The FDIC estimates that the cost to the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) will be $743.9 million. ... Eurobank is the 58th FDIC-insured institution to fail in the nation this year.
The FDIC estimates that the cost to the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) will be $1.23 billion.... R-G Premier Bank of Puerto Rico is the 59th FDIC-insured institution to fail in the nation this year.
The FDIC estimates that the cost to the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) will be $3.31 billion. ... Westernbank Puerto Rico is the 60th FDIC-insured institution to fail in the nation this year. Hard to believe there's 5 billion dollars of deposits in Puerto Rico
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/30/2010 21:22 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Will the FDIC (and US taxpayers) be bailing out Bundesbank next, or was that already taken care of through some previous slippery gov't transaction?
. . . passage of the legislation would create an artificial, government-mandated, trillion-dollar carbon trading market that would drive up the price of energy, indirectly making housing more expensive.
If the proprietary emissions trading system functions like other exchanges such as the New York Stock Exchange, which makes most of its revenue on listing and trading fees, its owners could see extremely generous profits, especially with a patent that keeps out competition for two decades.
So Fannie Mae, a quasi-governmental entity whose congressionally mandated mission is to make housing more affordable, has been a behind-the-scenes participant in a carbon trading scheme that would do just the opposite.
#2
The effect of Congressional housing policy has always been to create housing inflation. People think it's easier to get into a house because of all the exotic, sub-prime mortgages. But the fact that it's easier to get into a mortgage means more people are doing it. With increased demand the developers start charging exorbitant prices. They all talk about the need for more affordable housing but it seems they more they build the more expensive it gets. Next thing you know, the price of a house is a million dollars. Affordable, huh? Yeah, and I'm not exaggerating either. In my neighborhood people were asking far in excess of a million dollars for some of the new homes that were being built at the height of the boom. They were asking $1.3 million for condos. I don't know who was buying them. I was just glad I got in before it all got completely out of control. I can remember when a house across the street from the beach in Encinitas costs $63,000 and we thought that was sky high. Maybe you think I'm just old because I can remember the days before jimmuh carter. But it's inflation and the effect has been disastrous. You might say the road to hell is paved with good intentions but I don't give these politicians that much credit. I think they're all crooked.
#1
the coast guard has been on the case starting about 6 hours after the event
just because the left dishonestly blamed Bush for Katrina doesn't make Obama responsible for this
Posted by: lord garth ||
04/30/2010 16:38 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Agreed, but I heard CNN had called it "Obama's Katrina."
CNN!
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/30/2010 16:52 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I would point the hypocrisy of the news services. But i will not put the response on President Obama. The coast guard and locals have first crack at the accident, they have asked for help from the feds and it was given. I only hope they are able to stop the oil before it gets worse.
#5
The rig is in International Waters, although within the 200 mile US Economic zone. Despite what some want to believe Obama nor Bush could act without accurate information and requests from the parties involved. Once the threat to US coastlines was narrowed down (remember this spill could have come ashore anywhere from Louisiana to Florida) forces were deployed to deal with it. It's not as easy as saying, "Make it so".
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
04/30/2010 19:14 Comments ||
Top||
#6
good thing those Chinese rigs in Cuban waters will have all the latest in hi-tech safety gear....right? All the "This should stop drilling NOW!" Oughta STFU and reflect that stopping our drilling won't quit it in the gulf. But that doesn't help their agenda. Asking for teh best in safety and no-spill is a no-brainer, but don't expect foreign competitors to do it. When the Chinese have a spill, think Obama will threaten them with sanctions? See: "Bonds, Chinese-owned"
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/30/2010 19:27 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Why did it take Obozo 8 days? No photo op.
Posted by: regular joe ||
04/30/2010 20:49 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Why should I do anything, it was clearly Bush's fault!
A plan by Senate Democratic leaders to reform the nation's immigration laws ran into strong opposition from civil liberties defenders before lawmakers even unveiled it Thursday.
Democratic leaders have proposed requiring every worker in the nation to carry a national identification card with biometric information, such as a fingerprint, within the next six years, according to a draft of the measure.
The proposal is one of the biggest differences between the newest immigration reform proposal and legislation crafted by late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
The national ID program would be titled the Believe System, an acronym for Biometric Enrollment, Locally stored Information and Electronic Verification of Employment.
