Norm

He violated the Yahoo community guidelines by repeatedly posting the same question about Obama's recent Trayvon/Zimmerman speech, so anyone could have reported him for abuse. I chose not to. I chose to answer his question "Will the Republicans continue to accuse the left of race-baiting and bring up the same old same old" or words to that effect.

Here was my answer:

Obama, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and all the "progressive" black leaders need to hear the sermon of Dr. James David Manning, Pastor of the ATLAH World Missionary Church in New York.

“You are focusing on the fact that Trayvon Martin is black and you believe that George Zimmerman is white, he isn’t. His father is baptist, his mother, she’s from Peru. He’s Latin. A mix of Latin and White,” Manning said. “Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and all that crowd jumped the gun, they thought he was white, but he isn’t.”

He called out those in the black community who refuse to consider any other possibility than Zimmerman racially profiled and killed Martin in cold blood.

“The only reason why you think that way is because you’re black,” Manning preached. “You see the world, not through the blood of Jesus, you see the world through your black eyes. You have not changed yet.”

He went on: “You’re black before you’re anything. You’re black before you’re Christian, you’re black before you’re holy ghost, you’re black before you’re anything. You’re blackness is greater than your religion. And that’s why with you, Zimmerman’s guilty.”

P.S.: Dr. Manning is black, genius...

What's the problem? Does he need the Colonel Jessup/Jack Nicholson "You can't handle the truth!" bit? Is he proving the liberal agenda by engaging in outright censorship? Does he refuse to see any other point of view but his own?

If this question gets reported for abuse, that will be rock-solid proof liberals can't defend their position and have no problem using whatever means they have at their disposal to silence their opposition...

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/07/03/i...

The article indicates that businesses have already started cutting their workforces and the hours employees will be working so they won't have to comply with the mandate. Notice that the article says business owners won't have to pay into health care premiums, but if an employee's health care premiums take up 9.5% of the employee's gross pay -- or more -- business owners will have to pay a penalty of $2,000.00 to $3,000.00 per employee. The goal of any business is to make money, so why would any business owner be willing to p!$$ away at least $2,000.00 a head?

Notice also that the implementation of OBAMATAX for mid-to-large-sized companies has been delayed until January 1, 2015, but the individual mandate still goes into effect on January 1, 2014. That means those of us in the "working class" who don't have insurance right now can either pay out of our own pockets for a whole year -- and pay whatever the health care companies care to charge -- or pay a penalty to Uncle Sam. How is that in any way FAIR to the people Obama claims to represent? How can anyone honestly say the hard-working middle-class isn't getting screwed here?

And people wonder why the Dems passed the so-called "Affordable Care Act" in the middle of the night with no open discussion or "transparency" that was promised by Obama...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/07/usa-detr...

They have done everything in their power to obstruct the mayor and the state-appointed emergency manager. Now Motown is looking down the barrel of bankruptcy. Will the people of Detroit finally come to their senses and send these overpaid idiots packing?

Why is it the last three times I have tried to report a question for abuse I get the response "Something has gone wrong..."?

I find it very strange that those three questions I tried to report were nothing more than anti-Republican political rants...

The Detroit Red Wings hold the record of all professional sports teams for making the playoffs the most consecutive years. Now it looks like their streak may come to an end. They're 8th in the Western Conference and only one point ahead of Phoenix with nine games left in their abbreviated season. They've been plagued by injuries and have had serious problems getting their offensive lines running well. What say you? Will Hockeytown shut down early for the first time in over two decades?

I'm a conservative, BTW...

While I take issue with the First Lady's apparent hypocrisy when it comes to teaching children good nutritional habits, what would possess someone to brutally ridicule her physical appearance? She may not be Tyra Banks but she is NOT ugly...

The only thing I can come up with that makes any sense is this: A person who says Michelle Obama looks like a gorilla is either (a) a true homophobe, or (b) a liberal troll trying to make conservatives look bad.

Thoughts?

I asked a similar question last week when former Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick was convicted in Federal court on charges of bribery, extortion, racketeering, etc. The article about this case as put out by Yahoo conveniently omitted the fact that Kwame is a Democrat.

Here's a link to that article:

http://news.yahoo.com/former-detroit-mayor-kilpatr...

