Jump to content

kamui

Board Sponsors
  • Posts

    6926
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Everything posted by kamui

  1. Just try to imagine what happens when other people close by would draw a gun as well. It would take the term 'friendly fire' to a new level. ------- From a distance of less than 10 feet, the officers, Craig Matthews and Robert Sinishtaj, answered in unison; one shot nine times and the other seven. Investigators believe at least 7 of those 16 bullets struck the gunman, said Paul J. Browne, the Police Department’s chief spokesman. But the officers also struck some, if not all, of the nine bystanders who were wounded. NYT
  2. Poll: 0 percent of blacks for Mitt Romney By: Mackenzie Weinger August 22, 2012 05:04 PM EDT President Barack Obama continues to beat Mitt Romney among African American voters with a staggering 94 percent to 0 percent lead, according to a poll released Tuesday. The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll — which gives Obama and Vice President Joe Biden a small lead over Romney and his running mate Paul Ryan — shows Obama has a massive lead over his Republican rival in the key political base of African-American voters,NBCNews.com reported. Obama also beats Romney among Latinos, voters under 35 and women, while Romney does better than Obama with whites, rural voters and seniors. The poll surveyed 1,000 registered voters Aug. 16-20. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. Politico
  3. It's a well known fact that the ratio of the spread of wealth in USA is coming close to second world countries like LOS: i.e. a lot of very poor and lower middle class and small group of super rich. Here is what Ferguson wrote at Newsweek and below the fact check: "Welcome to Obama's America: nearly half the population is not represented on a taxable return--almost exactly the same proportion that lives in a household where at least one member receives some type of government benefit. We are becoming the 50-50 nation--half of us paying the taxes, the other half receiving the benefits." It is true that 46 percent of households did not pay federal income tax in 2011. It is not true that they pay no taxes. Federal income taxes account barely account for half of federal taxes, and much less of total taxes, if you count the state and local level. Many of those other taxes can be regressive. If you take all taxes into account, our system is barely progressive at all. But why do almost half of all households pay no federal income tax? Because they don't have much money to tax. Here's the breakdown from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Half of these households are simply too poor -- they make under $20,000 -- to have any liability. Another quarter are retirees on tax-exempt Social Security benefits. The remaining households have no liability because of tax expenditures like the earned-income tax credit or the child credit. In other words, the poor, the old, and children. Not exactly the "50-50 nation" of makers and takers -- or "lucky duckies" -- that Ferguson imagines. http://www.theatlant...t-obama/261306/
  4. The new GOP attacks on Obama's medicare plans are complete nonsense. It's clear that GOP want's to create a new distortion field in regard to this topic. If they succeed they might gain some points. If not they will lose the retired and with this Florida.
  5. Obama is outspent 8-1 by GOP super pacs Koch-backed group, Romney super PAC lead charge against Obama By: Dave Levinthal August 17, 2012 04:11 PM EDT Top conservative super PACs and outside groups have outspent President Barack Obama’s super PAC by more than 8-to-1 this month. Together, the Koch brothers-linked Americans for Prosperity and pro-Mitt Romney super PAC Restore Our Future combined to spend about $31 million on ads against Obama, an analysis of federal independent expenditure records shows. The pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA Action, meanwhile, spent a comparatively anemic $3.69 million to slam Romney. The divide further illustrates what’s been true for much of the election cycle: Conservative outside groups have a massive cash advantage over their liberal counterparts. Americans for Prosperity’s most which is running nationally, features people who voted for Obama four years ago and have since changed their minds about him. “The president has not earned reelection in 2012,†one woman declares. “I don’t feel that I helped my grandchildren by voting for President Obama, and I regret that,†another man says. A Restore Our Future ad, meanwhile, Obama allies of “shameful, dishonest attacks†and having “no record to run on.