Saturday, November 7, 2009
Boise State athletic director Gene Bleymaier complains about how schools who gripe about Boise's unbelievably weak schedule are not signing up in groves to challenge them.
What Gene doesn't take into account is that those schools already have full schedules for the 2011 season. Florida, Texas, Southern Cal, and others all have full schedules even through 2012. In the SEC, Alabama and LSU would be able to challenge Boise, but only have a few days available. Other conferences are the same way.
The fact is that most schools are already booked up for the next 2, 3, sometimes 4 and 5 years. But that fact is ignored, and Boise gets to continue to play the victim of an unfair BCS system, and continue to defeat everyone else in the walk-over WAC conference (WAC teams are 17-18 out of conference, SEC teams are 33-6, Big 12 are 35-13, and PAC 10 are 20-9) without facing anyone of any difficulty outside of their conference.
Shut-up Boise, I hope you continue to win, Florida and Bama play undefeated in the SEC title, and the others above Boise fall out. I want to see Boise get crushed, and if this scenario plays out, I urge whichever team plays Boise to never let up.
Play first string all game, and settle for nothing less than 70 points.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Shep gets a little smirk when he says the line and makes me think that it was a jab at fairness doctrine advocates.
In the clip, Shep asks when the Democrat candidate will be interviewed, to which she responds that he had ignored multiple requests. Even a longer clip done by Townhall.com has a pretty significant cut in it. I would like to see if the Fairness Doctrine was mentioned in the interview.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Now, granted I'm not one who believes that humans are the primary cause of "Climate change" (I strongly believe the sun is the main instigator in that), but the process of turning used oil into biofuel is just cool!
Another person highlighted is member, and girlfriend to another Theta Tau member, Azurae Johnson. Azurae is a chemical engineering major who is researching nanocomposites at TTU.
How awesome is that? GO TECH!
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
But, the government offered free money to entice people to buy a new car. What could go wrong?
A lot actually.
By artificially increasing the demand now, this dramatically decreased future demand. Another unfortunate consequence is based on government inefficiencies. There was such a large influx of requests for the government money, that they could not keep up. This forced dealers to sell cars at a loss, but promised them money after. This would not be a problem if the demand was sustained. Because the demand has dropped off, the dealers still have that loss, but now are not selling enough cars at full price to stay afloat.
On top of that the timing for C4C was picked poorly. Legislators were so concerned with getting a higher approval rating that they did not take the timing of the plan into account either. The program was implemented in July, and was stopped in late August. The new model year begins typically in September. Unfortunately the increase in demand was right before the new model year began when prices and profits would be higher.
Cash for Clunkers turned out to be a short term popularity boost for politicians, but it came with a long term cost for Auto manufactures and dealers.
“So far, we thought the basic problem was the Chinese and the Indians. But now I think the problem appears to lie most clearly with the US,” a European Commission official said.Forget the fact that the United States has only increased their emissions by 0.7% while China has increased (and will continue to increase their emissions) by 2.6% and are not required by the Kyoto Treaty to reduce their emissions AT ALL...
The United States is THE cause for Global Warming!
China is projected to increase their emissions annually and by 2030 are projected to account for 34% of global carbon emissions. Right now they are at 21.5%. Based on the projection that the global CO2 emissions in 2030 will be 40.1 Billion Tons/yr, that is an increase from 6.1 Billion tons per year to 11.6 Billion Tons per year in China ALONE. That is a 90% increase over 25 years. The United States is projected to increase annually at 0.5% per year. In total that gives the United States a total increase in carbon emissions of 13.3% over the next 25 years, or 6.5 Billion Tons in 2030.
Sounds like the E.U. needs to point those guns someplace else.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Monday, August 31, 2009
Saturday, August 29, 2009
It was just mentioned to me by our esteemed speaker, “Did anyone say anything about the Cuban health system?”
And lemme tell ya, before you say “Oh, it’s a commu–”, you need to go down there and see what Fidel Castro put in place. And I want you to know, now, you can think whatever you want to about Fidel Castro, but he was one of the brightest leaders I have ever met. [APPLAUSE]
And you know, the Cuban revolution that kicked out the wealthy, Che Guevara did that, and then, after they took over, they went out among the population to find someone who could lead this new nation, and they found…well, just leave it there (laughs), an attorney by the name of Fidel Castro…
And by the way, the Cuban system is actually appalling.
What lies beneath the surface of this incident is to be determined. Why is Iran building up these arms, or are they simply acting as a middle man for some one else?
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Two firms that received $343.3 million to handle advertising for Barack Obama’s
White House run last year have profited from his top priority as president by
taking on his push for health-care overhaul.
One is AKPD Message and Media,
the Chicago-based firm headed by David Axelrod until he left last Dec. 31 to
serve as a senior adviser to the president. Axelrod was Obama’s top campaign
strategist and is now helping sell the health-care plan. The other firm is
Washington-based GMMB Campaign Group, where partner Jim Margolis was also an
This year, AKPD and GMMB received $12 million in
advertising business from Healthy Economy Now, a coalition that includes the
Washington-based Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America, known
as PhRMA, that is seeking to build support for a health-care overhaul, said the
coalition’s spokesman, Jeremy Van Ess. …
Axelrod was president and sole
shareholder of AKPD from 1985 until he sold his interest after Obama’s victory,
government records show. The firm owes Axelrod $2 million, which it’s due to pay
in installments beginning Dec. 31. Axelrod’s son, Michael, still works there. He
didn’t return a phone call. The firm’s Web site continues to feature David
Axelrod’s work on the Obama campaign.
