@Tymbrwulf

I pretty much agree with everything you just said. I think the prose you wrote above would make an excellent deface to the preface of the new book I prefaced called, 'Elephants That Became A Morass Relay System That Were "Gored" Into A Multi-Platform Supported Prostitute', written by John C. Dvorak and prefaced by me and your stuff near the back. Right before the end; you'll kindly remind the readers that they read 259 pages of nothing. Literally, (literally) nothing, but THIS (plus our stuff):

"Then on that dissmal day did I look fondly over the barren San Francisco skyline and remembered the quote I had stated so long ago, and evermore..so...truth-worthy now..."
----

'Apple makes the arrogant assumption of thinking that it knows what you want and need. It, unfortunately, leaves the “why” out of the equation — as in “why would I want this?” The Macintosh uses an experimental pointing device called a ‘mouse’. There is no evidence that people want to use these things. I dont want one of these new fangled devices.'

QM still shilling for the Republicans I see!

BankruptingAmerica.org:
Executive Director: Gretchen Hamel
- Former Press Secretary for House Republican Conference and Republican John Carter of Texas
Owned by NJI Media Group

NJI Media Group:
Director of Online Strategies & Development: Bryant Avondoglio
- Former intern of House of Representatives Republican Conference, and Republican Congressman Scott Garrett of New Jersey

This information is fairly new and not very easy to dig up. Not many names attached to these websites and 10 min in google yielded these results.

I just wanted to do some legwork for the uninformed, and explain where this information is coming from, using public records. It is extremely easy to create websites that can then seem bi-partisan, but are actually being funded by parties behind the scenes.

Taken from LiveLeak...

War with Iran has already been decided by the powers that be and the modern-day quasi-declaration happened last Thursday. Using the same legislative and propaganda playbook that led to the Iraq War, the U.S. Government has just officially declared War on Iran. Reuters reported "Congress on Thursday approved tough new unilateral sanctions aimed at squeezing Iran's energy and banking sectors, whic More..h could also hurt companies from other countries doing business with Tehran. The House of Representatives passed the bill 408-8 and sent it to President Barack Obama for signing into law. The Senate had approved it 99-0 earlier in the day."


Congress hasn't officially voted for a Declaration of War since World War II. In modern times they use creative wording in bills that authorize the broad use of force across borders in the sweeping "War on Terror." The Bush Doctrine of preemptively attacking countries because they may pose a threat to America in the future was universally trashed by progressives, but is alive and well under Obama, the Prince of Peace, without one dissenting vote in the Senate. This authority is what the Obama Administration claims also gives them the legal argument to bomb sovereign countries like Pakistan.

This unilateral decision by the United States Congress comes on the heels of a 12-2 U.N. Security Council vote on June 8th to impose a "modest tightening of sanctions" against Iran. Of course, Russia and China have been assured that sanctions won't apply to their energy needs in order to secure their votes. After the vote President Obama asserted that, "these sanctions do not close the door on diplomacy."

However, the United States preempted this embargo vote in Congress by taking up an aggressive posture in tandem with Israel by deploying an Armada of Battleships to the Red Sea. There are now reports from the Israeli National News that, "The Israeli Air Force recently unloaded military equipment at a Saudi Arabia base, a semi-official Iranian news agency claimed Wednesday, while a large American force has massed in Azerbaijan, which is on the northwest border of Iran."

Now, it seems that the United States is working overtime to sell their war plans to potential allies. CIA chief, Leon Panetta appeared on ABC's This Week and announced that the Iranians, "have enough low-enriched uranium right now for two weapons. They do have to enrich it, fully, in order to get there. And we would estimate that if they made that decision, it would probably take a year to get there, probably another year to develop the kind of weapon delivery system in order to make that viable."

While world leaders negotiate their piece of the Iranian pie in G8 negotiations, the multinational fear campaign has begun. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said Sunday that a CIA warning that Iran has enough uranium to build two atomic bombs was "worrying," and criticized Tehran's secrecy over its nuclear program. Gathered at the G8 Summit in Ottawa, world leaders now "fully believe" and are "worried" that a preemptive attack by Israel on Iran is inevitable. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi told reporters that "Iran is not guaranteeing a peaceful production of nuclear power [so] the members of the G8 are worried and believe absolutely that Israel will probably react preemptively."


