bkc99xx

I find it frustrating that Obama left that poor lady out in the breeze for the last 6 to 7 weeks after she went on the talk shows and only now is he willing to take the heat and answer the questions about why she said such uninformed remarks back then.

How tough he sounded today, in front of his audience of reporters, challenging McCain to come after him instead of Rice for what happened. Sad thing is, he was AWOL for the last 8 weeks on this issue and the only time I even saw him take a series of questions on it, he ducked and run for cover.

I saw that Chris Matthews issued an apology for a segment concerning a comparison of something said by the Romney campaign to something said or issued years ago by the KKK. Just curious about what was said in the original segment that apparently crossed over the line of decency.

The great orator, the man who claimed he was going to reduce partisan differences and get congress to work together like never before. What happened? Aren't the liberals even the least bit embarrassed when they realize that under his watch, we have received the only downgrade.

That is what your president is selling.

When you make a mistake in your personal budget or your own business, you have the right to fix and solve the problem. When government makes the mistake, they find it easier to make us pay more for their mistakes.

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/...

When Obama and his team started using the phrase "shovel-ready jobs", I kind of laughed. Every day there for a while, all you heard about was how all these jobs were out there "shovel-ready" and ready to stimulate the economy. But, now, after the fact, his comments and subsequent light-hearted reaction to that phrase the other day really made me mad. Many people bought into the idea, right or wrong, that these types of jobs were there and would help the economy. And now Obama laughs while many are out of work or working for incomes well below what they had before. Where is the humor in that?

LIberals say that they are fighting for the middle class Americans. If that is true, then why do they continue to fight for rights for people that have entered the country illegally and are depressing wages and income growth for Americans? They are using benefits that are being paid for by Americans and straining the federal, state and local budgets. The average illegal alien will never pay the same amount in taxes as the same American earning a similar income. Even if you could find a way to prove that they get close to paying a similar rate, many send a very large portion of their income back to where they came from. They are literally sucking the money out of the economy, either directly or indirectly, and liberals are proud of that?

How can a liberal look at themselves in the mirror and not be ashamed?

According to the average of polls taken at Real Clear Politics, 1 more house seat has moved from leaning Democrat to toss-up, and 1 more senate seat has moved from toss-up to leaning Republican.

House

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/house...

Senate

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senat...

On 8/21, the polls showed a lead of only 4 seats for the Republicans and now, just 6 weeks later, the polls show a lead of 17 seats.

So, just how big a lead do you think they will have when all the votes are in?

I haven't put new gas in it for at least a year and probably haven't run the engine more than 30 minutes in the last year. I started it the last time about 4 months ago. It won't start now. I suspect the gas has perhaps gummed things up. Any suggestions to try. I was thinking of a couple of things, but didn't want to perhaps make it worse. Thanks

How about the Dem's and Repub's agreeing ( ha, yea, I know that might be a stretch) on splitting the extension of the tax cuts into 2 votes. 1 for anyone making under $250,000, and 1 for the rest?

The first one would obviously pass easily, and no one would be blamed for not getting tax relief for the middle class. Then, serious debate could take place over the merits and costs/benefits of extending the cuts for the remainder.

I will provide the link below, but I know some people want go there because it is a link from Fox. And some people are afraid of all links.

It occurred at a Town Hall Meeting of California Democrat Rep. Pete Stark, when a woman asked him a brilliant question on the constitutionality of the Obama Care Law. Essentially, she asked Stark how the law could be when it makes Health Care a “right,” thereby compelling others to provide and or pay for Health Care for other people. She argued this is a form of “slavery,” in violation of the 13 Amendment. Then she got to the heart of her question. If the Federal Government can do this, “what can’t they do?”

Stark’s answer is astounding. He said, “The Federal Government can do most anything in this country.”

Wow. How has anyone with that belief been elected?

http://www.thefoxnation.com/justice/2010/08/02/dem...

From Malaysia:

An ethnic Indian Malaysian was recently sentenced to whipping and 10 months in prison for hiring six illegal immigrants at his restaurant. "I think that after this, Malaysian employers will be afraid to take in foreign workers (without work permits). They will think twice."

