Corvette Forum - Politics, Religion & Controversy

Healthcare response from my Senator...

Mr turbo rotary — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:07:41 GMT

Quote:

Dear Mr.,

Thank you for contacting me about reforming our nation's health care system. I appreciate hearing from you on such an important issue. Over the past few months, I have traveled around Virginia to hear from people all over the Commonwealth on the issue of health care. Since June, my office has been contacted over 200,000 times by constituents on both sides of the debate. Hearing from constituents is a vital part of my job as a United States Senator and I hope you will continue to share your opinions with me as the health care debate takes shape.

A fundamental principle that must guide us through this debate is the fact that our current health care system is financially unsustainable. While many are concerned about our Federal deficit, most do not realize that the primary cause of our deficit is the increasing per-person costs of Medicare and Medicaid; by 2017, Medicare will be insolvent. Additionally, American business is weakened by the current costs of health care. Per capita health care costs in the United States are double that of virtually every other developed nation in the world, leaving American business at a disadvantage and unable to compete in a global economy. American families also suffer from the rising costs of health care: within the next decade, premiums will consume 40 percent of an average American family's income. To do nothing about the current state of our health care system would mean exploding our national debt, hobbling American business and crippling family budgets.

Although I do not support a government-run single-payer health care system, I believe we need comprehensive reform to achieve a competitive, cost-effective, and efficient system. This effort should be primarily focused on ensuring that all Americans can get adequate health coverage, and the coverage must be cost-effective and based upon data-driven medical standards. We must ensure that competition remains among health care providers because it is precisely that competition that drives innovation and cost reduction in the industry.

The health care reform debate in the Senate has intensified over the last few weeks, with the House of Representatives passing its version of the bill. The Senate also recently unveiled its version and is expected to consider the bill on the floor in the coming weeks. I continue to review the bill and am actively engaged in discussions with my fellow Senators to make improvements once it comes to the floor. These improvements will focus on reforming our payment system, increasing transparency in the system, improving prevention and wellness, and strengthening health information technology.

I encourage you to visit my website, www.warner.senate.gov/healthcare, for additional information. I have posted the complete text of the bill, as well as the CBO cost estimate. Unfortunately the health care debate has resulted in a lot of myths and misinformation about the various bills being considered. Nonpartisan websites such as www.factcheck.org or www.politifact.org can be helpful in explaining specific provisions and clearing up confusion about this complex issue.

Thanks again for contacting me. As we move forward, I will continue to seek out the advice and opinions of all Virginians in order to help shape an improved health care system that will be in all of our best interests.

Sincerely,
MARK R. WARNER
United States Senator

I sent both of my senators letters and so far this canned response is the only one I have recieved back. He's playing the bs game and I bet will vote for the reconciliaton...

The Day Global Warming Stood Still

PeteL — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:28:53 GMT

The Day Global Warming Stood Still

Climate Change: As scientists confirm the earth has not warmed at all in the past decade, others wonder how this could be and what it means for Copenhagen. Maybe Al Gore can Photoshop something before December.

It will be a very cold winter of discontent for the warm-mongers. The climate show-and-tell in Copenhagen next month will be nothing more than a meaningless carbon-emitting jaunt, unable to decide just whom to blame or how to divvy up the profitable spoils of climate change hysteria.

The collapse of the talks coupled with the decision by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to put off the Kerry-Boxer cap-and-trade bill, the Senate's version of Waxman-Markey, until the spring thaw has led Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, the leading Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, to declare victory over Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and the triumph of observable fact over junk science.

"I proudly declare 2009 as the 'Year of the Skeptic,' the year in which scientists who question the so-called global warming consensus are being heard," Inhofe said to Boxer in a Senate speech. "Until this year, any scientist, reporter or politician who dared raise even the slightest suspicion about the science behind global warming was dismissed and repeatedly mocked."

Inhofe added: "Today I have been vindicated."

