Steve

And that was what I was addressing. The sad thing is the corporate farms are trying to get rid of the small farmer and we (our tax dollars) are helping them.

http://news.yahoo.com/bachmann-criticizes-black-farmer-settlement-225727223.html Bachmann criticizes black farmer settlement I slightly recall the case and frankly, I don't know enough about it to say the money isn't merited. Its over a billion dollars. What I would say is that, the government needs to address something much bigger and that are the subsidies going to corporate farms as an ongoing corporate welfare that goes on. Bachman must be trying to win points with the fringe of the party. I get that. Get the 'angry white guy' vote. Its been done with the issue of social welfare. I have no problem with cutting social welfare and its been cut massively during the Clinton years. What I find hypocritical is the lack of concern for corporate welfare and tens somes times hudnreds of billions going to companies that don't need the money. Companies that oftentimes don't even hire american workers and relocate factories, etc. overseas.

Funny thing is a good number of America's early settlers were convicts as well. Indentured servants were common and that is known as well. We like to glorify our history and maintain that they were all Pilgrims seeking religious freedom. Only in some states (Penna, Mass, Rh. Isl being the more famous). They were the religioius nutcases of the day. The 'scientologists' of England if you will. I like our history because we were castoffs and outcasts. Aussie's get a tag on them but frankly I'd be proud of that. They made a great country out of convicts, many of whom were just poor folks who got railroaded by the court system or got sentences that were way over the top for the 'crime' committed or didn't really committ any crime at all than the crime of being poor and defenseless. I read a story once that the reason why Aussies and Americans were tough as people was because they were settled by the hardiest of people. People who survived a long voyage in the worst of accomodations for weeks on end. Survived disease, and a hard, hard life. The result of this Darwinian, only the fit survive, are a 'race' of hardy, tough, innovative folks. Specifically to America, for the immigrants from Europe and the UK to survive that long voyage were not good ones and as well as after they arrived. Even moreso with blacks from Africa who survived even worse conditions onboard for a longer voyage and then enslaved under similar harsh conditions as their northern immigrant brethren. The result: A great, wonderfully stubborn and proud people.

Decriminalization is a big step for a lot of folks. Too big. In the interim I think what we can do is modify punishment. Instead of sending people caught with slightly over personal use of pot or coke or whatever to prison is to put those folks under house arrest. There are many people who otherwise were employed and contributing members of society who are now in prison. We ended up with hundreds of thousands of folks who were making..lets say..on average of 30k a year, just to pull a number out of the air, and contributing to the economy to people who now cost on average of 60k a year to the taxpayer to house and feed. The person with too much pot loses their job and ends up costing Mr. and Mrs Taxpayer 60k to house and feed and when the get out they can't get the same job back because they now have a criminal record. My idea, until we decriminalize is instead of sending them to jail, let them still be contributing members of society and have them be on house arrest for 12 hours each work day and 16 hours on the weekends. Lets say the are free from 8AM to 8PM. Allows them to keep their job, then for a number of time, 2 months, 3 months, whatever they wear an ankle braclet. Trust me, you restrict someone to their home and it becomes a pain in the ass. They come in for a pee test once a week, and any violation can mean an extension of house arrest or make them pick up trash on the highway or tutor kids or whatever. Make them contribute. I would also allow them to have the record expunged after a period of time so they can still get a good job. I grew up in a neighborhood that was known as a heroin neighborhood. Things got bad when it changed to crack. Why? You can function on heroin. At least many people can, it depends on your body chemistry but there were people in our neighborhood that had and maintained a mortgage, a job and were recreational, often weekly users of heroin. Its very possible. Many jazz artists were hooked on heroin for years and functioned. Entertainers and some rock stars. The thing with crack is that you can't function while on it. Everyone I've seen on it were completely out of it. They could not maintain any job or function in society at all while on it. When the neighborhood changed to crack in the '80s, break ins skyrocketed. We never had break ins before. Heroin had a code. I'm not saying heroin is good mind you, just that the guys who dealt it, only sold to adults and didn't sell on street corners. There was a house you went to buy. Crack was being sold by kids, often to kids and sold in the open on the corners. Because you can function on heroin you can keep a job so you can feed your habit. On crack, you could not hold down a job so you had to steal. First from your own family then after they kicked you out, you stole from neighbors or anyone you could find. Also, I think you will find that after decriminalization that there will still be a social stigma and that there will be an unofficial ban. Employers do drug testing now. More will do drug testing after decriminalization. I think that will be the check against using. If you want to get a job you better be clean.