†Here’s the rundown on the top 10 outside political groups, between Aug. 1 and Wednesday, airing ads that overtly advocate for or against federal political candidates: 1) Americans for Prosperity, $20.7 million, all in opposition to Obama. 2) Restore Our Future, $10.1 million, all in opposition to Obama. 3) Priorities USA Action, $3.69 million, all in opposition to Romney. 4) Crossroads GPS, $1.82 million, all in opposition to Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) and Virginia Senate candidate Tim Kaine (D). 5) Club for Growth Action/PAC, $1.36 million, mostly in opposition to Republican House candidate Paul Gosar in Arizona and Republican Senate candidates Tommy Thompson and Eric Hovde in Wisconsin, and in support of Senate candidate Mark Neumann in Wisconsin. 6) Conservative Majority Fund, $1.02 million, all in opposition to Obama. 7) Friends of Democracy, $776,072, in opposition to a variety of Republican congressional candidates, most notably Reps. Charlie Bass of New Hampshire, Dan Lungren of California, Sean Duffy of Wisconsin and Chip Cravaack of Minnesota. 8) Patriot Majority USA, $707,298, all in opposition to Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) and Republican congressional candidate Andrew Roraback in Connecticut. 9) Americans for Job Security, $649,800, all against Hovde. 10) U.S. Chamber of Commerce, $595,754, primarily against several Democrats, including Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) and Kaine. © 2012 POLITICO LLC http://www.politico....9841.html?hp=f3
  6. HH I had expected a little bit, uhmm, more substantial... Generally, I find US elections really disgusting. Charakter assassination, aka Swiftboating, previoulsy a GOP speciality, seems to be standard by now for both parties. And since a few years both parties have these opposition trackers, guys with video cams by the Dems and GOP who film every move a opposition politician makes. Every slip of the tongue, every silly face is being blown completely out of proportion by the left or right blogsphere and associated media.
  7. I don't think so and if so only slowly and under great pain. The right wing/Tea Party was able to kick out a lot of well respected Reps in the past two years or so. The center GOP has been erased almost completely. Also Big Money which is running the GOP won't give up easily their vision of raw capitalism and anti-social plans. PS: The GOP looks more and more like a version of political parties in Asia (Thailand, Japan, e.g.), where politicians more or less execute the will of people standing in the shadow.
  8. Interestingly the GOP is currently moving even more to the right. The selection of Ryan is clear signal. And in almost all internal GOP races the candidate most close to far right won. Moderate GOP had and have to go into hiding or have been kicked out. If Romney wins there won't be an internal revolution for the next 4 years, but it this is only a postponement. If he loses the GOP might fall into a crisis a little bit earlier. With the whites becoming a minority the current non-inclusive GOP won't have a chance in future elections.
  9. He plays to the very conservative base: anti-abortion, anti medicare, privatize social security, radical tax cuts for the rich and corps, cut main government functions, e.g. And he is young, energetic, with a strong own profile. It might be energized to conservatives, but won't do anything for the women, Latinos, elderly, which are important in some swing states like Florida. And of course it opens lines of attack for the Dems. We'll see...
  10. It is the usual BS, one the variations of the Birther stuff. Actually I think that the Dems are happy about this Birther stuff. It turns the center and the independents away from the GOP.
  11. kamui

    Any New Jokes

    I think we had this already. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOVq_UL48o0
  12. As predicted some evangelical sect has already made a highly insulting comment: Just minutes after it was reported that people had been shot at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, the hate mongers at Westboro Baptist Church were tweeting out: 'God Sent Another Shooter.' HuffPo But why Huffington Post is publishing this is beyond me. I think in Germany such comments would be completely ignored by the media. (We have some right wing crazies as well, but they don't receive attention by the media.) And the New York Times has already moved on: Online version of the NYT at 4am, Eastern Time, Of course the NYT did not intend to show people partying next to the headline of the Sikh killing. But it's telling.