It would require all workers across the nation to carry a card with a digital encryption key that would have to match work authorization databases.
"The cardholder's identity will be verified by matching the biometric identifier stored within the microprocessing chip on the card to the identifier provided by the cardholder that shall be read by the scanner used by the employer," states the Democratic legislative proposal.
The American Civil Liberties Union, a civil liberties defender often aligned with the Democratic Party, wasted no time in blasting the plan.
"Creating a biometric national ID will not only be astronomically expensive, it will usher government into the very center of our lives. Every worker in America will need a government permission slip in order to work. And all of this will come with a new federal bureaucracy -- one that combines the worst elements of the DMV and the TSA," said Christopher Calabrese, ACLU legislative counsel. FYI, not a single State was able to implement REAL ID by its deadline, so the deadline has been extended to 2017. 19 States has resolved that they will never participate in REAL ID, and estimated costs of the program already exceed 10 times their original estimates. Thanks to John McCain I find myself agreeing with the ACLU. Gag ...
#2
I don't think that employers who use illegals will feel much effect from this. In fact the only people to take a hit will be BIG employers who inadvertently hire illegals, like chicken plants.
#3
I don't think that employers who use illegals will feel much effect from this. In fact the only people to take a hit will be BIG employers who inadvertently hire illegals, like chicken plants.
I for one never had any trouble accepting the concept of a GOVT-LED NATIONAL ID CARD FOR US CITIZENS + PERM RESIDENTS, IN ADDITION TO STATE-LOCAL ID CARDS. IT only made common sense to have one iff Amers were going to be required to have US PASSPORTS to travel overseas to foreign countries.
Leave it to Politicos to take good simple ideas and LEGALLY pervert/corrupt into something beyond all description, ethics and morals, E.G. LIKE LOCAL COPS BEING TOLD THEY CAN'T ARREST OR CONFINE ILLEGAL ALIENS WHEN FOUND BECUZ ITS A FED RESPONSIBILITY, YET HAVE TO LET SAID SAME ILLEGALS OPERATE AROUND THE COMMUNITY UNTIL SUCH TIME IN THE DISTANT/FAR FUTURE WHEN THE FEDS FIND THE TIME, BUDGET, + MANPOWER TO CATCH SAME.
Lest we fergit, OLD ADAGE > FOR EVIL TO SUCCEED, IT ONLY TAKES GOOD MEN TO DO NOTHING.
This story was posted by an anonymous element and is based on a misleading headline.
SWAT does not refer to the police Special Weapons and Tactics teams, but rather an inspection team of some sort.
Warning to the poster: If you post such a misleading story again, I will have you banned.
Story edited to reflect a better term
"Earlier today, DHS Secretary Napolitano announced that this incident is of national significance and the Department of Interior has announced that they will be sending inspection teams to the Gulf to inspect all platforms and rigs. And I have ordered the Secretaries of Interior and Homeland Security as well as Administrator Lisa Jackson of the Environmental Protection Agency to visit the site on Friday to ensure that BP and the entire U.S. government is doing everything possible, not just to respond to this incident, but also to determine its cause."
#1
I have family and friends working those rigs both on the rig and in Management. They said the feds have been very slow answering calls for support in helping during thid disaster. If Obama's response is SWAT teams going after my people...th Junior Senator from Chicago will have f#cked up big time.
#2
This makes no sense to me. Are they suggesting that someone sabotaged the rig and might do more? That is the only scenerio I can picture where SWAT would be relevant and if that is the case the NAVY would be better.
#3
SWAT Team - Not the cops. A focused group brought together to identify/solve a problem or process deficiency.
Posted by: ed ||
04/30/2010 11:28 Comments ||
Top||
#4
From what I've read, random explosions just don't happen and those in the field suspect sabotage, perhaps the eco-terrorist type, as no new drilling is the result. This rig is about 60 miles out, beyond the 12-mile territorial boundary but within the 200 mile economic zone. It was anchored to the seabed about a mile down, where I believe the original break was located, making it too deep for a diver to plant explosives. That's assuming the info is accurate, which is doubtful when talking oil companies and the gov't. However, a sub or even a mini-sub aboard a larger ship could do it, I'ma guessing. The extensive economic and environmental damage for years to come could make this way beyond the Valdez, giving many the motive to do such a thing. Didn't Chavez just purchase some Russian subs?