Big whoop right? David left the company after being brought onto Team Obama. One word, Halliburton.
Dick Cheney not only left Halliburton before entering the White House, but the contracts signed were also competing bids with other companies, and the funds gained were placed in a separate escrow.
The contracts with AKPD Message and Media were neither placed in a separate escrow, nor were they even competed against.
Shame on the US and UK for leaving Iraq in such a mess. Bush and Blair should have been hanged not Saddam Hussain. Saddam was ruthless, but atleast kept Iraq together and gave his people a better quality of life. The invasion of Iraq gave a god sent opportunity for Al Qaeda to spread its tentacles. Saddam unlike the US propaganda against him was anti-Al Qaeda (the blind right wingers in this forum from the US will disagree). This mess will take a long time to clear and the Iraqis will pay with thier blood for the folly of the Western powers.
Yes, because we left Iraq in such a bad place...Would you have rather the US and British troops had left in early 2007 when Democrats started pressuring President Bush to pull out?
"WE WARNED YOU ABOUT THIS HAPPENING! WHY WON'T YOU LISTEN TO US?"
The article from Mercury News makes it seem as though Democrats have actually tried to listen to what Republicans have said, and that the public opinion is in favor of the Health Care Bill.
The truth is just the opposite. With 53% of the country flat out opposing the bill, and 54% of the country saying that doing nothing is better than passing ObamaCare, there goes public opinion. As for the Republicans, they are not being listened to either. Democrats locked conservatives out of the debate on the stimulus bill, have made plans to eliminate the fairness rules in the "Contract with America," and have blamed Republicans for not passing ObamaCare, despite having majorities in both houses and the White House.
The Democrats have no interest in hearing any form of opposing views, whether from the Republicans or from the people who actually put them in power. They have gotten tunnel vision and are sprinting towards the light. Unfortunately that light is not the end of the tunnel...
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
"Mr. President, while campaigning for the Public Plan there have been 3 key talking points that you have made. 1) That the plan will NOT add to the deficit. 2) That the plan will NOT be subsidized by the taxpayers. And last, 3) That there will NOT be health care rationing. With previous government ventures into health care such as MediCare and TennCare costing FAR more than their projected cost, how exactly do you plan on keeping all 3 of those promises?
How will you not add to the deficit and not subsidize the program, without rationing health care?
How will you not ration health care and not add to the deficit without using tax payer dollars to make up for a loss?
And how will you not ration health care and not use tax payer dollars to subsidize a shortfall without adding to the budget deficit?"
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Friday, August 14, 2009
So, if you know the tool-bag pictured on the left, please, feel free to kick his arse...If for nothing else other than the fact he is a Cubs fan.
After all Cubbies, it's not Victorino's fault your team is again flirting with .500, they just suck.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
"Global warming creates volatility. I feel it when I'm flying. The storms are more volatile. We are paying the price in more hurricanes and tornadoes." - Senator Debbie Stabenow
Has anyone else woken up to the fact that it is Mid-August, and there has not been a single named storm in the Atlantic this year? Now granted 2005 was a bad year, but please Debbie, name me one storm since 2005 that has made landfall on the United States as a Catagory 3 hurricane...
Oh, there weren't any. 2006 did not have any hurricanes hit the states. 2007 had Humberto as the only Hurricane to hit, and it was a Category 1. 2008 had multiple hurricanes (Bertha, Gustav, Ike, Omar, and Paloma) but Bertha, Omar and Paloma didn't hit the states, and Gustav and Ike were both Category 2's when they landed in Texas.
Ironically, the 2006, 2007, and 2008 Hurricane seasons did about as much damage as the 2006, 2007, and 2008 Miami Hurricanes.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Leave it to our fearless leader to provide us with this lovely piece of Prime Red Meat.
A little more and Allah will be sold.
Monday, August 10, 2009
CONSTITUENT: My question to you, Congresswoman Tsongas, is that if this is such a great plan, why did you opt out of it when you took the vote? [loud applause, standing ovation]
TSONGAS: People often say why don’t the American people have what those of us in Congress have. [Audience erupts] Let me explain what I have. Let me explain what I have. What I have is a tremendous array — you know, last year when I went to a discussion — what I have is a tremendous array of choices. And I made a choice based on what I was willing to pay for and what made sense in terms of coverage for me and my family. [Audience shouts out: "We want choice! We want choice!] This is essentially what we are creating for the American people. We are creating greater choice.
[Smattering of applause overwhelmed by boos.]
Ed Morrissey sums it up at the end very well saying;
"This axiom applies: Beware the cook who won’t eat his own food. Perhaps the best way to make that clear to Tsongas is to get her out of Congress and make sure she loses that Congressional coverage as fast as possible."
(D)o as I say, not as I do.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
The caller talks to Sean about how this will give better coverage to Americans, and also include 47 Million Americans (While leaving 37 Million others uninsured). Sean counters asking the man to name one government run program that has been run well. Then Sean stops and says, "Well, I can think of one. The Military. The government does an excellent job taking care of the men and women in the military." The caller then responds with "Well, what about the V.A.? It's terrible"
Think about that statement for a little bit.
Done thinking? No? OK, take a minute more.
So Government Health care = Good. But Veteran's Health Care provided by the government is bad?
The next comes from this video, with a little back story from Democrat Talking Points. The past couple weeks, not only have the (D)'s gone to attacking protesters, but also claiming that Health Insurance Executives should be seen as villains. When Jared Polis was asked questions about ObamaCare, the cameras rolled, and caught the tail end of this conversation at 1:42...
