen our national will to victory.”
I find nothing to argue with there. Though, I think the ideological descendants of Walter Cronkite might…
As it happened, the analysts’ news media appearances were being closely monitored. The Pentagon paid a private contractor, Omnitec Solutions, hundreds of thousands of dollars to scour databases for any trace of the analysts, be it a segment on “The O’Reilly Factor” or an interview with The Daily Inter Lake in Montana, circulation 20,000.
Omnitec evaluated their appearances using the same tools as corporate branding experts. One report, assessing the impact of several trips to Iraq in 2005, offered example after example of analysts echoing Pentagon themes on all the networks.
So, if it were just a case of “message carrying” for reasons of ideological congruency and in return for access and financial reward, why would Omnitec evaluation have been necessary?
It strikes me as, shall we say, rather disingenuous to characterize efforts of the Administration to get its message out as some dark conspiracy when it was like pushing a rope-handled shovel to get the media to simply report the facts as they stood. If the media had been doing its job, milblogs and places like the Long War Journal, Michael Yon Online and others wouldn’t have sprung up—they wouldn’t have been necessary.
And now we’re faced with the criminalization of any voice from the “other side.” I wonder if the American people have any freakin’ clue… And what they’d do if they did.
MinTx for the article
raz0r for the tip
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
ToDaZeD Exercise in Compare & Contrast
shoc*yawn*king...
University of Kentucky authorities were investigating Wednesday who hanged an effigy of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama from a tree on campus.effigy
...some neighbors said the effigy is in bad taste.
Police immediately took it down.
We see people stopping and taking pictures, and the tour buses are stopping and slowing down
I am outraged because we work very hard, every day, to build bridges across the divides… Diversity and inclusion are among our most precious core values. Episodes like this serve only to erode our confidence in and respect for one another.
It is Halloween. It’s time to be scary. It’s time to be spooky,
Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan declined to comment specifically on the situation, but said an effigy can suggest a threatening tone or be an attempt to intimidate. He said the agency is “very proactive about addressing these matters."
Deputy Special Agent in Charge Wayne Williams says so far it seems to be a harmless—though unusual display. *
"This was not political speech. It was simply hate,"
"It should be seen as art...” “It was kind of cruel, but it made me laugh, too. What can I say?"
*clicky* for bigger
The Obama Effigy, and arteestes were unavailable for photo-ops.
Couplafew Good Reads
I’m pooped
...This raises the question of whether Mr. Obama can in good faith take the presidential oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” as he must do if he is to take office. Does Mr. Obama support the Constitution as it is written, or does he support amendments to guarantee welfare? Is his provision of a “tax cut” to millions of Americans who currently pay no taxes merely a foreshadowing of constitutional rights to welfare, health care, Social Security, vacation time and the redistribution of wealth? Perhaps the candidate ought to be asked to answer these questions before the election rather than after.
The inimitable Zombie digs up some more; an apt pass time for a zombie, come to think ...
...the life of Barack Obama and the terror campaign of the Weather Underground nearly intersected on the evening of September 26, 1981 at an anti-Apartheid protest which turned violent at John F. Kennedy Airport...
Nevermind, Joe; O-bamna has his own plumbers…
...a secret group in the Obama-Biden campaign tasked with shutting off any leaks from the record that links Barack Obama to his longtime adviser and mentor Bill Ayers..
oopsfergot: I love a good Compare and Contrast
The Obama and McCain Tax Plans: How Do They Compare?
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Gauntlet Thrown
a hush falls over the crowd
If that’s what it takes to get the Los Angeles Fucking Times to produce genuine news, so be it.
Feeling a Little Down, Binky?
well knock it the hell off and cowboy up!
Srsly - there’s lots of weird oogie vibes around this week - and it ain’t Halloween. It’s planned - with malice aforethought:
Check out this little tidbit from comments at HillBuzz:
I work for a campaign ...We pay people and organize people to go to all the online sites and “play the part of a clinton or mccain supporter who just switched our support for obama”
We know, Honey—it’s called astroturfing Axelturfing. But lots of folks don’t know—and they’re the ones getting ‘a little down in the dumps’ and their ‘downs’ are spreading. It’s viral. Only this virus was made in a [PR] lab somewhere and released intentionally on an unsuspecting populace.
We do this to stifle your motivation and to destroy your confidence.
We did this the whole primary and it worked.
Sprinkle in mass vote confusion and it becomes bewildering. Most people lose patience and just give up on their support of a candidate and decide to just block out tv, news, websites, etc.
Very Alinsky-esque.
This surprisingly has had a huge suppressing movement and vote turnout issues.
Next, we infiltrate all the blogs and all the youtube videos and overwhelm the voting, the comments, etc. All to continue this appearance of overwhelming world support.