Talk about personal responsibility, I guarantee after 1 whipping, the employer would be highly motivated to never hire another illegal again, whether the federal government did or did not provide a computerized database.

We passed laws to allow the government to provide certain services to people that, by choosing to use the service, have agreed to the process. Now, we can debate whether certain programs should have been provided by the federal government, but the people using the program are doing it voluntarily.

Now, if the government tries to mandate that everyone must buy insurance, that seems like a big step to take. If necessary, I would be willing to legally fight for a person's right to not purchase insurance if they made the decision to not buy it, or, for my right to choose the plan that I want. Presently, I am on a high-deductible plan (one that probably would be considered under-insured by the new law).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIHz5tevLAw

carbon dioxide in natural gas?

It bothers me that the person states that natural gas has carbon dioxide in it and that their new technology is able to remove that so that it burns cleaner. What the heck?! The carbon dioxide produced when natural gas burns has very little to do with any carbon dioxide trapped in the natural gas and everything to do with burning a hydrocarbon in the presence of oxygen.

So, either correct me if I am wrong or explain to me why they are creating a new facility/process to reduce the creation of carbon dioxide as a byproduct of burning natural gas, and yet don't take the 2 seconds needed to explain that. Do they think we are that dumb and can't handle the truth? I don't expect every commercial to be a 30 second chemistry lab, but the way this is handled is very weird for someone claiming to be so smart as to have any impact on actually reducing the levels of carbon dioxide.

1 week before the November 4th election, the Market closed at 8175.

Over the next few days, McCain closed the gap in many of the polls and the market increased to 9625 on the Monday before the election.

By Tuesday, the final polling was beginning to show that McCain would not overcome the lead that Obama had developed and the market dropped 486 points on election day.

By the Friday before inauguration day, the market had dropped to 8281 then proceeded to drop an additional 332 points on that day to end at 7949. Now, a little over 4 weeks later, the market has closed at 7465.

So, what do you think this means?

what would you do?

Today, my wife left a store and drove away. She just happened to look at the receipt at her next stop before coming home. She didn't see a $60 item on the receipt and checked the bag to find that it really was in there. She knew that she should take it back but called and left me the message. Under those circumstances, what would you do?

Here's the article:

Sarah Palin offered up her teenage daughter Bristol as a babysitter for impersonator Tina Fey's kid during their recent Saturday Night Live filming, Fey says.

"Gov. Palin was like, 'Oh, did Alice go home? Oh, 'cause Bristol woulda babysat.' She offered Bristol Palin to babysit Alice," Fey told late-night host Conan O'Brien Tuesday.

"And it was Bristol's birthday, too," Fey continued. "I was like, 'Yeah, that's exactly what 17-year-old Bristol Palin wants to do at SNL - babysit the toddler of the lady that goofs on her mom.'"

After all the crap that Tina Fey threw on Sarah Palin, how does that make you feel that Palin was still a decent person to Tina Fey?

http://www.bostonherald.com/track/star_tracks/view...

A PBS poll finds that 84% of the people answering the poll are either not confident or only somewhat confident. And of that 84%, 60% were in the "not confident" category.

I realize that this is not a scientific poll, but the dramatic loss of confidence in the accuracy of the vote is telling. I think a real scientific poll would find that the numbers weren't quite as bad but would still be terrible in a country that rightfully claims and proclaims the importance and value of each vote.

If you care to add a follow-up, what do you think are the largest factors in "shaking the confidence" and what can be done to restore the confidence in the vote?

If the democrats are so smart, why didn't they begin to immediately fix the problem when they received control after the 2006 elections? The republicans actually began warning about this in 2003, 2004 and 2005. Both Bush and McCain are on record as providing warnings of this problem. If the problem was visible, or even remote foreseeable, in 2003, then it only makes sense that the problem continued to get worse along the way.

Why didn't the democrats start working on this in 2007 or at least by the first quarter or two of this year?