Ok, I'm am sick and **** tired of being accused of hate speech everytime I say I disagee with something the current adiministration has done, or wants to do. I don't hate the people in power in our country. I don't dislike the President at all. I think he would probably be a hell of a guy to hang out with and have a beer with. I'd love to play golf with the guy given the chance. I disagree with most of his political views, but I by no means hate the man.
When President Bush was in office and everyone was protesting and calling for him to be taken out of office and put on trial for War Crimes, it was called free speech and anyone who spoke out against the protesters were damn near lynched... Now why is it any different? I'll tell you why. HYPOCRISY! Plain and simple.
Ok, I'm am sick and **** tired of being accused of hate speech everytime I say I disagee with something the current adiministration has done, or wants to do. I don't hate the people in power in our country. I don't dislike the President at all. I think he would probably be a hell of a guy to hang out with and have a beer with. I'd love to play golf with the guy given the chance. I disagree with most of his political views, but I by no means hate the man.
When President Bush was in office and everyone was protesting and calling for him to be taken out of office and put on trial for War Crimes, it was called free speech and anyone who spoke out against the protesters were damn near lynched... Now why is it any different? I'll tell you why. HYPOCRISY! Plain and simple.
another good time to bring up my favorite HR Clinton quote:
WE ARE AMERICANS AND WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEBATE AND DISAGREE WITH ANY ADMINISTRATION!
You are correct, anyone has the right to disagree with and protest ANY administration. Trust me I wanted to protest Bush's amnesty bill he was pushing. I don't understand why it is called hate speech when we speak out against the current administration and we are labeled as racists... This is childish and becomes a game of name calling instead of a true debate.
Ok, I'm am sick and **** tired of being accused of hate speech everytime I say I disagee with something the current adiministration has done, or wants to do. I don't hate the people in power in our country. I don't dislike the President at all. I think he would probably be a hell of a guy to hang out with and have a beer with. I'd love to play golf with the guy given the chance. I disagree with most of his political views, but I by no means hate the man.
When President Bush was in office and everyone was protesting and calling for him to be taken out of office and put on trial for War Crimes, it was called free speech and anyone who spoke out against the protesters were damn near lynched... Now why is it any different? I'll tell you why. HYPOCRISY! Plain and simple.
I couldn't have written it any better. People were going above and beyond just saying they hated Bush. How about George Lopez on national TV saying "F@ck you" to President Bush? Anyways, I do not agree with anything Obama does but it has nothing to do with his race. Race is the card for all the weak minded individuals to play though.
I also think you should need to take an IQ test to be allowed to vote. All these people who said I voted for him solely because he is black or they wanted to be involved in making history. How ignorant is that? Just as ignorant as calling people racist who disagree with you.
I saw this crap all the time when I was a cop. "You are just stopping me because I am black". My reply, "You are just saying that because I am white". Seriously take responsibility for your actions. If a black man is doing 60 MPH in a 20 MPH school zone grab your nuts, be a man, and admit you screwed up instead of using your race as a crutch.
Now Obama may not be out there playing the race card but when he doesn't step forward to stop it from being played he is just as guilty of perpetuating imagined racism.
Ok, I'm am sick and **** tired of being accused of hate speech everytime I say I disagee with something the current adiministration has done, or wants to do. I don't hate the people in power in our country. I don't dislike the President at all. I think he would probably be a hell of a guy to hang out with and have a beer with. I'd love to play golf with the guy given the chance. I disagree with most of his political views, but I by no means hate the man.
When President Bush was in office and everyone was protesting and calling for him to be taken out of office and put on trial for War Crimes, it was called free speech and anyone who spoke out against the protesters were damn near lynched... Now why is it any different? I'll tell you why. HYPOCRISY! Plain and simple.
I couldn't have written it any better. People were going above and beyond just saying they hated Bush. How about George Lopez on national TV saying "F@ck you" to President Bush? Anyways, I do not agree with anything Obama does but it has nothing to do with his race. Race is the card for all the weak minded individuals to play though.
I also think you should need to take an IQ test to be allowed to vote. All these people who said I voted for him solely because he is black or they wanted to be involved in making history. How ignorant is that? Just as ignorant as calling people racist who disagree with you.