Not even two weeks later we have this:

http://news.yahoo.com/why-republicans-raising-mone...

As I indicated before, when it's a Republican that is accused of wrongdoing the story byline and the first paragraph of the story both mention the accused's party affiliation, but when it's a Democrat being CONVICTED the party issue is swept under the rug?!?!! What's wrong with this picture?

How can anyone say there's no bias in the liberal media, and how can anyone say Yahoo News does not have an obvious liberal bias after seeing this?

http://news.yahoo.com/former-detroit-mayor-kilpatr...

Read this entire article. Now read it again. Do you find ANY mention in this article that former mayor Kwame Kilpatrick is a DEMOCRAT? When a Republican steps out of line, Yahoo News lists the alleged offender's party affiliation in the byline (as in "Former Republican Mayor of Wherever Convicted of Whatever") and usually in the first paragraph in the story. But now they have to cover a story involving a Federal conviction of a liberal, and since they can't sweep the story under the rug because it's too big they make no mention of his political affiliation?!?!!

I'll have to check ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, and NPR to see if they're doing the same thing...

P.S.: For those of you poised and ready to bash FOX News, save it -- Kwame's party affiliation is not in the byline, and you have to read through nine paragraphs before you see a mention that Kwame is a Democrat.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/11/jury-convicts...

I ask this question for three reasons:

(1) The vast majority of them ask "How do I loose weight?" If you've been through 3rd grade in the U.S. you have been taught the difference between LOOSE and LOSE, so if you can't even get that right you're obviously not the brightest bulb on the tree...

(2) The Internet has websites galore that deal with safe and effective weight loss methods, proper diet, and exercise. Many of these websites have information provided by doctors, exercise physiologists, nutritionists, personal trainers, professional bodybuilders, etc. There is a lot of good information out there, but these people come on Y!A to ask the question of random strangers who may or may not know what they're talking about. Makes me think they may be lazy as well as stupid -- looking for someone to "spoon-feed" them the answers to their questions...

(3) Most of the people asking the question have unrealistic goals -- like losing 10 pounds in 10 days or 25 pounds in a month. They completely ignore the FACT that they didn't put the weight on overnight so it's not going to come off overnight. What's worse, they state point-blank that they don't care about the health risks; they just want to lose the weight NOW regardless of the cost. They ask about diet pills and say "Don't tell me diet pills are dangerous." Ditto that with starvation diets: "How much weight can I loose if I starve myself for 2 weeks, and don't tell me starving myself is dangerous..."

BTW, the misspelling of "loose" above is deliberate to point out the illiteracy of the person who asked that question (yup, she used the word LOOSE instead of LOSE...)

So, to review: (1) Obviously not smarter than a 5th grader when asking how to LOOSE weight, (2) Asking people who don't know the first thing about weight loss how to drop the pounds, probably because they're too lazy to do their own research, and (3) Caring only about results and giving no consideration to the health risks -- is it just me, or does this scream "moron"?

http://www.clickondetroit.com/money/consumer/Horse...

Found this on the local news. I've heard people talk about how good IKEA's Swedish meatballs are -- now I wonder what they're thinking...

Did the IKEA executives really think no one would find out?

Two recent questions asked on Y!A:

Why do cons complain about the sive of government?

Do cons now say Republicans in Congress don't bare any responsibility for their decisions?

For starters, what is a "sive"? Is it like a sieve, which is something people use to drain pasta?

Secondly, is this guy suggesting Republicans in Congress need to get naked for some reason?

I'm sorry, but when you can't use the English language properly it makes you look like a moron -- especially when you're criticizing others and thereby imply that YOU are somehow superior...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/31/union-l...

Yes, I realize The Blaze is a right-wing news agency, but what if this is true? I thought the unions overwhelmingly supported OBAMACARE. If they start questioning or complaining about it now, doesn't that mean they didn't do their due diligence by thoroughly examining OBAMACARE before it was signed into law? Isn't that tantamount to completely screwing the union employees they supposedly represent?

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-cheapest-obama...

