L.A. Confidential @ 1:

Edwards' Southern Comfort

One of the "two Americas" feels worlds away at this expansive Chapel Hill estate. 21,000-sq.-ft. home nestled on 100 acres; includes b-ball court, racquetball court, and pool.

http://www.motherjones.com/photos/edwardshome-500x333.jpg

One more try
http://tinyurl.com/333sqk

If that doesn't work forget it.

Don't invest in stocks. You'll be safer jumping into a den of lions.

Ron @ 5:

I am more concerned about how the media is trying to suppress free speech and manipulate voters decisions.

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/260.html

But "they" want us all to become fat, dumb, and happy.

If the ACLU only argued for the rights of people i agreed with it would not be as important as it is. There certainly must be some expectation of privacy in a restroom otherwise we would all pee in the street.

Ron @ 7:

L.A. Confidential @ 6:

Ron @ 5:

I am more concerned about how the media is trying to suppress free speech and manipulate voters decisions.

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/260.html

But "they" want us all to become fat, dumb, and happy.

They don't realliy want you to be fat and happy, but they want you to be dumb. Fat slaves may not be as productive and may eat into their resources.

What they want is brain dead automatons.

Ron @ 11:

L.A. Confidential @ 10:

Ron @ 7:

L.A. Confidential @ 6:
They don't realliy want you to be fat and happy, but they want you to be dumb. Fat slaves may not be as productive and may eat into their resources.

What they want is brain dead automatons.

Mission accomplished with the repugs.

True. And the we must consider the other side wants super jacked up and caffeinated automatons.

"Super Consumers"

L.A. Confidential @ 12:

Ron @ 11:

L.A. Confidential @ 10:

Ron @ 7:

What they want is brain dead automatons.

Mission accomplished with the repugs.

True. And the we must consider the other side wants super jacked up and caffeinated automatons.

"Super Consumers"

The slaves are not spending enough, so the solution is to give more tax breaks to the owners to instill investor confidence.

I've been listening to Bernake this morning. They are talking about giving a tax rebate to low and moderate income people. They say those people are the most likely to spend the money quickly and that will boost the economy. I don't know jack shit about economics, which will become clear as I ask my question. Lets say they do that and the recipients of the money do spend it quickly. So a month from now, why won't those people and the economy be right back where it is now? Aren't they just creating a false boost as the money came from the govt in the first place? See? I told you I didn't understand all of this stuff. :)

Ron @ 17:

pissed off patricia @ 16:

I've been listening to Bernake this morning. They are talking about giving a tax rebate to low and moderate income people. They say those people are the most likely to spend the money quickly and that will boost the economy. I don't know jack shit about economics, which will become clear as I ask my question. Lets say they do that and the recipients of the money do spend it quickly. So a month from now, why won't those people and the economy be right back where it is now? Aren't they just creating a false boost as the money came from the govt in the first place? See? I told you I didn't understand all of this stuff. :)

It will work just as well as the rebate ($300.00) they gave us in 2001. Does it work? Not! how far does $300.00 go now day? About 1/2 as far or less as it went in 2001.

Sorry about the typos. It's still early.

pissed off patricia @ 16:

I've been listening to Bernake this morning. They are talking about giving a tax rebate to low and moderate income people. They say those people are the most likely to spend the money quickly and that will boost the economy. I don't know jack shit about economics, which will become clear as I ask my question. Lets say they do that and the recipients of the money do spend it quickly. So a month from now, why won't those people and the economy be right back where it is now? Aren't they just creating a false boost as the money came from the govt in the first place? See? I told you I didn't understand all of this stuff. :)

This is the right kind of thing to do, it's just way too little - it's trickle UP economics...

L.A. Confidential @ 13:

Can anyone help this guy?

"I bought Google a while back. I just got a call that I need to send in like $45,000 or my stock will be sold. If its sold, I will lose like 100 grand. Is this fair. I think I will sue somebody. I want to hold GOOG till it hits around $900 and then sell. What should I do? Thanks"

Yeah, I can help him. Don't play the stock market...

Swashbuckler @ 22:

L.A. Confidential @ 13:

Can anyone help this guy?

"I bought Google a while back. I just got a call that I need to send in like $45,000 or my stock will be sold. If its sold, I will lose like 100 grand. Is this fair. I think I will sue somebody. I want to hold GOOG till it hits around $900 and then sell. What should I do? Thanks"

Yeah, I can help him. Don't play the stock market...

