HALT AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF! ARE YOU A GERMAN? STAY! Who leaked the war documents? The horse is out of the barn.

WHOSE SIDE IS WHO ON? Time to stop and regroup. The pentagon is probing war documents leak.


How much of the $33 billion goes into whose pocket and for what?

HALT AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF! ARE YOU A GERMAN? STAY OUT OF AFGHANISTAN--THAT IS! GO HOME TO THE USA! Who leaked the WAR DOCUMENTS? The horse is out of the barn.

WHOSE SIDE IS WHO ON? Time to stop and regroup. The pentagon is probing war documents leak. WHERE IS THE FBI? THE MILITARY? THE CIA? ANYONE?


IS THE MILITARY ASLEEP AT THE HELM? IS THIS EMBARASSING FOR ANYONE THAT THE WAR DOCUMENTS WERE LEAKED? IS ANYONE RESPONSIBLE? FIRED?


How much of the $33 billion goes into whose pocket and for what?

We need to make the decision at this point. How many years have people been asking this? I'm tired of news organizations asking this same tired question. It's about time to go.

What we have been funding for 8yrs amounts to a $900billion dollar paper tiger, with a swiss cheese border defense.
What a shame. I've seen better bang for the buck at freak show carnivals.
If you want to stop the hemmoraging that is causing most of the deficit the Pentagon can start by checking those documents and prosecuting the real culprits. --> Those who have sold weapons and our tax money to the enemy in order to preserve this cash cow fraud that these worthless politicians and the administration of fear called the 50yr war.
Follow the money over the past two decades, all roads lead to Cheney, and the NWO crew of deceivers.

Good job, Gail. Don't pull punches.

It's now 2010, does anyone know where "clear channel" is- for our first responders?
Is this all we get for $4trillion dollars? E-X-C-U-S-E-S
How many hires will the Pentagon have to take on to decipher this uncoded message?
Is there any wonder why our Border Patrol guardmen still remain weaponless after this cluster f_ck?

This is really so sad, I just had to inject a little humor to ease the pain.

What we have been funding for 8yrs amounts to a $900billion dollar paper tiger, with a swiss cheese border defense.
What a shame. I've seen better bang for the buck at freak show carnivals.
If you want to stop the hemmoraging that is causing most of the deficit the Pentagon can start by checking those documents and prosecuting the real culprits. --> Those who have sold weapons and our tax money to the enemy in order to preserve this cash cow fraud that these worthless politicians and the administration of fear called the 50yr war.
Follow the money over the past two decades, all roads lead to Cheney, and the NWO crew of deceivers.

Good job, Gail. Don't pull punches.

It's now 2010, does anyone know where "clear channel" is- for our first responders?
Is this all we get for $4trillion dollars? E-X-C-U-S-E-S
How many hires will the Pentagon have to take on to decipher this uncoded message?
Is there any wonder why our Border Patrol guardmen still remain weaponless after this cluster f_ck?
Who wants to ask Joe "Weasel" isn't he the chairman of the Armed Forces Committee?
Who wants to ask Chertoff WHAT HE WAS DOING FOR 8YRS?

This is really so sad, I just had to inject a little humor to ease some of the incredible pain and disillusionment everyone must be feeling.
My hats off to our troops who have endured under such mitigating circumstances.
May God Always Protect You and Keep you From Harm.

The same Democratic Left morons who needlessly almost pulled the carpet out from under President Bush's Iraq War victory are back to unbelieveably even haunt one of their own. Just goes to show that no matter how awful Barack Obama is as president things could be a whole lot worse on the USA security and defense front with these Progressives and Democratic Left at the helm. God help us all! Dare quit on Afghanistan and we'll be fighting more and more wars to kingdom come that never would have been.

"The same Democratic Left morons who needlessly almost pulled the carpet out from under President Bush's Iraq War victory"

BILL.F?

robert: Apparently Bill F is still clinging to his "cut and paste" altered picture of himself w/ GW standing on the aircraft carrier with the sign that read "Mission Accomplished".

I understand that the War in Afghanistan seems hopeless but we can't leave, not now. We have an obligation to the people of Afghanistan and to our troops. Did my family members go to this War in vain? I hope not. Every please watch the movie "Charlie Wilson's War". We can't repeat the same mistakes again and again.

UK 'may have 40-year Afghan role'
8 August 2009 / http://tinyurl.com/lz2nhc
The UK's commitment to Afghanistan could last for up to 40 years, the incoming head of the Army has said.
Gen Sir David Richards, who takes over on 28 August, told the Times that "nation-building" would last decades.
Troops will be required for the medium term only, but the UK will continue to play a role in "development, governance [and] security sector reform," he said.
Shadow defence minister Gerald Howarth said the UK had to be there long-term to achieve its objectives.
Gen Richards commanded 35,000 troops from 37 nations when he was head of Nato's International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan between May 2006 and February 2007.
He will take over from Gen Sir Richard Dannatt as the UK's chief of the general staff.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8191018.stm

General Abizaid: Mideast Wars May Last 50 Years
November 1, 2007 http://tinyurl.com/2ubd58
PITTSBURGH - It might take as long as half a century before U.S. troops can leave the volatile Middle East, according to retired Army Gen. John Abizaid.

"Over time, we will have to shift the burden of the military fight from our forces directly to regional forces, and we will have to play an indirect role, but we shouldn't assume for even a minute that in the next 25 to 50 years the American military might be able to come home, relax and take it easy, because the strategic situation in the region doesn't seem to show that as being possible," Abizaid said Wednesday at Carnegie Mellon University.

Abizaid, the former commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, stepped down in March as the longest-serving commander of U.S. Central Command. He retired from the Army in May and now is at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,155402,00.html

" but we shouldn't assume for even a minute that in the next 25 to 50 years the American military might be able to come home, relax and take it easy, because the strategic situation in the region doesn't seem to show that as being possible," Abizaid said Wednesday at Carnegie Mellon University."



What's your point??? How long have we had US forces stationed in South Korea or Germany, etc? Why should it be any different in the Middle East? That is the way it is supposed to be and has to be when you are a world power and Abizaid was merely stating accepted fact. Why all the intrigue and drama? Or is that just you play acting as usual Caspian?

Rangel’s Day of Reckoning:

July 28, 2010

When Representative Charles Rangel goes on trial on Thursday it might be the first time that a sitting United States congressman has done so since Jim Traficant was convicted of bribery [1], racketeering and tax evasion in 2002. Rangel and Traficant are kindred spirits of a sort, for each exhibits the kind of imperious arrogance that Americans loathe, especially when it bubbles to the surface among their elected officials. The difference between the two is that Traficant played a bit part among Democrats eight years ago and it was thus easy for the party to wash its hands of him. Rangel, on the other hand, is a stalwart among Democrats, a heavy hitter with strong ties to other heavy hitters, up to and including the Speaker of the House. If Rangel goes through with the trial – and he says he will – it will be a lot harder for Democrats to wish this scandal away than it was in 2002.