Woman 1 (Pro-ObamaCare): "...Turn their company around by denying thousands of people."
Woman 2(Anti-ObamaCare): "And that's how they make their money? Is by denying coverage?"
Pro-ObamaCare protesters all agree.
This one may take a little longer so I'll give you 2 minutes.
Got it? If not here's a hint. How can Health Insurance companies be making money from people who are not paying premiums?
The way that insurance companies make money is that they take the premiums you pay and invest them under the idea that the amount they can make on the interest from your premiums will be more than the cost of your coverage. If your premiums to the health care industry over the course of 10, 15, 20 years isn't more than the cost of the coverage, is it really worth you paying the premiums to begin with? Why not find a way to finance the costs of the services?
Logic. ObamaCare has not.
"I guess I'm supposed to feel good that I was right about all of these things; but really... I just hate to say I told ya so. I would have rather been dead wrong."
With all this foresight it's a shame we're just the "party of idiots."
"Let’s face it: This is no party of Einsteins. Really, it isn’t. A Pew poll last month found that only 6 percent of scientists said that they were Republicans."
You know what, for people to make blanket statements like this really irritates me. I'd like to remind Mr. Blow about my degree in Mechanical Engineering. A little bit of humility might come if he tried to solve some Differential Equations, Heat Transfer, Circuit Analysis, or Integral Calculus.
Didn't teach you that for your Mass Communications degree did they?
If you're going to talk the talk, make sure you can walk first.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Nothing says "What have we gotten into" better than Tim Bishop's reaction to getting a verbal bitch slap from a Veteran who puts him in his place after saying that the V.A. is Efficient and Effective without ever actually going to a V.A. Hospital.
Watch it. It's amazing
Fact No. 1: Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers. Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the U.K. and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.
Fact No. 2: Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians. Breast cancer mortality is 9 percent higher, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher and colon cancer mortality among men is about 10 percent higher than in the United States.
Fact No. 3: Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries. Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit are taking statins, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons and 17 percent of Italians receive them.
Fact No. 4: Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians. Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate and colon cancer:
* Nine of 10 middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to less than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).
* Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a pap smear, compared to less than 90 percent of Canadians.
* More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a PSA test, compared to less than 1 in 6 Canadians (16 percent).
* Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with less than 1 in 20 Canadians (5 percent).
Fact No. 5: Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report "excellent" health compared to Canadian seniors (11.7 percent versus 5.8 percent). Conversely, white Canadian young adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower income Americans to describe their health as "fair or poor."
Fact No. 6: Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long - sometimes more than a year - to see a specialist, to have elective surgery like hip replacements or to get radiation treatment for cancer. All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada. In England, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.
Fact No. 7: People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their health system needs either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding."
Fact No. 8: Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. When asked about their own health care instead of the "health care system," more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared to only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).
Fact No. 9: Americans have much better access to important new technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the U.K. Maligned as a waste by economists and policymakers naïve to actual medical practice, an overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identified computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade. The United States has 34 CT scanners per million Americans, compared to 12 in Canada and eight in Britain. The United States has nearly 27 MRI machines per million compared to about 6 per million in Canada and Britain.
Fact No. 10: Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations. The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other single developed country. Since the mid-1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to American residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined. In only five of the past 34 years did a scientist living in America not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.
And Democrats want to move towards this style of ineffective government controlled health care?
Breast Cancer is something that is a very hot topic for me. It has touched me in many aspects between my family, and those around me. Seeing that the United Kingdom has a mortality rate that is ALMOST DOUBLE the rate here in the U.S. Disgusts me. And for Prostate Cancer, it's 6 times higher than the United States in the UK, and 4.5 times higher in Norway.
Tell your Representative and Senator that a Yes vote on ObamaCare is a trip to the Unemployment line.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
The NY Post points out that top income earners in New York could be facing a 57% tax burden. They've got an interesting graphic of their own. But New York isn't the only state that will have this. According to the Heritage Foundation Oregon, Hawaii, New Jersey, and California would be included in the 57%+ tax rate (47% marginal fed tax plus state taxes).
And even with all this on the wealthiest Americans, it's not going to cover the ObamaCare bill. After they realize it still isn't enough what are they going to do? They have two options. They could try raising the taxes on the wealthy even more. But how much is too much? We've already seen one prominent Conservative pack up and leave due to the tax burden of New York.
If you've played one of the recent Sim City games, you know that the tax rates in your city can be used to determine the demographics of your city. Tax one group too much, and they leave for another city. Lower taxes and they flock to your city.
As for the other option, the NYT has an article that you have to read all the way to the last line in order to get to the real point of the story;
“There is no way we can pay for health care and the rest of the Obama agenda, plus get our long-term deficits under control, simply by raising taxes on the wealthy,” said Isabel V. Sawhill, a former Clinton administration budget official. “The middle class is going to have to contribute as well.”Which one are the Dems going to do? Tax the rich out of the country, or start telling the middle class "it's your turn?"
My guess, both. In that order.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Do I think he's the Anti-Christ?
Somebody needs to go smack who ever made that movie.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
A 10% tax on Plastic Surgery.
Democrat Max Baucus called the ideas to help pay for the huge costs of ObamaCare, "interesting," "creative," and "kind of fun" ideas.
Interestingly, 86% of Plastic Surgery patients are women, and many of them are in households making under $100k, saving for years to have treatments done.