I saw this crap all the time when I was a cop. "You are just stopping me because I am black". My reply, "You are just saying that because I am white". Seriously take responsibility for your actions. If a black man is doing 60 MPH in a 20 MPH school zone grab your nuts, be a man, and admit you screwed up instead of using your race as a crutch.
Now Obama may not be out there playing the race card but when he doesn't step forward to stop it from being played he is just as guilty of perpetuating imagined racism.
I agree. People need to take responsibility. I was probably the most liberal cop you would ever find, but the race card gets old. What's nice, I've had people of color defend me for actions I took as Chief when others played the race card. As someone said earlier, playing the race card is easy to do, especially when you have no other valid arguement.
This is just showing immaturity by the administration. The media always attacks any President for one thing or another. Look at all the crap Clinton caught, and he didn't stoop to this type of thing.
... how is anyone supposed to read that damn thing?
Exactly the point. From what I've heard, it is so convoluted with self-reference that no layperson, and probably not a lot of people beyond them, could conceivably understand the entire document.
... how is anyone supposed to read that damn thing?
Exactly the point. From what I've heard, it is so convoluted with self-reference that no layperson, and probably not a lot of people beyond them, could conceivably understand the entire document.
I seriously doubt that most of our congressmen can even read and understand it.
Proposed: (see if your Senator will introduce this!)
1. No bill may be more than 20 pages long. It must be written in such language that the average voter can read and understand it over their lunch break.
2. Only amendments directly and obviously related to the main body of the bill may be attached.
3. For every new law passed, or new social program implimented, two existing laws or programs must be repealed or terminated.
... how is anyone supposed to read that damn thing?
Exactly the point. From what I've heard, it is so convoluted with self-reference that no layperson, and probably not a lot of people beyond them, could conceivably understand the entire document.
I seriously doubt that most of our congressmen can even read and understand it.
Actually, I heard from somewhere(unfortunately, I don't remember where) that most of them don't understand it. How true this is, I don't know, nor do I have anything to back it up.
But if this was a Republican doing the same thing you guys would jump all over it saying it's just another example of the right being in bed with big business.
But if this was a Republican doing the same thing you guys would jump all over it saying it's just another example of the right being in bed with big business.
HAHAHAHHA, even when I say something you want to hear (and truly believe might I add)---you find a way to say I didnt say it in the correct way...because "if it would have been....when you would have....or might have thought....or intimated saying....or lost the point that.....or didnt realize you.....or were uninformed as to the".
Proposed: (see if your Senator will introduce this!)
1. No bill may be more than 20 pages long. It must be written in such language that the average voter can read and understand it over their lunch break.
2. Only amendments directly and obviously related to the main body of the bill may be attached.
3. For every new law passed, or new social program implimented, two existing laws or programs must be repealed or terminated.
A simpler answer would be term limits on Senators and Congressmen. 1 term for Senators, and 3 for Congressmen, one of which cannot be consecutive.
Yeah, let .gov control more of its citizen's lives. Wonderful. Regulate and provide. Two things not written in the Constitution.
Who wants to bet that if this public option goes through, and if any State wants to opt out of it, the State be put on a very short leash by the federal government, especially with Federal grants, stimulus aid, etc...?
There's no such thing as "opting out" without consequence.
Yeah, let .gov control more of its citizen's lives. Wonderful. Regulate and provide. Two things not written in the Constitution.
Who wants to bet that if this public option goes through, and if any State wants to opt out of it, the State be put on a very short leash by the federal government, especially with Federal grants, stimulus aid, etc...?
There's no such thing as "opting out" without consequence.
It was the same thing that happened with changing the drinking age to 21. The states who wouldn't change it were denied a lot of federal money...
Well I don't actually work for the city of Dallas, but the scoop is that you can ticket someone for not being able to speak english IF they are driving a commercial vehicle. Some of the officers I guess didn't understand that it was for COMMERCIAL VEHICLES ONLY... They were tards and now they stirred up a sh*t storm. I'm glad I don't work for Dallas PD! lol
The U.S. government is calling its Cash for Clunkers program a big success, with nearly 690,000 vehicles sold in July and August. But a report by automotive Web site Edmunds.com says the program actually cost taxpayers $24,000 per car sold.