Published reports indicate that Dems are desperate for Rangel to cut a deal and avoid trial, but the congressman stubbornly refuses to do so. He wants his day in court [2] and believes that he will be vindicated in the end. That attitude is reminiscent of another prominent Democrat who proclaimed that he wanted nothing more than the opportunity to tell his side of a sordid story, but when ex-governor Rod Blagojevich had his day in court recently it turned out that Blago didn’t have the guts to make his dubious case. Might Rangel also lose his nerve once prosecutors outline the case against him? Probably not. Over the last few years the octogenarian congressman has shown that he has grown increasingly detached from reality. His “watch your back” warning to the president when Obama visited Harlem, his declaration that the only people opposed to the health care bill were white southerners and his stubborn refusal to give up the Ways and Means Committee for so long are all signs that Charles Rangel lives on a planet that only vaguely resembles Earth.

Democrats understand that the longer the Rangel saga plays out, the more damage it will do [3] to them in November, but they don’t really understand why. Voters are upset with Democrats to be sure, but they’re more upset with the overall perception that America is being governed by a detached, self-absorbed “ruling class” that disregards the will of the populace and whose contempt for the average American is poorly concealed indeed. That’s a problem that crosses party lines, which is why the tea party movement is so careful not to directly attach itself to the GOP. Tea partiers will vote for Republicans in overwhelming numbers come November, but their underlying message is clear: they’re voting to get rid of privileged insiders and if the fresh faced Republicans whom the movement hopes to empower during this election cycle fall prey to the same temptations, they will be held accountable as well.The accusations that have been leveled against Rangel are deeply disturbing. Among other things, Rangel has been charged with occupying four rent controlled apartments in New York City and using one as a campaign office, with failing to disclose or pay income taxes on rental property he owns in the Dominican Republic, with trading support of tax breaks for contributions to the Rangel School in New York and with improperly claiming a homestead exemption on property he owns in Washington. Rangel has admitted to and tried to explain away [4] some of these charges. Others he has yet to address. The New York Times, the New York Post and the Washington Post have all, at various times, weighed in with damning stories that paint the congressman in something less than a flattering light with regard to all of these scandals. No matter; Charles Rangel blusters on, apparently convinced that he could not have done anything wrong because – after all – he is Charles Rangel and he must therefore be working for the people.

The Obama administration and its party have stuck to a particular theme in an increasingly vain attempt to explain away their ineffectiveness over the past year and a half. Republicans, they say, drove the national car into the ditch and they have been laboring mightily to extricate it from that sorry predicament. That particular metaphor presupposes that congress, controlled by Democrats during the Bush years, was sitting quietly in the back seat for those eight years and didn’t exert a bit of influence on the choice of roads that America chose. The fact of the matter is that Democrats were firmly in the driver seat as far as the nation’s domestic agenda was concerned and George W. Bush’s greatest fault is that he didn’t do more to wrest the steering wheel out of their incompetent hands.

Charles Rangel is the poster child for the arrogant, incompetent policies and programs that liberal Democrats have foisted upon the American people. Rangel’s day of reckoning is at hand. That will be just a taste of price that liberal Democrats will have to pay for their incompetent, self-absorbed style of governance come November.

Bill F: How soon you have forgotten or have chosen to ignore the bigger hypocrisys? WHY IS IT THAT 2YRS LATER none of these C Street "cumquats" from the "family values" party have been removed for their crimes.
MARK SANFORD- Prostylatizer of a phoney church C Street which funneled televangelist money into political ventures. THIS HYPOCRIT LEFT THE COUNTRY, LEFT HIS WIFE, LEFT HIS STATE UNATTENDED DURING TIME OF WAR- WHILE HE HAD SEVERAL EXTRAMARITAL EPISODES ON THE PUBLICS DIME.
ENSIGN- CUCKOLD THE WIFE OF HIS AIDE, THEN BRIBED THE AIDE WITH TENS OF THOUSANDS AS WELL AS A POSITION WITH A WELL CONNECTED GOV'T CONTRACTOR
TOM COBURN- resident with full knowledge of the crimes and shennigans going on in C STREET residence the HOUSE OF SHAME[listed as a church pays no taxes]of the two above and hindering investigations

Now the Resnublican party and its shadow backers that control mass media and what can be investigated have the gall to bring back the instigator of all of the hate bait secular party division Newt Gingrich back for a 2nd bite of the apple.

WHY HASN'T PHIL GRAMM BEEN INDICTED FOR ANY OR ALL OF HIS OPERATIONS AND AGENDAS THAT HAVE BROKEN THIS COUNTRY.

-THIS FORMER HEAD OF THE CFTC
-collusions to defraud the American public, price fixing, tampering with ENERGY BILL DOCUMENTS that has permanently taken away Congressional controls over our Energy planning and pricing and given it over the Dubai.

-As Chairman of UBS indicted for tax invasion fraud
-Personally deliberately leading investors into offshore tax havens that turned out to violate even these lax tax laws. MANY OF THESE INVESTORS HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED AND SENTENCED ALREADY GRAMM REMAINS IMMUNE.

-IT WAS PHIL GRAMM & HIS DEREGULATION PLOT THAT FACILITATED THE TOTAL COLLAPSE OF OUR FINANCIAL SYSTEM.

By comparison even though what Mr Rangel has done is wrong it doesn't amount to pennies.
Question isn't Bermuda a British territory? If so, after all that you have read and has been verified in print- why should Rangel be singled out have to report his income from that source when NO BID CONTRACTORS & CORPORATIONS ARE ALLOWED TO KEEP ALL OF THEIR LOOT UNTAXED AND OFFSHORE?

If any of this smells fishy to you the taxpayer then shouldn't we be going after the biggest nastiest smelling snakes that have pillaged our system of taxation and finance?

WHEREAS, ALL ONE HAS TO DO WHEN WONDERING HOW GOOD PEOPLE GO WRONG IS TO LOOK AT PHIL GRAMM AND HIS TOTAL BLANKET OF IMMUNITIES, THE C STREETERS AND THAT COVEN THAT CONTINUES TO RUN AMOK, ... THE GOLDMAN-SACHS CARTEL,... CARLYLE AND THAT GROUP THAT HAS GIVEN US KHADFAFY, MUSHAREFF, SADDAM, PUTIN AND OSAMA that still has its indirect connections to the now imfamous Pakistani ISI through its Saud, Yemenese, and the Emirites benefactors.

Yeah ok let's do it. Lets over the floodgates and remove all of secrecy behind what is onerous and detrimental to our American society that resides in the inner sanctums of our government and beneath it.

How long have we had US forces stationed in South Korea or Germany, etc?

=======================

Bill F.

Japan? South Korea? Germany?