The Ada (Oklahoma) Evening News quotes Inhofe: "So when Barbara Boxer, John Kerry and all the left get up there and say, 'Yes. We're going to pass a global warming bill,' I will be able to stand up and say, 'No, it's over. Get a life. You lost. I won,'" Inhofe said.

Now we have the German publication Der Spiegel, which is rapidly becoming the house organ for climate hysteria, weighing in again with the sad news that the earth does not have a fever so we really don't have to throw out the baby with the rising bath water.

In an article titled, "Climatologists Baffled By Global Warming Time-Out," author Gerald Traufetter leads off with the observation: "Climatologists are baffled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years." They better figure it out, Der Spiegel warns, because "billions of euros are at stake in the negotiations."

We are told in sad tones that "not much is happening with global warming at the moment" and that "it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year." But how can it be that the earth isn't following all those computer models? Is the earth goddess Gaia herself a climate change "denier"?

The article gloomily notes that a few weeks ago Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research pointed out that the earth had in fact only warmed 0.07 degree Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degree Celsius predicted by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

An even more inconvenient truth, according to the British experts, is that when their figures are adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Nino and La Nina, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degree Celsius. No, that's not a typo.

As if that weren't enough, it seems hackers broke into the computer network run by the Hadley Climate Research Unit, removing 61 megabytes of e-mails and data.

While we don't condone theft, the hacked data and e-mails have spilled onto the Web and reveal something startling: The scientists at Hadley, one of the world's leading climate change study centers, aren't scientifically objective at all.

Indeed, in e-mails, they boast of twisting scientific data to suit their views and to "hide" the truth. At one point, a scientist actually gloats over the death of global warming skeptic John L. Daly, saying, "In an odd way, this is cheering news."

If true, this is massive scientific fraud.

To add to the warm-mongers' woes, patron saint Al Gore, the man who claimed to have invented the Internet, might also have claimed the discovery of Photoshop. Dr. Roy Spencer, of the University of Alabama at Huntsville, formerly with NASA, has taken a look at the pictures used to illustrate Gore's new book, "Our Choice: A Plan To Solve the Climate Crisis."

Gore Photoshopped NASA imagery of the earth for the fold-out cover photo, adding four hurricanes at once, including one spinning in the wrong direction next to Florida and, in a physical impossibility, one on the equator next to Peru. Somewhere in the process, the island of Cuba was deleted.

It is the warm-mongers who are spinning in the wrong direction. We win. You lose. Get a life.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...aspx?id=513195

WOW CFPRC Libs....is Obidiot gonna be pissed at you!!!!!

BradSW — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:21:25 GMT

With Sarah and the cons being such a minority and insignificant anymore, you're giving them so much more attention than the the narcissist would approve of.

You're gonna make the POS-in-Chief :cry:cry:cry

But then again, maybe it's all in your "Look over there" plan to take attention off of what a complete and total loser Barry and the Dems are.

Sneaking In Amnesty

PeteL — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:17:05 GMT

Sneaking In Amnesty

Posted 07:25 PM ET

Immigration: For illegal immigrants, the good times are back. Workplace raids have been halved, and easily fudged paperwork audits are up. Make no mistake, this is a politically driven precursor to amnesty.

How times change. In 2007, an outraged public made itself heard to politicians by saying "enough" to policies that produced 12 million illegals in the U.S.

It sank the bipartisan 2007 immigration bill, dismissing it as "amnesty," and demanded enforcement of the law.

The result rocked the country. Arrests picked up, and President Bush took on the politically tough task of telling immigrants that reform was off the table until Americans were convinced that immigration laws meant something.

That resolve has crumbled since the 2008 election. Justice Department data show criminal arrests of illegals down 60% in fiscal 2009 to a mere 443 from 1,103 a year ago. Administrative arrests have fallen 68% � to 1,644 from 5,184 � while indictments are down 58% and convictions 63%.

