Best line of the night

[krw]

I'm not.

Or a football team. Or a scout troup. Or...

Mass hysteria? I'm glad you're a doctor who can diagnose such from 300mi. You're better than House.

[Han]

" [e-mail]" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

Yes you were .

Those may be different. Is the football team public, then any public utterance should refrain from religious utterances. The BSA is indeed a religion-conscious institution, in most cases, although individual troops may be less so.

There was quite a bit to do about this, and the final consensus was a case of mass hysteria, as published in several places, 60 minutes as an example.

[Han]

" [e-mail]" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

It is, a speech as an official act at a public school should exhibit restraint. Period.

There is nothing (etc, as you say) from an adlibbed speech or even a prepared speech in a public space, but that is different from an official speech at a function of a public school.

Again you are missing the point - I am talking about an official speech at a function of a public school.

I am crying now ...

[Malcom "Mal" Reynolds]

of course I do. what I love about you rightards is that when you don't understand something you blame everyone else

[krw]

Democrat's heads are safe, anyway.

Indeed they are.

[krw]

Sorry, but it's you who's the king of the red herring.

Musn't have free speech in public, after all.

60 Minutes?! Now there is an example of perfect research meets perfect journalism. You're crackin' me up today!

[Attila.Iskander]

I'll take that as another admission that you were spewing ignorant bullshit AGAIN.

[krw]

No, it is, by definition, an opinion piece. Limiting one's expressed opinion is prior restraint.

A lotta words, no meaning.

A valedictory speech is not an "official function". It is, by definition, an editorial.

You lefties do that a *lot*.

[Attila.Iskander]

AS IF that has anything to do with the current GOP being happy or not about him You really are a weasel.

[Attila.Iskander]

Another attempt to move the goalpost (again)

[Han]

"Attila.Iskander" wrote in news:jga974$hd4$ [e-mail]:

I'll let you have the last word. But I was glas to see Newt get beat tonight.

[Norminn]

Since the first lady always takes such an active role in the Pres.'s life, I think they should have their own debates....Callista vs Michelle? I'd pay to see that :o)

[Kurt Ullman]

We'll sell the cable rights to Spike (g);

[Malcom "Mal" Reynolds]

apparently democrats have enough sense to avoid swamps

[Malcom "Mal" Reynolds]

even if they're dead...they wouldn't be near the swamps when alive, so the only way to be there dead would be to have republican grave-robbers do their stuff

[krw]

Dunno, but they're a lot alike; Callista has $700,000 worth of jewelry and Michelle has $50,000 in underwear (I suppose it takes a lot of cloth...).

[Malcom "Mal" Reynolds]

as I said, democrats are smart enough to avoid swamps

[Robert Green]

The "only" difference? That's a HeyBub HooBoy! Even *you* can't believe (or support) that.

There's a little theory you might have heard of. It's called "supply and demand." The simple truth is that with India and China putting millions of new cars on the road each year, demand for oil is skyrocketing. That causes prices to rise as well. The only good news is that the economic downturn has tamped some of the growth by limiting demand. Growing demand is acknowledged by most economists to be the main force driving oil prices higher. But there are numerous other causes as well.

(Emphasis mine)

Yes, I know, those were the Bush years, but economists often take time to fully analyze the data. Speculation has only increased since then.

Hmm. So in the face of dozens of studies you want to blame Obama for growth of world oil demand and the excesses of Wall St. speculators? Is that Obama Derangement Syndrome? He just doesn't wield that sort of power, although I am sure he would like to. Oil prices have been steadily rising since Bush was president. The Forbes article goes on to say:

From a fifth to one half of the entire US futures market. Isn't in far more likely that an investment change of that magnitude caused the rise in prices and not some as yet unexplained mystical action or magical spell cast by Obama?

Speculators with all that money that they didn't have to pay in taxes thanks to the Bush tax cut are looking to make even more oodles of money gaming the crude oil market and screwing over every car owning American. Wall Street is at it again. But hell, why not try to blame Obama if you can find people unaware enough to believe you?

FWIW, demand growth and speculation are only two parts of the picture. Piracy, unrest in Libya and other oil-producing nations, UN sanctions against some oil producing nations and many, many other events cause the price of oil to rise. One largely ineffectual President is not very likely to be the cause of a world-wide economic reaction.

Except in the cartoon world of Republican "blame" politics.

-- Bobby G.

[Robert Green]

The money we've all paid in taxes to build the Interstate Highway System has also helped make the owners of companies like UPS and Fedex very wealthy. The ability to earn enormous amounts of money depends heavily on the infrastructure of the country. An efficient road system, waterways maintained by the Army Corp of Engineers, communications networks, the electrical grid, courts, police and even a military to protect overseas investments are essential to huge companies prospering in America.

The ready access to this stable and very lucrative market is extremely valuable to those with vast business empires. It helped the uber-rich to acquire and maintain their great wealth. Why shouldn't they pay for the bulk of it since they've received the bulk of the benefits? Political stability is something that's hard to "price out" until you look at Russia. There, you might be a energy titan until you express the wrong political views or even just make the wrong people jealous. Where the rule of law is weak, entrepreneurship is also weak.

The real issue is the division between the concepts of working for money and having money work for you. I laughed when I heard Laffer on PBS explaining how if the rich are taxed too much, they just "won't work" anymore. His words. I laughed because the real difference between the lower/middle class and the upper 10% is that the ultra-rich mostly don't WORK at all. They invest. That enables them to multiply their efforts in a way that a "salaryman" never could. I've known people to work three jobs, but there's an absolute limit to what a person can do with his own labor.

In the 2000's we saw first time American home-buyers competing with huge international cartels of investors. It has destabilized the country in ways we're only beginning to fully comprehend. Neighborhoods are falling into rot because it turns out it takes very few foreclosures to turn a good neighborhood into a bad one. The financial termites of Wall St. stripped an incredible amount of value from the equity so many people had built in their homes. It was people like Mitt and Bain Capital that have been responsible for some very bad changes in America. In 1980, 65 percent of recent high-school graduates working in the private sector had health benefits, but, by 2009, that was down to 29 percent. That's the work of buyout kings like Mitt.

There probably isn't a working person here in AHR that hasn't seen his wages or benefits cut in the last 20 years. That's NOT the direction a prospering nation should be headed. Mitt's enormous wealth in part comes from "helping" millions of Americans getting worse and worse deals from their employers. Fire workers? Your stock goes up! Cut their benefits? Your stock goes up! Lower their wages? Your stock goes up!

The only ray of hope is that given the continuously bad reception Mitt's getting from the Republican rank and file, Obama might well be a two-term president. With less time left than it takes to make a baby, Gingrich has shot his load and now Santorum is the new savior/flavor of the month. Eventually we'll see Ron Paul catapulted to the top of at least one primary as Republican voters cry out "Anyone but Mitt!" At least I agree with my Republican friends on THAT point.

-- Bobby G.

[Ed Pawlowski]

I agree, but you know what actually happens. UPS will raise their rates to cover it and that toaster you order from Amazon will have another $1 added for shipping. Corporations do not pay taxes, their customers do.

Hey, he worked hard to get that $100 million trust fund. That is, IMO, one of the biggest stumbling blocks to his winning the nomination. Joe Sixpack does not relate to him very well.