All three does not cost the American taxpayers Trillions and Trillions of dollars like staying in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Remember Dumbya Bush did the opposite from Daddy Bush.

90% of the cost were paid by Germany, Japan, and the Arabs when Daddy Bush went to war for the oil in Kuwait.

Imbecile Bush destroyed the American middle class and working poor taxpayers with $Trillions for Iraq and Afghanistan.

=====================

Dr. Germ and Mrs. Anthrax Set Free
http://tinyurl.com/7nzsn Dec 27, 2005

Why is it not bigger news that those infamous Iraqi female scientists once routinely referred to in the media as “Dr. Germ” and “Mrs. Anthrax” have been quietly released from imprisonment in Iraq without any charges being brought by their U.S. captors? Don’t the newspapers and TV networks that all but pre-convicted them of crimes against humanity owe them—and us—the courtesy of an explanation for the sudden presumption of their innocence?

After all, it was to stop these mad leaders of Saddam Hussein’s allegedly booming weapons-of-mass-destruction programs that the United States invaded Iraq in March 2003. We were told at the time by the White House that the U.N. inspectors scouring the country were being blocked by lying officials and scientists, themselves complicit in breaking U.N. sanctions, and so we wouldn’t get the truth until we could interrogate them as prisoners. http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/12282005_germ_and_anthrax/

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -- James Madison (1809 - 1817)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jm4.html

"Imbecile Bush destroyed the American middle class......."


Don't you have him confused with Obama and the Progressives? Who seek, and have made great gains towards socialism where there is only one class of individuals (all poor)? The middle class, everyone I know, including me thrived under Bush. What's your problem??? Wait till the Bush tax cuts are eliminated, if Obama has the courage, you'll personally be singing a very different tune.

Caspian:

Your personal war on Bush, that seems to be your problem alone has become extremely boring, you must admit, especially when we have had a taste of your Progressive/socialist Government you've been advertising for since you've been posting here, and it has become such a gargantuan flop with the American people. Thanks for the 18 month demonstration but no thanks.......ever ever again! At this point how do you even have the balls to post, at all, given everything you have uttered in eight years has been proven to be the opposite? I'm sure glad I'm not you.

At this point how do you even have the balls to post, at all, given everything you have uttered in eight years has been proven to be the opposite? I'm sure glad I'm not you.

-------------------

Bill F. Everything I post is factual and nobody can disprove me.

Obama is not a liberal otherwise he would have supported Single Payer health care and put back Glass/Steagall to protect us from the banks.

I really do not understand why you dislike Obama.

Obama is business as usual in Washington DC just like Bush was for 8 years.

Obama kept in place much of Bush/Cheney policy which proves he is not a liberal/progressive.

I recently received an email from Verizon stating that I do not have to do anything.

Something about Router Security Update and I seen the words BIOS Settings Utility.

I unfortunately deleted the email and now my computer goes on by itself sometimes, and I cannot boot up by just pushing the button. It takes long to start the computer.

I called Verizon three times and two out of three denied they sent an email like that.

One said it still would not effect your computer because it is only the router that was changed.

LOL Could it be a coincidence?

Could it be my mother board is breaking down?

Could it be I'm targeted by our government?

Verizon thinks it could have been a scam sent to me.

Verizon checked my computer and we ran all the scans and everything was clean.

No Viruses and No Spyware.

Can somebody help with this problem?

I tried going into BIOS Settings Utility but everything I tried does not work.

Thanks.

"Bill F. Everything I post is factual and nobody can disprove me."


Any headline, any news report from today compared to your pure political worthless accusations during the last eight years is sufficient to disprove just about all of what you ever had to say. Proof positive:
the left from where you reside is about to become extinct now that America has seen the products of their totally un-American socialistic performance.

With Power Comes Responsibility:

Why is Obama embracing the very Bush administration policies that he campaigned against?

July 30, 2010

“Breaking a Promise on Surveillance,” is the headline of a New York Times editorial this morning. At issue is an Obama administration proposal to allow the FBI to obtain lists of anyone’s email correspondents and web browsing history by issuing a National Security Letter without going to court. The proposal now being put forward, explains a senior administration official quoted by the Washington Post, would enable the FBI “to intercede in plots earlier than we would if our hands were tied and we were unable to get this data in a way that was quick and efficient.”

The proposal has been greeted with a chorus of denunciations from civil liberties groups. The Electronic Frontier Foundation calls it “a stunning and brazen request. They're asking Congress to reward bad behavior by allowing even more bad behavior.” The Times has now joined in, denouncing the administration for taking an “unnecessary and disappointing step backward toward more intrusive surveillance from a president who promised something very different during the 2008 campaign.”

All of which raises an interesting question. President Obama is perhaps the most liberal president in our history. As a candidate for office eighteen months ago, he was emphatically promising to rein in surveillance “abuses.” Why is he now switching into reverse and embracing the very Bush administration policies that he campaigned against?

The obvious place to look for an answer is the intelligence that is now flowing daily across the president’s desk. It includes an alarming picture of threats to the homeland. In just the past half-year alone, we have seen some of them--in Fort Hood, in the skies over Detroit, and in Times Square--come to fruition. Others, like a Madrid-style bombing attack on the New York City subway system, were averted by law enforcement, with the use of, among other techniques, electronic surveillance.

The dangers we face are real, and with power comes responsibility. President Obama, no longer a candidate but a man accountable under the Constitution for providing “for the common defense,” is willing to bend on civil liberties to come to grips with the menace. This is not a happy outcome for our privacy or our freedoms, but it is one forced upon us by a campaign of terror that we ignore at our peril.

the left from where you reside is about to become extinct now that America has seen the products of their totally un-American socialistic performance.

----------

Bill, you should be happy that Obama is destroying liberalism.

Bush destroyed conservatism with the highest deficits since Reagan.

Both Obama and Bush believe in Socialism for the wealthy is the American way.

"Both Obama and Bush believe in Socialism for the wealthy is the American way."


A nonsensical statement as could be expected. Thanks for not disappointing.

"Could it be my mother board is breaking down?"


Caspian, how is it that you didn't blame me for taking over your computer the way your fruit cake associate, John did years several years ago?

"Bill, you should be happy that Obama is destroying liberalism."



Oh yes, but its bitter-sweet becaue the left is permanently destroying my country beyond repair.

A nonsensical statement as could be expected. Thanks for not disappointing.

==============

Bill it is absolutely true.

Both Bush and Obama believe that the American way is socialism for the wealthiest.

Remember when a Woman told Bush that she worked three jobs just to make ends meet?

Bush replied: That is fantastic and uniquely American.
--------------------

Can You Afford To Retire? Video
http://tinyurl.com/h8xdx
The baby boomer generation is headed for a shock as it hits retirement: many of them will be long on life expectancy but short on savings. The two main strategies for funding retirement -- lifetime pensions and 401(k)-style savings plans -- are in serious trouble. In "Can You Afford to Retire?" FRONTLINE correspondent Hedrick Smith ("Is Wal-Mart Good for America?") investigates this looming financial crisis and the outlook for middle-class Americans. (more) »
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/retirement/view/

Oh yes, but its bitter-sweet becaue the left is permanently destroying my country beyond repair.

