Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
Jan 11th 2011 7:43PM MYTOBY 3113 - Your 'reply' to my comment was essentially meaningless drivel. I never addressed George Bush, Dick Cheney, or Sarah Palin. Neither did I express hate or bigotry. I merely related some historical and political facts; your finding them not to your liking does NOT justify personal attacks on me. As for Obama, he was not particular successful in a any of the ways that you mention. He went to a junior college, and finished his B.A. at Columbia; he still refuses to produce his senior thesis, just as he will not release his birth certificate (a Certificate of Live Birth from Hawaii is NOT a birth certificate; indeed, the fact that he has spent MILLIONS preventing any such document from seeing the light of day is, shall we say, suspicious). At Harvard (how did he get in and who paid for it?), he graduated near the bottom of his class; after, he never really worked or did anything (being a 'community organizer' hardly counts). I never said anything hateful, merely recounted the facts. YOU filled your message with bigoted, hate-filled (and totally incorrect) vitriol against people who nothing to do with the subject at hand. Grow up and obtain an education. Bob Anderson
Jan 11th 2011 7:09PM I am with the fighter. This is the worst conceivable President America could have elected. He had never so much as run a Dairy Queen, let alone being ready to run America. By his own admission, his mentor was the late, unlamented Saul Alinsky, a card carrrying Communist whose stated goal was destroying America. His books, offering such a blueprint for said destruction, are still available at Barnes & Noble or Borders; Obama is following the destructive blueprint with his socialist agenda. People forget that the SOVEREIGN states GRANTED ~35 powers to the Federal Government, and no more. The STATES are ABOVE the Federal Government, NOTE below it. When the Federal Government passes legislation (like the Health Bill) for which the have no grant of power, it is unconstitutional. Virtually all gun control laws, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional, for example. The Tenth Article of Amendment reinforces this by stating that any power other than those granted in the Constitution belong to the States. The States have the legal authority to nullify any unconstitutional law the Federal Government passes, whether it is National ID cards (over 25 states passed Nullification bills on that, and it went nowhere), or gun control, or health care. Indeed, my relatives in Canada come to the US for health care because the socialist health care in Canada is a disaster; I have friends who have emigrated from the UK because their socialist health care system and their gun control has been a disaster (crime in general, and crime with firearms, is UP tremendously in Great Britain). Some people just don't learn. I am not even counting the fact that Obama was born in Kenya, and so is not the legal President.
Nov 2nd 2010 12:41PM This is too dumb for words. The 'cancer' nonsense from deodorants is just that - nonsense. If I do not do anything to get sweaty, I MIGHT skip a day between showers, but that is rare. Look at it from this perspective - would YOU be physically intimate with a member of the opposite sex if they hadn't showered in a week? I certainly would not do so!
Oct 13th 2010 7:55PM It clearly IS the banks' fault; why else would Bank of America halt foreclosures NATIONWIDE? Several other banking institutions are also following suit. Why? Because sworn testimony in court by bank employees and title workers that they signed off on documents THAT THEY NEVER READ! In addition, in 1999, the real estate/banking industry created MERS, in Reston, Va, to file things ELECTRONICALLY. Instead of physically going to the courthouse with documents in hand, everything is done by computer. As a result, the possession of the TITLE needed is in many places completely unknown or not readily traceable. Furthermore, the Banks 'gave' the MERS company the 'right' to foreclose; this is illegitimate, since MERS DOES NOT have the title (i.e., legal possession) for the property. Additionally, only the financial institution with the title can foreclose; they cannot simply hand it off to MERS.
Oct 13th 2010 7:46PM Ms X: Again, you did not bother to read the whole piece; they made payments, AND they were working with good faith with the ORIGINAL lender, when repeated selling of the loan occured, and their 'payments' were 'lost' in the system. Squatting is a legitimate and ancient form of possessing property (possession is 9/10 ths of the law). It is NOT clearly illegal; quite the opposite. It is the BANKS that have to prove their case, not the people who MADE PAYMENTS, AS WRITTEN IN THE ARTICLE. Also, the entity foreclosing has to have proof of title before foreclosing; where is that?