#5
Hezbollah also has subs. I had another thought--this rig is owned by BP. I don't know it this is still true, but the Brits predominately had oil leases in Iraq/Kuwait while the US did bizness with the Soddy's going back to last century. Is this modern BP a joint US/Brit venture but also profiting from the new Iraq? Would someone want top destroy our domestic production bad enough to take down some major off-shore wells?
#6
The US Interior Department said it had assembled a “swat team” of inspectors to review safety at offshore drilling rigs across the US.
So itÂ’s a metaphorical SWAT team, not a real one.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
04/30/2010 12:27 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Uh, the rig is not a BP rig. It was a Transocean rig that was being leased by BP. There's a big difference; the personnell on the rig were mainly Transocean and other contractors.
#10
I know the leaking oil will probably damage the coast, and that's not good, but it would be nice if these idiots paused to occasionally comment that PEOPLE DIED, and as bad as the pollution will be, that's worse.
Or maybe the people (including Bambi, et al.) would like to arrange for someone in their family to die in the place of the oil rig workers?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
04/30/2010 15:51 Comments ||
Top||
#11
#8 Haliburton to be blamed; Bush and Cheney put on trial.
Posted by: bman 2010-04-30 15:18
#12
So, I normally would not comment here but this is too much! S.W.A.T./S.W.O.T. = Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities/Abilities, and Threats. Not a police Special Weapons and Tactics team. I realize that every citizen is entitled to their own political opinions but seriously...engaging in any political conversation/debate without having any factual knowledge or having done any resaech leads to comments such as the above, which are obviously ignorant and uneducated. Making such statements really only ensuresthat you will not be taken seriously by anyone and laughed at by almost everyone (except your peers in this very sad group). It makes me sad that the American electorate has devolved from a once proud and knowledgeable society into a group of sheeple that listen to the talking heads and overly biased (for either party) news media and believe all of the bulls*%t that you are spoon fed everyday. Please for the sake of the greatest nation in the world, pull your head out of your a**es, do some research, get some facts, and realize that the politicians on both sides of the aisle are equally deplorable and that it is this type of ingnorance that has allowed them start this country circling the drain. If you do not believe this then please check the facts on how many jobs this country lost in the last quarter of the Bush addministration's term. I am not defending Obama by any means (nor would I ever), I am simply pointing out that it is our fault that this country is in the state that it is in. It has been our complacency and sheer laziness that have allowed the people in power to F**k it up for us all, and all anyone wants to do is blame someone else. If we really want to save this nation, perhaps it might be instructive to look at ourselves before we start to point fingers at the people that WE put in power. Just a little food for though...for those of you who actually can still think....
Posted by: Embarrased for the uneducated ||
04/30/2010 16:35 Comments ||
Top||
#13
...has announced that they will be sending SWAT teams to the Gulf to inspect all platforms and rigs.
Maybe Obama heard that the Cambridge PD was down there.
#19
Shoting has been posting here for a long time. Like he said, this is top center of www.DrudgeReport.com. Why did you just ban him? We have an out of control moderator!
#20
I would harldy call an O.I.F. vet who is WORKING on his Bachelors "overeducated/clueless". But as I said, perhaps I was to harsh on the original post. However, while it may not have been civil, it was well reasoned. I am not trying to be overly offensive. I am simply saying that it is not usefull to comment "off the cuff" without having any real facts to back it up. In the case of this article, a simple google search would have shown that the article clearly was not talking about police. I do not promote any one side over the other, only that people make the effort to find out for themselves...why is that too much to ask?
Posted by: Embarrased for the Uneducated ||
04/30/2010 18:20 Comments ||
Top||
#21
The headline and text was misleading.
If Shoting, or anyone, is going to post material here, they have to know what is and isn't misleading. Especially if he has posted material here before.
The headline as well as the text of the story were misleading. If he had posted material here before, he should have known better, and if he didn't he should have made some other remark in response to the modifications I made.
Shoting is not banned.
I will forward your complaint to the other mods and they can deal with me.