It may be true that illegal immigration from Mexico is peaking, as a recent University of California, Davis, study suggests. It's also true that the U.S. recession has sent many illegals packing.

But the sharp decline in numbers in a single year is stronger than incremental demographics or economics. It signals a policy shift.

President Obama said he would change focus from nabbing illegals to punishing employers. The latter is done through I-9 paperwork audits, which are up 317% on the year. This gives the appearance of enforcement, but it also sets the stage for amnesty and a new crop of Democratic voters.

Paper audits on bosses aren't exactly an effective alternative. They disrupt good and bad businesses alike. And congressional sources tell us these audits are often announced three days in advance, giving ample time for dishonest employers to cover their tracks and get rid of illegal hires. They also free illegals to find work elsewhere in the states instead of head home.

It's "a pander to (immigrants) to win Democratic votes," a House staffer told us. Not only are La Raza types pushing it, so is Big Labor.

Result: the gutting of one of our best tools for discouraging illegal immigration. The new approach will only encourage more.

It also coincides with increasing openness from Democrats about amnesty. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., plans to introduce legislation as early as December to provide a "path" to green cards for 12 million illegal immigrants.

Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano told the Center for American Progress recently that reform was in the air: "I know a major shift when I see one, and what I have seen makes reform far more attainable this time around."

Then there are labor unions that want amnesty as a means of roping in more members.

Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, who's big on unions, has on different occasions, including one witnessed by IBD at the Mexican Consulate in Los Angeles, stood with Mexican officials before union members and assured that once a health care overhaul is done, immigration reform will be next.

Activists friendly to Obama, like the American Immigration Council and the Asian Law Caucus, almost as if on command, are also roused, sending e-mails to the media.

It all shows that slacking off on workplace enforcement is closely related to a push for amnesty. The winners are illegals, who eventually get rewarded for lawbreaking � and Democrats, who find new recruits for their thinning ranks. The losers are the rest of Americans who only want immigration laws enforced.

Stepping up paperwork raids is no substitute for the real thing. It's political cover for amnesty.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...aspx?id=513193

It's Finally Arrived ! The Quit Eating Beef Thread !

larry00 — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:15:14 GMT

I can't say it's a surprise but instead of just those crazy PETA folks it's like a country ! A really big country that worships a dirty river and the Sacred Cow.
I had a burger a little while ago ! I kind of like a burger ! I worship cows too every time I bite into a big juicy steak or burger !
I respect their sacrifice and donate money to give as much as I can a fitting end ! :D:leaving:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ting-beef.html

The Vacuum Of American Leadership (Steyn)

PeteL — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:09:23 GMT

The Vacuum Of American Leadership

By MARK STEYN

My radio pal Hugh Hewitt said to me on the air the other day that Barack Obama "doesn't know how to be president." It was a low but effective crack, and I didn't pay it much heed. But, after musing on it over the last week or so, it seems to me frighteningly literally true.

I don't just mean social lapses like his latest cringe-making bow, this time to Their Imperial Majesties The Emperor and Empress of Japan � though that in itself is deeply weird: After the world superbower's previous nose-to-toe prostration before the Saudi King, one assumed there'd be someone in the White House to point out tactfully that the citizen-executives of the American republic don't bow to foreign monarchs.

Along with his choreographic gaucherie goes his peculiar belief that all of human history is just a bit of colorful back story in the Barack Obama biopic � or as he put it in his video address on the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall: "Few would have foreseen on that day that a united Germany would be led by a woman from Brandenburg or that their American ally would be led by a man of African descent."

Tear down that wall . . . so they can get a better look at me!!!

Is there no-one in the White House grown-up enough to say, "Er, Mr. President, that's really the kind of line you get someone else to say about you"?

And maybe somebody could have pointed out that Nov. 9, 1989, isn't about him but about millions of nobodies whose names are unknown, who lead dreary lives doing unglamorous jobs and going home to drab accommodations, but who at a critical moment in history decided they were no longer going to live in a prison state.