Enforcing an unprovoked embargo on a sovereign nation has been historically defined as an act of war. Unfortunately, very few of our elected officials know or understand history and therefore overwhelmingly voted for the new sanctions. Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), an outspoken critic of Iran sanctions, was one of the eight house members to vote against the measure. Here is Ron Paul from a few months ago comparing sanctions to an Act of War while discussing this bill; H.R. 2194 Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010.

The Bush-Obama Doctrine is the rule of tyrants. Clearly it looks like Israel and America are determined to preemptively strike Iran even though Iran has always maintained that their nuclear program is for peaceful energy production only. America has once again engaged in an Act of War on a sovereign nation that has not harmed, or even threatened to harm her. Iran's biggest crime appears to be sitting on a sea of crude at a time when oil-thirsty Neo-cons, who penned the Doctrine, rule the world. The coming war with Iran will not be pretty.

I am genuinely disgusted by this man, if you can call him that. I did some simple Googling, and I found this list of funds that he's received from lobbyists:

Oil & Gas $1,448,380
Electric Utilities $1,361,985
Health Professionals $1,102,804
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $797,738
Lawyers/Law Firms $556,415
TV/Movies/Music $503,349
Automotive $330,350
Chemical & Related Manufacturing $323,940
Lobbyists $323,000
Telephone Utilities $300,420
Insurance $282,199
Misc Manufacturing & Distributing $259,490
Real Estate $240,450
Retail Sales $237,130
Hospitals/Nursing Homes $227,384
Retired $227,272
Securities & Investment $224,208
Defense Aerospace $220,550
Commercial Banks $214,810
Computers/Internet $204,474

Also, from Wikipedia:

"During his political career, the industries that have been Barton's largest contributors were oil and gas ($1.4 million donated), electric utilities ($1.3 million) and health professionals ($1.1 million)[33] He is ranked first among members of the House of Representatives for the most contributions received from the oil and gas industry, and number five among all members of Congress. His largest corporate contributor, Anadarko Petroleum, owns a 25 percent share in the Macondo Prospect, the site of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.[34]"

Holy Jesus fucking...... wtf?

Is this guy for real? Is this seriously a republican candidate for the US house of representatives?

Turns out the healthcare bill doesn't prevent people from being dropped after our insurance companies identify them as profit losses.

The version of health care bill passed by the House of Representatives would've allowed these women to apply to an "independent external third party" for review before being dropped. It also would have required Wellpoint to keep their coverage in place until the board made its determination, and policies could only be canceled in cases with "clear and convincing evidence of fraud."

Those provisions were not included in the Senate Finance Committee bill, however, which became the basis for the final health care bill signed by the President. Reuters says that Wellpoint lobbyists "helped quash proposed provisions that would have required a third party review of its or any other insurance company's decision to cancel a customer's policy."

The GOP deserves a lot of criticism, but not for what this guy is whining about. The GOP needs to step up and start standing for fiscal conservatism. Conservatives want limited government, reduced spending, and balanced budgets. Sadly - that generally ISN'T what the GOP wants. The GOP wants huge government, tons of spending, and big debts. They just want to be the ones in charge of it.

Birthers? A tiny fringe group who align themselves with the GOP on a single issue, or pre-existing GOP members who are content with this particular issue as a vehicle for their opposition.

Baggers? The Tea Partiers represent huge numbers of fiscal conservatives and independants who are alarmed at government debt spending & over-spending. Democrats and liberals grossly misunderstand the Tea Party movement, and they do so at their own peril. The left is ignoring a massive swelling of citizen anger in the same way that the right ignored Iraq war protests. The contempt and disdain the libs show to this movement only serves to alienate them, and this issue alone will hand the House or Senate to the GOP in 2010 unless the Democrat party wises up quickly.

Blowhards? That's just what they call anyone who opposes them. Pot - meet kettle.

I have no love for the GOP - but I hope they win the house or senate in 2010 so as to put the brakes on Obama's agenda. My fond hope is for complete and utter government gridlock. Democrats gridlocked Reagan & Bush 1 and the country was served well. Republicans gridlocked Clinton and the country was served well. Bush2 had a Republican Congress and American got rogered. Obama has a Democrat Congress and he's screwing the pooch. We need that check and balance badly. I think it should be a national law that the House of Representatives should be handed to the control of whatever party opposes the President automatically on election day.