Yes, I realize CNS News is a right-wing news agency, and I also saw that the IRS made an assumption based on economic indicators that may or may not be accurate, but what does this mean for lower-earning working-class Americans if it's true? Wouldn't that make the "Affordable Care Act" a huge oxymoron?

http://news.yahoo.com/embattled-michigan-supreme-c...

How far down did you have to read in this article before you found out the judge who is stepping down under allegations of ethics violations is a Democrat?

If this judge was a Republican, you wouldn't have to read past the first paragraph to find THAT out. In fact, how many times have we seen lame-stream liberal media organizations headline articles like this by saying something like "Republican Judge from Michigan Supreme Court to step down amid allegations of (fill in the blank)"?

If the offender is one of their own, they downplay it as much as possible or try to sweep it under the rug, but when it's someone from the other camp they make sure that person's political affiliation is IN YOUR FACE...

What does this tell you about the liberal media?

The first standard argument over right-to-work laws is that they bust unions. How is this true when right-to-work laws don't outlaw unions and don't infringe on anyone's right to form or join a union? Right-to-work laws simply state a person cannot be forced to join a union as a condition of employment. It gives workers a choice. Isn't that what liberals are about -- Freedom of choice? My body, my choice? My right to choose to live with a member of the same gender?

The second standard argument is that unions still have to represent non-union workers. As someone who has worked for Club Fed I've seen how this works. Non-union members receive the "bare bones" treatment and get representation that is marginal at best while dues-paying union members are represented zealously, even to the point of threatening lawsuits in an attempt to get management to knuckle under. The law states clearly that representation by the union has to be equal and fair, but in reality it's not even close. Union stewards are told that their role is to defend the contract -- NOT the person -- so why does it matter when the contract protects union and non-union members alike?

The third standard argument is that we have unions to thank for things like the 40-hour work week. The reason this argument is not valid today is ALL these changes brought about by the unions of the past are now codified in Federal law and apply equally to ALL workers -- both union and non-union. No one has to be a member of a union to work 40 hours a week (or to get overtime if you exceed 40 hours a week), and if unions disappeared tomorrow the laws would still be on the books.

Are there any other legitimate arguments out there? Or are the unions simply lashing back at legislation that takes away their monopoly in union-shop environments?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/11...

Is this yet another example of liberal lunacy, or the march toward the State being God? And liberals wonder why thinking people call them communists...

Does anyone know how to do this? I don't do Facebook but my wife does, and she wants to un-friend someone she should have kicked to the curb long ago. The problem is my wife is one of the most computer-illiterate people I know (she can't even do a simple Google search) and she claims she can't figure it out. I'm guessing it's pretty simple, but I don't have the time or the patience right now to sit down and go through it. Yes, I admit it -- I'M BEING LAZY, but I'm tired of having to come in and spoon-feed my wife when I'm 99% sure she looked at it for 10 seconds, decided she can't figure it out, threw up her hands and gave up -- she does this A LOT. Can someone in Y!A Land help a frustrated husband out?

http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/06/clinton-asks-phi...

Are you freaking kidding me? William Jefferson "Slick Willie" Clinton, the man who at first said "I did not have sex with that woman" and then back-pedaled and said "It's true I had an inappropriate relationship with that woman" (typical liberal -- never admit guilt and never say you're sorry), is NOW attacking Romney's integrity?!?!!

Reminds me of former Senator Ted Kennedy questioning the ethics of Clarence Thomas at his Senate confirmation hearing, only to have Senator Orrin Hatch from Utah step up and say "Mr. Kennedy, if you of all people think you have the right to question another man's ethical behavior, then I have a bridge to Chappaquiddick Island I want to sell you..."

How stupid does ol' Bill think people are?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/11/05...

And yes, I'm very aware Breitbart is a right-leaning "news" organization -- I'm just thinking of the implications if this is true...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politic...

The Senate Majority Leader has declared that he "can't" work with Romney if he's elected. Um, excuse me, Senator Reid, but do you mean "can't" or "won't"? Remember, your beloved Democrats have been accusing Republicans of not being bipartisan, refusing to compromise, and obstructing pretty much everything. Now you come out days before the election and basically announce nothing will get done over the next four years if it's not your guy?

How can anyone possibly support Harry Reid or the Democrats when the Senate Majority Leader has basically said he's going to take his toys and go home if he doesn't get his way?