They're no big deal, they're never going to land a photo shoot for Vanity Fair. But it's their day, not yours. It's not the narcissism so much as the crassly parochial nature of it.

Is it the only template in the White House speechwriters' computer? "Few would have foreseen at the Elamite sack of Ur/Napoleon's retreat from Moscow/the assassination of the Archduke Franz-Ferdinand/the passage of the Dubrovnik Airport Parking Lot Expansion Bill that one day I would be standing before you talking about how few would have foreseen that one day I would be standing before you."

Some years ago, when Ellen DeGeneres came out as a lesbian and ensuing episodes of her sitcom grew somewhat overly preoccupied with the subject, Elton John remarked: "Okay, we know you're gay. Now try being funny." I wonder if Sir Elton might be prevailed upon to try a similar pitch at the next all-star White House gala: Okay, we know you're black. Now try being president.

But a few days later Obama dropped in on U.S. troops at Osan Air Base in South Korea for the latest episode of The Barack Obama Show (With Full Supporting Chorus). "You guys make a pretty good photo op," he told them. Hmm. Do I detect a belated rationale for the Afghan campaign?

Probably not. The above are mostly offenses against good taste. But they are, cumulatively, revealing. And they help explain why, whenever the president's not talking about himself, he sounds like he's wandered vaguely off-message.

The other day, for example, he told Fox News that "if we keep on adding to the debt . . . people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession."

That's a great line -- but not from a guy who plans to "keep on adding to the debt" as a conscious strategy. This is the president who made "trillion" the new default unit of federal budgeting, and whose irresponsibility is prompting key players around the world to consider seriously whether it's time to ditch the dollar's role as global reserve currency.

But Obama's much vaunted "bipartisanship," to which so many "moderate" conservatives were partial a year ago, seems to have dwindled down to an impressive ability to take one side of an issue in his rhetoric and another in his actions.

Which brings us to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11. He'd been brought before a military commission, and last December indicated he was ready to plead guilty, and itching for the express lane to the 72 virgins.

But that wasn't good enough for Obama, who in essence declined to accept KSM's confession and decided to put him on trial in a New York courthouse. Why? To show "the world" � i.e., European op-ed pages and faculty lounges � that America would fight terror in a way "consistent with our values," and apparently that means turning KSM into O.J. and loosing his dream team on the civilian justice system.

But, having buttered up Le Monde and the BBC and many of his own lefties by announcing that Mohammed would get a fair trial, Obama then assured NBC that he'd be convicted and was gonna fry.

So it's like a fair trial consistent with "our values" except for the one about presumption of innocence? If the head of state declaring you guilty and demanding the death penalty doesn't taint the jury pool, it's hard to see what would.

The KSM circus is not, technically, a "show trial": He could well be acquitted. But, even if he is, he's unlikely to be strolling out a free man like Frank Sinatra beating the rap in "Robin And The Seven Hoods" and standing on the courthouse steps to sing "My Kind Of Town (Manhattan Is)" � although I wouldn't entirely rule it out. In a world in which the self-confessed perpetrator of the bloodiest act of war on the American mainland in two centuries is entitled to a civilian trial, all things are possible.

The other day, the attorney general, Eric Holder, promised us that it would be "the trial of the century" � and he said it like it's a good thing. Why would you do that?

So how's it playing with its intended audience? Alas, the world moves on. Not being George W. Bush may be enough to impress the 2009 Nobush Peace Prize committee in Oslo, but it's old news everywhere else.

America's enemies have figured out that the Superbower is their best opportunity since their Seventies, and for America's friends the short version of the hopeychangey era to date is last week's cover story at the London Spectator showing an empty suit in the Oval Office over the headline "The Worst Kind Of Ally."