Like a slot machine, the odds are all in favor of Wall Street.

pissed off patricia @ 16:

I've been listening to Bernake this morning. They are talking about giving a tax rebate to low and moderate income people. They say those people are the most likely to spend the money quickly and that will boost the economy. I don't know jack shit about economics, which will become clear as I ask my question. Lets say they do that and the recipients of the money do spend it quickly. So a month from now, why won't those people and the economy be right back where it is now? Aren't they just creating a false boost as the money came from the govt in the first place? See? I told you I didn't understand all of this stuff. :)

It's the only way they can revive the maxed-out US consumer long enough to get him spending again.

A quick fix that lasts a couple days. Long enough to ring some cash registers at Target.

The bottom line? The economy is dead.

Ron @ 27:

pissed off patricia @ 25:

Thanks everyone for the info. As for the money we received in 01, I haven't a clue what we did with it. Most likely it went into our savings account. Don't know how we helped the economy in the big picture.

As for the people who are losing or who have already lost their homes. This rebate means jack shit to them. Same for the people who have sky high credit card bills. I'm not suggesting these people get a bail out, but giving them 300 bucks will buy them mostly a little time.

Or afew square meals, maybe fill their gas tank or buy some extra heating oil. Can't let them oil companies suffer.

Or pay the next "installment" - "payment plan" on the Natural Gas Heating Bill. That they are still trying to pay off from Winter 0f 2001.

Ron @ 27:

Or afew square meals, maybe fill their gas tank or buy some extra heating oil. Can't let them oil companies suffer.

This "Fix" Ol' Ben is promoting is kind of like a Doctor who knows his patient is on the verge of a brain hemorrhage but says take two aspirin and call me in the morning.

From here:

Sex is a constitutionally protected liberty interest. Thus, the government may make sex a crime only where it has a constitutionally sufficient justification for doing so. The government does not have a constitutionally sufficient justification for making private sex a crime. It follows that an invitation to have private sex is constitutionally protected and may not be made a crime. This is so even where the proposition occurs in a public place, whether in a bar or in a restroom.

I think you could make the argument that sex in a public stall is not protected-- the privacy afforded by the stall is intended for one type of physical necessity, and not another. Giving birth in a bathroom stall, for example, is also probably inappropriate.

But we're not talking about sex in a stall where Craig is concerned-- we're talking about (allegedly) asking for sex. Even if I don't wish to have sex with a person, they have a right to ask, even if the request makes me uncomfortable, and I have a right to say yes or no.

...."Will no one SOMEHOW rid us of this IDIOT PRIEST?"

pissed off patricia @ 16:

I've been listening to Bernake this morning. They are talking about giving a tax rebate to low and moderate income people. They say those people are the most likely to spend the money quickly and that will boost the economy. I don't know jack shit about economics, which will become clear as I ask my question. Lets say they do that and the recipients of the money do spend it quickly. So a month from now, why won't those people and the economy be right back where it is now? Aren't they just creating a false boost as the money came from the govt in the first place? See? I told you I didn't understand all of this stuff. :)

It would work if it was "permanent" tax cuts and rebates. Otherwise, they are literally p***ing in the wind.

Bernake (sp?) was asked today what would be the best thing the tax payer could spend the rebate on. He said if they paid down a debt with the money, that wouldn't help the economy. Okay, maybe not but it would help the person who was in debt.

The next thing to blow up will be credit card debt. When people are pinched to buy food and keep their homes, the last thing they are going to skimp to pay are their credit cards.

I saw an ad on tv last night by Master Card reminding people they could by groceries with their Master Card.

I love the Larry Craig story.

If the neo-cons weren't in so much denial over who Larry Craig is, THIS would make their tiny heads explode.

Thanks for the link, Blue Gal.
As for the privacy argument, the article notes that the ACLU "cited a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling 38 years ago that found that people who have sex in closed stalls in public restrooms 'have a reasonable expectation of privacy.'"

pissed off patricia @ 25:

Thanks everyone for the info. As for the money we received in 01, I haven't a clue what we did with it. Most likely it went into our savings account. Don't know how we helped the economy in the big picture.

As for the people who are losing or who have already lost their homes. This rebate means jack shit to them. Same for the people who have sky high credit card bills. I'm not suggesting these people get a bail out, but giving them 300 bucks will buy them mostly a little time.

It's not meant to buy time. It's meant to be spent.

If the government really wanted to help out, that rebate check would be about $5,000 (roughly $1,500,000,000,000, or the cost of the Iraq war so far...hmmmmmmmmmmmmm...)