Thats the intention. To make you feel stressed and crazy and feel like the world is ending.
*runz in circles*
But… but… buttt… whaddabout the polls?!?!?!?one???
We have also had quite a hand in skewing many many polls, some we couldn’t control as much as we would have liked. But many we have spoiled over. Just enough to make real clear politics look scarey to a mccain supporter. Its worked, alough the goal was to appear 13-15 points ahead.
see, the results have been working. People tend to support a winner, go with the flow, become “sheeple”
Naah—that could never happen.... ....
Our donors, are the same people who finance the MSM. Their interests are tied, Barack then tends to come across as teflon. Nothing sticks. And trust, there were meetings with Fox news. The goal was to blunt them as much as possible. Watch Bill Oreilly he has become much more diplomatic and “fair and balanced” and soft. Its because he wants to retain the #1 spot on cable news and to do that he has to have access to the Obama campaign and we worked hard at stringing him a long and keeping him soft for an interview swap. It worked and now he is anticipating more access. So he is playing it still soft.
This is why nothing sticks.
O’Reilly?!? “soft?!?” bwaaa… wait…
We released a little blurb the other day that the Obama campaign was already working on reelection and now putting our efforts towards 2012. This was to make it seem like it was above us to continue caring about 2008. Trust me, its a lie. David is very smart, but its a sticky ugly not very truthful kind of intelligence.
Well slap my ass and call me later.
Sheeiit - it’s only an anony-mouse comment on a partisan blog; probly some “Concerned Christian” counter-turfing, anyway. Trying to build up a little Hope so that the radical Change will be that much more dispiriting.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
In fact - wash your brain out with this: *clicky*clicky*
Everything is Freeeeeeeeee
if you ain’t The One payin’ for it
How dumb is this:
OR *clicky*clicky*
Jug-ears McMarxism.
Trouble in Paradise
‘paradise’.. ‘utopia’ ...whatever
Elizabeth Edwards —currently a health care advisor to Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign—isn’t 100% behind the Democratic nominee’s health care plan.
Edwards complained that Obama… views healthcare as a commodity, rather than a human right. ...
said McCain’s plan fails in all important areas by leaving the decision-making process up to individuals, who can frequently “make stupid economics decisions."
...unlike, for instance, gubbmints?
Speaking of “human rights,” wouldn’t food, water, shelter, clothing and a ‘living wage’ precede ‘health care’ in the list of ‘human rights?’ In most instances, folks can generally go years without ‘health care’ but only weeks without food and days without water.
Oh and what about InterToob access - hi speed, o’ course? I can’t go more ‘n a coupla days without that. And coffee - that’s 10 minutes tops. Eleven minutes late and I’m freakin’ out: I’m not really human without it. And yanno what else I don’t feel quite human without? Perfume. And if I can’t protect myself, I won’t be human for long, so I need my guns. And a place to train with ‘em - sloppy patterns ain’t really human, yanno. Hell a monkey can make sloppy patterns. And chocolate. Oh, and bacon—no real human can live without bacon. And steak. And tater salad. And maybe broccoli… with brown butter. And a fire place—ancient human thing; sitting with your dogs by a fire.
And I really can’t live without dogs. Or soft sofas on which to sit with those dogs. And whereinhell am I gonna get my InterToobs and put my couches and coffee maker and dogs and perfume and guns and patterns and bacon and chocolate and steak and broccoli and butter and fireplace—I’m gonna need bigger shelter, yannno.
All human rights.
Words Mean Something
just what they mean being the issue
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said Monday that he’s looking forward to one party controlling all aspects of government.
I just bet you are, YeeeeaarghBoy. Justice, too.
I do tell you that if the Democrats win, and have substantial majorities, Congress of the United States will be more bipartisan,” said Pelosi.
Somebuddy smack gift Miss Flintstone Necklace with a dictionary, please?
”...Dangerous is not really a word that should be a part of a national debate as we go into a presidential race..."
What, now?
an altercation led to five Republican campaign workers being sprayed with Mace at their headquarters... arrested Daniel Cason Meinecke, 29, and Cara Annis Hindman, 26…
“...We didn’t steal his signs. The people in the building were a 75- and 71-year-old man and their respective wives… they aren’t out there stealing signs."
Oh. I see…
Investigating the CA PROPS
for those interested
OOPS! Mislabeling of Props 3 & 4 fixed. I actually managed to skip Prop2, Standards for Confining Farm Animals. Check back for that.
ThanQ! for catching my goof, Water!
--------Original Post---------
[Those out of state might take note of Prop 5 - with your favorite cast of ...characters! coming your way soon!]
NB I’m kinda scattered with new puppy duties right now {more on that anon} so I’m waaay behind on this. Apparently it’s gonna come piece by bit so here’s what I’ve got so far. I’ll keep updating and cleaning up this post, so check back - daily. OK - done. Tell me what *you* think.
