bigdmizer

I have to undergo drug tests for my job. So do many people in this country who work for a living. Those that are living off of Taxes paid by others should have to pass drug tests also!

The U.S. Congress is beset on all sides by special interests. The original intent of the founding Fathers has been subverted by greed. With the amount of money required to run for Congress, the accountability to the American people has been disconnected. There are"Tax collectors in the Temple", The special interests have installed "aides" in every Congressional office, They are the Foxes guarding the Hen house. Until Term limits are impressed upon Congress, reform cannot begin. Congress needs to be reformed in the worst way!

Has anyone stopped to ask whether or not these people are qualified to be crafting a new health care system? They cannot even be bothered to read the whole bill, and they feel qualified to vote on something so important? After all it is not a health care system that they will be using, they have a special one just for themselves. The President originally didn't even want to allow enough time to read it before demanding a vote. Doesn't that scare anyone?

U.S. Government deficit since inception 1776 to 2008: $11.3 trillion

U.S. government Projected (CBO projection) debt obligations, over the next two decades: $23.7 Trillion

Universal Health Care estimate cost over next 3 years: $1.8 Trillion (CBO projection).

The debt that the U.S. government is acrueing is simply staggering and unsustainable. Take into consideration how much a Trillion is, if you were born 2009 years ago and spent a million dollars everyday, it would not equal one trillion. At some point this debt will become so staggering that the U.S. government will collapse under the weight. If our governent was a business it would have gone bankrupt already!

Is everyone here familiar with Eric Holder? He is the current AG of the U.S. He will be the one who would lead the witch hunt for those accused of Torturing Terrorists.

Quoted from Eric Holder 2002: “One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva Convention that you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people.

“It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, M. A t t a had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Z. M o u s s a o u i be called a prisoner of

war? Again, I think not.”

So........Hypocrisy?

Rep Bush from Illinois called for the State Governor to fill Obama's seat with a "Black" man. How is a comment like this acceptable? The double standard is blatant. If this were a white man calling for a "white" replacement only, What kind of reaction would there be? In today's society there can be no acceptance of racism or bigotry from any race, color or creed. To say it is ok for one group to be racist only incites racism from the opposite groups. It is a self defeating attitude. If the point is to eliminate racism, then you have to make it unacceptable from all sources, otherwise it is self perpetuating. I think Obama would want the most qualified candidate to fill his seat, regardless of race. If he says otherwise, then he is not who we thought we were electing.

It is a simple economic fact, raise taxes (or take tax cuts away) from corporations and they lay off workers or even worse, out source, in order to protect profit margins. The Obama tax plan is impending doom for many American workers. Economics dictate that when you give tax breaks to those that provide the jobs, then they create more jobs. When you think about it, would American middle class want a job with income, or no income but a tax break on their unemployment and welfare? Is a more socialistic policy of government provided job programs preferable?

The fact that Obama has been heavily involved in Chicago politics for years is nothing new. The fact that very many Chicago's fellow Democratic party officials are now on trial for corruption and graft especially in the Daley administration is interesting. Many of these corrupt officials have close ties to Obama. Where there is smoke there is usually fire.

It seems that every election comes upon the American people with a flurry of promises from the prospective candidates. There are promises made on the campaign trail that are as hollow as the stump they are standing upon. Why do the American people stand for such out right lies and exaggerations? If you had a friend that lied to you with the frequency that politicians do, would you stand by that friend?

What would it take to make candidates stand by what they say, and actually follow through? What binding agreement would hold the candidate accountable?

Both the current candidates for President are making claims that we, as relatively intelligent people, know that they will never keep. Why do we stand for such hypocrisy? Are business men allowed to make false claims about products they sell? Is false advertising legal? Why do politicians get a free pass on honesty and accountability? If anything they should be held to a higher standard befitting someone who represents the people.