Included on the list of taxed surgeries, Liposuction, Lip enhancement, Nose jobs, Teeth Whitening, Botox, Hair implants, and I'm almost certain of the new big thing, Laser hair removal.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
A close reading of the two main bills, one backed by Democrats in the House and the other issued by Sen. Edward Kennedy's Health committee, contradict the President's assurances. To be sure, it isn't easy to comb through their 2,000 pages of tortured legal language. But page by page, the bills reveal a web of restrictions, fines, and mandates that would radically change your health-care coverage.ObamaCare is the epitome of a government run program. Make everything as equal as possible in as many aspects as possible. Charge the same for everyone, use the same treatment for every case of Disease X, use the same physician for everyone, etc... And as they state it is a revolution in the wrong direction
If you prize choosing your own cardiologist or urologist under your company's Preferred Provider Organization plan (PPO), if your employer rewards your non-smoking, healthy lifestyle with reduced premiums, if you love the bargain Health Savings Account (HSA) that insures you just for the essentials, or if you simply take comfort in the freedom to spend your own money for a policy that covers the newest drugs and diagnostic tests -- you may be shocked to learn that you could lose all of those good things under the rules proposed in the two bills that herald a health-care revolution.
In short, the Obama platform would mandate extremely full, expensive, and highly subsidized coverage -- including a lot of benefits people would never pay for with their own money -- but deliver it through a highly restrictive, HMO-style plan that will determine what care and tests you can and can't have. It's a revolution, all right, but in the wrong direction.
On top of that, Obama and Democrats continue to make the claim that you'll be able to keep your private coverage for as long as you want. Currently there are some 160 Million Americans who currently get their insurance through the company they work for. Their employer (Unless self insured) get their insurance through a private insurance company. That private insurance company is in business to make a profit. There is a specific amount of money that the HAVE to charge in order to break even.
Insert "Public Plan" which will likely be subsidized by the government. This means that they can charge LESS than the break even point, by A LOT (25-40% lower), but because it is subsidized, what ever money it loses, gets made up through either higher taxes or more than likely the selling of U.S. Treasuries (Adding more to the national debt).
Even self insured companies are going to see that the people who work for them can pay less and get the same coverage with the Public Plan, and will stop insuring their employees, and switch them over to the Public Plan.
My question to Dems and Obama is, "How do you expect private companies to compete against a plan that is allowed to perform at a loss? Do you truly believe that the Public Plan will not eliminate Private Insurance without the same subsidies that the Public Plan is covered under, and will you not include those same subsidies to the Private Plans in order to level the playing field?"
If CNN even begins to jump ship on this plan, there is definitely something wrong with it. Now if MSNBC comes out and states "This thing is garbage," then I think I'll have to start betting on the Snowball.
So, it has reached the point where a huge majority of Americans either think "Well, he's not bad" or they think "This guy is horrible."
Just think about that for a minute. If 10% more people switch to the Strongly Disapprove side, then the majority of Americans will begin to have the same opinion of Obama as they did for Bush; "Anyone but this guy!" And in less than a year after taking office.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Small Business Owners
People with HSA's
People Enrolled in Medicare Advantage
If the government mandates that everyone must have health insurance, healthy young people will have to buy policies that don’t reflect the low risk they have of getting sick. The House and Senate bills do let insurers set premiums based on age, but only up to a 2-to-1 ratio, versus a real-world ratio of 5 to 1. This means lower prices for older (and wealthier) folks, but high prices for the young. “They’ll have sticker shock,” says Rep. Paul Ryan, ranking Republican on the Budget Committee.
Employers who don’t provide coverage will have to pay a tax up to 8% of their payroll. Yet those who do provide coverage also have to pay the tax—if the law says their coverage is not “adequate.” Amazingly, even if a small business provides adequate insurance but its employees choose coverage in another plan offered through the government, the employer still must pay.
Eight million Americans, according to the Treasury Department, are covered by plans with low-cost premiums and high deductibles that are designed for large, unexpected medical costs. Money is also set aside in a savings account to cover the deductibles, and whatever isn’t spent in one year can build up tax-free. Nearly a third of new HSA users, according to Treasury figures, previously had no insurance or bought coverage on their own.
Medicare Advantage Participants;
To summarize, M.A. provides a higher standard of medical coverage than the standard Medicare, something that will vanish once the government decides which treatment option is best for each condition. The selection of prescription drugs will be reduced, and other things. Obama even described it as a prime example of where to cut costs in an interview with the Washington Post.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Universal Health Care was tried in Tennessee, and it failed...Miserably.
A few Examples...
"The U.S. economy has lost 2.64 million jobs since you took office. The
unemployment rate is 9.5% and rising. The good scenario is one in which the
unemployment rate begins to decline early next year. The Vice President said
your Administration misread the economy. You said you had incomplete information
when proposing the stimulus. Yet you have said you would not change anything
about the stimulus if you could. If the facts have changed, why doesn’t it make
sense to change your policy?"
"You proposed spending money from the TARP
to prevent foreclosures, help small businesses, and to buy toxic assets from
banks. In June CBO said they had found no evidence that any money has been spent
for any of these programs. How many foreclosures have been prevented, how many
small businesses have received loans from, and how many toxic assets have been
"You have insisted that health care reform “bend the cost curve down.” CBO
Director Elmendorf says the bills being debated would instead raise the health
care cost curve and would increase long-term budget deficits. Will you continue
to insist that health care reform not increase the deficit?"
