pegasusaig

If you were in Omaha this weekend for the official Shareholders meeting Saturday, what was you impression, and what do you feel you gained from it?

For me and I'm sure a majority of users, the new YA format is a something of a mutant from hell.

In trying to find a way to comment directly to Yahoo, I find a page that's touting the new format's "convenience". That's a lot like inverting the toilet so it hangs from the ceiling and calling it an improvement because it saves floor space. Such ill-logic is not unprecedented at Yahoo, but this one sets a new low.

There was a statement on that announcement page asking for user comments on the new format, as that was "important" to Yahoo. However, the comments box had a note saying "Comments are closed..."

In other words, they didn't like the feedback so they shut down the feedback mechanism instead of listening. Fits right in with way Yahoo cares about what we think.

What will it take to convince them to dump this piece of crap?

WHY would Yahoo trash it's own site like this? Surely somebody pointed out that it's like trading a horse for a jackass and pretending you have made an improvement.

Any idea what drugs they are on, and how one can get back to the real site?

You probably have no idea, but this is very true. Why? Discrimination by the religious is common. There is a perception that Atheists must be dishonest or immoral among other things, as well as a threat to the church- and therefore are not to be trusted or be involved with. Atheists know this is prejudice and fantasy, and of course see no reason to invite it.

How do they avoid that? When you make some comment about God solving your problem or accepting his will, they nod and give you an uh-huh- leaving you with the perception that they agree. Atheists who run businesses know of this discrimination too, so they may also pretend to be religious. Politicians know which way the wind blows, so Atheist politicians must seriously pretend to be be believers in order to get an even chance at the polls. All people often do what they must do to avoid conflict, and without making a false claim they can easily have you thinking they believe just what you do and that makes you comfortable.

It's a fact, they're everywhere. Some of them go to church with you. And so long as you didn't know that, everything was fine. Now, you have a problem. That's because the threat of Atheism does not come from Atheists at all, but from your perception and fear of the idea.

Think about it. How many of those around you just keep quiet about their true beliefs, and allow you to think they agree in order to avoid senseless, fruitless arguments and religious discrimination?

It's already starting- the claims of fraud, cheating, etc. Donald Trump reportedly has just stated the election is a sham, and called for a revolution! Of course, he will have lots of company. How many high-profile republicans do you think we will see tomorrow kicking and screaming like spoiled children who didn't get their way? Who will they be?

Limbaugh is a given, of course.

In Kansas, there is a first time democratic candidate running for state senate. The republican committee targeted him with an ad that said he had changed his name and was hiding his true identity, as well as owning businesses under multiple name. The expressly implied there was something ugly behind all this concealment. A familiar formula, the kind being used all over the nation by the new republican leadership, right up to Mitt Romney. Twist truth- sell fear and hate. .

The name was indeed changed- it did so automatically when he was adopted at age 11. His business leases space from a real estate holding company that he also owns. All public record.

They intentionally took a bit of truth, twisted it into a suspicious picture that implied evil- and trashed the person's character rather than address true election issues.

I don't know which is more despicable; the scumbag minds that sink to that level, or the mindless zombies that buy into it.

Today is a litmus test on the ability of the American people to recognize this kind of character for what it is- and their moral capacity to reject it. I hope we still have enough integrity to pass the test.

Will you pass?

Romney trashed 47% of the nation in an extensive speed he thought was private. Then when it leaked, he said it was an error.

There are two possible actions here:

(1) He does think 47% of us are irresponsible deadbeats that he is not going to worry about.

(2) He is willing to tell the rich that kind of crap in order to get them to donate, thus he sold out half the nation and his honor for a political contribution.

One or the other of the above MUST be true- there is no other option, except that both of them are true.

That is a clear statement of character, totally obvious unless you keep your head where the sun never shines.

WHY would any logical person vote for a candidate whose character permitted such actions?

Romney supporters, explain how you justify this gross lack of honor in your candidate? Why you would trust or vote for a person whose character allows him to become whatever sells at the moment?

What is really the saddest aspect of this election is not the lies, denial and fabrication. That is only made acceptable by the people who are buying into it- jumping in to spread the trash, expand the lies even further, obscure the truth even further. These are the same people that will have to live with the results of the election they are turning into a mindless squabble, denying everyone a clear look at the facts.

How is America to benefit from not knowing the truth? IT WON'T.

