Thursday, August 30, 2012
facts dodn't lie but Republicans apparently do
So there is still a fuss about Paul Ryan's comments about the GM plant closing. He says it's a fact that theplant was closed by Obama. There is even a photo on the internet of the last car that rolled off the line, complete with a banner and some workers saying the car was being delivered to a charitable organization in December of 2008. That "proves" it happen when Obama was president.
Yeah, well he failed to mention that GM decided to close the plant in June 2008 BEFORE Barack Obama was elected. And that final car off the line was done by men who volunteered to go back to the plant to make that vehicle. The plant was already closed.
Ya know the younger generation tends to believe that what they read on the internet is fact. And they believe that if a politican tells you about something that happened before you paid attention then they must be right.
Well dears, I will be 64 in 3 weeks. So my short term memory is sometimes faulty, but the good thing is that I have an excellent LONG TERM memory. So when some Gen X-er goes live on TV and tells me stuff I KNOW didn't happen the way he says it did is that I remember that history.
Get that GOP? Stop lying. We old folks, who vote more often and in higher numbers than the younger generations REMEMBER what really happened and we aren't afraid to say so.
Get your heads out your ass , or better still perfect anal cranial impaction, it suits you.
Yeah, well he failed to mention that GM decided to close the plant in June 2008 BEFORE Barack Obama was elected. And that final car off the line was done by men who volunteered to go back to the plant to make that vehicle. The plant was already closed.
Ya know the younger generation tends to believe that what they read on the internet is fact. And they believe that if a politican tells you about something that happened before you paid attention then they must be right.
Well dears, I will be 64 in 3 weeks. So my short term memory is sometimes faulty, but the good thing is that I have an excellent LONG TERM memory. So when some Gen X-er goes live on TV and tells me stuff I KNOW didn't happen the way he says it did is that I remember that history.
Get that GOP? Stop lying. We old folks, who vote more often and in higher numbers than the younger generations REMEMBER what really happened and we aren't afraid to say so.
Get your heads out your ass , or better still perfect anal cranial impaction, it suits you.
are you a baptized Mormon?
Maybe you aren't aware of it, but you very well may be.
It was confirmed to me today that the rumor I have heard is true. Somewhere in Salt Lake City is a group of Mormons who take the name of a non Mormon, briefly, and is then baptized into the Mormon faith. Why? Well to save us all of course. Remember only Mormon Christians will be saved.
Why do you think the Mormons keep such exhaustive and detailed ancestry records? Those records aren't just for their own Mormon brethern, they are for everyone.
Yeah, they got in a little trouble when the Jews found out that the Mormons took names of those who died in the Holocaust. Apparently they were upset that Jews were postumously baptized and made "Christian".
So ok, tell me. Is using someone's name without their knowledge to "convert them" without their concent a form of identity theft? I would think so, but hey what do I know. I thought I was Roman Catholic, that's what my baptisimal certificate says, but maybe I'm a Mormon too.
It was confirmed to me today that the rumor I have heard is true. Somewhere in Salt Lake City is a group of Mormons who take the name of a non Mormon, briefly, and is then baptized into the Mormon faith. Why? Well to save us all of course. Remember only Mormon Christians will be saved.
Why do you think the Mormons keep such exhaustive and detailed ancestry records? Those records aren't just for their own Mormon brethern, they are for everyone.
Yeah, they got in a little trouble when the Jews found out that the Mormons took names of those who died in the Holocaust. Apparently they were upset that Jews were postumously baptized and made "Christian".
So ok, tell me. Is using someone's name without their knowledge to "convert them" without their concent a form of identity theft? I would think so, but hey what do I know. I thought I was Roman Catholic, that's what my baptisimal certificate says, but maybe I'm a Mormon too.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
George W. Bush was the Education president, and he did a bang up job of nearly screwing things up royally. He was good at unintentional dublespeak, But Regan was the king of doublespeak.
In my educational career I was poor, but intelligent, so I qualified for "financial aid". That meant that I got money from the government - in my case the state government, also from a private scholarship AND the Federal Government. When I said got money I mean that I was "given" money.
Given money.
Given. Got that much?
