kscottmccormick

It's not Obama's

fault! It's the

fault of:

1. Bush

2. The Republicans

3. Congress

4. Earthquakes

5. Racists

6. Obama's own staff

7. Speculators

8. The rich

Barack H. Obama

"The buck stops

elsewhere."

originally only available to women? Were the benefits expanded to include men in the 1960's or 1970's?

In 2007, the total amount of money all poor citizens lacked to get above the poverty level was 148 billion dollars.

The amount the government spent to fight poverty that year was 550 billion dollars, but many people remained poor.

What happened to the extra $402 billion?

whiskey to alcoholics" is my best analogy. How would you finish the sentence?

According to the U.S. National Debt Clock, the figure for "unfunded liabilites" it has from the Federal Reserve is about 109.6 trillion dollars. This is the sum of the liabilities for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicare Part D (prescription drug prgram) based on current tax and funding inputs and on projections using these assumptions.

What does this figure mean, exactly? Is this the total amount the government has committed itself to spend for these programs, and if so, over what period of time? Or is it the amount the government has committed itself to spend minus the expected inputs from taxes? Is that what makes it "unfunded"? Or does it mean something else, entirely?

After the Israeli blockade incident, Londoners took to the streets chanting "Marg bar Engelese," which I am told means "death to England." Are these not British subjects? Why are they angry at England? Don't they have a word for UK, or is the rest of the UK okay wth them?

I remember about a year ago that a lot of libs were posting here saying, hey, it works in Europe. they're living the good life. Why doesn't the USA folow their example? What's so bad about socialism? The situation has become bad enough that I think most people have realized there's a real problem there. Is anybody here still standing up for European socialism?

Is Snopes.com spinning this story to excuse Pelosi, or do they really just not get it?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/pelosi/jet.asp

For example, they try to imply that the Boeing 757 is a 45-seat aircraft, and they pooh-pooh the idea that it is a 200-seat jet, but all you have to do is look at a picture of one to see it is no 45-seat aircraft, but can be configured to carry up to 279 passengers.

They print a hysterical Internet letter which they set up as a straw man, and then knock down as if that were the real issue.

They confirm that Pelosi has flown at least once on the Boeing 757 because she wants to be able to reach California non-stop rather than having to refuel, as she would have to do on a smaller plane.

She then lectures the rest of us about energy conservation and global warming.

My local tea party group demonstrates every weekend at a busy intersection where thousands of cars go by. I like to make up a new sign every week. I was thinking maybe "Take back Pelosi's airliner this November" might be a good one. What do you think?

I'm trying to come up with a slogan for a new sign I'm making for tea party protests. Since Obama and the Dems are talking about making "immigration reform" their next big push after health care, I was thinking of " Jobs plan: (1) Send illegal aliens home. (2) Hire U.S. citizens instead." But now I'm thinking it's too long for people in cars to read as they cruise by, and I'm thinking maybe just "No amnesty! Jobs for American workers first!"

I'm afraid advocating the enforcement of our existing laws might actually seem mean-spirited to some people. Of course obamabots give us the finger and scream out the windows of their cars at us no matter how reasonable the slogans on our signs, but what is your reaction to ""No amnesty! Jobs for American workers first!"?

Please, no lectures about how the Republicans are all to blame for illegal immigration. Both parties have been complicit and the business community has greased the palms of as many Dems as Reps.

I'm trying to come up with a slogan for a new sign I'm making for tea party protests. Since Obama and the Dems are talking about making "immigration reform" their next big push after health care, I was thinking of " Jobs plan: (1) Send illegal aliens home. (2) Hire U.S. citizens instead."

I'm afraid advocating the enforcement of our existing laws might actually seem mean-spirited to some people. Of course obamabots give us the finger and scream out the windows of their cars at us no matter how reasonable the slogans on our signs, but what is your reaction to "send illegal aliens home, hire U.S. citizens instead"?

I was there and estimated 50 thousand based on a crude estimate of the total square footage the crowd took up, but I did it by going around the perimeter late in the day when many at the periphery had drifted off. A Capitol Hill cop told me he estimated a crowd of 275,000 based on his experience and his ability to survey the crowd from a high place on the Capitol building.

Has CNN gone beyond bias to outright lying, or is this "couple of thousand" report just a rumor that went around the tea party folks?

Lefties in the government and out are always pointing to the nut who shot the guard in the holocaust museum, the slaying of the late-term abortionist, etc, as evidence of a growing right-wing domestic terrorist threat. Conservatives have tended to shrug off these slayings as the work of lone madmen.

So how about this one:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32799068/ns/us_news-cr...

If the first shootings were the result of a growing right-wing domestic terrorist threat, then this case in which an anti-abortion activist was shot must therefore be evidence of a growing left-wing domestic terrorist threat, right?

The insurance company says your car has a "pre-existing condition," and they refuse to pay. Unfair?

