Thought this would be an interesting question.... would appreciate real discussion - not goofball rabble
Posted by: Yosemite Sam ||
10/23/2008 17:24 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I suspect the more lunatic fringes of the left will resort to loud protests and some localized looting, rioting, car burning. The real hand wringing will be the MSM for having been 'betrayed' and 'misled' by the polls.
look also for mass investigations (or calls for same) into voter fraud.
i do believe there if s going to be a continuing increase in violence against persons and property in the remaining days running up to the election; witness the Florida ATM customer attack, the shot up house and the numerous sign/ other low level vandalizations taking place.
i think we are going to actually see a road rage incident due to a bumper sticker from 'the other side' being blamed for it. while i believe it is more likely to be instigated by a Obama supporter, that is not necessarily a given. there are an awful lot of McPaulin huggers out there that have no room for the left.
#2
I expect that BDS will be replaced by MDS and PDS
(McCain and Palin derangement syndromes). Democrats and "progressives" will immediately upgrade George W. Bush to distinguished elder statesman.
Don't forget, the Dems hated Nixon and Newt Gingrich too, until they left office. The Derangement Syndrome is simply a method to destroy and attack a political opponent. It has nothing to do with anything that person did.
Once that person is out of office, they will drop the hatred just like they dropped the worship of Cindy Sheehan once she stopped being usefull to them.
Also, the MSM will continue to talk about the "New Depression" and how nothing seems to be going right. They will also whine about homelessness until the moment a Democratic president is in office. Then all economic problems will disappear (from the news).
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
10/23/2008 18:04 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Democrats will convince themselves that the right stole the election. They will become even more convinced that Republicans are the devil. Congress will obstruct anything and everything, and the media will back them up. Obama will fade into obscurity just like Gore and Kerry, and the Next Great Hope will arise from obscurity to save us all.
#5
Say what you will about the contemporary Democrat party but one thing is for sure...they're opportunistic. If they can't win in this enviroment say goodbye to the notion of a legitimate candidate from their Progressive wing.
#8
It's started already: look at drudge. I know what this makes me want to do to an Obama supporter. I'm sure that many with more energy and less impulse control than I will actually respond.
And oh, and BTW...that face disfigurement thing, that's a cultural thing, right?
Posted by: Minister of funny walks ||
10/23/2008 19:29 Comments ||
Top||
#9
I predict the Dow will gain at least 1,000 points within two weeks of McCain losing. I also predict an investor run on 401K's. Ditto on CF's election night gala event. Gujana, do you acknowledge me as your king? Sigiyana bows to Shaka and wraps his arms around his leg. Yes, yes Shaka. You are my lord, my master. >
#11
If Obama loses most Dems will be happy that they won a huge majority in the Congress and they will make it very difficult for the new Administration.
#12
McCain will make the same mistake Bush did: he'll sign on to lefty legislation early on and won't stand up to Congress at they try to ram a socialist agenda down his throat. In four years the Republicans will be blamed for the damage done to the economy and the nation and we'll see a Democratic landslide. That outcome isn't in doubt so long as the media remains solidly leftist, only the timing is uncertain.
#13
Honestly, and I've said this to several people already, I think in many ways the worst possible outcome in this election would be a razor thin margin of victory for McCain along the lines of the Bush win in 2000. In fact, as much as I cringe to say it, I would almost prefer that Obama win than we see a repeat of 2000 or something very much like it. My main reason for feeling this way lies in my belief that the short term damage a 2000-type "Bush" win could inflict on this country could come close to outweighing the long term damage of an Obama presidency (assuming it was limited to only one term).
Specifically speaking, if Obama wins the popular vote but McCain wins the electoral vote, or McCain wins in similarly close fashion, I predict that after 8 years of BDS and the last several months of MPDS-- which the MSM has gone out of their way to inflame-- the Left will be unable to control their rage and fury any longer and we may very well see them come unhinged right before our very eyes. The best case scenario in this situation is that the backlash is contained to isolated and uncoordinated acts of childish rebellion, including but not limited to physical assaults, in several areas and places around the country, but concentrated in the more pro-Obama sectors (college campuses, urban areas, and the inner-city).
The reality is that the Left is so utterly convinced of a convincing Obama victory that anything less could easily prove a tipping point for them. This could quickly escalate into large-scale violent protests in the places mentioned above with outright rioting in the more extreme cases. Don't be surprised if race is an exacerbating factor in all of this, and a virulent one at that.