Wow. I didn't know this about Portugal prior to reading this article. http://breakthematrix.com/health/ten-years-decriminalization-drug-abuse-portugal/ Ten Years After Decriminalization, Drug Abuse Down by Half in Portugal Health experts in Portugal said Friday that Portugal’s decision 10 years ago to decriminalise drug use and treat addicts rather than punishing them is an experiment that has worked. “There is no doubt that the phenomenon of addiction is in decline in Portugal,†said Joao Goulao, President of the Institute of Drugs and Drugs Addiction, a press conference to mark the 10th anniversary of the law. The number of addicts considered “problematic†— those who repeatedly use “hard†drugs and intravenous users — had fallen by half since the early 1990s, when the figure was estimated at around 100,000 people, Goulao said. Other factors had also played their part however, Goulao, a medical doctor added. “This development can not only be attributed to decriminalisation but to a confluence of treatment and risk reduction policies.â€

Saw this on someone's wall post on Facebook: Don't like gay marriages? Don't get one. Don't like cigarettes? Don't smoke them. Don't like abortions? Don't have one. Don't like sex? Don't have it. Don't like drugs? Don't do them. Don't like porn? Don't watch it. Don't like alcohol? Don't drink it. Don't like guns? Don't buy one. Don't like your rights taken away? Don't take away someone else's.

Will the new Cali history book include allegations that J. Edgar Hoover was a cross dresser and was being banged by his long time 'male assisstant'? Disclaimer: not that there is anything wrong with that. :nahnah:

I recall a story posted on this thread a few weeks back about an elder gentleman who got himself arrested so he could get medical treatment. If you can survive the beatings, knifings and rape, prison isn't so bad. :nahnah:

A North Dakota rresident has successfully argued that his state waa snot properly admtted to the union. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/fine-print-north-dakota-may-not-state-195631502.html 1st question. Is it ture? 2nd question. If so, would we realy miss them? :nahnah: I do recall a history class where teh teacher said there were a few states who had questionable admission to the union.

Still very surprised at Obama for still allowing this. Security experts have dismissed the screening process as little more than show for the public to make them feel safe. Even this has failed. Its now seen as a privacy issue by the general public. It just seems the government, via the TSA is telling the people, F*ck you, we are in control. If a presidential candidate was smart he'd use this as an issue. I'd like it to become part of the national debate in this upcoming election.

I don't know all the details but I read one article that Obama and Biden had given the Republicans pretty much everything they asked for, 97% and Boehmer backed away from it because he didn't want a resolution. Supposedly that they would have less things to get Obama on during the election. Everything nowadays is party politics. Pelosi played hardball and used her power as well when she had it. Republicans doing the same. Its not about the country anmymore, its what I've always said it is, raw naked power. I do believe that even if Obama governed as the Republicans wanted it wouldn't be enough because he wasn't their man.

Oh dear..lol http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/slavery-language-removed-group-marriage-pledge-candidates-160133885.html Slavery language removed from group’s marriage pledge for candidates An Iowa conservative Christian group last week essentially asked presidential contenders to say black families were better off during slavery. That's right. "THE FAMILY LEADER," a group run by failed GOP gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats, last week solicited GOP presidential candidates to sign a pledge attesting their support for traditional marriage, entitled "The Marriage Vow--A Declaration of Dependence upon Marriage and Family" as the first step in potentially earning their support for 2012. Social conservatives Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum quickly signed on. But after the public had a chance to examine the complete document, outrage ensued over multiple provisions, including one that reportedly stated the following: Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President. CNN reports that the language included a citation to a document entitled: "The Consequences of Marriage for African Americans: A Comprehensive Literature Review" from 2005. On Saturday, Bachmann's campaign denounced the slavery claim, telling Politico that the congresswoman had only endorsed the "candidate vow," portion of the document, which did not include the offending language... Technically, she is right that they are more likely to have 2 parents but they were more likely to have 2 parents 100 years later as well in the '60s. Furthermore ALL kids were more likely to have 2 parents during slavery times as opposed to now. The divorce rate for all americans, black, white, etc. is over 50%.

