Gaf The Horse With Tears

All of those things are optional except taxes. As for paying taxes.. they had to add an Admendment to do that legally. This is the FIRST and ONLY thing (for now) that the Federal government has impossed on us with threat or fines and inprisonment.

I would like to note.. this is an AP story hosted on Yahoo news, not some conservative source. Report says health care will cover more, cost more

I am also at a loss.

I would assume that it was political in some way. What I can say for certain is that the situation is far more complex than it would appear at first or how presented by those in opposition to her.

I've been following this story for a few weeks now.. the whole affair sickens me.

I didn't say that. I soppose I should have been more clear. For one, I did not tell you to search for anything. The short search I did on the subject gave me lots of information... like the cause of the decline. Which, according to everythign I can find, is over hunting by natives. Honestly I can understand why some are pushing to get them listed as endangerd now. The most politically expidiant way to stop the over hunting is to list them as endangered. That would stop the over hunting without breaking treatys with Native tribes.

That I can agree with.

Oh sorry... I missed that one response mixed in with all the attacks on my charactor. Marc, I understand where you coming from and my repsonse is... At what point does a group of people acting togther give up thier Rights? A corperation is still made up of people and "speaks" for the economic Rights of those people. Thats my big concern with regulating corperations.

Sorry... I never said they didn't qualify as threatened in the Cook Inlet. I said they don't qualify as endangered. The distiction is not minor. Do you know what group is the most opposed making them endangerd? Just a short search finds that the natives, who under the current laws and treatys with thier tribes are allowed to hunt them without restrictions, are adamantly opposed to any more regulation or restrictions on the killing of the whales.

No actual response as yet.... just attacks on my charactor.

I didn't say the raise in unemployment was Obama's fault. I fully admit the raise started in Bush's last year. The spike and following rise are directly linked to the housing/banking crisis. I don't blame Obama for that either. I lay that blame on Frank, Rangel, Dodd and the other members of Congress who crafted the regulations that forced banks to give out loans to people who did not qualify. I also blame the investments bankers at Goldman-Sacks who were bilking the populace out of their money. I blame Obama for the second bailout that lowered the value of the Dollar without adding the millions of jobs it was supposed to. He was the one that claimed that if we didn't pass that second stimulus (the majority of which has still not been spent) unemployment would reach 8.5%. I blame Obama for doubling the national debt (you know, that thing that you ranted about when it increased under Bush) in his first 6 months. Did you know that if you subtract all the temporary jobs that were added by the Census department that the job growth you speak of goes away? Did you know that Goldman-Sacks just reported record profits?

Perhaps you should read some actual employment numbers for the last 20 years. You don't trust any source I would produce, no matter who it was. You would find fault. So find your own numbers. Not some wild scenerio like you propose, but actual employment numbers. Tell me exactly when during the Bush years, unemployment ever reached 10.2%. Go ahead and take another week or two to come up with a response. Really make it a doosy and put me in my place.

but the value of our Dollar is still way down.

Eternal has read Rules for Radicals!!! Nice to see someone else likes to read once in a while. My favorite qoute from that book is “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.” eternal, in your failed attempt top discredited me you made a mistake. I have used Daily KOS, Huffington Post, The BBC, CNN, LA Times and NY Times. Try useing the truth against me, it's more effective.

2nd Edition... because I like to play AD&D not this crap fest they have turned it into with 3 and up... Plus I have all the books... I mean all of them and 7 boxed sets. 3 and up... because it's not AD&D Style varies depending on the players and the campaign. Monty Hall is my least favorite but it has it's place. My campaign starts out kinda Monty Hallish.. but tapers off fast. Way into story and charactor development. without it, it's just a game of dice. Working together is encouraged in my campaigns... if you don't, there is no one left alive to not help. Socializing and playing are equal.. we are social animals after all. When I am actually playing rather than DM'ing... Human Invoker with the Militant Kit. Why? I like to blow shit up. My campaign is horror based but not RAvenloft... pretty sure it could be fit into a Ravenloft campaign setting but I avoid it.

Is Goldman Obama's Enron? No, it's worse Campaign contributions from Goldman Sachs employees to President Obama are nearly seven times as much as President Bush received from Enron workers, according to numbers on OpenSecrets.org. President Bush's connections to Enron were well-hyped during the company's accounting debacle that rippled through the economy. Time magazine even had an article called, "Bush's Enron Problem." The Associated Press ran with the headline, "Bush-backing Enron makes big money off crisis." David Callaway wrote that Enron for Bush was worse than Whitewater for Clinton. But the mere $151,722.42 (inflation adjusted) in contributions from Enron-affiliated executives, employees, and PACs to Bush hardly add up to Obama's $1,007,370.85 (inflation adjusted) from Goldman-affiliated executives and employees. That's also not taking into account how much Goldman contributed to Obama cabinet member Hillary Clinton ($415,595.63 inflation adjusted), which was itself almost three times as much as Bush received as well. It would be fair to say that the total amount the Obama administration has received from those affiliated with Goldman Sachs is ten times that of what Bush received from Enron. Goldman is being sued for civil fraud by the Securities and Exchange Commission for deliberately putting unwitting clients on the wrong side of a mortgage security trade that had been designed to fail.

Hah! Clinton did beat him... the good old boys in the Democratic party decided Obama was going to be the canidate no matter what the populace said... so they used thier party rules to override Primary votes. I even saw a few liberals saying that the USA was not ready for a women as President. As for Palin... when exactly was she given a chance during the election to prove anything. The moment she was announced the people are Daily KOS and Huffington Post were publishing false stories about her to discredit her. You have as yet to back me into a corner... unless putting me on ignore when I prove you wrong counts.

So much hatred can't be good for you.

again.. in what reality does denial of care kill less people than careing for them?

OK, let me rephrase... In what reality does adding the cost burden of 32million people to an underfunded program while cutting funding 30%, in which bureaucrats decide who gets what medical procedures and treatments not cause people to die?

What color is the sky in your world?

So much for you not taking pot shots at Bush at every conseviable opertunity. You woulod never do that.... CAn you come even close to saying it? If so, mind recording it and sending it along?

Changing thier name in the Law does not change what they are. The Law does in fact have panels that decide who gets to have medical treatment and who does not.. all based on cost effectiveness... not on quality of care or quality of life... but on how much it's going to cost. Some of the left pundits pushing for this overhaul have admited to panels to "ration" health care in this mess of an overhaul. Do you really think this bill, with no real provisions to lower premiums or costs, is somehow going to lower costs by 30% per year (this is what Obama has publicaly claimed over and over) without killing some people?

Fox is accused of bias because people can't seem to seperate the commentary shows from the news broadcasts. O'Riley and Hannity are not news shows, and don't pretend to be news shows... they are talk shows. http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm Thats ONE of many studies that have shown liberal media bias.

Did you know that neither Beluga whales nor polar bears actualy meet the criteria to be considered endangered?