They were called GRANTS. Grants are money you get that you don't have to repay. Radical concept that the Democrats of the Lyndon B. Johnson era had. If deserving young people needed money to go to college it was given to them, with only one restriction. You keep a 2.5 GPA and graduate in 4 years. I did, I got a BA in English literature and I actually owed NOTHING to anyone when I was finished.
Radical concept right?
Well when the Republican savior "Ronald Regan" became president he "improved" that system. He said any deserving student could go to college, the government would give them money, with a bit of a difference. The government would "guarantee" a loan that you had to apply for from a private source, usually a bank. So you could go to college if you BORROWED the money. So now it wasn't a gift, it was a loan.
Now students incurred debt, and banks got rich.
From what I have come to read about Romney he want to make sure that only "deserving" kids get the opportunity to go to college. So he's arranging things differently again.
Deserving seems to mean "rich".
Is that what kind of president we want? Someone who limits educational opportunities?
In my educational career I was poor, but intelligent, so I qualified for "financial aid". That meant that I got money from the government - in my case the state government, also from a private scholarship AND the Federal Government. When I said got money I mean that I was "given" money.
Given money.
Given. Got that much?
They were called GRANTS. Grants are money you get that you don't have to repay. Radical concept that the Democrats of the Lyndon B. Johnson era had. If deserving young people needed money to go to college it was given to them, with only one restriction. You keep a 2.5 GPA and graduate in 4 years. I did, I got a BA in English literature and I actually owed NOTHING to anyone when I was finished.
Radical concept right?
Well when the Republican savior "Ronald Regan" became president he "improved" that system. He said any deserving student could go to college, the government would give them money, with a bit of a difference. The government would "guarantee" a loan that you had to apply for from a private source, usually a bank. So you could go to college if you BORROWED the money. So now it wasn't a gift, it was a loan.
Now students incurred debt, and banks got rich.
From what I have come to read about Romney he want to make sure that only "deserving" kids get the opportunity to go to college. So he's arranging things differently again.
Deserving seems to mean "rich".
Is that what kind of president we want? Someone who limits educational opportunities?
Why can't someone explain it so even the Republicans can understand it?
The republicans, especially Paul Ryan, have called Social Security and Medicare "unsustainable.
Why?
Because people aren't paying into the system as much as they are taking out of the system.
OK, let's think about this logically.
Big businesses have been told it's ok to take jobs oversease so they can make a bigger profit. They pay foreign workers less. And those foreign workers don't pay a penny into FICA, and they don't pay local, state for Federal taxes on the little money they make. They don't get pension benefits, or health insurance benefits and often they don't even have any kind of coverage for accidents on the job, like worker's compensation. They may pay taxes in their own country, but not here.
So, we have business making money, Americans without jobs because they have been replaced by foreign workers who make less money and pay nothing into the Social Security system.
Now, jobs are hard to find. So peoole who can't get jobs after an exhaustive search, and who are eligible to retire, take the option of early retirement. They too don't pay into the system, they take out.
So what's the solution?
How about bringing jobs back to US soil? How about hiring US citizens to do those jobs? How about those people pay their FICA and state, local and Federal taxes returning money to America.
How about taxing US businesses every time they remove manufacturing jobs so they can pay into the system?
If I, in my limited ability to reason things out, can figure this out why the hell don't the Republicans?
The republicans, especially Paul Ryan, have called Social Security and Medicare "unsustainable.
Why?
Because people aren't paying into the system as much as they are taking out of the system.
OK, let's think about this logically.
Big businesses have been told it's ok to take jobs oversease so they can make a bigger profit. They pay foreign workers less. And those foreign workers don't pay a penny into FICA, and they don't pay local, state for Federal taxes on the little money they make. They don't get pension benefits, or health insurance benefits and often they don't even have any kind of coverage for accidents on the job, like worker's compensation. They may pay taxes in their own country, but not here.
So, we have business making money, Americans without jobs because they have been replaced by foreign workers who make less money and pay nothing into the Social Security system.
Now, jobs are hard to find. So peoole who can't get jobs after an exhaustive search, and who are eligible to retire, take the option of early retirement. They too don't pay into the system, they take out.
So what's the solution?