February 2008 debate with then-Senator Clinton you opposed an individual mandate
to buy health insurance. In that debate you said, “In some cases, there are
people who are paying fines and still can’t afford it, so now they’re worse off
than they were. They don’t have health insurance and they’re paying a fine. In
order for you to force people to get health insurance, you’ve got to have a very
harsh penalty.” Now you are supporting a bill that would force people to buy
health insurance, and that CBO says would still result in eight million people
not having health insurance and paying higher taxes. How do you explain to those
eight million uninsured people why you now support the mandate and “very harsh
penalty” they would have to face, and which you opposed during the campaign?"
"Your party controls the White House, has a 38+ seat margin in the
House, and has the 60 Senate seats needed to overcome any filibuster. How can
Republicans be holding up health care reform?"
Energy and Climate Change;
"The Indian government told Secretary Clinton that India will not agree to limit
its carbon emissions. The Chinese have sent the same signal. Are you willing to
sign a new climate agreement that does not contain binding commitments by China
or India to reduce or slow the growth of their emissions?"
"Does it make
sense for the U.S. to impose higher energy costs on American workers and
manufacturers if the two largest developing economies are unwilling to slow
their emissions growth? Won’t that just disadvantage American workers with
little reduction in future global temperatures?"
"Do you support the
expansion of nuclear power in the U.S.? If so, what are you doing to encourage
it? And where are you going to store the nuclear waste, given the strong
opposition of Senate Majority Leader Reid to storing it in Nevada’s Yucca
"The top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Finance
Committee have called for you to submit to Congress for their approval the
signed Free Trade Agreements with U.S. allies Colombia, Panama and South Korea.
Why have you not submitted them to Congress? When will you do so?"
In total there are 20 questions and they hit the nail right on the head.
My question would be this;
Who prepares your taxes, and why? If you're philosophy is that it is the duty of the wealthy to pay more in taxes, why would you not fill out the standard 1040EZ, and would you be willing to only take standard deductions while in a public office?
Will the White House Press Corps ask anything remotely this tough? Doubtful, but with the rose colored glasses beginning to come off, there could be some interesting ones.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Looking at the topics in terms of (%Trust in Dems - %Trust in GOP) with the rank in importance as their number
3) Health Care +4%
8) Education +3%
OK, so they have two. Let's dig deeper;
1) Economy -5%
2) Ethics/Corruption -1%
4) National Security -9%
5) Social Security -5%
6) Taxes -16%
7) Immigration -6%
9) Abortion -7%
10) War in Iraq -4%
Out of the top 10 issues for the country, America trusts the GOP more than Democrats on 8 of 10 issues.
Something else that should emphasize that the people elected politicians that don't give a rat's a$$ about them? These are in (Help - Hurt)%
Tax increases help or hurt economy? -31%
Tax cuts help or hurt economy? +31%
Increases in Gov't spending help or hurt economy? -23%
Decreases in Gov't spending help or hurt economy? +19%
So, America thinks that decreasing taxes and decreasing government spending are the best way to help the economy. Think about the results of these polls, and the plans of Democrats.
- Cap and Trade (Tax on Carbon emissions)
- Income Surtax
- Tobacco Tax Increase
- Eliminating Social Security Contribution limit (but keeping benefits same)
- Tax on Executive Bonuses
- Government run health care
- Government run banks/financial institutes
- Government run Auto Makers
The only thing I have to say is read the book Fleeced by Dick Morris. The book was published in June 2008 before the election, and the predictions are eerily similar.
To those who got caught up in the Hope n' Change bliss...Told you so.
Monday, July 20, 2009
America was glued to their televisions and any news cast they could find as live streams of the Apollo 11 space craft touched down on the surface of the Moon.
On the 40th anniversary of that day, I take a moment to step back and pay tribute to a man who worked on the Mercury and Gemini Space Programs, and I believe worked for a time on the Apollo Program.
This man has been an influence on me my entire life, and those influences will continue to guide and inspire me for the rest of my life.
That man is my Grandfather, Harold Lankford.
Love you Granddad, and thank you to all the people who have contributed to the exploration of space.
I just checked my speed using the handy-dandy Speak-Easy speed test. How did COMCAST perform?
Well, you decide. 77 KB/sec out of 12MB/sec....Is that good?
Reason Numero Uno why I am all for competing companies within a market-area. Currently, I am looking at switching to AT&T-U-verse.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Number of U.S. citizens that have died from H1N1 so far in the US...263. Total cases 40,617. So in 1 year H1N1 will kill MAYBE 1/40th the people of the regular flu.
Ok, the virus has spread world-wide, but it doesn't do anything. In my opinion, why bother? I think the media hyped the virus up so much that they can't just say "Never mind." I say the WHO is right to stop counting the number of cases, just not for the same reasons they are.
Let the virus take it's course, run through and people build an immunity to it, at which point the population gains an immunity to it and it just begins to go away.
Friday, July 17, 2009
From Shifty's page on Normandy1944.com;
D-Day, Normandy, France
The jump on D-Day in Normandy was all "Screwed up!" Bill Keen, SGT. Taylor, and I were the last 3 men on the stick on our plane. I could hear bullets "pinging" through the plane as I jumped. Also, as I went out the door, the left motor was hit by antiaircraft. I do not know if the plane made it back to England. On the ground, Taylor and I got together in the shadows of a hedgerow. We were trying to decide the best way to find the other E-Company soldiers. While talking, we saw a soldier walking across the field. (The night was fairly light since there was a full moon.) I pointed my rifle at him and waited. Taylor clicked his "cricket clicker." (We issued the clickers to use as a recognition signal.) When the moon heard the click, he dropped to the ground. This move made us think he was a German. I started to shoot, but then decided to ask the oral password. Fortunately, he gave the correct response. As it turned out, it was our buddy, Bill Keen. He had lost his cricket and I almost shot him. This was the first incident in which I almost shot Keen.