We have a very large number of people (YA seems to have far more than it's share) who are too immature to look at facts- all they want is "evidence" that they are right in their spontaneous choice. It's hard to imagine something less intelligent than sticking you head in the septic pit of illusion and lies intentionally, and then telling yourself you are making an informed choice.

In my business I talk with customers in other countries every day, and they frequently comment on the US election. While they do ask what I think on candidates, they usually comment on the conduct of our fake news shows and things the people post in blogs and comments- and it's always something along the lines of asking what's wrong with us; are Americans really that immature about something this important? Do the people here not understand what is at stake for them? They question the character and judgement of the American people- and with good reason.

It's embarrassing to try and defend this ignorant and childish behavior, because there is no good defense. Not everybody does this, but the percentage that do is appalling. Regardless of who you favor, is it possible for you to step back from the tainted arguments and openly examine and check facts to guide your choice? Leave the tainted and biased "news" and talking heads out of it?

The worst of it is that both the ignorant and the wise will have to live with the winning president. If each side had to live with their own- that would be justice. Since that can't happen, I encourage those who refuse to think for themselves to stop buying and spreading the lies, and start thinking like you cared about the country instead of winning a mindless insult contest.

Can you do that for just a couple days??

This is not a question inviting you to spread more trash or defend more lies here. It's an effort to get people to see that this behavior is self-destructive and not in anybody's best interests.

If anyone would know Romney's character and capacity, it would be the people of Massachusetts, the state he was governor of, his former employers. Yet according to current polls, Obama is the run away favorite there, 59% to 40%, with only 1% undecided. Clearly Massachusetts voters, the people who know him best, do not want Mitt Romney in the white house! What do they know that you don't know?

Here's the link to the Rasmussen poll:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/pol...

This one has it 68/32 Obama:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Graphs/...

The polls show Obama and Romney running about even. However there is a handicap, a "gimme" in Romneys favor that should be understood. Romney is running against a black man, and still having a hard time keeping even. Racism is alive and well in America and we have seen a great deal of it surfacing in this election. Without question there are a lot of people whose racial views prevent their voting for a black man regardless of his qualifications. That number is estimated to be around 10% or more of the voters, but can't be verified. While it is can no longer safe to publicly admit you are racist, there is no barrier to voting as one. All the racist votes go to Romney, of course. That is his "gimme".

IF Obama were white, a significant share of that group would shift from Romney to Obama, making the polls move dramatically- Obama up substantially and Romney down by the same percentage, reflecting what the nation would do if the prejudice were removed. If the lower side estimate of 10% shifted, it would make a landslide of record proportions.

What percent of the vote against Obama would change sides if he were white?

How far would that shift the polls in favor of Obama?

Much of the world is highly affected by US policy and leadership. Many have said that they wished they could vote in our elections, since the effect of our policies on their countries and lives is so strong.

All opinions welcome, but especially those who are citizens of other countries- who would you vote for if you could? Why do you pick that candidate?

The American people are forgiving- sometimes to a huge fault, and to our detriment. We like to believe that what want to believe is true, and often reject repeated proof that it is not. Such is the question about candidate Romney, and the conflicts between what he claims today and what he said yesterday. Last night, there were many Romney claims that Obama said conflict with the position he has advocated in the past. One of those was on the auto industry, which has recovered so well that it's stronger than ever and has paid back it's government loans with interest- literally, the government made a profit.

Obama said Romney previously stated he would let the auto industry go it alone and should get no bailout. Romney said that's not true. Was it true or not? Let's engage the Fact Checker.

The following article was written by Mitt Romney himself and published in the New York Times Nov 18 2008:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney...

This is the first paragraph:

"IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check."

Obama was correct- Romney had "Romnesia" again. Worse, if you read the article you can see that the results are directly the opposite of what Romney predicted they would be- it was his choice that would have destroyed the auto industry, and the Obama plan he fought against that saved it. That is a measure of his judgment as well as his honesty- or at least, his "memory of convenience".

DO YOU STILL THINK ROMNEY ISN'T LYING TO YOU?

Romney now claims that his 47% speech was a mistake. Most people do not know the full text of his comments, or that he was speaking more comfortably and naturally than normal. It was not scripted at all, it was offhand, from the gut. Below is a transcript of that portion of his speech, and a following article from the Salt Lake Tribune explaining his motives. Read the speech, then the explanation- and tell me if you still buy the apology and credibility of Mitt Romney.