What I find most troubling right now is that despite the constant prediction of a landslide Obama victory in the MSM, you still have McCain supporters, like the 20 year-old girl in Pittsburgh and the middle-aged women in NYC, being physically assualted by Obama supporters. If that's how they are lashing out now, when everything seems to be going their way, is it unreasonable to suggest it will only get worse should things not go their way?
While I have yet to hear of one Obama supporter being physically assaulted by a McCain supporter, I don't dismiss the possibility out of hand. This is a highly-charged election, after all, and tempers are bound to boil over on both sides. Nonetheless, the incidents I referenced above have thus far been overlooked or ignored by the MSM, which I know comes as no surprise to anyone here. This is the same MSM that saw fit last week to broadcast an AP story alleging that a mysterious McCain-Palin supporter yelled "kill him!" in reference to Obama or Bill Ayers (they never clearly stated which one it was) at a recent McCain-Palin rally. Furthermore, the same MSM has failed to report that the AP story above-- which caused a considerable firestorm of damnation from self-righteous liberals and the like-- has since been discredited by the very people who are responsible for protecting high-level government officials, including presidential candidates. One would think the Secret Service has a vested interest in determining whether or not a threat against a presidential candidate, Obama included, was real. As was reported in a link here on this site just the other day, the Secret Service has found the allegations made by the AP story to be... unfounded.
All of this is to say that if this election is as close as reasonable people are inclined to believe, it could easily turn into a 2000 redux. Given the last 8 years and the way the media has been building this election up to be a mandate for Obama and his policies, I don't think it's unreasonable to be concerned about a massive backlash from the Left should Obama fail to emerge the next POTUS.
Then again, I could be wrong and Obama could win in a squeaker-- in which case I think the Right will accept it for what it is, albeit begrudgingly. Of course, Obama or McCain could win in decisive fashion, although I find that scenario unlikely. No matter who wins, I think this election is going to be significantly closer than the "polls" and the MSM are currently predicting.
#14
One flaw in your analysis, Mr. Green Bull - the Left will go apeshit even if McCain wins by a large margin.
They expect their Messiah to be crowned emperor anointed, and they won't accept anything else.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
10/23/2008 21:09 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Immediately, I predict some attempts at rioting, but police are prepared and in a bad mood, so it will be very limited.
That being said, Hillary will automatically be in charge of the party, and will purge it of the far left. While she will do this out of pure vengeance, it will make the DLC dominant and moderate a lot of their platform. The Moonbats will probably go Green, and get a half dozen seats in the next election, but nothing more.
#16
I don't think McCain's going to win, but in the event of a McCain win and subsequent rioting I would suspect that would do a lot to discredit the left in the wake of the storm.
You're right, it doesn't matter if McCain wins by a lot or a little. So I must retract my prior statement that I would prefer an Obama-Biden win over a narrow McCain-Palin victory.
#20
well, good thing I have arms, ammo, and cutlery, then
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/23/2008 22:52 Comments ||
Top||
#21
I expect the usual to happen when things don't go as expected (BO loses)--major rioting, looting, and shooting in Detroit, Chicago, LA, Atlanta, DC, Philadelphia. etc. It might happen if he wins.
Chairman Mao Zedong can finally rest easy in his grave. His country has now become the dominant partner in the Sino-Russian relationship, a complete reversal of the past.
Since the 1930s Mao had a tense relationship with the Russians, largely because of their view that China and the Chinese Communist Party were in a subordinate position to their Soviet counterparts. Although Soviet leader Josef Stalin was partly successful in holding the reins on the Chinese, these slipped away entirely during the time of Nikita Khrushchev. The Leonid Brezhnev era saw China cozy up to the United States in Washington's bid to hobble Moscow.
Much of the credit for the success of the U.S. policy of containment against the Soviet Union in the decades leading up to 1992 belongs to the full-blooded way in which the Chinese Communist Party acted as an accomplice of successive Republican and Democratic administrations in Washington -- of course, with substantial economic and other benefits.
Credit for China's emergence as an economic superpower belongs to the U.S. policy of building up Beijing as a counter to Moscow, a partiality that continued for nearly a decade after the collapse of communism in Russia. Still today, the United States continues to be the primary provider of technology and markets to China, even though the country is suspected of being the ultimate source of the missile and nuclear capabilities of such problematic states as Pakistan, Iran and North Korea.
It was no accident that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev made Beijing his first port of call after taking office in May this year -- excluding Kazakhstan. In Beijing he faithfully stuck to the CCP line on all issues ranging from Tibet to Taiwan and gave fulsome assurances of fealty.