Thanks for bearing with me!
--------
PROP 5—NO
Remember Prop 36? - this is the second movement. It reads like “The Free-Range Meth-Addicts’ Bill”.
First thing to hit me: “Major funding by Bob Wilson and George Soros”. Also onboard, “Barbara Lee(D - CA), Maxine Waters(D - CA), Henry Waxman(D - CA)
Let’s explore these major backers a bit:
George Soros, $1,400,000;
Jacob Goldfield [Soros’ hedge fund chief investment officer], $1,400,000.
Bob Wilson, $2,100,000;
John Sperling [chairman of the Apollo Group, founder of the University of Phoenix part of the Soros, Peter B. Lewis [Progressive Ins.] Sperling political alliance to defeat GW Bush], $1,000,000;
The Rockit Fund [lobbying firm supporting voting rights for ex-felons, and “immigration reform” legislation], a New York City-based organization, $500,000.
The Drug Policy Alliance Network [Soros-funded spin-off of his Open Society Institute], $400,000
But, aside from that “guilt by association” shibboleth, the Prop. itself, is bunk. Big Buck Bunk.
--Requires California to expand and increase funding [that, right there, is enough—CA hasn’t got the $$$] and oversight for individualized treatment and rehabilitation programs for nonviolent drug offenders and parolees.
--Reduces criminal consequences ... Limits court’s authority to incarcerate offenders ... Shortens parole for most drug offenses ...
It would create havoc in the lives of addicts, particularly meth users, by putting off negative legal consequences and prolonging the addiction. It takes upwards of two years to adequately deal with an addiction: the shorter probation removes a significant motivator.
________________________________
PROP 6 —YES
-- any youth 14 years or older who is convicted of a gang-related felony would be tried as an adult
--increases penalties on violating gang injunctions, use/sale of meth, firearms by felons
-- recipients of public housing funding must have criminal background check
--Eliminate bail for illegal aliens charged with violent or gang-related felonies.
In 2007 violent crime, including the murder rate, had dropped to less than half its 1992 level. Property crime fell 44 percent in the same 15-year period. This would help it stay that way.
________________________________
PROP 8 — YES
“Whether ya like it or not!!!”
--Gavin Newsome
‘nuff sed.
ADDENDUM: It’s not that I wish to prevent gay people from forming lifelong relationships and commitments; I’m in favor of that. But the No on 8 side is already lying about what rights they “do not have” or “will be denied.” That makes me suspicious. Check the CA Domestic Partnership Law—As of 2007, California affords domestic partnerships all of the same rights and responsibilities as marriages under state law (Cal. Fam. Code §297.5). So what’s the dealio?
It’s the “mandatory compliance” part that gets to me.
_________________________________
PROP 1A—NO
Approve the issuance of $9.95 billion of general obligation bonds to partially fund a $40 billion, 800-mile high speed train from San Francisco to Anaheim, California [in about 2 hours and 40 minutes] to be completed in 2030 [est]
Taxpayers would pay $19.4 billion over 30 years to cover bond costs
This prop was amended by the legislature to give all high-speed rail corridors, including the route through Altamont Pass, an equal opportunity to compete for a share of the $9 billion.
California’s bonds are danged near junk now—who’s gonna buy this?!? Whoinhell needs a train to Disneyland?
_________________________________
PROP 2 3—NO
Children’s Hospital Bond Act
authorizes $980,000,000 in bonds, to be repaid from state’s General Fund, to fund the construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping of children’s hospitals ...annual payment $64 million a year ... total cost $2 billion over 30 years.
More state debt now? mmmmm… NO.
________________________________
PROP 3 4—YES
Abortion Waiting Period and Parental Notification Initiative
Would prohibit abortion for unemancipated minors until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent, legal guardian or, if parental abuse has been reported, an alternative adult family member.
________________________________
PROP 7—NO
All electric utilities (including municipally-owned utilities) will be required to provide half of their electricity from solar and clean energy facilities by 2025. Current law requires the state’s investor-owned utilities (Edison and PG&E, for example) to reach 20 percent renewable energy by 2010.
Prop. 7 is so poorly written that it could hurt the cause of renewable energy in the state.
________________________________
PROP 9—YES
Victims of crime rights; including restitution, notification and participation of victims in criminal justice proceedings, lengthening the parole hearing wait for lifers from five to 15 years.
Mostly, because it seems previous victims’ rights props haven’t done the job. Only partially because of who opposes it: California Teachers Association, California Federation of Teachers, California State Council of Service Employees PAC, The Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, Los Angeles Times ...