-----------------

Bush and Cheney Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats destroyed the Middle Class and working poor which makes up 99% of Americans.

The worst financial meltdown since the great depression and the worst attack since Pearl Harbor were on the Bush/Cheney Republican watch.

-------------------

ELECT ANOTHER REPUBLICAN?

ARE YOU INSANE?

Judge Andrew Napolitano says Bush and Cheney should be prosecuted for crimes against the United States Constitution.

The Libertarian commentator debates politics, history and what he considers to be the unconstitutional behavior of both the Bush and Obama administrations, with consumer advocate and four-time presidential candidate Ralph Nader.
http://tinyurl.com/2bl7gjm / June 2, 2010
Well, this is something you don't see every day. Ralph Nader hosted this interview segment with Fox News' Judge Andrew Napolitano and discussed his book, Lies the Government Told You. I'm surprised the judge is going to be allowed on Fox after making the statements he did about Bush and Cheney during the interview.

Nader: What's the sanction for President Bush and Vice President Cheney?

Napolitano: There's been no sanction except what history will say about them.

Nader: What should be the sanctions?

Napolitano: They should have been indicted. They absolutely should have been indicted for torturing, for spying, for arresting without warrants. I'd like to say they should be indicted for lying but believe it or not, unless you're under oath, lying is not a crime. At least not an indictable crime. It's a moral crime.

Nader: So you think George W. Bush and Dick Cheney should even though they've left office, they haven't escaped the criminal laws, they should be indicted and prosecuted?

Napolitano: The evidence in this book and in others, our colleague the great Vincent Bugliosi has amassed an incredible amount of evidence. The purpose of this book was not to amass that evidence but I do discuss it, is overwhelming when you compare it to the level of evidence required for a normal indictment that George W. Bush as President and Dick Cheney as Vice President participated in criminal conspiracies to violate the federal law and the guaranteed civil liberties of hundreds, maybe thousands of human beings
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/293848-1

Oh yes, but its bitter-sweet becaue the left is permanently destroying my country beyond repair.

---------------------

Who destroyed America Bill F.?

Look in the mirror.

----------

Unlike the neocons who surround Judge Napolitano in his appearances on the FOX News Channel, he understands that freedom comes "from God and is inherent to our humanity . . ." "Freedom" is not derived from military adventurism under the guise of phony humanitarianism, as the David Horowitz/William Kristol/Rush Limbaugh/ crowd would have us believe. (For an amusing rendition of this fascistic theory take a look at the web site of the "David Horowitz Freedom Center").

"Both Bush and Obama believe that the American way is socialism for the wealthiest."



Description of socialism - American Heritage® Dictionary

NOUN: 1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

This definition above permanently should put to rest your questioning whether Obama and his administration are socialists (of course they are). It should also be absolutely apparant that the word "socialist" and George Bush should never be used in the same sentence......George Bush having been the champion of free enterprise.

Obama's goal is to bring up the class of the poor by illusion, by bringing down the rich and middle class to the standards of the poor. And he's well on the way!

"For an amusing rendition of this fascistic theory take a look at the web site of the "David Horowitz Freedom Center"


David Horowitz is a Jew, but a true patriotic American first who fortunately, unlike many Jews, woke up one day to realize that the Progressive and Democratic left are avid anti-Semites and especially anti-Israel and are doing their best to see Israel disappear from the face of the earth. This after spending much of his life as a radical left himself before realizing who the true enemy of the average Jew really was. A visit by you to the "David Horowitz Freedom Center"
might be amusing but I assure most others it would be the eye opening truth and education experience of their lives, most certainly those who are Jewish and those who sympathize with their plight.
(http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/)

“It should also be absolutely apparant that the word "socialist" and George Bush should never be used in the same sentence......George Bush having been the champion of free enterprise“- Bill f

Sorry man but in my view Bush was a big spender of taxpayer money and a Corporate Socialist. I’m not looking for handouts for the middle class worker but just a fair playing field. The Corporations and CEO’s have taken advantage of the middle class worker because Bush policies have allowed them to do whatever was in their best interest leaving the worker with no leverage to make a decent living. So in essence, it made the average worker poor and the company’s rich. Trickle down does not work when we compete Globally or rig the game. Furthermore, at some point, the people will have to pay for the irresponsible spending and irresponsible policies of government.

“Obama's goal is to bring up the class of the poor by illusion, by bringing down the rich and middle class to the standards of the poor. And he's well on the way!” Bill f

Agreed! Obama’s policies also do not empower the middle-class worker or the people but empowers government to decide what is right. His apparent Marxist vision is to have government decide who should have what, instead of the free market. He spends without control, mortgaging our future, increasing the size of government and it’s power, in order to accomplish this ideal. The ultimate plan would redistribute enough wealth so that everybody is poor and the same, except the elite and officials in government. IMO, Bush destroyed our wealth and Obama is destroying our wealth and our freedom and dividing this nation.

An ideal leader would continue free market principles but empower the average worker by controlling our borders to minimize cheap labor, adding incentive to keep jobs in this country, severely penalize the crooks and the abusers with strict regulations but enable those that play by the rules with little or no regulations. Stop rewarding the abuser and reward the independent and honest with advantages to encourage even more independence. This will reduce the need of government, thereby reducing the cost of big government, giving us back our future and our freedom at the same time.

To All ,

Thank you for your help.

Later today I am going to attempt removing the battery and unplugging my computer.

----------------------------

Federal Campaign Finance Legislation
Important Dates: http://tinyurl.com/ydzhjke
1867: Naval Appropriations Bill
1883: Civil Service Reform Act
1905: Teddy Roosevelt's Message to Congress
1907: Tillman Act
1910: Federal Corrupt Practices Act
1925: Federal Corrupt Practices Act (Revised)
1940: Hatch Act Amendments
1943: Smith-Connally Act
1944: Formation of First PAC
1947: Taft-Hartley Act
1967: House Campaign Finance Reports Collected for First Time
1971: Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA)
1971: Revenue Act
1974: FECA Amendments (Post-Watergate)
1976: Buckley v. Valeo
1976: FECA Amendments (following Buckley )
1979: FECA Amendments
http://www.campaignfinancesite.org/history/financing1.html

============================

Union Sundown
Well, my shoes, they come from Singapore,
My flashlight's from Taiwan,
My tablecloth's from Malaysia,
My belt buckle's from the Amazon.
You know, this shirt I wear comes from the Philippines
And the car I drive is a Chevrolet,
It was put together down in Argentina
By a guy makin' thirty cents a day.

Well, it's sundown on the union
And what's made in the U.S.A.
Sure was a good idea
'Til greed got in the way.