In contrast, China was missing in action during Russia's recent hour of need in the U.N. Security Council, when the United States, France and the United Kingdom harshly opposed Russia's military action in Georgia. Again, at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting convened in Tajikistan in late August, shortly after the incident, China ensured that any expression of support for Russia was expunged from the final document, allowing the passage of only an anodyne formulation that even Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili could not object to.
The Russian propensity to volubly back the People's Republic of China has been met with the latter's reluctance to be seen taking the side of a country that is rapidly on the way toward becoming an Albania-style satellite. It was, after all, Tirana that stood by Beijing against Moscow for more than four decades of the Cold War, a conflict in which the PRC sided with the United States against Russia since the 1960s.
Although official estimates say that less than 1 million Chinese are resident in Russia, those familiar with facts on the ground say there are as many as 6 million Chinese in Russia, 95 percent of who are there illegally. Thanks to corruption and huge geographic gaps in administrative coverage, reportedly as many as 20 Chinese use the passport of a single legal entrant to get work and other privileges in Russia. Some marry Russian women for short durations, thus winning the right to stay.
By 2015 it is estimated that up to 20 million Chinese will reside in Russia, more than half of who will be in the unpopulated reaches of Siberia. What the Japanese failed to achieve in the last century may now be accomplished by the Chinese -- which is to take effective control of Siberia away from Moscow. Already, well-funded "indigenous" organizations sprouting in the territories are calling for the rollback of Moscow's control, while much of the real estate and many businesses on the Sino-Russian border are in Chinese hands, even on the Russian side.
#1
By 2015 it is estimated that up to 20 million Chinese will reside in Russia, more than half of who will be in the unpopulated reaches of Siberia.
For comparison, there are 20M in Siberia and dropping a few percent per year. How many of those are already Chinese? Who knows. So by 2020, Russia is looking at Siberia, over 50% of territory, that is majority Chinese with Chinese historical claims to it. The situation in the Far East Maritime territories is not much better.
Posted by: ed ||
10/23/2008 10:20 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Russia has a lot of mid to long term problems to deal with. They should stow the bluster and put their house in order.
Hit the link and vote if you want to know the clear winner so far. Though I'm sure most people here can guess....
Who Has Been Fairest Network So Far?
ABC
CBS
CNN
MSNBC
NBC
PBS
I don't watch any of these
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
10/23/2008 20:49 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Oh, wow - I'm part of an overwhelming trend, according to this poll.
I'm a bit startled - this has hardly ever happened to me, before. My parents will be so embarassed.
#5
Fox wasn't included. I wonder how they would have come out. I put down "I don't watch any of the networks." The results are a lot skewed. I guess the people that get their news from the internet or talk radio don't spend much time with these "In the bag for Obama" networks.
NAPLES -- America was amidst change during the Eisenhower years. The United States had survived the Depression and World War II, guided by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Yes, there was the start of the Cold War with the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, as well as the Sen. Joseph McCarthy witch hunts and intervention in Korea, but the Vietnam era was not yet upon us.
So, generally speaking, many tend to view Dwight D. Eisenhower's presidential years -- 1953 to 1961 -- with fairly pleasant memories: World War II veterans were moving their families to the suburbs on G.I. loans, there were cookouts in backyards during the summer, we drank Kool-Aid, ate Jell-O and watched "I Love Lucy."
Now, the formerly-Republican granddaughter of President Eisenhower is stumping for Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, because it is time, again, for real change, Susan Eisenhower said Sunday afternoon.
Local reaction to Eisenhower's endorsement was disappointment. Naples GOP Chairwoman Carla Dean, who was en route to a Republican meeting in Orlando, called it "unfortunate." "How in the world could any Republican support a Democratic candidate, (who opposes) everything we hold dear," she said.
Dean wondered how the granddaughter of one of the nation's great Republican presidents could take this position. An expert on international security and the relationship between the U.S. and Russia, Susan Eisenhower is the president of the Eisenhower Group.
In Southwest Florida on Sunday for a whirlwind meeting with Obamacans -- Republicans who have chosen to endorse Obama -- Eisenhower, 56, said the nation is at a critical juncture. "I think he has the capacity to be a great American president," Eisenhower said. She was especially joyous that Gen. Colin Powell had just announced his support for Obama. "I'd like to associate myself with all the points he made," she said of Powell. Her first personal experience with Obama was 1-1/2 years ago when he called her to chat.