#22
So, I normally would not comment here but this is too much! S.W.A.T./S.W.O.T. = Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities/Abilities, and Threats. Not a police Special Weapons and Tactics team.
Thank you for that information, Mr. Embarrased for the uneducated. Do you have a link for your information, or are you perhaps speaking from personal expertise? It would help us to judge the validity of your claim, separate from the long-winded insults. The thing is, one of Rantburg's oil professionals -- of which there are quite a few for some reason -- is likely to weigh in on this thread at some point, and you're going to look awfully silly if you're making this up out of whole cloth... and unnecessarily rude if you're right.
Neither is the position in which an intelligent person deliberately places himself.
#23
Shoting posted the exact title of the article as written in the link. I believe the moderator owes Shoting an apology.
Posted by: ed ||
04/30/2010 18:28 Comments ||
Top||
#24
Again, my original post was overly harsh, I believe I said that. But, as you asked....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWOT_analysis. If wikipedia is not good, then perhaps, http://www.marketingteacher.com/Lessons/lesson_swot.htm.
Posted by: Embarrased for the Uneducated ||
04/30/2010 18:31 Comments ||
Top||
#25
I do not promote any one side over the other, only that people make the effort to find out for themselves...why is that too much to ask?
Many regulars and other here do not have the time to do research the poster or the writers of the material should have done. If you are going to post material, you should also so some research of your own before submitting.
Not too much to ask. I've done it.
The poster is at fault here, as is the writer who failed to clarify the news reported.
That is why the post was deemed misleading and modified.
I would harldy call an O.I.F. vet who is WORKING on his Bachelors "overeducated/clueless".
Then maybe you should turn off the condescending remarks and switch on your mind. You may well learn something.
#26
TW, SWAT/SWOT is a cross industry term. It defines an expert team formed/brought in to solve or identify a problem, most often to pick up the pieces after a monumental screw up. One of the more famous recent examples was the team formed to reduce the weight of the F-35 fighter aircraft.
Posted by: ed ||
04/30/2010 18:34 Comments ||
Top||
#27
Thanks for the diligence, just nine hours after the original post.
#28
#25 You are right. As I said, the post was too harsh. For that I apologize. However, I read the original article and I did not think it was a police SWAT team. I will even admit that I had to look it up to know for sure what it was talking about, however that process took less time than one of these posts. In the fiture I will moderate my language but I can assure you that my mind is fully switched on and that I would not have posted if I did not want a response. My whole goal IS to learn something. Again, for my harsh words I do appologize, but for the point I was making, I certainly do not.
Posted by: Embarrased for the Uneducated ||
04/30/2010 18:39 Comments ||
Top||
#29
TW, SWAT/SWOT is a cross industry term.
Thank you, ed. That is useful information. This is why one should always define an acronym upon first use. I think we've all learnt a useful lesson here. Hopefully someone will share it with the reporters who screwed up the story. Also, most tactfully, with President Obama; it is not clear from this or other stories on the subject exactly what he thinks he is sending out there.
#30
Mr./Ms. "Embarrassed" - might I suggest you change your nym?
It's tacky and condescending.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
04/30/2010 18:48 Comments ||
Top||
#31
In response to #15 – “terminally overeducated/clueless”
Maybe you can explain to me why being overeducated makes an individual clueless. Please understand that education and experience are not mutually exclusive. One may have both. In fact, I would wager to say that an over-educated and/or over-experienced individual should be LESS clueless than the rest of the minimally/average-educated or experienced ones.
That being said, I don’t see how #12’s (Embarrassed for the uneducated) thread leads anyone to believe that this person is over-educated. He/she, in a condescending manner, are telling (collective) you to research and analyze the situation before forming an opinion. I don’t think that has anything to do with education, or rather “over” education; it should be common sense. There are very few un-/minimally biased news or blog sites in existence. I agree with #12 in his/her assessment that it is our duty as HUMAN BEINGS (not just Americans) to attain the most objective information available in order to form a true and honest opinion. Unfortunately news outlets such as MSNBC, FOX News, or news reporters/commentators such as Bill Mahr or Glenn Beck make it very easy to ingest highly discriminatory accounts of current events and trends.