The second incident occurred in Holland. The LT. Platoon called me into the Command Post. He told me there was a twelve-man German combat patrol in the area. My orders were take men and find the Germans. It was a dark night. (I mean really dark!). I knew I would not be able to see my rifle sights, so I took 2 pistols instead. We were moving down a road, stopping often to listen. I was leading the group mainly because of my keen sense of hearing. I stopped the column because, I could hear someone coming toward us. The Lieutenant had told me there would be no GPs out there, only the German Patrol. He advised us to shoot anyone we saw. I could tell this was just "one man", not twelve Germans. Instead of shooting, I asked him the password (which he knew). It was Bill Keen. He had been in the hospital and was returning to our platoon. We continued our search until almost daybreak, but never did encounter the Germans.
Note: (Bill Keen was later killed by artillery fire in Hagenau.)
Another incident I will mention occurred in Bastogne. Easy Company was pulled off the line and put in reserve for a short rest. There was about 10-12 inches of snow on the ground. We were bivouacked in an area of Pine trees. We placed pine branches over our foxholes to keep out some of the snow. I climbed out of my foxhole at daybreak. I was standing among the trees all by myself. As I looked at the mounds in the snow, I thought how it looked just like a graveyard. Then the guys would pop up out these mounds. This was such a weird sight! It looked as if they were climbing out of their graves. One soldier asked me who was doing the shooting during the night. I told him that I had not heard any shooting.
Then I remembered the dream I had that night: I had dreamed that I was shooting at one of our own. I don't know why. When I remembered my dream, I thought, "Man, I better check this out!" I eased my pistol out and sure enough I had fired it twice during the night. Then I started watching the guys climbing out of their foxholes. I breathed a sigh of relief when saw they were all allright. I was glad that I hadn't shot anyone while sleepwalking during that snowy night in Bastogne. These are just a few memories of my experiences during World War.
Shifty passed away on June 17th.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
After a minute, she mentioned how even though Democrats "Think the Public Plan" is so great...they can still keep their private health insurance penalty free.
Under the current draft of the Democrat healthcare legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health insurance option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill. If Members of Congress believe so strongly that government-run health care is the best solution for hard working American families, I think it only fitting that Americans see them lead the way. Public servants should always be accountable and responsible for what they are advocating, and I challenge the American people to demand this from their representatives.
That got me not only thinking about Health Care, but also all the other crap that Democrats say YOU should do...but conveniently exempt themselves. I found 3 major ones. Health Care, Going Green, and Taxes.
I just mentioned the Health Care issue, and it seems like they also get a sudden case of the NIMBY's when an Eco-Friendly project comes near their property, but also when it comes to Environmental Responsibility.
Most people have heard about the outrageous electric bill that Al Gore racked up in a house that he doesn't even live in, and that he claimed that he offset the energy usage with carbon credits. But what was not reported was the fact that he is the CHAIRMAN of the company that he bought the credits from! Effectively, Al was able to have his cake with high energy usage while still claiming being green with Carbon Credits, and was able to eat it too by paying himself for the carbon credits.
As for taxes, you have to be pretty ignorant to think that those in congress simply fill out the standard 1040 EZ form. Of course not! They pay accountants THOUSANDS to do their taxes, and save them as much as possible from the heavy hand of Uncle Sam. And yet, those senators who, through appearances, books, etc. making MILLIONS per year, demand that those making over $250,000 have a DUTY to pay more to the government. Do you really think that a senator or congressman/woman would vote for a tax increase if they actually would have to pay more in taxes?
I closed the conversation with this one liner;
"Soon we'll be cashing our checks at Uncle Sam Bank, visiting the Social Doctor at St. Sam's Hospital, driving the latest model of the "Uncle Sam." A car whose hood ornament is pointing at you, and not using their index finger."
Sunday, July 12, 2009
None is more goofy looking than poor Skip Schumacher's. The baby faced 29 year old has a mustache that reminds me of Goose from Top Gun.
Either way, I don't care. The Cardinals are on top of the NL Central by 2 games and with a score of 4-2 going into the top of the 9th, appear that they will split the 4 game series with the Cubbies this weekend. That will put them 8-5 against the Cubs, and one game away from taking them for the season.
Bonus Material - Most EPIC "CUBS SUCK" Message EVER!!!!!!!!!
Thursday, July 9, 2009
HAHAHAHAHA!!! Obama becomes victim of the infamous Artist named..."Camera Angle"
From the looks of it I have to admit Obama looks to be an innocent victim of circumstances. The woman appears to have already passed him and he looks to be looking past her...but it still makes for an awesome headliner!
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Since the Reagan era, some conservatives have hoped to shrink government by "starving the beast." Refuse to raise taxes, they figured, and eventually spending would have to fall.
It's beginning to look as though the new team may have a similar strategy, in reverse: Increase spending, and eventually taxes will have to be raised.
...The bottom line is this: You cannot run a progressive government of the kind Obama favors by collecting only 18 percent of the gross domestic product in taxes, which has been the norm over the past 40 years. Nor can you increase the tax take to 24.5 percent of GDP -- which is what Obama proposes to be spending in 2019 -- simply by making the rich pay more.