________________________________
PROP 10—NO
5 billion in bonds paid from state’s General Fund—costs of about $9.8 billion over 30 years
T. Boone Pickens and Oklahoma natural gas tycoon Aubrey McClendon have been spending millions on TV ads pushing their national so-called “Pickens Plan” for U.S. Energy Independence funding this. Would give a “rebate” for purchase of a Toyota Prius.
More debt? Nuh uh.
________________________________
PROP 11—YES
t would change the authority for establishing the district boundaries of the California State Assembly, California State Senate, and Board of Equalization from elected representatives to a 14-member commission.
Under current law the legislature draws its own districts which results in a 99 percent of incumbents being re-elected.
Accountability to voters?!? What a notion!
________________________________
PROP 12—YES
authorizes issuance of $900 million in bonds to create a fund that assist veterans who are purchasing farms, homes and mobile home properties ... California began the veterans’ home loan programs in 1922. There have never been any costs to the taxpayers under the previous authorizations.
For veterans? No cost? This is the kind of “economic stimulus” I can support.
Monday, October 27, 2008
SHOCK!!
Gene E. Yuss
The story? naah. That it ran in a real noozpaper? You betcha. That it hadda be written by a blogger? Dang-near expected…
Barack Obama has proved the greatest fund-raiser of all time by a long shot. ...$600 million—$150 million in September alone. ... The average contribution to Obama in September was just under $86…
But the campaign has also failed to adopt standard protections against fraudulent giving.
There is a standard part of all off-the-shelf online credit card acceptance software [and whaddya gonna do - write yer own?!?]. It’s called Address Verification System [AVS] and it automatically contacts the credit card servers to match the address given to the address on file with that card number. No matchee = no pay. Try using your own perfectly good credit card at Amazon or Hickory Farms or Bacon ‘R’ Us online and mistyping your address. No bacon 4 U!
But apparently the O-bamna campaign has gone through the trouble of hiring an expensive electron-herder to disable differently-able that AVS part of its online credit card acceptance software. So for every donation under $200, they keep the given name/addy/occupation required by law—but they purge the card numbers - the only way to tell where the money is actually coming from.
So, theoretically, mind you, one of those eeevil rich fellers sitting around on his bags of ca$h could hire a drunken meth-crazed over-achieving monkey to hit the keyboard, making up names and addresses and clicking that big red “Donate” button for a week straight.
Who’s donated so far?
John Galt, 1957 Ayn Rand Lane, Galts Gulch, CO 99999…
Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Bill Ayers, Della Ware, Joe Plumber, Idiot Savant, Ima BadDonation (with a Canadian bank card) and Fake Donor.
And that’s just from our side of the aisle…
FEC? Hello??
*crickets*
WASS
Logic 101
think it thru, people
After more than 1,000 visits to doctors...after 20 years of agony… As the pain spread around her body, Christine, 65, was told she had everything from tonsillitis to multiple sclerosis. ...the GP did some research and discovered she is suffering from a rare bacterial infection called actinomycosis. [anaerobic infection and the symptoms change appearance when they come into contact with oxygen]
Only one in 300,000 people suffer from the condition which is caused by gum disease, dental surgery or, as doctors think in Christine’s case, a small particle of food becoming lodged in the throat.
... bacteria builds up and moves through the body tissues causing abscesses, resulting in fever and muscle pain.
There is no 5 year old apple core in your intestines.
m’kay?
Clingin' 'n' Hoardin'
bitter stuff
Is the U.S. graduated income tax — a tax that ties both the amount of taxes paid and the rate of taxation to wealth — “socialistic,” as certain politicians have been arguing lately?
...maybe it’s because it’s a tax on income, which some think wealthy Americans — being more skilled at earning — have a higher moral right to hoard?
Since when does the hoarding of wealth by individuals, rather than jobs creation, do more to “grow the economy?”
...When you’re very rich, you can’t spend all your money, so it’s socked away, out of circulation. The rest of us just getting by, spend proportionately more of our money on necessities, small extravagances and entertainment. Putting money into the economy is what creates jobs and makes the economy grow.
Let’s not confuse “sharing the burden” with “sharing the wealth."
Is this twit kidding?! Does she actually think the eeeevil rich actually sit around on great bags of cash, like in the cartoons? What kind of life has she had that has not disabused her of this puerile notion?
Investments in stocks = “hoarding”. Investing in new equipment = “hoarding”. R&D = “hoarding”. Purchasing “frivolities” = “hoarding”.
C’mon - let’s “break free” of that antiquated Constitution and get those courts to re-distribute that “hoarded” wealth.
“Liberals hate real Americans that work and accomplish and achieve and believe in God."
—Robin Hayes
Statistics
This page has been viewed 15376594 times
Total Entries: 5718
Total Comments: 4193
Total Trackbacks: 714
Most Recent Entry: 06/14/2011 06:44 am
Most Recent Comment on: 11/27/2011 05:18 pm
{/if}
