| Author |
|
Keith Elder
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1973
|
| Posted: 14 September 2008 at 2:07pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Going back to the comments on the previous pages, backing the predecessors of the Taliban in Afghanistan was not necessarily a foolish decision; Muslim fundamentalist terrorists will never be nearly as significant a threat as the U.S.S.R. was.
That's one of the irritating things about much of the commentary I hear lately; have people forgotten that the world is much safer than it was twenty, thirty years ago?
And keeping up the childish remarks on Palin is costing the left the election.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
William McCormick
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 26 February 2006
Posts: 3297
|
| Posted: 14 September 2008 at 2:08pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Rich, you might not have engaged in the hyperbole of pointing to a "destroyed" economy or stating, outright, that America is a "shithole"; but, others certainly have done. This thread is rife with such fanciful statements, UTTERLY divorced from reality.
**********
Who called America a shithole?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Pete Turley
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 14 April 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 111
|
| Posted: 14 September 2008 at 2:09pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
And the entire Fox News channel creams every time Palin's name is mentioned. What's your point?
Yep, Fox is biased, but I love how MSNBC, CNN, major news networks are seen as 'impartial' - ... Heck, Some Democrats said that Fox had better and fairer coverage on Obama than anyone else did. Anything potentially damaging to Obama's campaign was held back until they thought Clinton was done in the primaries.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 December 2004
Posts: 831
|
| Posted: 14 September 2008 at 2:19pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Jodi wrote:
I have worked at the polls since I was 18 years old. To register you need to register in a precinct and bring a picture ID, (which can be given out for no cost). The office that oversees voting makes sure that there are no voters, that have registered in more than one location. Lets say you are registered in house X , you can't move to house Y and register again. You can request a change of address but if you are registered in one precinct, that will be the only place you can vote.
A state issued ID should be enough to allow you to vote. Doing what the republicans are doing in Michigan is out right wrong.
Because a person is in finanacial trouble does not mean they should have no voice in government. |
|
|
'Just because a person refuses to accept his or her responsibilities in the process of assuring their own vote; does not mean that every effort should not be made to safeguard the process at a large. And no, a state issued id without listed, verifiable residence should not be enough. There are, after all, local issues and offices to be considered. Or should busloads of voters be allowed to travel from the Detroit metro-area up to the UP to better assure their preferred assembly gains seats in the state legislature?
As it is, if any potential voters now resident for more than sixty days in a new county miss the window for registering in that county for the November elections, they should not be allowed to cast a vote. In Michigan, that means before, as I read it, October 10th (M.C.L. §§ 168.492, 168.497). However, if any registered voter has moved, for whatever reason, in the last sixty days, then they may still vote at their OLD location (M.C.L. § 168.507a). If those potential voters are still in county but simply no longer resident at their recorded address, for whatever period of time, and have simply not registered their change of address, they may still vote in their OLD location (also, M.C.L. § 168.507). The very most that this would entail, at the discretion of the supervisor, is affirmation via a signed affidavit completed at the polling station. In any case, nothing could ever alter the fact that those potential voters are responsible for following the law as it applies to every potential voter in Michigan.
So, what's the problem? Should exercise of the franchise in this country infer NO individual responsibility?
I repeat: Voting standards should be enforced. As voting is properly a proactive exercise of a right, I don't see why anyone shouldn't be challenged on the point of residency in their voting district. If I lost my home, I would acknowledge the necessity of re-registering in my new district as the prerequisite to the exercise of the franchise. What is the workable alternative to safeguarding the worth of our system? In this example, if the prospective voters ARE still resident--and their affirmation is ALL that would be needed--then their vote will be recorded in that district.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 December 2004
Posts: 831
|
| Posted: 14 September 2008 at 2:27pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Jodi wrote:
| Look at Kellogg, Root & Browns and Halliburtons financial information before the Iraq invasion, they were almost out of business. When Cheney is no longer VP he will receive so much money from Halliburton from his deferred stock option it would make your head spin. |
|
|
No, neither Halliburton nor its then-subsidiary government services subsidiary of KBR, respectively, were "almost broke" prior to the Iraq war. Period. Even the P-36 Platform debacle offered nothing but a hiccup to Halliburton's bottom-line since Petrobas took the brunt. The asbestos-related claims went back as far as 1976. KBR's Chapter 11 was nothing but a move to halt further claims it had acquired with its takeover of Dresser, and NEVER included either Halliburton Energy Services Group or KBR's own government services division. Halliburton had inherited the great bulk of asbestos claims when it bought DII and their former subsidiary, Pittsburgh based Harbison-Walker Refractories Co. Harbison-Walker had been facing $7.7 billion in asbestos claims; Halliburton's move cut the outstanding claims to an agreed upon $2.78 billion, with insurance carriers liable for $2.1 billion of that amount. In short, the settlement reached shunted the burden to insurance carriers; hence the insurance carriers collective lawsuit against the move based on the grounds that the settlement should be blocked BECAUSE THE AFFECTED SUBSIDIARIES WERE WHOLLY SOLVENT.