Oct 13th 2010 7:40PM Those castigating the couple have not been reading closely; they made payments THAT THE CREDITORS WERE NOT SHOWING AS HAVING RECEIVED. The 'loan' was sold off NUMEROUS times, so that no one can properly say WHO has the title. I say good for them; the banks themselves (Bank of America) has stopped foreclosures nationwide because of these and other problems. The foreclosure documents had the same persons signature WRITTEN by different hands in various places in the paperwork; that is clearly fraudulent. Where is/who has the TITLE? Did whoever foreclosed know that payments had in fact been made? I say bravo for this couple, and for those who berate them, read a bit more closely what a mess the LENDERS made; this packaging and selling of home loans, done so quickly that payments are made to someone who has already sold the loan, is a disaster. Good for these people.
Sep 19th 2010 7:49PM It would need a REALLY strong six, or small V-8, to be worthwhile; also, would prefer the full four door/four seat cab with a bed attached.
Sep 10th 2010 3:25PM When the three of us were little, we either 1) stayed at home with a babysitter, or 2) my Dad put the fear of God into us so that we wouldn't have dared scream. Of course, that's when parents were allowed to actually discipline their children without unconstitutional interference. My Dad spanked us, used a switch or belt on us, and guess what - we turned out fine. All college grads (sister is an attornerny), no psychopathology from our spankings; now "political correctness" precludes that in most homes. Ultimately, it is the PARENT'S responsibility to control their children; either don't take them, or make them behave if you do.
Jul 8th 2010 9:02PM SYTRAXIA - It's good to correspond with an educated individual. Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" was, of course, one of the preeminent documents on which our founders relied. Oddly enough, Teddy Roosevelt echoed some of the same sentiments. The key thing is to look at the TOTALITY of "Wealth of Nations", which is indisputably an embrace of free enterpise. Remember, our country was founded, purposely, with NO INCOME TAX WHATSOVER. (That was the scam 16th Amendment, which instituted 'income taxes). As our Founder's wrote "The power to tax is the power to regulate". (I believe that was Jefferson, though cannot remember for sure; could have been Madison). A place like Sweden (or Norway, or Iceland) has particular facets that, for them, are perhaps workable, but for larger places they are not. The country's mentioned are relatively small, isolated, culturally homogenous, and relatively low in population. They do not necessarily have wing nut agencies like the EPA interfering with every businesses do; think of the savings to the country if we did away with the counter useful EPA, and the Dept of Education, which has never educated anyone. There's billions a year of our budget wasted; but I digress. Taxation is first about the priorities - infrastructure such as the military (I am a Navy vet), roads, power, sewage, etc - with anything left over going to the luxory of giving away money to others. Instead, America, led by left wing socialists, have inverted that equation; the vast majority goes to 'social spending' that yields no tangible results. Thanks for respoding. My email is BobBHP@aol.com Bob Anderson
Jul 8th 2010 5:11PM SYTRAXIA - I am a bit unsure how to address your response; I am sure your rhetoric is meaningful to you, but I would stil take issue with it. First, as is common knowledge, business, and the economy, is NOT prospering under our progressive tax rate. Next, firms are not evil because they want to generate profits - that is their raison d'etre. Since virtually all large firms (oil, pharmaaceutical, etc) are publicly owned, the profits generated go to the stockholders. If, for example, you have anything - a savings account, 401k, a pension plan, whatever - YOU own stock in them; YOU profit when they do. Next, it is regulation that generally messes businesses up, and their costs are passed on to the consumer - again, you or me. Finally, a quick look at history demonstrates my assertions. Japan is the only country with a higher capital gains tax - and their economy has been in the tank for two decades. In the 60's, Sweden was one of the world's foremost economies. Then, they implemented Democratic socialist ideas and taxes -and their economy went downhill. In the 90's, they started reversing their failed policies - and their economy has picked up. England, of course, was a socialist nightmare - until Margaret Thatcher came, slashed taxes (which were as high as 90% on rich folks) and their economy turned around. Ronald Reagan inherited Carter's failed agenda; he never said a word against Carter, he just cut taxes, and we started a 20 year economic boom like none the country has seen (and no, Clinton didn't do any of it, in fact, he raised EVERY income tax bracket 5%). Generally, history shows that: lowering taxes and reducing spending (especially wasteful "social spending" ALWAYS results in better economic times; conversely, raising taxes and deficit spending ALWAYS slows an economic, and is in fact a recipe for economic disaster. (Indeed, this was part of Rome's downfall,so this knowledge goes back 2,000 years). Also, this country very existence was founded on economic freedom, the freedom to make money to the best of our abilities. That is what made us the greatest country in the world; the country's SUCCESS, not failure, is what free, minimally regualated business means. Again, business is about generating profit; without a country, where's the profit? Thanks for attempting to respond intelligently, though. Regards, Bob Anderson