Hang on, wasn't that title retired with Bush? Well, no. Apparently, he routinely called up prime ministers hither and yon and kept them in the picture and up to speed. Obama doesn't have time for any of that:

When he stiffed Poland on missile defense, he got Hillary to phone it in. The Poles, bless 'em, declined to take her call. In Delhi, meanwhile, they're horrified by Obama's performance in China. America's enemies smell weakness, and our allies feel only the vacuum of U.S. leadership.

About himself, the president speaks loudly. For America, he carries a small twig.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...aspx?id=513085

What religion do you want the next potus to be?

GIMMESOME — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:36:49 GMT

Just curious. I'll bet a nickel that it won't be islamic. But what about the others? Most of you here are too young to remember the flack over JFK being a catholic. It was a big deal. It almost cost him the election, luckily,the old man could pull some strings. So would you be ok with a snake handler? I believe their refered to as pentecostals. They are chistians after all. How about presbyterians? Jews? The only reason I capitalized jews is it begains a sentence, just so you know I'm not playing favorites here :lol: . How about a catholic? It's been a while. I'm agnostic, so to me, it comes down to how competent they are to be potus. But nobody wants a religious wackjob, or do they? Please chime in.

Palin Quits and leaves book signing, people get angry!

beachfrontvette — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:35:24 GMT

Palin quits again, leaves behind crowd of supporters without signing books...

<< 1 2 >>

Topic started on 20-11-2009 @ 03:46 PM by reasonable

DIGG ATS

for original
content
more info

Angry crowd shouts at Sarah Palin at her book signing
in Noblesville, Indiana on November 19, 2009 after Palin quits and refuses to sign books for around 300 families that spent over 3 hours waiting in line.

How can this be? I thought Sarah was "tough" and "ready to serve"? Are my eyes & ears deceiving me?

People at the event first heard chants of �ONE OF US!� but near the end the angry crowd was chanting �SIGN OUR BOOKS!� before she ditched them.

My condolences to hotsauce and Eurisko2012 their illusions shattered today.

YouTube Link

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread520923/pg1

Wow: Palin�s publisher boosts print run from 1.5 million to 2.5 million

SeaFive — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:55:36 GMT

For those who said no one cared about what Palin has to say !!! :rofl:

Three days after the book dropped, having already produced an enormous first run, they�re forced to ramp it up by two-thirds to meet demand. Amazing. Imagine the number if the book was being carried in San Francisco.:rofl:

Going Rogue is going gangbusters, and it looks like both Palin and her publisher, HarperCollins, are going to make some serious money off of it. According to industry insiders, Palin got a $7 million advance for her book. She�s earning a royalty rate of 15 percent, which means she makes $4.35 per book sold, and therefore needs to sell 1.6 million books to earn out her advance. The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that HarperCollins had printed another 100,000 copies of Going Rogue, bringing the total in print to 1.6 million. Palin would need to sell all of those to earn out her advance, so it�s unlikely that�s going to happen.

But HarperCollins will be making money long before that. There�s a rule of thumb in the industry that publishers net about $10 per hardcover sold, after expenses, but before the cost of the advance. Once she�s sold 700,000 copies, then, HarperCollins is in the black. And what of that 1.6 million printed? An ideal �sell-through� rate is about 75 percent, which means HarperCollins thinks it�s going to sell about 1.2 million copies. At that level, Palin will have made $7 million and HarperCollins $5 million of its own.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/2...o-2-5-million/

:lol::smash::lol:

Buying gold/silver.....

mrvette — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:50:13 GMT

I suppose one has to be a coin collector to actually know what a REAL USA issued gold coin is like, look, weight, feel, condition as believable...etc....

so assuming to try buying 'gold/etc' of the TV addys'...or worse yet on some Wall St. company claiming whatEVER....

just specifically HOW in hell do you the buyer KNOW that 'gold' you supposedly 'have' is not fake??

sure some jeweler can pour whatever (acid?) on it and test the surface....but the interior of that 'bar' can be lead too....

SO??? do you trust your .gov to regulate that crap??

can anyone tell 14 from 24 kt. gold??? for that matter does the .gov actually CARE??