Romney:

“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.“

Salt Lake Tribune:

"You must also assess the audience it was intended to influence. What is also important to take from that speech is what those contributors value and inevitably are looking for Romney to deliver once elected. To elicit their contributions, Romney had to appeal to the expectations that the audience placed on him before they would essentially open their checkbooks. It was necessary for him to put the frame of reference more in line with their judgment of the nation. Referring to the 47 percent who do not pay taxes is to validate for the attendees those who they consider worthy, and who they do not. Those who do not contribute to government by paying federal income taxes are not worthy of receiving benefit from it. Romney was explicit in describing his image of those he values and why others do not earn his and their respect."

Do you really believe all that was a "mistake", some kind of slip of the tongue?

Or was it a duplicitous and ambitious politician who will tell people whatever they want to hear to gain power?

Mitt Romney's father was George Romney, who was born in Mexico.. Some interesting things pop up when you search the Romney family tree.

Mitt Romney's Great Grandfather fled from America to Mexico because he was prosecuted under the Edmunds Anti-Polgyamy Act. They set up a mormon colony there, and are said to have hated America. Apparently, this cost them their US citizenship. At one point when George was a child, his father (Mitt's grandfather) fled Mexico (back to the US) avoiding fighting in the Mexican Revolution that started around 1910.

In spite of his lineage having lost citizenship, George Romney never officially became a US Citizen but was certainly not denied opportunity when he returned to America.

Mitt Romney was born in the US. Interestingly, Mitt's situation is the same as that of Obama- his father was born in another country and was not a natural-born citizen. That status is required by the US Constitution in order to run for president- and George Romney did run for the presidential nomination against Nixon in 1968. Ironically, Mitt has made jokes to the effect that no one had asked for his birth certificate.

George Romney entered politics by participating in a re-write of the Michigan constitution. He was elected governor, served from 1963 to 1969. Part of his record there was to institute the states first income tax, and greatly expand the size of state government.

Around the same time (1966) the Vietnam war was hot and a draft was in force. Young Mitt was eligible. However, at that time dad had power and influence, which may have made a difference. Mitt went to France as a missionary. He wrangled five draft deferments- two 2-S student deferments, then a 4-D ministerial deferment, then two more student deferments. By the time those ran out, the result of the December 1969 draft lottery ensured he would not be selected. He effectively avoided military service to his country.

The family history seems to say that so long as things suit me, I'm happy. But if they don't, I'm bailing and leaving others to deal with whatever it is I don't approve of. Mitt has been an independent, a moderate, then a staunch conservative, and now in the middle of the campaign is sliding back to a moderate because the extreme position was not selling well. Having learned that Mitt has changed his positions and affiliations many times, I am wondering just how many more identities he has in the bag- and when they would pop up. Often, you hear the request for the real Mitt Romney to stand up, and maybe that is the unpredictable variable it appears to be.

Do your own research, just google the names of George W Romney and Mitt Romney.

Does this history look like that which would produce a solid, reliable president, or would we see a chameleon? Just as the leopard can't change his spots, the chameleon can't stop changing his.

What's your opinion?

The Islamic countries often demand "Sharia Law", which is using the Koran as the foundation of laws. Do you think that could happen in the USA? Theists often ask why atheists object to religion, and say that can't happen here. NO? Read on.

“All that stuff I was taught about evolution, embryology, the Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell,” U.S Rep. Paul Broun said in an address last month at a banquet organized by Liberty Baptist Church in Hartwell, Georgia. “And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior.”

Broun, a medical doctor by training, is a republican and member of the Tea Party Caucus. He serves on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. That makes as much sense as hiring a Georgia plumber to do brain surgery at the Mayo Clinic.

In his speech to the church group, Broun called the Bible the “the manufacturer’s handbook. … It teaches us how to run all of public policy and everything in our society.” “That’s the reason, as your congressman, I hold the holy Bible as being the major directions to me of how I vote in Washington, D.C., and I’ll continue to do that,” he said.

This guy is not a moron; he is an MD, but his education apparently didn't teach him to look outside the religious box he lives in. He believes science is some kind of conspiracy to destroy his religion... and is fighting back by using his religion to dictate his votes in United States Congress. How many others are doing the same thing?