How about bringing jobs back to US soil? How about hiring US citizens to do those jobs? How about those people pay their FICA and state, local and Federal taxes returning money to America.
How about taxing US businesses every time they remove manufacturing jobs so they can pay into the system?
If I, in my limited ability to reason things out, can figure this out why the hell don't the Republicans?
They like to bring up Ronald Regan in the GOP as a role model and compare "Mitt Romney" to him, thinking that suave good looking face will resonate with the voters who "loved" Ronald Regan.
Hum, we must not be remembering the same man.
I clearly remember a man with dementia calling soldier's uniforms "costumes" in a press conference. I remember a man who listened the the astrologers his wife broought into the White House to make important decisions.
I remember Mr. Regan being credited with the breaking down of the Berlin Wall. But I also remember his faux pas in Mexico when he said at a gathering of Heads oif State that he was late to a meeting because of "Montazuma's revenge" and making the Mexicans, who hosted the meeting, quite unhappy. Nice bit of diplomacy there, eh?
Let's see, Regan was for less government and cutting federal spending. So why was the government LARGER because of new departments he created and the budget larger when he LEFT office than when he began? Deficits, he was good at creating them, not shrinking them. More government and more spending is what he left us with, not the cuts and triming he promised and said he'd bring to America. So if Romney is so much like Regan will he do the same?
I remember a Union busting president who caused air traffic controllers to be fired and replaced by untrained workers, or they could return to work at reduced pay and benefits. Romney likes those Tea Party people who all fight government workers and government pensions. I guess only congressmen are entitled to health insurance and pensions for life when they resign from office.
I seem to remember the "trolls" in California. Trolls, that was the name the people gave to those who were made homeless by the policies of the Regan Administration. There were tent cities outside the White House, all people driven out of work and denied jobs by Regan's austerity measures.
How about window washers at street corners? They didn't exist until the Regan administration. Men approaching your car with a spray bottle of window washing cleaner, "offering" to wash your windows for a "donation". That was one step up from street begging, but hey, where else could they make a buck?
The theory of "trickel down economics" was supposed to mean that if the top money earners (businesses) got breaks they would share the wealth with those below them. The money would trickle down to the mean peons. Instead people who had money got more money. Remember Dallas? Remember the opulence? Remember the yaghts and the silk dresses and the furs? They drank champagne while pissing on those who did without.
In Regan's presidency they tried to "reform" school lunch programs - another cost cutting measure. The Regan represenative went before the House of Represenatives and Senate to tell them that they could cuts costs of school lunches by declaring ketchup as a vegetable. Luckily, Senator John Heinz, of Pennsylvania, and a member of the H.J.Heinz family who makes so many of our foods, including ketchup, made sure that the president was aware that ketchup in no way shape or form is a vegetable, and since his family's company manufactured it they ought to know.
So if that's the kind of president Romeny admires, what do you think his ideas of less government and cutting the spending are going to be like?
Hum, we must not be remembering the same man.
I clearly remember a man with dementia calling soldier's uniforms "costumes" in a press conference. I remember a man who listened the the astrologers his wife broought into the White House to make important decisions.
I remember Mr. Regan being credited with the breaking down of the Berlin Wall. But I also remember his faux pas in Mexico when he said at a gathering of Heads oif State that he was late to a meeting because of "Montazuma's revenge" and making the Mexicans, who hosted the meeting, quite unhappy. Nice bit of diplomacy there, eh?
Let's see, Regan was for less government and cutting federal spending. So why was the government LARGER because of new departments he created and the budget larger when he LEFT office than when he began? Deficits, he was good at creating them, not shrinking them. More government and more spending is what he left us with, not the cuts and triming he promised and said he'd bring to America. So if Romney is so much like Regan will he do the same?
I remember a Union busting president who caused air traffic controllers to be fired and replaced by untrained workers, or they could return to work at reduced pay and benefits. Romney likes those Tea Party people who all fight government workers and government pensions. I guess only congressmen are entitled to health insurance and pensions for life when they resign from office.
I seem to remember the "trolls" in California. Trolls, that was the name the people gave to those who were made homeless by the policies of the Regan Administration. There were tent cities outside the White House, all people driven out of work and denied jobs by Regan's austerity measures.