  13. PS: the first phase has already begun: State Rep. Josh Zepnick, who represents much of the Milwaukee area's Sikh community, said he was "torn to shreds" by the attack. "It's a very peace-loving community that has successfully integrated and assimilated into the metropolitan Milwaukee area," Zepnick told CNN afilliate WTMJ. And state Rep. Mark Honadel, who represents the area, called the attack "craziness." "Unfortunately, when this type of stuff hits your area, you say to yourself, 'Why?' But in today's society, I don't think there's any place that's free from idiots." [since those massacres seem to happen quite often in the USA I wonder, if this explanation isn't way too simplistic] Top state and national political leaders offered statements of condolence after the killings, which came two weeks after a massacre at a Colorado movie theater that left 12 dead and dozens more wounded. "Our hearts go out to the victims and their families, as we all struggle to comprehend the evil that begets this terrible violence," Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said in a statement issued by his office. "At the same time, we are filled with gratitude for our first responders, who show bravery and selflessness as they put aside their own safety to protect our neighbors and friends." In a statement from the White House, President Barack Obama said the United States had been "enriched" by Sikhs, "who are a part of our broader American family." "My administration will provide whatever support is necessary to the officials who are responding to this tragic shooting and moving forward with an investigation," Obama said. And from Boston, Obama's presumptive Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, called the slayings "a senseless act of violence and a tragedy that should never befall any house of worship." He said the hearts of he and his wife, Ann, "are with the victims, their families, and the entire Oak Creek Sikh community." http://edition.cnn.c....html?hpt=us_c1 PS: I forgot in my "ritual" list: soon we will hear some nasty comments on the killings by right wing evangelicals. Of course they are isolated and absolute disgusting, but the media and blog sphere will jump on it anyway.
  14. I guess I have become too cynical. We just had 13 Egyptian soldiers killed. Dozens of people are being killed in Syria every day, 13 people were killed by a Typhoon in the Philippines, 48 Iranians were kidnapped (just try to imagine the media reaction if this would have been westerners), every second day people are being killed by terrorists/insurgents, whatever, in South Thailand, and so on. In the USA it is the second massacre in a very short time. It's terrible, but the reaction in the USA will follow an established ritual. The people in the USA (media, pols like Obama, Romney, e.g.) will say how terrible it is. Anti-gun activists will ask for more tight gun laws, while gun sales will go up for a few days, the NRA says "no comment" and the pro-gun people will demand to losen the gun laws even more. That's it. Except for the local people and the friends/family/e.g. involved, no one will really care anymore after a few days.
  15. Another shooting in the USA: 6 Killed in Shooting at Sikh Temple in Wisconsin By MICHAEL SCHWIRTZ Police in Wisconsin said Sunday that at least one gunman opened fire in a Sikh temple near Milwaukee, killing at least six and injuring several others before being shot himself. The gunman is also believed to have died. The shootings occurred at about 10:30 a.m. at the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin in the town of Oak Creek, just south of Milwaukee, officials said. The authorities described the scene at the temple as chaotic as they attended to the victims and tried to sort out what had happened. Police said they were still uncertain where other shooters were at the temple. Bradley Wentlandt, the chief of police in nearby Greenfield told journalists on the scene, that four bodies had been found inside the temple and three were found outside, including that of the shooter. He said a veteran police officer who arrived on the scene exchanged fire with the shooter. “That officer was shot multiple times,†Mr. Wentlandt said. “The shooter was put down.†He said the injured officer was taken to the hospital and it was unclear if he would survive. The shooter, who was not immediately identified, was “assumed diseased,†he said. At least three men all with gunshot wounds have been admitted to Froedert Hospital, the Milwaukee region’s main trauma center, said Nalissa Wienke, a spokeswoman for the hospital. One victim was shot in the head and extremities and another in the abdomen. The third was undergoing evaluation. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinal reported that victims were being removed from the temple’s prayer room and that SWAT team members were sweeping the building. The newspaper reported that the temple’s president, Satwant Kaleka, was among those shot. There were conflicting reports about whether another gunman had taken hostages inside the temple. Local news agencies, citing text messages from people inside have reported that two or more shooters could have been involved. The shooting comes just over two weeks after a gunman killed 12 people and wounded nearly 60 in a mass shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo. NYT
  16. I think a one term presidency would change the dynamic of the government completely, since the president would have to answer to the electorate only once and couldn't care less after the election.