But rather than level with the American people about this, or lay out a plan to raise the needed taxes, the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress are putting the spending pieces of progressive government in place and apparently counting on the tax piece to fall into place later.
Hot Air has more.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
After taking time to spend with his family, Phil is playing in the St. Jude Classic, and the U.S. Open.
His wife Amy will undergo surgery to remove the cancerous tissue over the 4th of July week, followed by a year of treatment.
God speed to Phil, Amy and their family.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Monday, June 8, 2009
Here are 15 things to know about the draft Kennedy-Dodd health bill.
1) The Kennedy-Dodd bill would create an individual mandate requiring you to buy a “qualified” health insurance plan, as defined by the government. If you don’t have “qualified” health insurance for a given month, you will pay a new Federal tax. Incredibly, the amount and structure of this new tax is left to the discretion of the Secretaries of Treasury and Health and Human Services (HHS), whose only guidance is “to establish the minimum practicable amount that can accomplish the goal of enhancing participation in qualifying coverage (as so defined).” The new Medical Advisory Council (see #3D) could exempt classes of people from this new tax. To avoid this tax, you would have to report your health insurance information for each month of the prior year to the Secretary of HHS, along with “any such other information as the Secretary may prescribe.”
2) The bill would also create an employer mandate. Employers would have to offer insurance to their employees. Employers would have to pay at least a certain percentage (TBD) of the premium, and at least a certain dollar amount (TBD). Any employer that did not would pay a new tax. Again, the amount and structure of the tax is left to the discretion of the Secretaries of Treasury and HHS. Small employers (TBD) would be exempt.
3) In the Kennedy-Dodd bill, the government would define a qualified plan:
A) All health insurance would be required to have guaranteed issue and renewal, modified community rating, no exclusions for pre-existing conditions, no lifetime or annual limits on benefits, and family policies would have to cover “children” up to age 26.
B) A qualified plan would have to meet one of three levels of standardized cost-sharing defined by the government, “gold, silver, and bronze.” Details TBD.
C) Plans would be required to cover a list of preventive services approved by the Federal government.
D) A qualified plan would have to cover “essential health benefits,” as defined by a new Medical Advisory Council (MAC), appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The MAC would determine what items and services are “essential benefits.” The MAC would have to include items and services in at least the following categories: ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and new born care, medical and surgical, mental health, prescription drugs, rehab and lab services, preventive/wellness services, pediatric services, and anything else the MAC thought appropriate.
E) The MAC would also define what “affordable and available coverage” is for different income levels, affecting who has to pay the tax if they don’t buy health insurance. The MAC’s rules would go into effect unless Congress passed a joint resolution (under a fast-track process) to turn them off.
4) Health insurance plans could not charge higher premiums for risky behaviors: “Such rate shall not vary by health status-related factors, … or any other factor not described in paragraph (1).” Smokers, drinkers, drug users, and those in terrible physical shape would all have their premiums subsidized by the healthy.
5) Guaranteed issue and renewal combined with modified community rating would dramatically increase premiums for the overwhelming majority of those Americans who now have private health insurance. New Jersey is the best example of health insurance mandates gone wild. In the name of protecting their citizens, premiums are extremely high to cover the cross-subsidization of those who are uninsurable.
6)The bill would expand Medicaid to cover everyone up to 150% of poverty, with the Federal government paying all incremental costs (no State share). This means adding childless adults with income below 150% of the poverty line.
7) People from 150% of poverty up to 500% (!!) would get their health insurance subsidized (on a sliding scale). If this were in effect in 2009, a family of four with income of $110,000 would get a small subsidy. The bill does not indicate the source of funds to finance these subsidies.
8) People in high cost areas (e.g., New York City, Boston, South Florida, Chicago, Los Angeles) would get much bigger subsidies than those in low cost areas (e.g., much of the rest of the country, especially in rural areas). The subsidies are calculated as a percentage of the “reference premium,” which is determined based on the cost of plans sold in that particular geographic area
9) There would be a “public plan option” of health insurance offered by the federal government. In this new government health plan, the federal government would pay health care providers Medicare rates + 10%. The +10% is clearly intended to attract short-term legislative support from medical providers. I hope they are not so naive that they think that differential would last.
10) Group health plans with 250 or fewer members would be prohibited from self-insuring. ERISA would only be for big businesses.
11) States would have to set up “gateways” (health insurance exchanges) to market only qualified health insurance plans. If they don’t, the Feds will set up a gateway for them.
12) Health insurance plans in existence before the law would not have to meet the new insurance standards. This creates a weird bifurcated system and means you would (probably) be subject to a different set of rules when you change jobs.
13) The bill does not specify what spending will be cut or what taxes will be raised to pay for the increased spending. That is presumably for the Finance Committee to determine, since it’s their jurisdiction.
14) The bill defines an “eligible individual” as “a citizen or national of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence or an alien lawfully present in the United States.”
15) The bill would create a new pot of money for state gateways to pay “navigators” to educate people about the new bill, distribute information about health plans, and help people enroll. Navigators receiving federal funds “may include … unions, …”
So As Keith Sums it up;
* The government would mandate not only that you must buy health insurance, but what health insurance counts as “qualifying.”
Health insurance premiums would rise as a result of the law, meaning lower wages.
* The government determines what items and services must be covered.
* Healthy people would pay the same premiums as high risk people such as smokers/drinkers.
* Well over half of all Americans would be eligible for subsidies, and likely less than 5% will foot the bill.