It is easy to be ignorant and naïve. It is not easy to be smart and think analytically…..something that education and experience lend credence to daily. In my opinion, “clueless” individuals reside more clearly in the realm of laziness where it is easier to borrow ideas rather than form them yourself. If you are guilty of such actions, as I am at times…..for shame.
A quote sent to me by a friend (I will research and find the original speaker and repost when available): "It is the job of every American, as citizen, to take a personal interest his/her government and an active role in the events that shape that government. It is their duty to know the issues, seek out the truth, and act accordingly. Any less effort allows for corruption, in politics, the media, and eventually the community. Such an erosion would see the end to this 231 year experiment in Democracy, and that end will be ushered in on the shoulders of the politically complacent."
#32
It is not easy to be smart and think analytically.....something that education and experience lend credence to daily. In my opinion, "clueless" individuals reside more clearly in the realm of laziness where it is easier to borrow ideas rather than form them yourself. If you are guilty of such actions, as I am at times.....for shame.
Thanks for making my arguments for me.
A clueless individual posted a misleading headline. I pointed it out since a number of very intelligent people here were mislead not only by the headline but by the very text of the story that was linked to.
A warning was issued not to do it again. An improper response, and then a response from me.
Why is it everyone's responsibility and not the person who posted the garbage?
If government people using spokemen/women used esoteric terms meant primarily for government people in their daily routines, why is that a failing of everyone BUT the reporter and the government employee? And the person who posted the original story as well as the person who posted the link?
People don't live for their government. They have better things to do, like getting government smaller and less of the lethargic slug that it is now, and off their back.
Sending a response team to an oil rig that is insured for several millions? Don't you think the insurance company, which will have to pay out millions of dollars, will want answers? Why do we need government weenies who insist we know their most obscure terms to do this work? It's duplication of effort.
Shoting: as Badanov mentioned, both the title and the post were misleading. As a regular, providing some context is important. While the title in the original was the same, you could have told us what this SWAT team was.
You are not banned (as Badanov also mentioned) but please don't do this again.
Embarrased for the Uneducated: apparently you're new here, as I don't recognize the IP. You might wish to read for a while prior to lecturing. Rantburg has a habit of handing condescending people their hind ends in a debate.
Also understand that the other standard definition of 'SWAT' makes for good snark. At Rantburg, we love good snark.
Barbara also suggests a nym change. Good advice.
Ed: thanks for the quick definition. That's what we needed in the original post.
Thanks for your attention.
AoS (moderator)
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/30/2010 19:04 Comments ||
Top||
#34
What the hell is "over-educated"? I want all the education I can get, from all sides.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
04/30/2010 19:09 Comments ||
Top||
#35
Deacon, I would define "overeducated" as a lot of book-learning, but not much sense.
Also "too smart for his/her own good."
YMMV. ;-p
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
04/30/2010 19:17 Comments ||
Top||
#36
Overeducated: trained beyond mental ability. To overload the student's mind with facts beyond his ability to understand and manipulate, while leading him to think that this constitutes intelligence and ability. Entirely too many Harvard MBAs, for instance, are overeducated, and when they find themselves actually running an actual business mess things up badly. Or reporters, proudly waving their expensive master's degree from the Columbia School of Journalism, taught to be proud of approaching the story with an empty mind, which they fondly believe means they are free of preconceptions instead of ignorant of what questions to ask or capable of understanding the import of the answers.
As an aside, I continue to be surprised that the accusation against George W. Bush was that he was stupid rather than overeducated, since Harvard has always required a minimum of ability to be accepted into its graduate schools, even of legacies. Now-Senator John F. Kerry was not accepted into Harvard Law, for instance, a damning bit of information if ever there was. Not that I think President Bush was overeducated -- his faults lie elsewhere.