Well, this silk dress is from Hong Kong
And the pearls are from Japan.
Well, the dog collar's from India
And the flower pot's from Pakistan.
All the furniture, it says "Made in Brazil"
Where a woman, she slaved for sure
Bringin' home thirty cents a day to a family of twelve,
You know, that's a lot of money to her.

Well, it's sundown on the union
And what's made in the U.S.A.
Sure was a good idea
'Til greed got in the way.

Well, you know, lots of people complainin' that there is no work.
I say, "Why you say that for
When nothin' you got is U.S.-made?"
They don't make nothin' here no more,
You know, capitalism is above the law.
It say, "It don't count 'less it sells."
When it costs too much to build it at home
You just build it cheaper someplace else.

Well, it's sundown on the union
And what's made in the U.S.A.
Sure was a good idea
'Til greed got in the way.

Well, the job that you used to have,
They gave it to somebody down in El Salvador.
The unions are big business, friend,
And they're goin' out like a dinosaur.
They used to grow food in Kansas
Now they want to grow it on the moon and eat it raw.
I can see the day coming when even your home garden
Is gonna be against the law.

Well, it's sundown on the union
And what's made in the U.S.A.
Sure was a good idea
'Til greed got in the way.

Democracy don't rule the world,
You'd better get that in your head.
This world is ruled by violence
But I guess that's better left unsaid.
From Broadway to the Milky Way,
That's a lot of territory indeed
And a man's gonna do what he has to do
When he's got a hungry mouth to feed.

Well, it's sundown on the union
And what's made in the U.S.A.
Sure was a good idea
'Til greed got in the way.

Copyright ©1983

"Later today I am going to attempt removing the battery and unplugging my computer."

Caspian, Reverse the order, otherwise you won't be posting here for a while and I don't want Bill F to get blamed...lol

1) Write down the CMOS settings.
2) Unplug computer.
3) Remove battery.

Then...

1)Insert Battery.
2)Plug in computer.
3)Check and adjust CMOS (BIOS) settings and date and time.

"Sorry man but in my view Bush was a big spender of taxpayer money and a Corporate Socialist"


Bush was the very opposite of a socialist.... try paying attention to the definition, and as I said, he was a champion of free enterprise....sounds like too much of a free enterprise champion, from your response, if anything (just like Caspian from the left's point of view) Think about it. How much he spent on defending this country or his pro-active military agenda has nothing to do with his not being for free enterprise which is the conversation Caspian and I were having. There is no such thing as a corporate socialist. Sorry but you seem to be much more of a liberal Democrat than you care to admit Mike. The overwhelming majority of Conservatives had no problem with either the Iraq or Afghanistan Wars under Bush and were his biggest defenders, certainly on that topic.

Mike G. I cant find where the CMOS setting are.

I appreciate your advice and will try again going into the BIOS world.

To Bill F.



--------------------

Greenspan Concedes He `Found a Flaw' in His Free-Market Ideology
Oct. 23 (Bloomberg) -- Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, under a grilling from lawmakers at a congressional hearing today, conceded a flaw in his free-market ideology that contributed to a ``once-in-a-century credit tsunami.''
``Yes, I found a flaw,'' Greenspan said in response to questions from to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. ``That is precisely the reason I was shocked because I'd been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.'' http://tinyurl.com/5ea9ng
Greenspan said he was ``partially'' wrong in his opposition in recent years to the regulation of derivatives. He said in a May 2005 speech that ``private regulation generally has proved far better at constraining excessive risk-taking than has government regulation.''
Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, said Greenspan had ``the authority to prevent irresponsible lending practices that led to the subprime mortgage crisis.''
``You were advised to do so by many others,'' he told Greenspan. ``And now our whole economy is paying the price.''
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aJ8os6vTknLk&refer=home

--------------

Greenspan Faults Bush Over Spending
In New Book, Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan Bashes Bush Over Spending
September 16, 2007 / http://tinyurl.com/2ah9mn
The man once regarded as the world's most powerful banker has bluntly declared that the Iraq war was 'largely' about oil.

Appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1987 and retired last year after serving four presidents, Alan Greenspan has been the leading Republican economist for a generation and his utterings instantly moved world markets.
In his long-awaited memoir - out tomorrow in the US - Greenspan, 81, who served as chairman of the US Federal Reserve for almost two decades, writes: 'I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.' http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3607277

Caspian the CMOS settings is the BIOS settings just go through each menu and submenu of the BIOS and write down its value.

For Example,

Boot order, drive type, security features, etc.

"Greenspan Concedes He `Found a Flaw' in His Free-Market Ideology"


Once again you guys have a big problem trying to stay on topic. I'm trying to educate you both on the exact meaning of "socialist" so that neither of you
continue misusing the word and continue creating your nonsensical Madison Ave. catch phrases.

Boot order, drive type, security features, etc.

==============

Mike G. I haven't a clue as to what your saying.

Can I just see if I can take the battery out and unplug everything first?

Thanks I will go back in bios again.

I'm trying to educate you both on the exact meaning of "socialist"
---------------

Bill socialism is also when government bails out wall street.

Makes deals with the HMOS/PHARMA just like what Bush and Cheney did.

The largest tax cuts in history to the wealthy even after September 11, 2001 and two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Corporate Welfare.

Government Subsidies.

Stop blaming the victims and start blaming the prostitutes in Congress who work for Wall Street.

Don't tell me Bill F. that you really believe Congress represents you?

Please don't tell me that.

Wall Street Socialism
July 16th, 2008 / http://tinyurl.com/5d7755
This weekend, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, former head of the Goldman Sachs investment house, provided us with a perfect demonstration of Wall Street socialism.
He announced that the Bush administration would seek congressional approval to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government created but privately owned, profit-making housing finance companies that hold or guarantee nearly half of the U.S. mortgage market—some $5 trillion in debt. Paulson seeks and will get an unlimited line of credit to guarantee their debt, as well as authority to purchase their shares to supplement their capital base. The Federal Reserve announced it was ready to provide lending while waiting for Congress to act. Paulson said the new subsidies were designed to sustain the two institutions in "their current form."
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/wall-street-socialism

BUSH REPUBLICANS LOVE SOCIALISM FOR THE WEALTHY: And so does Blue Dog Democrats.
Wall Street Socialists
Sep 17, 2008 / http://tinyurl.com/3n2qfc
The financial crisis gripping the U.S. has the largest banks and insurance companies begging for massive government bailouts. The banking, investment, finance and insurance industries, long the foes of taxation, now need money from working-class taxpayers to stay alive. Taxpayers should be in the driver’s seat now. Instead, decisions that will cost people for decades are being made behind closed doors, by the wealthy, by the regulators and by those they have failed to regulate.
Tuesday, the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury Department agreed to a massive, $85-billion bailout of AIG, the insurance giant. This follows the abrupt bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, the 158-year-old investment bank; the distressed sale of Merrill Lynch to Bank of America; the bailout of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; the collapse of retail bank IndyMac; and the federally guaranteed buyout of Bear Stearns by JPMorgan Chase. AIG was deemed “too big to fail,” with 103,000 employees and more than $1 trillion in assets. According to regulators, an unruly collapse could cause global financial turmoil. U.S. taxpayers now own close to 80 percent of AIG, so the orderly sale of AIG will allow the taxpayers to recoup their money, the theory goes.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080917_wall_street_socialists/

"Bill socialism is also when government bails out wall street."