* The government has unlimited ability to levy taxes if you do not buy "qualifying" insurance"
The government can require you provide him or her with “any such other information as [he/she] may prescribe.”
I too strongly oppose this bill.
Image Courtesy of Malkin
Sunday, June 7, 2009
"NEW YORK (AP) - The Federal Reserve announced a $1.2 trillion plan three months ago designed to push down mortgage rates and breathe life into the housing market.
But this and other big government spending programs are turning out to have the opposite effect. Rates for mortgages and U.S. Treasury debt are now marching higher as nervous bond investors fret about a resurgence of inflation."
Really? The government creates a false influx of cash equal to 15% of the United States total GDP and expects interest rates to go down?
Here's a question of Economics 101...If you have a sudden demand of loans without an increase in savings, what are the banks going to do? They are going to raise interest rates of both the loans and savings. They increase the loan rate to decrease the demand of lending, and then increase the savings interest rate to attract savers since most banks are required to have $1 in the vault for every $10 they loan out. The opposite occurs when people save more than they borrow, interest rates go down on both loans and savings accounts to attract loans and discourage saving.
So the government pumps in trillions of dollars that were intended to create more credit/borrowing, and they are surprised that the interest rates suddenly increase?
You know, something seems oddly familiar about this...Inflation is caused by "an increasing amount of money chasing a fixed amount of goods,”
*Begin slow clap...*
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Many people point to the fact that 3 of her 5 decisions that were heard by the Supreme Court (Out of 380 total rulings) were overturned by the Supreme Court. At first glance that seems like a valid point to go after. I actually disagree.
The Supreme court hears approximately 80 cases per year. With that known, how many cases would they hear that the Supreme Court would simply agree with the judge. Probably not very many. I would think that the reason the Supreme Court would take on a case is when they feel it should be overturned, or that there is reason to believe that it could be overturned. Therefore a high overturn rate would be normal. Unless some one informs me otherwise, that will be my opinion on that.
HOWEVER, I do think that she is not a good candidate for SCoTUS for two simple reasons. 1) Her controversial statements that she has said on record, and 2) The fact that she has been chastised multiple times.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
This win qualifies them for an automatic bid into the NCAA Tournament next week.
Friday, May 15, 2009
“We can’t keep on just borrowing from China,” Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque. “We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt.”
Really? Barrack Obama says that we are spending uncontrollably? NOOOOO! NEVER! Hey,why don't you try practicing what you preach, chump.
Barack Obama - Do as he says, not as he does.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
There were 4 people who at one time or another were in the hauler. There was myself and Bill of course, then also, my dad was sitting in since he was at the races with me, and at one point Bill's wife came in for a minute. And no, the loud blurps are not farts. This was done in Bill's Hauler in the pits before the first round of qualifying on Saturday, and the funny cars were preparing to run, and were testing the engines. So, for everyone...enjoy!
Thursday, April 23, 2009
President Obama showed his hand this week when The New York Times wrote that he is considering converting the stock the government owns in our country’s banks from preferred stock, which it now holds, to common stock.
This seemingly insignificant change is momentous. It means that the federal government will control all of the major banks and financial institutions in the nation. It means socialism.
The Times dutifully dressed up the Obama plan as a way to avoid asking Congress for more money for failing banks. But the implications of the proposal are obvious to anyone who cares to look.
When the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) intervention was first outlined by the Bush administration, it did not call for any transfer of stock, of any sort, to the government. The Democrats demanded, as a price for their support, that the taxpayers “get something back” for the money they were lending to the banks. House Republicans, wise to what was going on, rejected the administration’s proposal and sought, instead, to provide insurance to banks, rather than outright cash. Their plan would, of course, not involve any transfer of stock. But Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) undercut his own party’s conservatives and went along with the Democratic plan, ensuring its passage.
But to avoid the issue of a potential for government control of the banks, everybody agreed that the stock the feds would take back in return for their money would be preferred stock, not common stock. “Preferred” means that these stockholders get the first crack at dividends, but only common stockholders can actually vote on company management or policy. Now, by changing this fundamental element of the TARP plan, Obama will give Washington a voting majority among the common stockholders of these banks and other financial institutions. The almost 500 companies receiving TARP money will be, in effect, run by Washington.
And whoever controls the banks controls the credit and, therefore, the economy. That’s called socialism.
Obama is dressing up the idea of the switch to common stock by noting that the conversion would provide the banks with capital they could use without a further taxpayer appropriation. While this is true, it flies in the face of the fact that an increasing number of big banks and brokerage houses are clamoring to give back the TARP money. Goldman-Sachs, for example, wants to buy back its freedom, as do many banks. Even AIG is selling off assets to dig its way out from under federal control. The reason, of course, is that company executives do not like the restrictions on executive pay and compensation that come with TARP money. It is for this reason that Chrysler Motors refused TARP funds.
With bank profits up and financial institutions trying to give back their money, there is no need for the conversion of the government stock from preferred to common — except to advance the political socialist agenda of this administration.
Monday, April 20, 2009
OH MY GOD THAT'S SO AMAZING!
And now, he only has the other 99.99% of the $1,300,000,000,000 deficit to get rid of!
Seriously? This administration is going to make a big hooplah about reducing 0.01% of the budget shortfall for this year?
To put it in perspective, If Barack was buying a $1,000 HDTV, he would have bargained the salesman down a DIME.
Now that we know how AWESOME of a negotiator the president is, let's see how well he convinces Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to cut out the Anti-Semitic rhetoric at meetings meant to eliminate racism.
*Insert obvious sarcastic applause*