Only 125,000, or 18%, of the sales were incremental, according to Edmunds.com -- the remaining 82% of sales would have happened regardless of the program.
The $24,000 is the price for the sales of vehicles that were a direct result of the program, Edmunds.com said.
The clunkers program gave car buyers rebates of up to $4,500 if they traded in less-fuel-efficient vehicles for new vehicles that met certain fuel-economy requirements. The government set aside $3 billion for those rebates.
Edmunds.com looked at the sales trend for luxury vehicles and other models not included in program, and it applied the historic sales volumes of those vehicles and those in the program and estimated what the sales figures would have been without the program. The analysts then divided the $3 billion by their 125,000-vehicle number to get an average of $24,000 per vehicle.
The average transaction price for a new vehicle in August was only $26,915, minus an average cash rebate of $1,667.
"This analysis is valuable for two reasons," Edmunds.com CEO Jeremy Anwyl said in a press release. "First, it can form the basis for a complete assessment of the program's impact and costs. Second -- and more important -- it can help us to understand the true state of auto sales and the economy. For example, October sales are up, but without Cash for Clunkers, sales would have been even better. This suggests that the industry's recovery is gaining momentum."
The government was not pleased with Edmunds.com's analysis.
"It is unfortunate that Edmunds.com has had nothing but negative things to say about a wildly successful program that sold nearly 250,000 cars in its first four days alone," Bill Adams, spokesman for the Department of Transportation, told CNNMoney.com. "There can be no doubt that (the clunkers program) drummed up more business for car dealers at a time when they needed help the most."
The economy grew at a 3.5% pace in the third quarter, thanks to a jump in auto sales as a result of the clunkers program. Auto sales contributed 1.7 percentage points to the GDP, the government said in a report this morning.
I'm sure the libera.., err, "progressives" can still find a way to defend this gem.
I just wondered about how accurate the numbers are. I am NOT defending the program but given that they used historical sales figures to extropolate the data it seems the numbers would be skewed. What I mean is... you mentioned in your post the following...
Edmunds.com looked at the sales trend for luxury vehicles and other models not included in program, and it applied the historic sales volumes of those vehicles and those in the program and estimated what the sales figures would have been without the program. The analysts then divided the $3 billion by their 125,000-vehicle number to get an average of $24,000 per vehicle.
Given that the economy was / is in the tank and that people were NOT buying automobiles at least at the time of the report then using historical sales numbers and saying that they would have sold "this many" vehicles during that time is a real leap isn't it? That was the whole premise of the program was to stimulate the sales of vehicles.
I think the $24,000 per vehicle figure is a little high probably, but it is still TOO much considering the money that was also handed to the big car makers as well. That's a LOT of taxpayer money floating only one sector of the economy.
Comments
When President Bush was in office and everyone was protesting and calling for him to be taken out of office and put on trial for War Crimes, it was called free speech and anyone who spoke out against the protesters were damn near lynched... Now why is it any different? I'll tell you why. HYPOCRISY! Plain and simple.
WE ARE AMERICANS AND WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEBATE AND DISAGREE WITH ANY ADMINISTRATION!
Amen to that.
seriously, puro, you need to read a handmaid's tale
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
I also think you should need to take an IQ test to be allowed to vote. All these people who said I voted for him solely because he is black or they wanted to be involved in making history. How ignorant is that? Just as ignorant as calling people racist who disagree with you.
I saw this crap all the time when I was a cop. "You are just stopping me because I am black". My reply, "You are just saying that because I am white". Seriously take responsibility for your actions. If a black man is doing 60 MPH in a 20 MPH school zone grab your nuts, be a man, and admit you screwed up instead of using your race as a crutch.
Now Obama may not be out there playing the race card but when he doesn't step forward to stop it from being played he is just as guilty of perpetuating imagined racism.
Wait a minute! You mean Glenn Beck is the sane person here?
... I'm speachless... shocked... appauled...
She works for Obama... I ... I ... I'm a little terrified.
one more link...
White House Escalates War on Fox News
I understand that the white house and FOX news have a very different way of looking at things. but this is just poor taste.
FOX news is a privately owned company and has every right to say what they want.
for argument's sake, lets say that 100% of everything on FOX news is false. that still does not mean that the white house should attack them.
whats the phrase im looking for....
oh yeah...