While impressed that he contacted her, Eisenhower told him she is a devoted Republican. "He said, 'I understand that. I'm just calling you for your ideas.' I was immensely flattered. ... This was an exceptional approach... extraordinary," Eisenhower said, adding that she never had a candidate from another party call her. He asked her to brief his staff.
"I really believed Obama has some extraordinary qualities, an extraordinary temperament. People who work for Barack Obama love this man," Eisenhower said. He is inspired and inspiring, but also reminds her of her grandfather, she said. "He has run his campaign the way an Eisenhower would have run government ... 100 percent control," she said.
Obama's campaign "doesn't have debt," she said, noting that she's a fiscal conservative. "Obama's run his campaign the way I hope our government will be governed."
Oh dear lord ...
Describing her past as a walk along the traditional Republican party line, Eisenhower said there are pivotal chapters of history, and great Republican and Democratic presidents, "because they brought this country together." Obama will do that, she said.
We are now in a critical period of history, she said. How did FDR bring us out of the depression, she asked. "He said, 'There is nothing to fear but fear itself,'" she said.
#2
It's the Night Riders embedded in fold of the Party of Tolerance[tm]* that have once again returned to the American venue. The old Night Riders were the Klan, these are just a new generation, using the same old techniques. Its also why the Donks champion gun control. It removed the means of the targets of the Night Riders of defending themselves.
*not to be confused with the Religion of Peace[tm]. Four legs good, two legs better.
Just found this GREAT article: Kudos To Atlas Shrugs
UPDATE 10:21PM : Reader Randall contributed under the names of Obama's friends Osama, Saddam and Ayers -
I went back to the Obama site and made three additional donations using the names Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Bill Ayers, all with different addresses. All the transactions went thru using the same credit card. I saved screen shots of the transactions if you want them
There is enormous amount of money being secreted into the Obama campaign from foreign sources. It is fairly safe to say these countries will be richly rewarded - Kenya, Indonesia but most of all - Obama will drop a load on the UN. Fosho.
The crooked, corrupt international one world global warmers have the largest stake in this election.
Back on August 14th, I wrote that Julia Gorin told me a funny story. About four months ago. Her husband's co-worker wanted to see what would happen if he tried giving a contribution to the Obama campaign via a credit card. He used his Macy's card. The system accepted it. He tried the same with McCain's campaign, and the transaction wouldn't go through.
Atlas reader Craig submits to me the following:
I may have just uncovered how the Obama campaign is facilitating massive donation fraud.
I've read recent reports of the Obama campaign receiving donations from dubious names and foreign locales and it got me wondering; how is this possible?
I run a small internet business and when I process credit cards I'm required to make sure the name on the card exactly matches the name of the customer making the purchase. Also, the purchasers address must match that of the cardholders. If these don't match, then the payment isn't approved. Period. So how is it possible that the Obama campaign could receive donations from fictional people and places? Well, I decided to do a little experiment. I went to the Obama campaign website and entered the following:
Name: John Galt
Address: 1957 Ayn Rand Lane
City: Galts Gulch
State: CO
Zip: 99999
Then I checked the box next to $15 and entered my actual credit card number and expiration date (it didn't ask for the 3-didgit code on the back of the card) and it took me to the next page and... "Your donation has been processed. Thank you for your generous gift."
This simply should not, and could not, happen in any business or any campaign that is honestly trying to vet it's donors. Also, I don't see how this could possibly happen without the collusion of the credit card companies. They simply wouldn't allow any business to process, potentially, hundreds of millions in credit card transactions where the name on the card doesn't match the purchasers name.
Not unless Obama's campaign is warehousing donations (held back) and any that fail or are rejected by the credit card companies or for any other reason are covered by illegal donations.
In short, with the system set up as it is by the Obama camp, an individual could donate unlimited amounts of money by simply making up fake names and addresses. And Obama is doing his best to facilitate this fraud. This is truly scandalous.
Yes, and then cover them with illegal funds.
Sincerely,
Craig
PS I tried the exact same thing at the McCain site and it didn't allow the transaction.