Maybe I'm biased because I had 3 brothers that served (3 different branches) and one a Vietnam Vet, but its atrocious how we treat vets, military families, the lot. I read once, I wish I could find it. I'll google it later after writing this that the return on investment from the GI Bill for WW2 vets paid for itself in multiples when you look at how much they contributed to society economically. Its a no brainer. What is really needed education wise is early education. K-6 espeically. HS is too late for most if your early education sucked. I've seen it first hand. I was damn lucky I had a family that saw that I liked to read, etc. and sent me where ever there was a decent school in Philly even if it meant getting up early hours to catch the train and bus. Anyway, with regards to the military. The military has woefully underserved vets who suffer from mental issues from combat. I know I'd go batty facing what they had to face on a daily basis at times. Its a G-damned shame, is what is. VA related things should be off the table in my opinion and if there any changes to its budget it should be ONLY increases. Don't get me wrong, there needs to be cuts in the defense budget. There is a lot of waste. Incredible amounts of waste. Those savings should go to the soldiers, their families and vets first before getting lost in the general budget.

Many of the soldiers don't want to be in the military, so there will be many that will go back to civilian life. Many will go to college on the GI Bill, those that remain can be on the bases in America. At least they will spend their money here in the states and not overseas, they'll help the local economy where they are. Offer retirement to some. Untold billions saved not having to support bases around the globe.

Hey, the other kindler, gentler CS (hehehe), $14/hr isn't great I grant you that. I guess it depends on WHO is being paid $14/hr. In your scenario, that is right, its not much. However, I thought about in terms of not being the wage for a guy raising a family but a regular single guy needing a job. Also, its a starting wage. I don't expect him or her to be at $14 for the rest of their career. We can't start off at $20/hr any more. We have to start somewhere. A living wage is different depending on where you live. Philadelphia, MS and Philadelphia, Pa or York, Pa and New York, NY., have vastly different costs of living for housing, etc. I'd see myself as still having to live a fairly spartan life on 100g a year in NY and LA but I'd live like a king in other cities. You could though make the argument those jobs are for family men and you would be right. However, I would assume the benefits package would be halfway decent and it would depend on how long you'd have to live on $14/hr. There's also overtime, etc. For a guy with a family, no college, blue collar worker and unemployed, I don't think he can find $14/hr many places. Especially a company with the upside potential of a major car manufacturer with a union that he can get into. Its a start. The cost of living though is one of the reasons we still have the working poor. Maybe I read it here on one of these threads or maybe I read it somewhere else but I recall hearing that we have made modern technology cheap or cheaper such as dvds and dvd players, phones, etc. but the things that we must have, transportation, housing, energy, health care has gotten more expensive. Only food of the essentials(housing, transportation, food, etc.) has gotten cheap or is cheap comparatively. Perhaps clothing ca fit into the cheap category as well.

http://news.yahoo.com/texas-executes-mexican-court-stay-rejected-233305430.html Texas executes Mexican after court stay rejected A Mexican national was executed Thursday for the rape-slaying of a teenager after the U.S. Supreme Court turned down a White House-supported appeal to spare him in a death penalty case where Texas justice triumphed over international treaty concerns. In his last minutes, Humberto Leal repeatedly said he was sorry and accepted responsibility. "I have hurt a lot of people. ... I take full blame for everything. I am sorry for what I did," he said in the death chamber. "One more thing," he said as the drugs began taking effect. Then he shouted twice, "Viva Mexico!" "Ready warden," he said. "Let's get this show on the road." He's pond scum but I grudgingly gotta give him his due. He went out in style. He can go eff himself with the Viva Mexico' line even though you can't blame a guy for showing love to his home but the 'lets get the show on the road' quip is classic! Were it me, it would be 'Up the Arsenal...okay, lets do this bitches'

Not sure if $14 an hour is cheap labor. Anyway... http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/family-fights-government-over-rare-double-eagle-gold-151853030.html Family fights government over rare ‘Double Eagle’ gold coins .........Family fights government over rare ‘Double Eagle’ gold coins . .By Zachary Roth Senior National Affairs Reporter .PostsEmailRSS .By Zachary Roth | The Lookout – 10 hrs ago ....tweet130EmailPrint..... AP Photo/U.S. Mint A jeweler's heirs are fighting the United States government for the right to keep a batch of rare and valuable "Double Eagle" $20 coins that date back to the Franklin Roosevelt administration. It's just the latest coin controversy to make headlines. Philadelphian Joan Langbord and her sons say they found the 10 coins in 2003 in a bank deposit box kept by Langbord's father, Israel Switt, a jeweler who died in 1990. But when they tried to have the haul authenticated by the U.S. Treasury, the feds, um, flipped. They said the coins were stolen from the U.S. Mint back in 1933, and are the government's property. The Treasury Department seized the coins, and locked them away at Fort Knox. The court battle is set to kick off this week. The rare coins (pictured), first struck in 1850, show a flying eagle on one side and a figure representing liberty on the other. One such coin recently sold at auction for $7.6 million, meaning the Langbords' trove could be worth as much as $80 million. The coins are part of a batch that were struck but then melted down after President Roosevelt took the country off the gold standard in 1933, during the Great Depression. Two were given to the Smithsonian Institution*, but a few more mysteriously escaped. Two things. Isn't there some sort of statute of limitations even if it they were stolen and 2nd, there is no definitive proof there was a theft (although I suspect there was but the gov't needs to prove it). wtf, let the friggin' people have the friggin' things instead of having the money wasted by the government.