Nonsence! Show that to me in a dictionary or a textbook of economics. Tiny World, where you get your limited education is the closest thing to Madison Ave I've ever seen, and so has been your entire, less than truthful presentation since you've been posting here.

"There is no such thing as a corporate socialist." Bill F.

If you believe in a TRUE free market then the principle of bailing out company's that are about to fail is Socialist. By allowing businesses to hire cheap illegal labor, with unfair competition to the American worker, is a form of Corporate Socialism because you are not letting the FREE market work naturally. If you make it illegal to buy your prescriptions outside this country, forcing you to buy from only American companies but at the same time allow these companies to operate globally, then that’s rigging the system, not freedom. Bush created a new entitlement prescription drug coverage for the elderly which is paid for and run by a centralized government. Good or bad it is not pro-free market. So my point is, if he was truly in favor of FREE Enterprise then you don’t use the money and power of government to make sure business can’t fail. You instead use the principles of Capitalism and allow the advantages and disadvantages to occur naturally.

“The overwhelming majority of Conservatives had no problem with either the Iraq or Afghanistan Wars under Bush and were his biggest defenders, certainly on that topic.”-Bill F

Few Conservatives would ridicule the president during war time but that does not mean these conflicts had overwhelming support. Afghanistan clearly did, IRAQ clearly did not, especially after no WMD’s were found.

Caspain, If you turn on your computer hit F4 and go into BIOS there are settings you can see on the screen. Once you pull the battery out, those settings will revert back to the initial factory settings. If something was changed hardware wise since the factory, you won't know what changed. It is just a precaution, chances are they will be the same as factory settings.

If you write the existing settings down, then after the battery is replaced hit F4 and compare the old settings you wrote down to the factory settings, if they are different you can change them to what it is supposed to be.

"If you make it illegal to buy your prescriptions outside this country"

That was the Democrats and Obama who mastered that stupidity, not Bush.



"By allowing businesses to hire cheap illegal labor, with unfair competition to the American worker, is a form of Corporate Socialism because you are not letting the FREE market work naturally."

Wrong! By standing in the way of free markets to hire whomever they want is socialism. Your way calls for government intervention.....not that I don't agree that all illegals should be deported. Again, there is no such thing as corporate socialism.


" Afghanistan clearly did, IRAQ clearly did not, especially after no WMD’s were found."

Out of all the groups, Conservatives tended to stick with him the most on the topic, the patriots that most of them are. In the end Bush prevailed in Iraq and that is all that counts....all of the boisterous opposition were dead- wrong about withdrawing and seeing it through. Thank God Bush was his own man no matter what.


"Bush created a new entitlement prescription drug coverage for the elderly which is paid for and run by a centralized government."

True, co-authored with Ted Kennedy which was Bush's attempt at compassionate Conservatism and mending fences with Democrats which backfired on him big time from the right and the left. Being very familiar with this plan from my 93 year old aunt, if it wasn't for this plan the seniors would have had nothing for RX coverage. I can tell you most seniors are grateful for it anyway......they wouldn't give it up.

Thanks Mike G.

I will write as much as I can.

But I still don't know what I'm doing.

LOL

Thanks again.

Nonsence! Show that to me in a dictionary or a textbook of economics. Tiny World, where you get your limited education is the closest thing to Madison Ave I've ever seen, and so has been your entire, less than truthful presentation since you've been posting here.

================

BILL F. READ MY LIPS!

The system is corrupt and the companies who donate the most are the ones with a seat at the table in Washington DC.

I don't know how you cannot see this.

Money talks and you know what walks.

BTW: Bush did not fund his prescription drug bills nor did he fund his No child left behind.

Tax cuts for the wealthiest ruined this countries middle class and working poor.


--------------------

Revolving door for health care aides / 9/15/09 / http://tinyurl.com/q243zq
Some of the most influential aides in the closed-door Senate Finance Committee negotiations over health care reform have ties to interests that would be directly affected by the legislation.
Before she was hired last year as senior counsel to Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Liz Fowler worked as a highly paid public policy adviser for WellPoint Inc., the nation’s largest publicly traded health benefits company.
Mark Hayes, health policy director and chief health counsel for Finance Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), is married to a registered lobbyist for a firm that represents drug companies and hospital groups, although the couple says she doesn’t lobby Grassley’s office.
Frederick Isasi, a health policy adviser to Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), was a registered lobbyist at Powell Goldstein, where his clients included public hospitals and the American Stroke Association.
Kate Spaziani, senior health policy aide to Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), was also a registered lobbyist at Powell Goldstein, although Conrad’s office says she worked as a lawyer — not as a lobbyist — for public hospitals on Medicare issues.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27155.html

"Wrong! By standing in the way of free markets to hire whomever they want is socialism. Your way calls for government intervention...." Bill F

You made some valid replies but this is not one of them. If you allow businesses to hire illegals competing directly against legal Americans in the name of free markets, you can't then force those same Americans to bail you out when you are about to go under. If you want total freedom in markets, then you must also take on total risk and not expect government intervention only when it benefits you.

"...if it wasn't for this plan the seniors would have had nothing for RX coverage." -Bill f

Bill, now close your eyes and pretend a Democrat established this, would it still be good plan and compassionate? It's funny how a strict Republican like you, would be backing this costly government entitlement and ironically so many on the left speak up against it. If you only go along with what your party does, you are not being objective. I tend to agree with it and you, as a good thing to help the Seniors. However, if Bush or Obama implement a high cost entitlement adding to the deficit without paying for it, then it is not only irresponsible but rather Socialistic in my view.

Just purchased a new computer and I am like a fish out of water.

I have to get used to it.

Tehran’s Hand in the Taliban:

August 2, 2010

WikiLeaks [1], the website that offers up pilfered military, government and corporate information for all the world to see, recently scored a coup when it posted online 77,000 documents (a further 15,000 in the possession of WikiLeaks have not yet been released), obtained by means unknown from the U.S. military and relating to the Afghan war. The sheer quantity of the documents means that it will be some time before they can be fully digested, but their raw data have shook governments throughout NATO. President Obama himself has expressed his concern [2] at the risk such leaks pose to the national security of the United States and the safety of troops overseas.