^ "The 1999 repealing of the Glass-Steagall Act. Thanks to a Democratic Presidency."

The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999. The bills were passed by a Republican majority, basically following party lines by a 54–44 vote in the Senate[12] and by a bi-partisan 343–86 vote in the House of Representatives.[13] After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90–8 (one not voting) and in the House: 362–57 (15 not voting). The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.[14]

(Wikipedia)

*****

Yes, Clinton should have vetoed it, but let's not forget who got the ball rolling.

Nice post. Good info.

>> ^NetRunner:
^ I like the sentiment, but Pelosi is the leader of the House, and Franken is in the Senate.
What you really want to say is:
Kick out Harry Reid, and get Franken in.


According to the never-wrong wikipedia...

"The House of Representatives elects the Speaker of the House. Whoever receives a simple majority of the votes is elected and, after election, is sworn in by the Dean of the House, the chamber's longest-serving member. There is no requirement in the Constitution that the speaker must also be a current member of the House of Representatives to serve as speaker; however, every speaker elected has also been an elected representative.

In modern practice, the Speaker is chosen by the majority party in the House; it is usually obvious within two to three weeks of a House election who the new Speaker will be. It is expected that members of the House vote for their party's candidate. If they do not do so, they usually vote for someone else in their party or vote "present.""

Franken could be House Speaker.

^ I believe the current requirement is that your financial collapse will inevitably lead to a greatly diminished campaign contribution volume for a majority of the members of the US house of representatives.

>> ^marinara:
How does the leader of the House Of Representatives Progressive Caucus treat Obama?
He defies him and refuses to vote for the bill without the public option.
I paraphrase the Congressional Progressive Caucus:
No public option, No bill.
Do I consider Obama enemy no. 1? Please! You are making me laugh!!!
But he's in my way and he's not one of us.
And I'm not a racist.


I've been calling members of the CPC myself, asking them to take that exact stance.

I wouldn't say that I did so because I felt a need to make a stand against Obama, but because I wanted to make sure Obama got a bill with a public option in it to sign, like he wants.

Speaking purely about the political machinations, I don't think a veto threat from Obama would have improved the likely legislation from the Congress. It just would've turned conservadems from having soft opposition into having stern opposition. Doing things this way leaves the door open to arm twisting later. So I can't really get worked up into a froth about his refusal to issue his own "no public option, no bill" threat.

I certainly am not going to call him a traitor to the progressive cause, or declare him not "one of us" over it, or anything else he's done up to this point.

I do wish he'd embrace some of his own sappy sayings like the Audacity of Hope, and the Fierce Urgency of Now, rather than the Naive Hope for Bipartisan Unicorns, and the Fierce Urgency of Whenever he seems to be practicing.

If he wins anyways, I'm willing to forgive it. If he gets rolled, I'm not. Right now we don't know what kind of record he's ultimately going to have, but so far he's 1 for 1 on major legislation (teh stimulus), and I suspect he'll win on this one too.

reply to netrunner:

How does the leader of the House Of Representatives Progressive Caucus treat Obama?
He defies him and refuses to vote for the bill without the public option.

I paraphrase the Congressional Progressive Caucus:
No public option, No bill.

Do I consider Obama enemy no. 1? Please! You are making me laugh!!!
But he's in my way and he's not one of us.

And I'm not a racist.

>> ^KnivesOut:
This guy should be a Senator. He's way too smart and articulate to be in Congress.


Um...he is in Congress. He's in the House of Representatives. The U.S. Congress is bicameral all up in this biatch.

Care Versus Control
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, August 04, 2009

As someone who was once rushed to a hospital in the middle of the night, because of taking a medication that millions of people take every day without the slightest problem, I have a special horror of life and death medical decisions being made by bureaucrats in Washington, about patients they have never laid eyes on.

On another occasion, I was told by a doctor that I would have died if I had not gotten to him in time, after an allergic reaction to eating one of the most healthful foods around. On still another occasion, I was treated with a medication that causes many people big problems and was urged to come back to the hospital immediately if I had a really bad reaction. But I had no reaction at all, went home, felt fine and slept soundly through the night.

My point is that everybody is different. Millions of children eat peanut butter sandwiches every day but some children can die from eating peanut butter. Some vaccines and medications that save many lives can also kill some people.