Obamacare, according to David Axelrod's mass e-mail, says the program "Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history."

Isn't expecting others to pay for existing illnesses not insurance at all, but a form of welfare? Should people with pre-existing conditions contribute more to pay for their illness, or should they pay the same as someone without a pre-existing condition? Should someone with a pre-existing condition be expected to go bankrupt in order to avoid death? At some point, won't they be eligible for Medicaid, which is, is it not, a form of welfare?

Democratic strategist Matthew Littman predicted tonight on Fox's "The Factor" that Sarah Palin would be dating Flavor Flav in a few years. For a supposedly mainstream political operative ( as opposed to the typical Palin-hating Yahooer) to say something like this on a news commentary program has got to be a new low. Agree?

Won't states sign people up without verfiying citizenship status? Won't those illegals already receiving Medicaid automatically be transferred to any new government-run system? Read what Rep. Lamar Smith said:

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/nusablog/beckr/a...

The health care plans have nice-sounding language saying illegals aren't entitled to taxpayer-subsidized health care, but congress has voted down all amendments to require that the citizenship status of applicants be verified. Here's another such amendment that was voted down:

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/nusablog/beckr/j...

D.W. Griffith’s 1915 film “The Birth of a Nation,” the very first-ever Hollywood blockbuster, illustrates a present-day political issue which brings into apparent conflict two popular values: the desire to protect minority social groups from persecution, and the desire to protect freedom of expression.

Based on a novel and play entitled “The Clansman,” Griffith’s film is credited with having provoked riots in several cities, including Boston and Philadelphia, in which gangs of whites, apparently inspired by the deeply racist point of view of the film, attacked blacks. A white man in Lafayette, Indiana murdered a black teenager after viewing the film. In response to the outbreaks of violence and unrest, and at the urging of the NAACP, many cities actually banned the showing of the film. The KKK, which had been relatively quiescent for many years, enjoyed a complete rebirth with a tremendous surge in membership and a nationwide spread that reached a peak of public prominence in a huge Washington march during the 1920’s.

The film, itself, contains a written announcement denying any racist intent:

“This is an historical presentation of the Civil War and Reconstruction Period, and is not meant to reflect on any race or people of today.”

The actual content of the film is blatantly racist, however, and gives the lie to the studio’s apparent attempt at misdirection similar to misleading descriptions of today’s films that are sometimes put forward by studios. It would appear from the film’s plot that the main interest of reconstruction-era blacks was the disenfranchisement of whites and the defilement of white womanhood.

In one example, a black union soldier first proposes marriage to a white girl and then pursues her through the woods when she refuses his advances. Cornered by the lascivious black at the top of a precipice, she leaps to her death rather than allow him to even approach her. The soldier is then hunted down and executed by the KKK. In another example, the “mulatto” governor locks a white woman in his office and attempts to force her to marry him. The KKK, alerted to her plight, rides in full regalia to her rescue, scattering “rioting negroes” in the process.

The US Supreme Court supported the right of governmental censorship boards to ban the public screening of certain films in “Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission (1915),” in which the court found that:

“It cannot be put out of view that the exhibition of moving pictures is a business, pure and simple, originated and conducted for profit, like other spectacles, not to be regarded, nor intended to be regarded by the Ohio Constitution, we think, as part of the press of the country, or as organs of public opinion. They are mere representations of events, of ideas and sentiments published and known; vivid, useful, and entertaining, no doubt, but, as we have said, capable of evil, having power for it, the greater because of their attractiveness and manner of exhibition.”

The Supreme Court reversed its earlier decision regarding this matter in 1952.

“Hate crimes” and “hate speech” are present-day legislative issues. “Hate speech” which inspires “hate crimes” may actually lead to criminal prosecution in the future. “The Birth of a Nation” could easily be described as constituting “hate speech,” and the film is generally agreed to have inspired “hate crimes.” The popular value of protecting minority social groups from persecution is thus brought into conflict with the value of protecting free speech.

My own guess is that people today are so throughly opposed to any form of censorship for any reason that they would support “The Birth of a Nation” as protected artistic expression despite whatever undesirable behavior might be exhibited by some people who viewed the film. My experience has been that supporters of free expression say they can’t be held responsible for what other people do. To me, that’s a little like saying if you shout “fire” in a crowded theater, you can’t be responsible if other people unreasonably panic and trample others in a rush to the exits. But maybe I’m wrong.

What is your opinion? If you were transported back to 1915, seeing the results of the public screenings of Griffith’s film, would you say art trumps censorship, or would you say a minority has a greater right to be protected from persecution?

I haven't read the Half-blood Prince, so please excuse me if I'm asking a dumb question, here. I saw the movie, and I'm confused about the ending. What was Dumbledore trying to do on top of that tower? Why did he send Harry to get Snape? Did he know he was going to be killed? Did he know Snape was going to assassinate him?