Pss I went back to the Obama site and made three additional donations using the names Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Bill Ayers, all with different addresses. All the transactions went thru using the same credit card. I saved screen shots of the transactions if you want them
Cathy found this at Free Republic:
Somebody, high up, has access to millions of credit card, and possibly debit card accounts. This is how it works: An apparent charge appears on your account, then through the correction process, it disappears. An unauthorized charge delivers the funds to control of an intermediary, and the intermediary then reimburses the original draft on the account. The intermediary is a wealthy consortium of manipulators, who take the small contribution (always less than $200, so as to avoid the reporting requirements of name and occupation of the original source), thus providing hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of "contributors", and allowing ineligible contributors to cover up their participation. It would take the research of literally thousands of these accounts to uncover the pattern of "mistaken" charges, and if these accounts are held outside the US, there would be no overview of these transaction by any of the authorities that govern these transfers in this country. The only check on this is to review your own account, and those who had their accounts used in this manner. If individuals or corporate entities are already supporting Obama, or the Democrat National party, or any of the 527s that are anti-Republican, THEY are not going to say anything.
Couple Finds Unauthorized Charge on Credit Card from Obama Campaign (hat tip Miira)
Atlas exclusive coverage of Obama's contributions: foreign, domestic, illegal
UPDATE: from Mccain's website, Cathy grabbed this screenshot - On the form:
The address below must match your credit card billing information and they ask for your security code too.
#1
I was feeling left out so I had "Capitalist Tool"-with completely fictitious contact info-make a $5 donation. Obama site took it no problem. I'll veify tomorrow with the credit card company. If that payment went through then there is something seriously hinky going on that would involve collusion with the credit card processors.
Posted by: Large Hupusonter1014 ||
10/23/2008 2:16 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"I saved screen shots of the transactions if you want them"
Where's the screen shots and the billing statement? 1/2 story
#3
I follow credit card fraud closely - it's what I do. I've seen this on one media website - the rest has been on blogs and most refer back to the original article. I have to wonder about the validity of the whole thing.
I'm not up on election laws but I don't believe that accepting small anonymous donations is a violation. I can tell you that it might be a violation of their contract with their payment processor and it's clearly a bad idea security wise but consider this...
If the "Donald Duck" card is being used without permission, the real card holder is probably going to have the charge reversed and that's going to cost the campaign money - they'll loose the donation and pay a chargeback fee in the neighborhood of $15-$35 for each transaction.
Tom Mahoney, Director
Merchant911.org
Posted by: Tom Mahoney ||
10/23/2008 8:11 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I'm not up on election laws but I don't believe that accepting small anonymous donations is a violation
I am a a furriner but AFAIK there are tops on what an individuual or organization may contribute. There ios a lso a banning on accepting, contributions from other countries or foreign perosns or orgnaizations.
And your "unobjectionable" anonymous donations are ideal for laundring illegal donations.
#5
We are screwed big time. There is no one home at DoJ or the FEC. McCain is being hoisted on his own petard. And, this will not go away but continue to be perpetrated and operate at a different level during Obama's presidency. This is only the beginning of America's worst nightmare since Jimmy Carter.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
10/23/2008 9:10 Comments ||
Top||
#6
People who don't "get it" think this is no big deal. They are WRONG.
People who have credit cards but are NOT allowed to give to an American election are giving a phony name and US address that is not being verified.
Obama likes it because he gets money.
The credit card companies like it; they collect 3% on every transaction. Bonus: The senator from MBNA gets to be VP.
I suppose that the US Justice dept could datamine the CC# with verified addresses. The problems here are an Obama DOJ that does not act and CC companies and foreign governments not cooperating with information requests.
Bottom line: the money moves to Obama and everyone with standing looks the other way.
Posted by: Minister of funny walks ||
10/23/2008 9:35 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I believe LL's scam involved using the CC# of people who did NOT want to donate. They complained. LL went to jail.
This is different.
Posted by: Minister of funny walks ||
10/23/2008 10:06 Comments ||
Top||
#9
is anyone in charge of protecting us from voter fraud or violations of election rules? It seems not. If McCain wins, we need to spend the next 4 years making sure that those who failed in their duties are exposed and fired. If Obama wins, well, then I'm sure those same people will all get promoted.
#10
If Obama wins, well, then I'm sure those same people will all get promoted.
After Zapatero's victory there werr lots of promotions between those policmene who, for instance destroyed vital pieces of evidency about the bombings.
#11
Money laundering and communist buddies. They go together nicely.
from gatewaypunditblogspot - the newest guy to surface in support of Obama:
. . . "Klonsky is an unabashed communist whose current mission is to spread Marxist ideology in the American classroom. Obama funded him to the tune of nearly $2 million. Obama, moreover, gave Klonsky a broad platform to broadcast his ideas: a social justice blog on the official Obama campaign website.