  17. I think this opinion piece from a conservative standpoinst sums it up well. Mr. Negative vs. Mr. Complacent By ROSS DOUTHAT DURING the dog days of last summer’s debt ceiling negotiations, with Washington gridlocked and the president’s approval ratings slumping, a narrative coalesced among disappointed liberals. President Obama was failing, they decided, because he was too moderate, too reasonable and too conciliatory. He didn’t have the ideological confidence required to actually fight for liberalism, or the brazenness required to really tear the Republicans apart. Apparently somebody at the White House bought into this narrative, because so far Obama’s re-election campaign has delivered just about everything that liberal partisans were begging for a year ago. Since the campaign kicked off, the president’s domestic policy rhetoric has become much more stridently left-wing than it was during the debt-ceiling debate. He’s dropped all but a pro forma acknowledgment of the tough choices looming in our future, and doubled down on the comforting progressive fantasy that we can close the deficit and keep the existing safety net by soaking America’s millionaires and billionaires. On hot-button cultural issues, meanwhile — immigration and gay marriage, reproductive issues and religious liberty, even welfare reform — he’s moved away from Clintonian triangulation, offering a succession of explicit panders to Democratic voting blocs and interest groups instead. To this bordering-on-McGovernite substance, he’s added Richard Nixon’s style, with a pitch to swing voters that started out negative and has escalated to frank character assassination. In Obama’s campaign ads, and in the rhetoric of his aides and allies, Mitt Romney isn’t just wrong on specific policies or too right-wing in general. He’s part Scrooge, part Gordon Gekko; an un-American, Asia-loving outsourcer; a tax avoider andpossibly a white-collar felon. If you’re an undecided, stuck-in-the-middle kind of voter, the president isn’t meeting you halfway on the issues, or pledging to revive the dream of postpartisanship that he campaigned on last time. He’s just saying that you’ve got no choice but to stick with him, because Romney is too malignant to be trusted. By taking this line, Obama is testing the conceit — beloved of MSNBC hosts and left-wing bloggers — that a harder-edged, more ideological liberalism would be a more politically successful liberalism as well. And at the moment, the president’s continued lead in swing-state pollsprovides modest but real evidence that his strategy is working. If the election were held today, I’d bet gingerly on the president eking out the necessary 51 percent. But Obama’s current edge may have more to do with the Romney campaign’s complacency than with the genius of his McGovern-meets-Nixon approach. In Romneyland, it seems to be an article of faith that 2012 will be a pure up-or-down vote on the president’s performance, and that the most generic sort of Republican campaign — hooray for free enterprise and low taxes, with the details To Be Determined Later — is therefore the only kind of campaign they need to run. But as The New Republic’s William Galston has pointed out, even a referendum election tends to involve a two-step process, in which voters first decide whether they’re willing to eject the incumbent, and then decide whether they’re willing to roll the dice with his opponent. In this case, that roll of the dice involves handing the White House back to the Republican Party just four years after the Bush administration failed (and then some) to deliver on its promises. And by running a generic campaign in the aftermath of those failures, Romney isn’t giving voters any reason to think that he won’t just deliver the same disappointing results. The Romney campaign is clearly afraid of talking too much about its candidate’s biography (all that money, all that Mormonism ...) or offering anything save bullet points and platitudes on policy (because details can be used against you ...). But a Republican candidate who won’t define himself is a candidate who’s easily defined as just another George W. Bush. A Romney campaign that loosened up and actually took some chances, on the other hand, might find that the Obama White House’s slash-and-burn liberalism had opened up some unexpected opportunities. Because Obama has moved left on fiscal and social issues, there’s more space in the center — assuming, that is, that Romney can get over his fear of offending his own party’s interest groups. Because Obama has gone so negative, there’s room to accentuate the positive, and run as the candidate of (right-of-center) hope and change. Because Obama’s message depends so heavily on voters’ unhappy memories of the Bush era, Romney can do himself an enormous amount of good just by exploding the premise that he’ll govern as “Dubya, Part II.†Or he can keep doing what he’s been doing, in which case he stands a very good chance of losing oh-so-narrowly, and joining Thomas Dewey in the ranks of Republican presidential nominees who mistakenly believed that they could win the White House by default. NYT
  18. If the GOP had chosen a better candidate, I guess Obama would be a clear loser already. But the GOP wasn't ready since it is undergoing a radical change, with the right wingers taking over and all moderates being kicked out. How can a candidate win (Romney) who isn't loved (or is even loathed) by his own base? But it's not over until the votes are cast. There is so much noise in US media, it's unbelievable for an outsider.
  19. How often do you have a gun fights compared to sex?
×
×
  • Create New...