Please consider the following, What if we held the politicians accountable with a legal contract. A contract with the American people that would demand accountability for reneging on campaign promises? If a candidate claims he will not raise taxes, or balance the budget, he should be made to follow through. Perhaps we could call it an impeachment contract, a legal understanding that a Politician will not make false promises. A contract that states a politician will be the representative that he or she promised. It is not a complicated concept, it just asks for simple honesty and accountability, something we as everyday folk demand of ourselves and those we interact with everyday.

Please pass this idea on if you feel like America deserves honesty and accountability during this time of graft and corruption.

The Universal health care system proposed by Obama and his Party could very well be considered part of a Socialist agenda. It will stifle innovation and decrease the care of those who pay for it. Hard working Americans will have to pay more and get less. All of the people who pay no taxes will pull the system down, and over burden it. How is this a vision of a better America? America cannot even afford Social security, let alone the huge deficit the Government already maintains. How would Obama be able to decrease taxes when he would increase the size of the government by hundreds of thousands of Health care workers?

It's simple really. Look at the huge response that her pick is generating. It fun to watch the liberals panic. It really is a brilliant pick. It secures the religious right vote, the same vote that got Bush elected in the last close election. Palin also appeals to a lot of undecided woman voters. She is a strong, Charismatic woman and will pull strong with the woman. She is a reformer and the opposite of Biden. (40 years in D.C. politics doesn't make you a proponent of change) In short, Palin has a tremendous amount of cross sectional appeal. The Liberals are scared to death. Ain't it great?

It's simple, For that last two weeks, in my area, the weather forcasters have been way off base. They say rain, and it doesn't, they say partly sunny and it rains. It's almost comical.

If the complexities of weather confound weather experts to the point where they cannot accurately predict weather a week in advance, then how can anyone place faith in climate models and much longer term predictions. The complexities of the short term are miniscule compared to the complexities of the long term. Only political or economic motives could influence a true scientist to state a theory that is far from being proven as fact. AGW alarmist wonder how we can doubt a consensus of scientists? It's easy, a consensus isn't a scientific term, it's political. I have read many articles and there is a re-occuring sentiment that always sticks with me. It was summed up best by one scientist, who stated something along the lines of....."the more we learn, the more we realize how little we know".

CO2 is the crux of the AGW theory, is it not? That is the green house gas that man is producing exponentually. What happens if the correlation between CO2 and temperature goes awry? Carbon credits? Green house gas taxes? etc...

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2MSU.jpg

Looks like some of those AGW computer models may need some updates. Maybe tweak the AGW theory a little, it's not looking like it's going to stand the test of time.

The earth is not a homogenous system. It is not a static system. The earth is in a constant state of change. There are thousands of variables that constantly exert influence upon temperature just within one square kilometer to the next. How does a scientist expect rational people, who are capable of understanding basic principles of thermo dynamics, to believe that they can accurately determine the "Global temperature"?

Lets say they have thousands of weather stations around the globe. How many do you need to get an accurate measurment of the globe?

Consider the fact that the Earth has 510,072,000 square Kilometers of surface area. Not to mention the cubic volume of the atmosphere which are at radically different temperatures as the altitude changes.

How can anyone expect individuals to believe that scientists have the knowledge necessary to make accurate predictions and models when such a basic factor as temperature cannot be accurately measured?

Who is to say that a warmer earth is a bad thing? There are just as many benefits as detriments. Who is to say the ideal climate is not a warmer one? The planet was a much warmer environment at many different times in it's past. Perhaps the earth is simply returning to a state of equilibrium that is warmer then what we have yet to experience. After all the planet has been in a general warming trend for the last 10000 years.

Please point out to me these "changes", because I don't see the "catastrophic" changes happening. At least not any that are caused by Carbon Dioxide. I see alot people raising the alarm but I don't see any fire. How can you expect people to to change their lifestyle and give up freedoms to prevent something scientists themselves are not 100% confident is occuring?