Much of the media’s initial focus was on how the war in Afghanistan is going, in the eyes of the soldiers fighting it. The answer was self-evident — war is hell, the going is tough, the Taliban are a fearsome, determined enemy and victory is far from certain. Such information is readily available to anyone who reads a newspaper, and did not require a sensationalized leak. Nor is the fact that Pakistan’s military intelligence agency, the ISI, is deeply involved [3] in supporting the Taliban surprising in any way, having already been well covered. What is becoming clear, however, is that despite the continued desire of the Administration to find an accommodation with Iran on issues concerning Israel and Iran’s nuclear program, Tehran continues to actively work against America and its allies and is directly complicit in attacks that have claimed the lives of unknowable numbers of allied soldiers.

The sheer quantity of documents released makes it impossible for there to be a full understanding so early on of what it is they reveal. Despite the initial buzz, much of the reaction to the documents thus far suggests that they are a letdown, or as John Barry wrote in Newsweek [4], “There is less to the documents than meets the eye.” They reveal little that was not already known to observers of the war, and the documents, mostly unedited battlefield reports, reflect the inaccuracies of documents written in haste. (In one telling example, it was suggested that the loss of four Canadian soldiers to friendly fire was covered up [5]. In fact, friendly fire was initially suspected before it could be confirmed that it was indeed Taliban fire that killed the Canadians, not an errant American bomb, which landed nearby but did not detonate.)

All the same, what has been revealed about Iranian meddling in Afghanistan is interesting, especially given that it’s a topic that both the Bush and Obama administrations chose not to overly publicize while diplomatic efforts to contain the Iranian atomic program continued (as they still do). Iran is reported to offer [6] safe haven to Taliban leaders, to support the training of Taliban soldiers on Iranian soil and to supply insurgent forces inside Afghanistan with weapons and explosives that are in turn used against the allies and Afghan forces. Bounties are offered for Afghan troops and politicians, particularly pro-Western reformists, and bribes offered to government officials. Pro-Iranian thugs are put into positions of authority [7] and used as conduits for supplies and men, as well as for influence, to advocate a pro-Iranian agenda and to provide intelligence for Tehran. Suicide vests have been directly linked back to Iran by forensic evidence.

This entire agenda is aimed not at expanding Iranian territory into Afghanistan, but merely in keeping it unstable and thereby tying down enormous quantities of American military manpower and materiel. It is a low-risk, high-reward way of enhancing Iran’s power, especially when one considers that the most oft-cited reason given by critics of any proposed military action against Iran is that America, given its current troop commitments in Afghanistan, simply cannot afford to go to war in Iran. Thus, for Iran, supporting anti-coalition militants in Afghanistan has virtually no downside risk. Even when caught supplying weapons, the West chooses not to make an issue of it for fear of derailing diplomatic efforts, which Tehran has shown itself more than capable of dragging out indefinitely [8] as they continue to work on their atomic program.

The fact that Iran is working against America’s interests in Afghanistan, while frustrating, should not come as a surprise. Iran was long reported [9] to be working against American interests in Iraq in a similar fashion, supplying men, leadership and weapons to Iraqi insurgents, tying down the American military there just as it is doing in Afghanistan today (and, indeed, is still reported to be doing [10] even as American forces there prepare to withdraw). Iran also operates in a similar way on Israel’s borders, supporting and arming Hezbollah and Hamas, keeping Israel under permanent attack, on permanent alert and constantly under the microscope of the world’s clueless media.




Even setting aside these precedents, of course Iran is destabilizing Afghanistan. It is the classic geopolitical gambit, and whatever one might think of the Iranian regime, it has shown itself to be more than capable of plotting and moving against America in a rational way. Meddling in Afghanistan offers them an easy way to hurt their greatest enemy while inviting little response. Until America’s stance on Iran hardens and military action becomes a viable option, Iran will continue to support anti-Israeli and American terrorists. It simply makes too much sense for Iran. They will not stop until they are made to.

Ironically, while America and its allies studiously do their best to pretend that Iran is not killing our soldiers, Iran has wasted no time, denying any reports [11] of inappropriate involvement in Afghanistan. It also blocked access to the WikiLeak site over a year ago, prompting a bizarre response [12] from WikiLeaks, where they almost sounded hurt to have been so slighted by Tehran.

The leaked documents will prove a treasure trove to historians and journalists and will provide ammunition to critics of the war eager to see Afghanistan abandoned to its fate. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that it will do much to spur productive discussion in the areas most needing of attention by the West — that no war in Afghanistan can be won until the Taliban’s benefactors in Pakistan and Iran have been dealt with first. Sadly, given the current goals of the Administration, that is very likely to mean that the war in Afghanistan will not be won any time soon.

The building case for bombing Iran:

August 2, 2010

Here's welcome news: Key voices in Washington and elsewhere, including even some doves, now acknowledge that an attack on Iran's nuclear installations may be necessary, feasible -- and more likely.

That's encouraging, not only because it suggests that the nightmare of a nuclear Iran is by no means inevitable -- but also because a more credible threat to the mullahs might help convince them to abandon their nuclear chase, ironically making a confrontation unnecessary.

The heightened buzz of an attack is coming from columnists of all political persuasions, Gulf sheiks urging anyone who can stop Iran to do so and Tehran itself vowing fire and brimstone on anyone who dares to try. And America has plans, according to the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen, who told NBC yesterday that a military attack on Iran was "one of the options the president has."

Israel, notably, has suddenly gone mum on the subject.

Last week, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tehran has "very precise information that [America and Israel] have decided to attack at least two countries in the region in the next three months."

Also last week, the remains of six Israeli airmen -- killed last Monday in a helicopter accident during search-and-rescue drills in Romania -- were buried back home. Although it was a top news story in Israel, only scant information emerged about the previously undisclosed drills in Romania or what the helicopter crews were preparing for. Romania's Carpathian Mountains' terrain resembles the ridges where Iran's nuclear facilities are secreted.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak conducted low-profile talks in Washington last week with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and other national-security types, extending his stay longer than he had planned. Iran was one of the top topics.

Curiously, however, CIA Director Leon Panetta told ABC News recently that sanctions alone would "probably not" stop Iran's nuclear dash, but Israeli officials now talk less loudly about "all options" than they did back in 2007, when the CIA was pooh-poohing Iran's nuclear progress. As the Hebrew saying goes, "a barking dog doesn't bite." And vice versa.

Meanwhile, the United Arab Emirates' ambassador to Washington, Yussef al-Otaiba, recently told a stunned Aspen, Colo., crowd that America should "absolutely" use force to stop Iran. The UAE denied the quote, as did the Saudis when The London Times wrote they'd "look the other way" if Israel would use their airspace on the way to Iran. But it's clear how Iran's neighbors view the situation.

"What is truly wrong is the reluctance of our politicians to express their opinions and concerns towards the most dangerous threat that is facing our region in a hundred years," the general manager of the Saudi-backed satellite TV Al Arabiya, Abdul Rahman al Rashid, wrote last week in the Arabic-language newspaper al Sharq al Awsat.