How about window washers at street corners? They didn't exist until the Regan administration. Men approaching your car with a spray bottle of window washing cleaner, "offering" to wash your windows for a "donation". That was one step up from street begging, but hey, where else could they make a buck?
The theory of "trickel down economics" was supposed to mean that if the top money earners (businesses) got breaks they would share the wealth with those below them. The money would trickle down to the mean peons. Instead people who had money got more money. Remember Dallas? Remember the opulence? Remember the yaghts and the silk dresses and the furs? They drank champagne while pissing on those who did without.
In Regan's presidency they tried to "reform" school lunch programs - another cost cutting measure. The Regan represenative went before the House of Represenatives and Senate to tell them that they could cuts costs of school lunches by declaring ketchup as a vegetable. Luckily, Senator John Heinz, of Pennsylvania, and a member of the H.J.Heinz family who makes so many of our foods, including ketchup, made sure that the president was aware that ketchup in no way shape or form is a vegetable, and since his family's company manufactured it they ought to know.
So if that's the kind of president Romeny admires, what do you think his ideas of less government and cutting the spending are going to be like?
Good grief, the GOP is at it in Tampa.
Where do I begin the debunking?
OK, let's just start with Mitt as a Mormon.
I have had two friends/acquaintences who are practicing Mormons or who are former members of the LDS church.
The current member told me some interesting things about their beliefs. Yeah, they believe in Jesus Christ as the savior of the world, just as Willard "Mitt" Romney said. But what he left out is that Mormons belive that they are the only Christians who will get to heaven.
How? The more you have on earth, the higher your place in heaven. In other words, the guy with the most toys wins. So they work hard to make money and share it with other Mormons
Also from the former Mormon, who just happened to be a female, I was told that women/girls/females can't get to heaven if they are unmarried. Apparently God doesn't consider women worthy of heaven on their own, they have to be "saved" by a man.
Now isn't that an interesting fact considering how the GOP has accepted the anit abortion plank of their platform?
Do you think a man who is devoutly religious ( as is claimed) and who was actually a Bishop of his church actually (his Ward, they don't have churches, they gather to worship in groups called Wards)isn't going to bring that religious belief into his way of thinking?
Women are unworthy.
Makes sense if you want to "punish" a woman who allowed herself to be raped by making her carry a child created by that rape to term.
And I guess if you are a daughter who "tempts" her father sexually, and is the object of insest then it's her fault too and she should bear that child of shame for her sins.
Maybe Hester's Scarlet A will be issued to all unmarried pregnant women. Who knows. I'm not an expert, but I see a connection here. Morman's and women, the GOP and women. Maybe it's a stretch .But maybe it's not.
Where do I begin the debunking?
OK, let's just start with Mitt as a Mormon.
I have had two friends/acquaintences who are practicing Mormons or who are former members of the LDS church.
The current member told me some interesting things about their beliefs. Yeah, they believe in Jesus Christ as the savior of the world, just as Willard "Mitt" Romney said. But what he left out is that Mormons belive that they are the only Christians who will get to heaven.
How? The more you have on earth, the higher your place in heaven. In other words, the guy with the most toys wins. So they work hard to make money and share it with other Mormons
Also from the former Mormon, who just happened to be a female, I was told that women/girls/females can't get to heaven if they are unmarried. Apparently God doesn't consider women worthy of heaven on their own, they have to be "saved" by a man.
Now isn't that an interesting fact considering how the GOP has accepted the anit abortion plank of their platform?
Do you think a man who is devoutly religious ( as is claimed) and who was actually a Bishop of his church actually (his Ward, they don't have churches, they gather to worship in groups called Wards)isn't going to bring that religious belief into his way of thinking?
Women are unworthy.
Makes sense if you want to "punish" a woman who allowed herself to be raped by making her carry a child created by that rape to term.
And I guess if you are a daughter who "tempts" her father sexually, and is the object of insest then it's her fault too and she should bear that child of shame for her sins.
Maybe Hester's Scarlet A will be issued to all unmarried pregnant women. Who knows. I'm not an expert, but I see a connection here. Morman's and women, the GOP and women. Maybe it's a stretch .But maybe it's not.
