This video is great. A British MP tosses the whole salary issue back into the BBC anchor’s lap, forcing her to admit she makes over 90k when he makes just under 65k. Funny when you think they’re both paid from taxpayer money. I’m surprised she actually answers the question…then again he did use the threat of ‘freedom of information.’
Governor A’hnald of California has demanded state employees take 2 unpaid days starting in February as a cost-saving measure. According to new reports, the state of California could be broke in 2 months. So, they save money or peoplee start losing jobs (more jobs than have already been lost), what’s a union boss to do? Well, he sues, of course, saying the governor has no authority to make such a demand.
I’m no legal scholar, and the complicated union rules would confuse most of us. I do know one thing, however, and that’s unions are interested in one thing– lining their pockets with union dues. Most of these couldn’t care less about the workers, rather the money the workers pay (and are sometimes forced to pay) them in dues and fees.
Save the state from financial ruin, or whine like a baby? In the end, these fools make these demands, but they’re still forced to take the days off and a lot of people lose their jobs because some idiot said to hell with cost-saving measures, I’m all about getting mine and getting it now!
People amaze me.
Unfortunately, most voters are quite ignorant as to the issues and their particular candidate’s views. A majority of people in most polls I’ve seen think that Obama’s plans are good for the economy. Now, forget the fact that the great majority of economic experts say that Obama’s plans would be a disaster for the US right now, as he’s a big spender with big welfare plans who wants to raise taxes on a lot of us and give back taxes never paid to others.
See, when Obama claims he’s going to give 95% of Americans a tax cut, and he complains that McCain voted to NOT cut the taxes of over 100 million Americans, you need to realize a few things, First, the taxes he’s talking about, 95% of Americans don’t even pay those taxes to begin with. Millions of people pay no income taxes at all. Zero. What his plan says is that he’s going to take more money from wealthier Americans, the ones who create millions of jobs, and redistribute that money to Americans who never paid taxes to begin with (at least they didn’t pay federal income tax). That’s what Robin Hood did, it’s quasi-socialist, and economic experts agree, it’s a terrible idea. I’d go further to say, it’s unamerican. The American ideal isn’t to take from the rich and give to the poor. It’s a nice idea in a fair fantasy world, but the world isn’t fair, and when it’s all said and done those “rich” among us create jobs, they pump capital into the system, and they keep things going full tilt. These are the last people you want to take from, because they’re going to spend less money creating new companies that will bring new jobs.
What Obama never tells you about his attacks on McCain is- 100 million Americans didn’t get their taxes cut under Bush’s plans, because those 100 million never paid any income tax to begin with. You don’t get money BACK that you never paid any. Any money you would get would be a welfare check (technically speaking).
In this video, Obama is questioned by a plumber about raising his taxes.
Obama says that he doesn’t want to punish the guy’s sucess, he simply wants to spread his wealth to those “behind” him. Now, you’ve got to wonder why those behind him are there to begin with- did they drink or do drugs, did they refuse to get a job, do they have ten kids with ten different partners? Do ANY of you want someone taking from you to give it to others who make less than you (and no telling why they make less than you)? Is government really in the position to be playing charity?
To Obama supporters- were you even aware that your guy wants to take from the better off and give to the not so well off? I asked an Obama supporter today his top reason for supporting Barack- the answer? “He was a community organizer.” I have a feeling Obama’s tax plans would come as a shock to most of his supporters…Maybe McCain needs to start hitting him hard on this fact??
6:50 in, Obama complains that we have rotting sewer pipes, yet look at the olympics in Beijing- China was building!
Did Obama really just praise the hundreds of millions spent by the ChiComs for their publicity stunt in Beijing? Does he really think we’d be better off if we were just more like the good ol’ Chinese? I know I just harkon back to the days when we were a bit more like communists!
UPDATE (September 14, 2008): Apparently this is an argument Obama has used numerous times in stump speeches, and others noticed it as well.
Wow. I’m not that familiar with Salazar, but one thing about him is obvious, he’s a lightweight. How he could allow himself to be smacked down like this is beyond me. Senators are basically highly paid debaters. Their main job is to debate a foe. Maybe he missed this part of the training?
McConnell is officially my new hero (along with Sen. Cornyn).
The radicals in the environut movement will destroy this country before they allow drilling. Voters nationwide, in poll after poll, sre making it clear- they want to drill and they want to drill NOW. Too bad guys like Salazar are blind to this reality.