Would such people give America the equivalent of Sharia Law if they could?

Whomever is elected faces an issue bigger than any of the widely discussed ones- that of repairing a divided nation. He must find a way to move us toward the center, toward reason and cooperation. How can the next president, whomever it may be, bring the nation back together? Which one would do it best?

And please- be rational and realistic.

The nation is obviously bitterly divided, with a large number of people in taking extreme positions without good reason or consideration of the rights of others. The abuse such as saturates this YA Election board illustrates how bad this problem is. Nothing either candidate might do in office is as damaging as splitting the nation in this way. America must be one nation, otherwise it will deteriorate into a splintered one, and freedom will become a distant illusion. We must find a way to move toward the center, toward reason and cooperation.

Assuming Romney were elected, what could he do to bring the nation back together? Would he do it?

And please- be rational and realistic.

One of the stage cameras at the Denver debate caught Romney smoothly pulling a white rectangular object from a pocket and flipping it onto the podium as he took his place.

The debate rules state: "No props, notes, charts, diagrams, or other writings or tangible things may be brought into the debate by any candidate". Wise rule, to prevent the responses from following a script, and keeping the debate fair.

The object Romney flipped onto the podium is supposed to be a handkerchief, and later in the debate Romney did wipe his face with one. This is not to say that a handkerchief cannot also be a cheat sheet, but it was never examined by anyone at the time. However....

When you look closely at the video, you see some things happen that handkerchiefs don't normally do:

1. The object is withdrawn from his right trouser pocket. Yet it is square and rigid, not wrinkled or flexible. If you could starch a handkerchief to that level of stiffness, you certainly would not want to wipe your face with it.

2. When the object hits the podium it lands on one corner- but it does not bend and fall flat; it bounces and resonates for a moment before settling flat. I've seen that many times with sheets of rigid materials such as metals and plastics or cardboard, but never with cloth.

I've tried to duplicate this with no success at all. The handkerchiefs never come out of the pocket in unwrinkled rectangular form, nor do they bounce when they land. That is unless you put something inside that is firm and flat, like a pad or piece of cardboard. Then it works.

The Huffington Post shows this clearly, but doesn't have any observation or mention of the dynamics of the hanky not being normal. What do you think?

Look at the video link below. The close-up clip is the second image down, "Romney magic trick exposed". Tell us what you think is hitting the podium. Is your wanna-be president cheating on his test?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/05/mitt-romn...

The Federal "Deficit" that Romney keep pointing to is the shortfall between money spent and money received. Spending is only one side of the problem; if expenses and income balance there is NO deficit. Thus, anything which reduces the income side of the equation increases the deficit just as fast as spending, but with greater consequences.

Balancing the budget is more dependent on a growing economy than anything else. Our economy has been struggling for four years, unable to get into a steady growth pattern. There's a reason, and it's obvious.

American business has the capital and is ready to expand and hire, but has held back and continues to wait. The reason is uncertainty- not knowing what to expect out of government. That condition exists because Congress has been paralyzed by the republican policy of blocking everything since the last election, in order to damage the President's chances in the current election. Doing nothing is the worst possible choice, and the current Congress is the least productive congress in 67 years.

Business waits because they can't put money on the table until they know what the game rules are going to be. This is like a team of players ready to go for a win, but the coaches and referees (congress) are fighting between themselves and won't cooperate- so the game is on hold while they squabble. This childish attitude continues to block the economic recovery America desperately needs right now.

As a result, millions of jobs that could exist today, and trillions of dollars in payrolls, just don't exist. The taxes paid in by all those companies and jobs would be huge, dramatically raising the income side of the equation, reducing the deficit. Lacking those jobs, tax dollars go out for unemployment checks and food stamp expenses, increasing the deficit.

Every time progress is blocked by this Congressional obstruction, the American people lose, and politicians shame themselves. There is no way to know exactly where we might be today if Congress had been cooperative and productive, but it's a point we should all consider when we vote.

That is the question-

What percentage or amount of the Budget Deficit do you think is directly related to the campaign of obstruction and paralysis of congress? What has obstruction cost America?

It's possible for anyone, and most people dream of becoming rich. However, most don't have a plan to do it, or don't even think it's possible- so they don't try. Of course it is, and new millionaires are being made every day! What about you? Are you going to get rich? Tell us how you plan to do it!