Are decisions made by doctors who have treated the same patient for years to be over-ruled by bureaucrats sitting in front of computer screens in Washington, following guidelines drawn up with the idea of "bringing down the cost of medical care"?

The idea is even more absurd than the idea that you can add millions of people to a government medical care plan without increasing the costs. It is also more dangerous.

What is both dangerous and mindless is rushing a massive new medical care scheme through Congress so fast that members of Congress do not even have time to read it before voting on it. Legislation that is far less sweeping in its effects can get months of hearings before Congressional committees, followed by debates in the Senate and the House of Representatives, with all sorts of people voicing their views in the media and in letters to Congress, while ads from people on both sides of the issue appear in newspapers and on television.

If this new medical scheme is so wonderful, why can't it stand the light of day or a little time to think about it?

The obvious answer is that the administration doesn't want us to know what it is all about or else we would not go along with it. Far better to say that we can't wait, that things are just too urgent. This tactic worked with whizzing the "stimulus" package through Congress, even though the stimulus package itself has not worked.

Any serious discussion of government-run medical care would have to look at other countries where there is government-run medical care. As someone who has done some research on this for my book "Applied Economics," I can tell you that the actual consequences of government-controlled medical care is not a pretty picture, however inspiring the rhetoric that accompanies it.

Thirty thousand Canadians are passing up free medical care at home to go to some other country where they have to pay for it. People don't do that without a reason.

But Canadians are better off than people in some other countries with government-controlled medical care, because they have the United States right next door, in case their medical problems get too serious to rely on their own system.

But where are Americans to turn if we become like Canada? Where are we to go when we need better medical treatment than Washington bureaucrats will let us have? Mexico? The Caribbean?

Many people do not understand that it is not just a question of whether government bureaucrats will agree to pay for particular medical treatments. The same government-control mindset that decides what should and should not be paid for can also decide that the medical technology or pharmaceutical drugs that they control should not be for sale to those who are willing to pay their own money.

Right now, medications or treatments that have not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration are medications or treatments that you are not allowed to buy with your own money, no matter how desperate your medical condition, and no matter how many years these medications or treatments may have been used without dire effects in other countries.

The crucial word is not "care" but "control."

Look into it further and you will find that all three are 100% historical facts. Look still further and you will find many more cases. Your attack on the natural news guy is ad hominem and irrelevant. I could have used a million different sources:

http://www.sv40foundation.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine

http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t031113.html

The .GOV link (since I'm sure you trust the government :-P) confirms that SV40 was indeed found in polio vaccines:

"A significant number of early vaccine lots were contaminated with the previously unknown viral agent, SV40. In 1960, Drs. Sweet and Hilleman identified SV40 in monkey kidney cells and seed stocks used to produce the poliovirus. In 1961, Drs. Gerber, Hottle, and Grubbs discovered that the treatment used to inactivate SV40 was not completely effective.

In response to these problems, scientists, including those at the Public Health Service's (PHS) Division of Biological Standards (DBS), developed a tissue culture procedure to detect SV40. Once this procedure was developed, DBS notified manufacturers that " . . . no lots of poliomyelitis vaccine will be released in the absence of negative results of a valid tissue culture test for SV40." This requirement was later codified in regulations. Nevertheless, before SV40 was recognized as a problem and appropriate tests were developed, millions of people were vaccinated with poliovirus vaccines that contained SV40. Since this unfortunate event four decades ago, FDA has required that manufactures perform routine testing for oral poliovirus vaccines to demonstrate the absence of SV40."

-William Egan, Ph.D., Acting Director
Office of Vaccine Research and Review, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration
on
Hearing: SV40 in Polio Vaccine
before the
Subcommittee on Wellness and Human Rights, Committee on Government Reform, US House of Representatives


The fact that we are debating irrefutable historical events shows just how far from reality this discussion is.

What you should have learned today is:

1. Vaccines have historically been contaminated (Polio)
2. Vaccine manufacturers have knowingly shipped contaminated products (Bayer)
3. Modern technology/procedures have not prevented contamination (Baxter)
4. Even "wacky" sites with "wacky" conspiracies can present honest information (Natural News on Polio)

THUS:

Everything about this story is absolutely plausible. To dismiss it outright as "retarded" or "loony" is to reveal yourself as historically ignorant.