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.
--Thomas Jefferson
News is something someone wants suppressed. Everything else is just advertising. --Lord Northcliff
EDIT
White House boasts: We 'control' news media Communications chief offers shocking confession to foreign government
yes, none other than ANITA DUNN, the ( killer of about 70 MILLION) Mao Tse Tung-loving White House Communications Director admits:
"Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn't absolutely control,"
anyone have anything positive to say about this?
ALL 1502 PAGES OF THE HEATH CARE BILL
... how is anyone supposed to read that damn thing?
1. No bill may be more than 20 pages long. It must be written in such language that the average voter can read and understand it over their lunch break.
2. Only amendments directly and obviously related to the main body of the bill may be attached.
3. For every new law passed, or new social program implimented, two existing laws or programs must be repealed or terminated.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/24/house-subpoena-documents-vip-mortgages-members-congress/
Barney Frank: "We are Trying on every front to increase the roll of government"
Who wants to bet that if this public option goes through, and if any State wants to opt out of it, the State be put on a very short leash by the federal government, especially with Federal grants, stimulus aid, etc...?
There's no such thing as "opting out" without consequence.
Cash for Clunkers cost $24,000 per car
Edmunds.com says only 125,000 vehicle sales were a result of the government's program.
Posted by Elizabeth Strott on Thursday, October 29, 2009 10:54 AM
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Dispatch/market-dispatches.aspx?post=1341914&_blg=1,1341914
The U.S. government is calling its Cash for Clunkers program a big success, with nearly 690,000 vehicles sold in July and August. But a report by automotive Web site Edmunds.com says the program actually cost taxpayers $24,000 per car sold.
Only 125,000, or 18%, of the sales were incremental, according to Edmunds.com -- the remaining 82% of sales would have happened regardless of the program. The $24,000 is the price for the sales of vehicles that were a direct result of the program, Edmunds.com said.
The clunkers program gave car buyers rebates of up to $4,500 if they traded in less-fuel-efficient vehicles for new vehicles that met certain fuel-economy requirements. The government set aside $3 billion for those rebates.
Edmunds.com looked at the sales trend for luxury vehicles and other models not included in program, and it applied the historic sales volumes of those vehicles and those in the program and estimated what the sales figures would have been without the program. The analysts then divided the $3 billion by their 125,000-vehicle number to get an average of $24,000 per vehicle.
The average transaction price for a new vehicle in August was only $26,915, minus an average cash rebate of $1,667.
"This analysis is valuable for two reasons," Edmunds.com CEO Jeremy Anwyl said in a press release. "First, it can form the basis for a complete assessment of the program's impact and costs. Second -- and more important -- it can help us to understand the true state of auto sales and the economy. For example, October sales are up, but without Cash for Clunkers, sales would have been even better. This suggests that the industry's recovery is gaining momentum."
The government was not pleased with Edmunds.com's analysis.
"It is unfortunate that Edmunds.com has had nothing but negative things to say about a wildly successful program that sold nearly 250,000 cars in its first four days alone," Bill Adams, spokesman for the Department of Transportation, told CNNMoney.com. "There can be no doubt that (the clunkers program) drummed up more business for car dealers at a time when they needed help the most."
The economy grew at a 3.5% pace in the third quarter, thanks to a jump in auto sales as a result of the clunkers program. Auto sales contributed 1.7 percentage points to the GDP, the government said in a report this morning.
I'm sure the libera.., err, "progressives" can still find a way to defend this gem.
Edmunds.com looked at the sales trend for luxury vehicles and other models not included in program, and it applied the historic sales volumes of those vehicles and those in the program and estimated what the sales figures would have been without the program. The analysts then divided the $3 billion by their 125,000-vehicle number to get an average of $24,000 per vehicle.
Given that the economy was / is in the tank and that people were NOT buying automobiles at least at the time of the report then using historical sales numbers and saying that they would have sold "this many" vehicles during that time is a real leap isn't it? That was the whole premise of the program was to stimulate the sales of vehicles.
I think the $24,000 per vehicle figure is a little high probably, but it is still TOO much considering the money that was also handed to the big car makers as well. That's a LOT of taxpayer money floating only one sector of the economy.