Here are HAL's SEC reports from 1994 onward, including SEC charges of price inflation and asbestos-claims settlements: SEC Info. Knock yourself out.
I have my own problems with Halliburton Energy Services, but the idea that they were somehow teetering on the edge prior to the Iraq war is nonsense. The notion that their involvement amounts to a grand conspiracy to save themselves from unseen hordes of creditors is beyond nonsense...it's just stupid. Likewise the fact that they would need contracts in Iraq or Afghanistan to "save" themselves is ridiculous, as their margins in these theaters is actually pretty low. And, of course, Halliburton/KBR (as the Brown & Root subsidiary, sans Dresser's Kellogg) have held LOGCAP and general contracts going back prior to Vietnam.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6808
|
| Posted: 14 September 2008 at 2:34pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
...it's just stupid
Michael every time you post I feel like I am reading a biased text book.
Michael : Blah, Blah Blah, blah, blah, blah blah. blah blah blah.....
Me: ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ LOL
Here is the thing, you get a state issued picture ID, proving you are who you say you are. Then you register to vote at an address, you can only vote at the polling place that includes that address. If you move, you reregister. If you do not get the address changed you can still vote at the registered poling site, one person , one vote.
But to target those that are on a list of foreclosures to frustrate voters and slow down the process of voting to detour people, is wrong plain and simple.
Historically those in power use the type of thing in Michigan to disenfranchise voters who will most likely vote against them. If you think the republicans are doing this to make voting more on the up and up, I have a "bridge to nowhere" to sell you. LOL
I edited to add the meanness because he called me stupid. LOL
Tell me Michael what have they made since Cheney's been in office?
Edited by Jodi Moisan on 14 September 2008 at 2:40pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Gene Best
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 24 October 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 4598
|
| Posted: 14 September 2008 at 2:36pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Yep, Fox is biased, but I love how MSNBC, CNN, major news networks are seen as 'impartial' - ... Heck, Some Democrats said that Fox had better and fairer coverage on Obama than anyone else did. Anything potentially damaging to Obama's campaign was held back until they thought Clinton was done in the primaries.
**
Opinions and editorials are fine as long as they're not presented as news.
I'm a journalism purist ... who, what, where and when ... full stop. When a journalist goes anywhere beyond those, that's into editorial territory.
While not holding my breath, I actually do have hope that Hannity will ask some challenging and objective questions of Palin and not do her work for her. Perhaps he'll challenge her in the same way Bill O. did Obama. We'll see.
The greater irony is that Palin is to politics what Hannity is to journalism. Our standards have gotten way too low.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 December 2004
Posts: 831
|
| Posted: 14 September 2008 at 2:39pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
Joe wrote:
| Nothing will turn into roses when GWB leaves. He's destroyed the economy. He's destroyed America's international influence. It will take at least a lifetime to get back what he's lost. |
|
|
Bullshit, right down the line. This ranks just below the notion that America is a "shithole" or that we'll all be eating dogfood sometime in the next ten years, as one of the most absurd sentiments you've ever offered, Captain Hyperbole. We are, far and away, the strongest economy in the world; and possessed of the highest standard of living for the most people in the history of the world even to the extent of ranking our some 300 million against nations with less than one percent of our population. End of story. While the U.S. is not perfect, its economy is NOT, by any steetch of the imagination, liable to your statement, Joe.
Our influence is--as it has ALWAYS been--predicated on our economic strength. Or are you and so many others still laboring under the misapprehension that America was somehow having its way in the world, willy nilly, prior to the Iraqi occupation by coalition forces? Shall I count the ways in which other nations balked at US proposals or outright defied U.S. expectations and desires...all before we supposedly squandered our nebulous goodwill with a proposed invasion of Iraq? What was the problem in each of those instances? Our general distaste for mayonaise on french fries?