I’m pretty sure most feminists want to be despised. Why else would so many of them constantly do things that ensure a large segment of the population will hate them?
Just found this story out of Atlanta. Some idiot woman named Cynthia Good (head of Pink Magazine) apparently has too much free time, no life, and no common sense…so she demands city officials in Atlanta remove all the “men at work” signs from the highways and roads being built and repaired. Why? Well, because they’re sexist, of course. We need to be gender neutral to make all the poor women out there feel equal.
Atlanta kowtowed to this fool and they’re now changing out the signs to say “workers ahead”. We can safely assume that the women working on the roadways are few and far between, so you’ve got to wonder if any of them were actually offended or if Cynthia Good, the sad little girl who thinks everyone is out to get her because she’s a chick, was doing this for herself.
Worse than the whiny nature of all of this- it’s going to cost taxpayers $22 to cover old signs and $144 to buy new signs. How many hundreds or thousands of signs will need to be changed at what cost? The city is just plain dumb for giving into Good’s ridiculous demands. Taxpayers should do all they can to stop this sort of madness.
I have a feeling Good isn’t going to be making any new friends with this sort of whining. There was never any real offense here, and Good never had a real complaint. The use of the term “men” is a general term used for all people. Unless she and other whiny feminists want to somehow ban the use of the term “mankind” (personkind? humankind?) out of some imaginary insult they believe is directed at them.
When will feminists deal with real issues that have real importance to women? Is it possible most feminists have no good ideas, thus they have to tackle imaginary problems and call it a day? Why do women like Good do everything in their power to make enemies? They do nothing but hurt their own cause and that of all women with tantrums like this. Congrats, Cynthia, you’ve made me want to do everything I can to steer clear of the cause of feminism, and I’m surely not the only one who is going to tick another negative mark against the franchise as a whole.
Netflix, which I have used for over 3 years, has an option to use different profiles on your account. You can assign a DVD to each profile…for example, if you have the 2 at a time unlimited plan, you can assign each of 2 profiles to get 1 DVD. That way, you can have a father with 1 DVD at a time out from his very own queue and a son with his own favorite movies in a queue with 1 DVD at a time out. This was nice for me because the queue’s are limited too 500 movies, so I added more movies to my second profile I created but didn’t assign it any DVD’s (I’m currently on the 1 DVD at a time plan anyhow).
This move seems odd, especially considering Netflix’s EMail I just got about it:
Important News Regarding Netflix Profiles
We wanted to let you know we will be eliminating Profiles, the feature that allowed you to set up separate DVD Queues under one account, effective September 1, 2008.
Each additional Profile Queue will be unavailable after September 1, 2008. Before then, we recommend you consolidate any of your Profile Queues to your main account Queue or print them out.
While it may be disappointing to see Profiles go away, this change will help us continue to improve the Netflix website for all our customers.
If you have any questions, please go to http://www.netflix.com/Help?p_faqid=3962 or call us anytime at 1 (888) 638-3549. We apologize for any inconvenience.
- The Netflix Team
The bold text above sounds like code to me. Code for- we have a dumb reason for doing this, but we’re going to pretend it’s going to add some improvement to your experience, except we can’t tell you anything about this supposed improvement. It’d be nice if they’d share what sort of improvement this could possibly bring.
I’ve seen many many people who are very upset over this already on various sites around the net. I can imagine few are going to be happy with this move. Will families start opening multiple accounts and pay more money? I can’t see that happening. Will some people choose to scrap one or two of their DVDs and go to a smaller plan? I can see that happening for sure. Why, with that knowledge, Netflix would make this decison, I’ve no idea…Seems dumb all around.
(Note: I realize this is really old news, and I think I covered it at the time, but I came upon the issue again tonight and wondered about it…)
I was browsing a few sites and came upon a generic link for Meetup.com. I used to try to find local groups in the area a few years ago. I started a Bill O’Reilly group at one point and was the leader of a Sean Hannity group (at the behest of another member of that group), but neither one ever had enough local people to warrant a get together.
It was a nice site. You could create groups to meet locally for free. In 2005 they started charging fees. You have to pay a monthly fee to create a group, I believe. So any groups on the site are now paying groups…the leader paid up the fee or split it with the other members. It’s a modest fee, but it’s still a fee-based service now.