#39
To all (Moderator Included), at the risk of being banned, I have been reading Rantburg for the better part of two years, I don't post often and not sure that I ever have from this computer. Understandably, the reaction to my post was negative. I have apologized. However I am truly waiting for someone to hand me my "hind end" in this debate. As I said earlier, I posted with the intention of a response so that I could "learn something." To Badanov, you are correct it is the responsibility of the poster and the reporter to be more clear in their terms. That said, however, when they do not (as is SO often the case) it is our responsiblity to seek the facts. The reason I commented here is because so often both on and off of this site I see this kind of knee-jerk reaction (See post #1) to bad information and it bothers me that people are not willing to open a new tab on their browser and run an internet search. What good is the information age if we are not seeking information? True, people do not live for their government but that does not mean that they don't have a duty to account for the actions of that government, something that I feel is impossible without unbiased, factual information. Something that I do not see being offered by any of the major news media on a regular basis. If you want to get the lethargic slug that is our government of your back (as I totally agree with you assessment), do so by attacking the lies from both parties. They are numerous. If it truly is our goal to reign in this monster that WE have created then by all means the first step is to know what we are fighting. I find that debate with others is the best way for us all to learn. As I have said, numerous times now, my original post was offensive and uncalled for. But please understand my frustration. So often I see people paying lip service to this idea but taking no action. It just simply triggered an emotional response. With that in mind, feel free to attack me further, however I stand by the point I was making before, when all else fails it is our job to find the truth. Anything less, in my opinion, defeats the very purpose that our founders had when they instituted this "231 year experiment in demoncracy." A government for the people, BY the people.
What good is the information age if we are not seeking information?
True. The only good information is the truth
However, agenda is not information, so not knowing an obscure federal bureaucratic term may or may not be much of an excuse but then neither is using the term without fully explaining it if it conflisct with other similar terms.
Making the crappy excuse I must know what they mean by SWAT is agenda. You can't deny it, so don't even try.
If you want to get the lethargic slug that is our government of your back (as I totally agree with you assessment), do so by attacking the lies from both parties.
Why do that? Isn't it better to remove the locus of power used by both parties: a bloated and overbearing federal government?
And how does knowing a bureaucratic term for something everyone knows clearly used in this context to befuddle people advance that goal?
It doesn't and I suspect those who defended the posting of this article know it well.
Why get into a pissing match with someone who wants power if they do not agree to relinquish that power for the common good?
If they do agree, let's start with STOP USING ESOTERIC TERMS or SUET for short.
#42
Not only that, Bad Man... why should we be concentrating equally on both parties when one party is definitely much more of a problem than the other?
#43
RWM from Texas, comment more often. I love a well-reasoned debate as do most here.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
04/30/2010 20:20 Comments ||
Top||
#44
RWM from Texas, I appreciate your last comment as much as I did not appreciate your first. I imagine as a result you will comment more effectively in the future. The goal it not "handing ass" but conveying and receiving useful information. And good snark, of course.
I remember the first time the future Mr. Wife came over for dinner with my family. He was studying chemical engineering after several years doing cancer research (one of those programs for bright high school/college kids), and Daddy was a biochemist, a research professor at the same institute. Naturally, they used the same technical vocabulary; what both managed not to notice, intelligent and clever as they both were, was that their related fields used the vocabulary slightly differently. They spent a good portion of the evening becoming politely but increasingly frustrated, each not understanding why the other didn't see his point, given his obvious intelligence and knowledge. And thus I learnt that when a term has more than one meaning, this may not be immediately obvious. It's not fair to blame someone who didn't even realize there was a question that needed to be asked. Ed tried in his #3 post, but that wasn't enough -- his #26 nailed it home. (Well done, ed!)
As far as I can see, everyone posting in this thread meant well, and we can all work on communicating more effectively when we aren't snarking -- that skill is demonstratively mastered here at Rantburg!
#45
Agreed. I am willing to admit that the context for my argument is not well founded in the SWAT/SWOT debate. As I said, the original post was an emotional reaction, a knee-jerk one to bad information. I am as guilty as the people I just bashed. My question then, to you is, how do we reduce the size of the "bloated and overbearing" federal government?
I am not defending this post. I agree that the use of such terms is a source of confusion. However, as it has never been the habit of those in power to relinquish it, for any reason, I do not see them helping us fight this battle by changing their vocabulary.
That is why I say it falls to us to uncover the truth for ourselves, if for no other reason than the peice of mind one gets from knowing, for sure, that they are right in their line of thinking.
#46
That is why I say it falls to us to uncover the truth for ourselves, if for no other reason than the peice of mind one gets from knowing, for sure, that they are right in their line of thinking.