Good news for the country and politically for Obama. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43657765/ns/business-autos/ Auto industry, seeing new life, on hiring spree GM, Ford and Chrysler are all making money for the first time since the mid-2000s and adding workers to build popular models like the revamped Ford Explorer. Foreign companies, stung by the high cost of exporting cars to the U.S. when the dollar is weak, are racing to build more products here. Automakers are doing it with cheaper labor. Four years ago, the United Auto Workers agreed to a contract that allowed Detroit's carmakers to hire some new workers at $14 per hour, or half the starting pay of workers at that time. While the UAW doesn't represent workers at foreign-owned plants, those companies — like Volkswagen — generally match UAW pay. At a recent GM event in Toledo, Ohio — where GM was announcing that it plans to hire or retain 4,000 workers over the next 18 months — UAW Vice President Joe Ashton was unapologetic about the wage cuts and said the union would consider allowing more $14-per-hour jobs in the future. I also liked reading this in the article as well. Randy Floreska was recruited by GM at a competition for college students to design and build hybrid cars. He says he and other young recruits view the 103-year-old automaker as a trendsetter."Here in the battery lab, there's so much youth and so much opportunity for growth," he says I don't like the high gas prices. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks that in addition to the oil company reaping billions that one of the reasons the government likes it high, is that it will spur the sales of hybrids. I hope its not the case.

Obama got off to a bad start by going ahead with health care when the political climate said otherwise. Its something he should have re-visited later, perhaps second term if he got one or after some early successes. Not sure if it was political naivete or ego disquised as stubbornness. My view and this may be wrong as I'm not expert is instead of the tax cuts, if you're gonna spend spend on creating jobs with a massive investment in infrastructure. Thousands of dilipidated and run down to the point of being a death trap bridges, tunnels, subway and rail lines, dams, etc. are in need of desparate repair, replacement or retrofitting nationwide. Also, roads, highway, high speed train lines. New public schools need to be built or expanded, especially in areas like the border states where you often end up with too many students in September largely through latin students. Instant job creator. Also, those projects have a lot of indirect jobs not just heavy labor. I still think converting the hundreds of thousands if not millions of government (city, state and federal) vehicles to hybrids would instantly give the domestic car companies a huge boost and a huge, ready and willing market and get the rust belt back to work where unemployment is needed. A whole new niche of jobs from having to service those cars. LA, I believe has the largest fleet of natural gas run public busses. Expand that to other cities with tax incentives to expand their bus lines and create more jobs? With the proviso that they have to be 100% made in the U.S. Finally, some program that eases the housing market. I don't have any specific ideas right now but I'm sure someone can. It needs urgent attention. It has attention but not as much as I think it should.

Eff you China! http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-discover-large-deposit-rare-minerals-used-ipads-120327460.html Scientists Discover Large Deposit of Rare Minerals Used in iPads Prior to this discovery, manufacturers and environmentalists alike expressed concern over the limited and dwindling supply of rare earth minerals. However, experts report that the minerals found in the Pacific may reinforce known land supply by 1,000 times. The mud is rich in rare earth minerals like gadolinium, lutetium, terbium and dysprosium, which are especially important in the manufacturing of technology like hybrid cars and flat screens. China, which currently produces 97% of the world's rare earth metals, has at times threatened to cut exports of the materials, leading to fear that the prices of electronic devices could soar. The best part is its OURS! Japanese scientists announced their analysis of the deposits Monday, claiming the area around Hawaii is especially rich in minerals

What has amazed me is that the likes of Col. North and G. Gordon Liddy have been praised and held up as patriots. I remember at the time how North was seen as some great patriotic man who loved his country. Despite the fact he violated the constitution and laws he swore to uphold.