Dumb idea if you ask me. There’s little chance I’d ever pay for the service, so I’m basically out of that for good, when before I was ready to use it and recommend it regularly. It’s a business, and it has to stay afloat somehow, but this seemed like the worst way to go about it. I realize this is years in the past, but the site is still running, and it’s still fee-based, so after trying to create a group just now and seeing the credit card info page asking for $12, I said to hell with that and left the site probably never to return. How many people did that when they started charging fees?
According to the wikipedia page, there are currently only around 16, 000 groups nationally. 350 million people, 50 states, tens of thousands of cities, and only 16, 000 groups. No wonder my search of my city with nearly 250, 000 people turned up only one page of results with some fairly uninteresting groups meeting. If the site has only a handful of uninteresting groups in a city of 250, 000, I can’t imagine how they even stay in business. $192, 000 isn’t that much money. No idea what else they do to bring in revune, but there has to be something else they’re using to bring in cash flow.
I just have a hard time believing that some of these groups are going to pay any money at all, when it was sometimes hard to find enough people to meet up when it was free. And will a lot of people pay up to gather a mere 10 people together? Or 5 people? I haven’t been able to find any stats on how they’ve done since their implementation of fees, so who knows…
MySpace now has features that allow you to anounce groups and events. It’s not a neat format or as easy to navigate as meetup.com, but it’s free and it looks to stay that way for some time to come. I can’t imagine they’re having an easy time over at Meetup (I could always be terribly wrong, of course). It just seems they made a bad move…going from half a million groups to 16, 000. That’s a big loss. Fewer eyes on your site means less of a chance to make any money, it would seem. Sure, you have paying members now, but there’s also a much smaller chance anyone is going to pass through and stay very long when they see they have to pay to play.
Maybe the internet model of ad-based free services has spoiled me.
President Bush visited Park City, Utah (the home of the Sundance film festival) to raise money for Republican campaigns. The city’s police force had to pay $30, 000 for overtime for the extra police presence. The commission thought the expenditure was a good idea, and they granted the money, but Commission Sally Elliott said this of the the president:
“Frankly I don’t care whether he lives or dies…But don’t let him die in Summit County.”
Classless, unprofessional, downright idiotic, you name it. This woman sure is a class act. I fired her off an EMail which I have pasted below. If you want to contact her, the website is:
Her EMail address (from that website) is email@example.com
Here is my letter:
I saw the Vail Daily story posted on their website that quotes you as saying of President Bush:
“Frankly I don’t care whether he lives or dies…But don’t let him die in Summit County.”
As an American, I’m disgusted. We may disagree with the ideas others have, but to say that you don’t care if someone lives or dies is just beyond the pale. It’s reprehensible that any American, let alone a public official would speak out with such hate.
I guess that’s why so many Americans think cities such as Park City are so far out of touch with the mainstream, and from your comment apparently reality itself. Most of us couldn’t possibly imagine being so filled with rage. We tend to reserve this kind of vile talk for brutal dictators, terrorists, and other evildoers.
It’s funny. I hear so much about these compassionate liberals, but I constantly see fools making inane comments that are completely devoid of any compassion whatsoever. Go figure.
I’d ask for an apology, but from your comment I have a feeling that humility isn’t one of your strong suits.
Joshua Taj Bozeman
Barak Obama is starting the “scare seniors into thinking big bad Republicans will take their social security away” campaign early.
It’s rather funny, as it’s a well known tactics by Democrats to try their best to scare seniors into thinking a vote for a Republican means they will lose their soc. security benefits. True to form, Obama is doing just that by claimimg privatization would mean an end to benefits, and that he (as messiah) is simply making sure they get their money.
Unfortunately, Obama is being half honest when he claims Bush (and McCain) pushed to make accounts private. He leaves at the important aspect that accounts would be partially private, in order to make sure they money is actually there and the program doesn’t run out of money. That, and the privatization aspect was voluntary- you could sign into the private account if you wanted- giving Americans more choices in how they spend THEIR OWN MONEY.
This is, once again, an instance where Democrats think that it’s the government’s role to look after you all of your life, make sure you have the best job you could ever desire, have the luxuries you’re sometimes not willing to go out and work for yourself…the government is not a nanny, and the worst idea is to depend on the completely ineffecient government to do everything for you. Republicans understand that government is NOT the answer, that the American people are the answer with less government interference.
These scare tactics are lame, and they’re dishonest. A vote for McCain wouldn’t in any way lead to smaller benefits or an end to benefits. However, refusing to fix the problems within the system, as Obama is doing will almost surely lead to an end of the plan.