To be clear, as it seems always necessary to repeat when Obamaniacs, in their best Saul Alinsky tradition, shout down the opposition: This is not about guilt by association. The issue is not that Obama knows Klonsky or Ayers or Dohrn or Wright or Rashid Khalidi
The issue is that Obama promoted and collaborated with these anti-American radicals. The issue is that he shared their ideology.
...When Obama and Ayers collaborated together on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) education-reform project, with Obama chairing the board that oversaw funding decisions, CAC underwrote the Klonsky/Ayers Small Schools Workshop with a whopping $1,056,162. And thats not all. Nearly another million dollars was steered to the Small Schools Workshop by the Joyce and Woods Funds when Obama sat on their boards. The grand total comes to $1,968,718.
. . . Remember-- Old Maoists and terrorists never die... They just teach. "
Obama is used to laundering money and hiding it from the "system." All communists work this way.
Oh, and about the "code word" SOCIALIST being a code word for "black"-code words are used when you want to hide information. I think everyone knows Obama is black (well, kind of black, but never mind . . . )
#12
#6 People who don't "get it" think this is no big deal. They are WRONG.
Everyone "gets it." When Obama turned down Fed Finance at the last minute, many saw it coming. The FBI has been investigating Nigerian internet credit card fraud for years. The Dept. of Justice and FBI can't even shut ACORN down. They will do absolutely nothing about the Obama credit card donation scam.
Recommend we start by asking the Administration and DOJ to energize the following Ambo's (who may have something in common) to have their FBI Legat offices take a discreet look around:
US Ambo to Nigeria: Robin R. Sanders
US Ambo to Liberia: Linda Thomas-Greenfield
US Ambo Ivory Coast: Wanda L. Nesbitt
US Ambo Zimbabwe: James McGee
US Ambo Namibia: Gail D. Mathieu
US Ambo Swaziland: Maurice S. Parker
US Ambo South Africa: Eric M. Bost
US Ambo Trinidad & Tobago: Roy L. Austin
US Ambo Niger: Bernadette M. Allen
US Ambo Senegal & Guinea-Bissau: Marcia Bernicat
US Ambo Benin: Gayleatha B. Brown
#14
hehe, all you rednecks are going to be ruled by a black man... thats so funny.
I'll be funny to see how patriotic you all are about your president then (having supported looneytunes Bush as he bankrupted your country and many of its people under the guise of "patriotism").
Hehe, you are going to have to bow to a black man (well half black). Thats so funny.
#17
Americans don't bow to the president, Slats Flater8460. We shake hands as equals. If your mother did not teach you good manners, your time would be well spent reading in Emily Post or Miss Manners, both of which should be available at your local public library or for purchase from Amazon.
#21
And Mr. Slats, while you are doing the recommended reading, please remember to keep a glass of water handy. It will help keep your lips from drying out as you work through the 'big' words.
#22
"Ruled" and "bow down" ... I think it's pretty obvious that Slats doesn't get what we do over here.
I have no problem with my President being black ... or having brown eyes ... or having blond hair ... or whatever. I *do* have a problem with my President being a Socialist (being kind with that term ... "Marxist" is more accurate).
#25
Next time the US has a Republican president, it should invadde the UK and then 1) Make British pay taxes on tea. And 2) Force them to bow to Americans, even the humblest one.
Once they have learned to chew gum, drag knuckles, tot guns and pound bibles they would be allowed to apply for statehood provided their cuisine reach human standards.
#27
I have no problem with my President being black ... or having brown eyes ... or having blond hair ... or whatever. I *do* have a problem with my President being a Socialist (being kind with that term ... "Marxist" is more accurate
ANd I understand that's the Dirty Little Religion Europe and the UK has these days: Marxist Statism.
#1
Maybe because the banks and investment houses of socialist Europe turned to unsecured American speculative markets to actually make a farthing or pence rather than plow their capital back into a market in which there was either no or minuscule return on investment. And like an addict, when they got to taste real ROI, they threw out common sense to get more of the fix. Ask the fundamental question, why did the Euros invest so deep into the American market in the first place.
#2
WASHINGTON (Reuters) Former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress on Thursday he is "shocked" at the breakdown in U.S. credit markets and said he was "partially" wrong to resist regulation of some securities.
Shocked! Shocked I tell you! But, but, but Woodward's book 'Maestor' said ...."The Fed chief also adapts Einstein's technique to economics, hunting for discrepancies as keys to deeper theories."
#4
Greenspan is full of crap in his comments. He is smart enough to know the direction that they country was going. He just doesn't want all the socialist illuinati to cut him out of a chance to serve (lead) the Obama nation.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