Joe wrote:
| How so, Dave? How can you explain Bear Stearns? Lehman Brothers? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Who knows what other pillars of Wall Street will go under overnight? Is this good economic stewardship? The people who have lost jobs and houses, are they whiners to you? |
|
|
Joe, you've somewhere linked the former GSEs directly to the subprime crisis. Well, the Fannies have never dealt in sub-prime loans, and their difficulties are due ENTIRELY to overvaluation and their status as GSEs in the first place. Overvaluation was a world wide phenomenon; in fact, our domestic overvaluation lagged BEHIND worldwide markets. As it stands, both companies reported assets exceeding their liabilities and 98.3% of the GSE's loans are recorded as paying timely in 2008. Now, despite the arguments in favor of them, I have never supported the concept of the former GSEs and don't agree with the extent of the Fed's restructuring plan; yet, the restructuring does actually offer a method of downsizing those institutions. Joe, do I need to remind you that the former GSEs were always a democrat baby and that part of the problem with their lending practices was government mandate, reinforced under BOTH President Clinton's and President Bush's terms, that they should make greater efforts to finance lower income borrowers at prime rates?
Bear Stearns violated federal reporting guidelines and, thereby, committed felonies. Your point? We could lose a hundred Bear Stearns and our economy would still be stronger than any other nations'. At that, it was still viable enough for JP Morgan Chase to step in...hardly evidence of a "destroyed" anything. Lehman brothers? The same, with the proviso that Lehman faces the very real threat of bankruptcy [hence the emergency derivatives trading session and meetings this weekend which resulted in Barclays' and BofA saying sayonara! to any deal]. The BIG news is that the Fed seems to have, at the time I write this, WISELY chosen to finally ABANDON ONE ASPECT OF GREENSPAN'S FISCAL POLICY of backstopping every institution that indulges in moral hazard and then seeks government succor! And, why has the Fed said it won't guarantee Lehman? Because its loss DOESN'T affect the U.S. economy anywhere near the manner you suggest (as employees own upwards of 25% of its shares). Nor could it EVER. The same goes for AIG's possible dilution.
And, if you've got numbers that argue otherwise, trot 'em out.
Joe wrote:
| Through Alan Greenspan, GWB created the housing bubble which ended up as the sub-prime crisis. The incredibly low mortgage rates of a few years back was the direct effect of Greenspan keeping the Fed rate artificially low even when there was no inflation. And he did nothing to reign in sub-prime lending during that time. |
|
|
Sigh. Joe, what could President Bush have done to reign in sub-prime lending, Joe? As to Greenspan, are you failing to recall that there was a world wide recession in process at the beginning of this decade? There WAS a credit crunch and steep unemployment growth. Remember the now-forgetten mantra of unemployment raised against Bush when he had only been in office for a year? No, this was actually an instance of Greenspan NOT indulging, willy nilly, in his favored remedy of cheap money. One of the few instances, in my opinion ( I think I gave a short list someplace of instances where Greenspan abused the theory). I'd remind you, It was predominately the strength of the housing market in America (and other nations like the UK) that made the recession of the early 2000s so shallow and led to our quick rebound.
If your assertions were true, then why do ANY other nations currently face a steeper climb than we do in just about EVERY financial sector involved with the sub-prime markets? Well? Tell me. They didn't share our president, nor our Fed chief. No, Greenspan's true fault is the degree to which he encouraged moral hazard; and he did so, under both President Clinton and President Bush.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6808
|
| Posted: 14 September 2008 at 2:42pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6808
|
| Posted: 14 September 2008 at 2:47pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
"A picture is worth a thousand words" or I should say "a picture is worth a Myers post". LOL
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Michael Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 December 2004
Posts: 831
|
| Posted: 14 September 2008 at 2:49pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Jodi, if I thought you were stupid, I would have said so in no uncertain terms. It's as simple as that.
Jodi, the national debt as a percentage of the real GDP was higher under President Clinton than it is now. I'll ask you the same question which I asked Rich, were you equally as concerned then, as now? I was, but I don't read too many posts faulting the current congressional majority for continuing this trend of ever-increasing the mandatory welfare expenditures list from people like you...why is that?
Mike M. wrote:
| Now, to make a point, were you as concerned about our debt when it was
at far higher levels as a percentage of our GDP in, say, 1996 or 1997,
under President Clinton? I was, and commended President Clinton and a
Republican controlled congress for their attempts to reduce growth.
Yet, despite those efforts, mandatory entitlement programs continue to
grow in size and scope with no realistic answer from either party.
I'll gladly point to the Bush presidency and former
Republican-controlled congress as all-stars in this regard, but the
current Democrat-controlled congress has certainly proven no more
responsible. Is a Democrat-controlled congress under a Democrat
executive any more likely to buck the trend? |
|
|
Edited by Michael Myers on 14 September 2008 at 2:58pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 December 2004
Posts: 831
|
| Posted: 14 September 2008 at 2:57pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
"I find myself increasingly convinced that the McCain/Palin ticket is going to win."-John Byrne
I still give Senator Obama the clear edge. I was clearly mistaken regarding the choice of Governor Palin, however.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