I've said all along that Obama is BAD for my country. If he'd been born in the U.S.' date=' I'd call him a traitor. :content: (Only Itsmedave has had the balls--among the libtards on the board--to try to defend our WANKER-in-Chief.) HH[/quote'] HH, I supported Obama and had some reservations because I thought he'd be too liberal. Given his commuity organizing background I feared he'd go too far left. I am disappointed in him. I don't think he's been terrible. I think he's done an average job, and if I think about it slightly below average. Some things good and some things bad or not so good. Strangely enough, I am disappointed he has become too centrist! He has also become part of the establishment and I wanted an anti establishment guy. If I looked back on who I supported in presidential elections, I would have to say I comfortably supported more Republicans than Democrats and this includes candidates before I was able to vote. However, at the risk of dragging up the dead and long buried, the '00s really has soured me almost completely on Republicans for the national office. I'm not just talking about Bush and Cheney but a lot more. Romney appears to be okay but I simply can't trust Republicans any more. If Palin had been a Democrat, Republicans would have been falling over laughing. For someone so obviously lacking to wield so much power in teh party is frankly very scary and disconcerting. With her emergence as well as the inlfuence of the religious right, I see a party that is just after raw naked power with no conviction whatsoever. I'm sorry, until I see some integrity, I've given up on the party. Local and possibly statewide elections, I still see some Republicans throughout the country true to their ideology but not on the national level. The Dems are at least doing what they say they'll do even though a lot of the times I don't like it. They have actually moved closer to the center. I think they were forced there because of the Republicans and that's about the only good the Republican party has done.

I've got nothing personal against Reagan. I think one of if not the greatest achievements of his presidency was restoring America's self confidence. We were down in the dumps about ourselves with the Iranian hostage crisis and seemingly impotent to do anything about it. Giving the country back its self confidence was a big thing. However, the deification of him I believe is unwarranted based on the reasons Republicans give First, that he ended the USSR. I've posted this before. The war in Afghanistan did that (take note Obama). That war was the first full scale war the USSR got involved in since WW2. All others were war by proxy (Korean, Vietnam and Angolan wars) or very small wars where they committed a small number of troops. The war in Afghanistan starte in 1979 for them and included up to 200,000 soviet troops. Housing, feeding and supplying them killed an already fragile economy that had breadlines going back at least a decade earlier. Lastly, its a slap in the face of every President before him who had put pressure on the USSR for decades. Also, it was under the elder Bush that the USSR actually fell and the Berlin Wall came down. Second, the economy. Reagan took office in 1981 and the recession acdtually deepened for about a year or so. It wasn't until Volcker cut interest rates at the fed that the economy took off. Short term Treasury bills were hitting over 10% return. Why put money into the stock market when government debt and corporate bonds were paying guaranteed rates ranging up to the high teens. By slashing interest rates drastically, big money had no choice but to go back to stocks and that caused the big rally of the '80s. The Reagan tax cut was offset by taking away tax benefits from other sources such as tax deferred anuities through TEFRA as well as tax benefits from whole life and other formrs of life insurance. I think the reason he is being touted by Republicans is that they haven't had a successful president in some time. Before Reagan it was Nixon. One would have to go back to Ike to find a successful Republican. Also, his medical issues garnered sympathy. I think Clinton may be remembered in a much greater light later as well. I think his impeachment will be seen as more vincictive than anything else. So, I do think Reagan did some good. But not as good as some claim.

Ghostdog, as I said in one of my previous posts. I'm no expert on the gold standard. However, it appears that the Federal Reserve was never a good idea. If we didn't have the Fed, perhaps, just a guess, we wouldn't have had such problems. Once again, the 'meat' of my view is NOT the gold standard. You think its a bad idea. Fair enough. There are plenty of bad ideas from other candidates as well. The 'meat' of my argument is that there is a candidate NOT beholden to the special interests in any way remotely as much as the candidates of the two major parties. The NUMBER ONE problem for America today is that the government makes regulations and laws to suit the special interest. ALL other problems stem from that fact alone. BOTH parties are owned by various groups. It leading candidates are. What is the solution for that? I've asked that question but have not gotten an answer.

Two things. Its quite noticable that Los Angeles county is not part of it. Second, any new state would be latino dominated. If not now, in the future. Even if you can successfully close the border, I would be surprised if latinos do not have a higher birthrate than the rest of the other ethnicities in that county. Even higher than blacks. Plus, those counties don't have a high black population compared to Los Angeles, San Francisco and Alameda counties. It won't happen. There are areas within cities that have tried as well. Staten Island in NY. Northeast Philadelphia (proposed name Liberty County), and the San Fernando valley (which came eerily close several years ago). California is arguably the most important state. My guess is the feds won't be for it. The economy as a whole is too important for one. Also, what happens to the water rights and such. The cost of a new state in today's economy is astronomical in start up costs. I just don't see it happening. Easier for cities to divide than states. Lastly, its impact on national elections and Congress. Nah, its too big and messy.