#47
coming VERY late to this thread: RWM has had previous posts that I found well thought out. Stick to one nym, guys. Expect Frank G to be "mostly snark, infrequently enlightening and overwhelmingly frustrating"*
*taken from my Divorce papers
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/30/2010 21:18 Comments ||
Top||
#48
Dang, FrankG. I'm jealous.
Mine said "tied up the bonds of matrimony" and "Gordian knot", something like that.
#50
Let's define "over-educated" so everyone can understand it - Barrack Hussein Obama. The man's supposedly a lawyer and a "Constitutional specialist". If it's not the BS of "community organizing", it's over his head. The last 15 months have proven that beyond a doubt.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
04/30/2010 23:12 Comments ||
Top||
Aaay-Peee article. Obama 'reluctantly' takes not to go forward with glorious proposal that includes amnesty. AP/Yahoo article as usual blames Republicans for everything.
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/30/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Kinda makes me wonder if they put it up just to get shot down and look gracious for giving up.
And it also kind makes me wonder what nearly equally devious legislation they are going to work on next.
#2
Gorb, Portorico statehood (2 senate and 6 house seats gains) and Cap & Steal (a.k.a. carbon indulgences scam). They can leave the "immigration reform" for run up to 2012.
#5
I don't see that they'll ever push it seriously, not even in 2012. They want to, desperately, but they know it's a huge loser for them. The pushback has been immense, even more lopsided than the political-media elite could have guessed.
#6
It's like reforming social security: the only real solution is one that involves huge pain. Can't live with 'em, can't deport 'em... I'd guess there will be some sort of neither/nor compromise in which the border gets enforced and the illegals remain but without citizenship or access to benefits, as guestworkers without a return date. We'll probably have to allow their illiterate kids to keep f***ing up our schools, but c'est la vie.
#8
One poll showed 70% support for Arizona's new law. I suspect Obama's internal polling says something similar and they would like to have one or two seats left by 2012. That's probably why the Puerto Rico plan, sort of a backup.
#10
If there's 70% support in Arizona for the new law, then that can only mean that a significant number of AZ latinos, who constitute 30% of AZ's population, support the law. Consider that nearly all white liberals oppose the law, and that white liberals are probably no more than 18% of the total AZ population. So the numbers imply the following breakout:
Opposition to law = 30% of total population
- 15% = white liberals
- 13% = latinos
- 2% = other ethnicity (native American, asian, afr-amer)
Consider: if Latinos = 30% of total population, and if 13% of the population are latinos opposed to the law, then 17% of the population is latinos in favor of the law, IOW, a majority of latinos FAVORS THIS LAW.
Alternatively, only a very slim majority of latinos and liberals opposes the law. But no matter how you slice the numbers, if only 30% of the overall population opposes the law, there is no mathematical possibility that a majority of AZ liberals and a majority of AZ latinos can be opposed to this law.
Bottom line, even Barry's base is in favor of, or at most evenly split concerning, the AZ law. This is why Rahm & Co. have advised that Barry drop the matter altogether.
#11
This overwhlemingly popular law is the bitchslap that Tweedledum and Tweedledee so desperately needed. Amnesty, falsely known as "reform", is dead in our time.
This is not to say that 'Dum and 'Dee will not continue to f*** up border security and ignore the problem altogether, but when a majority of white liberals and latinos favors border security and opposes open borders, it's clear that the political class will back off from another shambolic amnesty effort.
Al and Tipp doing it hard, watching the seas rise, but somebody has to do it .
Former Vice President Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, have added a Montecito-area property to their real estate holdings, reports the Montecito Journal.
The couple spent $8,875,000 on an ocean-view villa on 1.5 acres with a swimming pool, spa and fountains, a real estate source familiar with the deal confirms. The Italian-style house has six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms.
#2
Does Montecito even have enough electricity to support the Gore Green™ lifestyle?
Posted by: ed ||
04/30/2010 8:27 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I guess he wants to be closer to the Hollyweird elite who gave him an Oscar. They are sympathetic to his brand of snake oil and blather. California's loss is Tennessee's gain.
#6
so how big does your carbon assprint get when you own multiple houses? wonder how Al feels about that, probably pretty good since he got such a screaming deal on that Padero Lane property
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.