Some Arabs quietly urge Israel to employ its self-styled nuclear-nonproliferation program against Iran as it did against Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007. As the president of Kuwait's Center for Strategic Studies, Sami al-Faraj, told me last year, if Iran retaliates against Israel, missiles will "fly over our heads," whereas retaliation against America would harm Kuwait.

As Mullen says, an attack on Iran wouldn't be easy or cheap. Regardless of who does it, Tehran will blame both Israel and America. Hezbollah and Hamas will throw their all at Israel. There's even talk of a Hezbollah preventive strike this summer. Tehran will attempt to disrupt

crude-oil supplies. Iranian allies in Iraq and Afghanistan will heighten their assaults on US troops and perhaps even pick terror targets here.

All bad but not as bad as a nuclear Iran. The Weekly Standard's Reuel Marc Gerecht refutes the arguments made by Washington's "sensible" types against an Israeli attack. On the left, Time magazine's Joe Klein, who has consistently and passionately made those "sensible" arguments, now reports that an attack on Iran is "back on the table" in DC.

Predictably, Iran and its new regional ally, Turkey, are renewing their attempt to hustle the Obama administration back to dead-end negotiations. The mere hint of serious military planning in Washington has put the fear of Allah in the mullahs' hearts. Even committed DC doves now uncomfortably admit that a US threat of force may help Iran reach the right conclusion (although they may say so merely to deter Israel from acting).

Now that it's here, though, let's remember: A threat of force only works when it's serious. Beware the empty threats.

Cas:

If I do the same I'll probably saying the same thing.Good luck though.

"Just purchased a new computer and I am like a fish out of water."

Blood on Obama’s Hands:

August 3, 2010

With the deaths of three additional U.S. troops on July 29, July officially became the bloodiest of the nine-year conflict in Afghanistan. The death toll for July was 63 and it captured the record as the deadliest month for Americans so far.

We all need to understand that the increase in deaths is directly the result of Obama’s personal mismanagement of the war. The blood of our servicemen is on his hands.

Why? Upon taking management of defense policy, the Obama administration intervened to change the rules of engagement. Ralph Peters explained it this way in the New York Post: “Unless our troops in combat are absolutely certain that no civilians are present, they’re denied artillery or air support. If any civilians appear where we meet the Taliban, our troops are to ‘break contact’ — to retreat.”

Peters concludes, “When our own moral fecklessness murders those in uniform, it’s unforgivable. In Afghanistan, our leaders are complicit in the death of each soldier, Marine or Navy corpsman who falls because politically correct rules of engagement shield our enemies.”

Obama dithered in adopting a new policy in Afghanistan deep into 2009. This led to criticism from even a left-wing dove like Sen. John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts. Of Obama’s indecision, Kerry said in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, “At the very moment when our troops and our allies’ troops are sacrificing more and more, our path and our progress seem to be growing less and less clear.”

Next came the wrongheaded announcement of our deadline for withdrawal. Obama basically told our enemies the date of our leaving; now they are emboldened by foreknowledge of our defeat.

And who can forget the Stanley McChrystal firing and all the interruption to the chain of command and subsequent uncertainty over policy?

Now we face the Wikileaks scandal, and even this cannot focus the foreign policy team lead by Obama. Obama is downplaying the importance of this leak of thousands of classified secret documents.

But he won’t be able to laugh off the latest allegations. We have now learned that with quick action he and his White House staff may have been able to limit the damage, but they were too incompetent to act.

A video interview by Judge Andrew Napolitano on Fox Business News blows this scandal wide open. When asked by Judge Napolitano why he should not be held responsible for potential deaths caused by the leak, Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, answered that he contacted the White House about the leaks before they were released and asked them to review them.

The White House’s response? Nada.

They were too busy golfing, partying with Paul McCartney and spending the summer vacationing.

In subsequent e-mail conversations, Assange’s people clarified that they sought an administration response through The New York Times, and even The New York Times was ignored.

This is the part of the puzzle which could explain why Obama and his supporters have been trying to downplay this leak as unimportant.

If someone in the Obama administration had advance knowledge of this devastating leak and they did nothing to help limit the potentially fatal consequences to our soldiers and many valiant Afghani informants, Obama has every reason to downplay the leak.

Someone in this administration has blood on their hands, and Congress must demand a full disclosure of who knew what and when. It is imperative that this scandal is investigated and not covered up.

Ironically, on the same day these last three heroic servicemen were dying, millions of American women were busy watching Obama on “The View.” No time to manage the war, only time for golf, parties, vacations and PR.

As Americans, we are appalled. Please stay home and do your job, Mr. Obama. Your gross incompetence is leading to needless bloodshed.

Cas:

If I do the same I'll probably saying the same thing.Good luck though.

"Just purchased a new computer and I am like a fish out of water."

--------------------

robert Windows 7 is just as bad as Windows Vista.

Windows XP was great.

These new computers are much worse than the older ones.

I am bringing it back next week.

Now it seems I need another printer.

I thought new Technology is supposed to be better and more convenient for the consumers.

Not the case.

"I thought new Technology is supposed to be better and more convenient for the consumers."

No Caspian, it's just another way for the computer companies to make money. Computers don't normally wear out like cars do, they just become obsolete but we need a compelling reason to upgrade like "better" "faster" "easier". However, the computer companies want you to upgrade primarily so they can have steady income, which may not equate to better for us. Windows XP was stable and good but Vista was not worth the cost to upgrade. They also like to make it so the old stuff does not work with the new stuff, forcing you to upgrade the hardware. I often felt that the people who make the Virus Security software are the ones that create the viruses. It all comes down to money making schemes, so be on guard. Your best bet is to never go with cutting edge but stay one model behind. It is cheaper and more stable technology usually. Also, don't let them sell you a contract or talk you into optimizing it. Buy the base model, unless for some reason you need the extra power or options, which I doubt you do.

No Caspian, it's just another way for the computer companies to make money

--------------------

Mike G. your words are golden.

You hit a grand slam home run.

I appreciate your advice and everyone else who tried to help me.

Sincerely,

Computer Literate Caspian LOL

They were too busy golfing, partying with Paul McCartney and spending the summer vacationing.

==============

Hey Bill F.

Say what you will about me, but never bad mouth my friend Paul.

LOL

"Say what you will about me, but....."



But, my friend as you once told me during the last administration, when you imagined the left was forever riding high........... "nothing personal, its only business".

Bill F.

You should be tickled pink how Obama and his corporate administration destroyed liberalism.

No Single Payer

No Glass/Steagall

Wall Street bailouts

HMO/Pharma writing the legislation just like Bush and Cheney did.

Liberal/Progressives lost "BIG TIME" with Obama.

Your side won Bill F. which means 99% of everyone else lost.

A Quick Aside:

I just hooked up my new computer and everything is working except for the printer.