:lol::lurk:

Palin-Hating 101

SeaFive — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:49:11 GMT

Sarah Palin's book tour is underway, and she's hitting all the major spots -- Oprah, Barbara Walters, Hannity and The Factor. It's been more than a year since she and her running mate lost to the Obama/Plouffe/Axelrod public relations machine, yet she still finds herself front-and-center in the national spotlight, even despite stepping down as governor of Alaska months ago.

Her influence and allure are practically unprecedented among failed vice presidential candidates. (Can anyone imagine Lloyd Bentsen, Jack Kemp or Joe Lieberman selling People magazine covers or sitting down for an hour with Oprah?) Even though she was skewered by the liberal media, lambasted by the self-loathing feminists, and slaughtered by the oh-so-cool "30 Rock" and "SNL" glitterati, Palin remains incredibly popular among conservatives.

Not only that, she's got real power. President Obama's been trying to sell the country on health care reform for months, but she managed to change policy overnight with a pointed note...on Facebook.

And, she's still someone people want to know about. Her book "Going Rogue: An American Life," was a best seller before it even hit the shelves.

And for these very reasons, her detractors are absolutely apoplectic right now.

Anyone witnessing the spin job being furiously whipped up against Palin in a desperate effort to stanch her book sales and cauterize her acclaim is in for a real treat. It is a truly acrobatic and dizzying display of agility -- but unlike the Flying Wallendas, these stunt men and women of the liberal media aren't fooling or wowing anyone. Their cheap sideshow parlor tricks are so transparent we should all demand our money back.

Newsweek, in advance of Palin's book release, obviously went for subtlety. Their headline read, "How Do You Solve a Problem Like Sarah? She's bad news for the GOP -- and everybody else, too." Accompanying it was a photo of her in running shorts used in a June 2009 Runner's World spread. Newsweek's message was clear: You are not to take this woman seriously. Never mind that Runner's Week told me that the photos from that shoot are still under a one-year embargo, and that Newsweek ran the photo without Runner's World's knowledge or permission. No biggie.

On "Hardball," Chris Matthews, who's still recovering from that bizarre bout of restless leg syndrome that suddenly befell him last year, actually had the audacity to say of the attention Palin is getting for her book release, "I've never seen hype like this." Apparently, the overwrought sensationalism of the Denver Democratic National Convention, where Obama stood amidst faux White House columns, under fireworks, next to Sheryl Crow and Will.i.am -- or "Hype and Change 2008" -- is but a distant memory to Matthews.

In another segment, on another night, Matthews and MSNBC reporter Norah O'Donnell decided that the crowd at a Palin book signing was, well, too white. "I think there is a tribal aspect to this thing. In other words, white vs. other people," said Matthews, ever the sociology scholar.

The leftwing media has long tried to ascribe a scary nativism to Palin, who best described the phenomenon during her recent Oprah interview, when she said that Katie Couric had looked at her like she was part of some kind of nomadic tribe from Alaska. Asking her what she read was like asking her if she read.

Others have tried to carefully feign disinterest in the hopes that, much like the flu, disinterest is contagious. The Washington Post published a book review by Ana Marie Cox, in which she smugly "confesses" she didn't have time to read the entire book, "It's terrible, I know, but if I didn't read it all, neither can Sarah Palin claim to have completely written it." In that one sentence, we know that Cox's time constraints excuse wasn't the issue. She simply wanted to be able to write in a book review that Palin's book didn't make her to-do list. Her anti-review review is fine for Cox, but what's the Washington Post's excuse for publishing it?

Others still have tried to dismiss Palin as some would-be celebrity, who -- how dare she?! -- had the gumption and considerable bad taste to write a book. And promote it. (Irony alert: Al Gore has his own television network.)

A radio host asked me recently if the perception that she is more "human interest story than person-of-action" will harm her in the long run. The fact is, there is no one on the planet more "human interest story than person-of-action" than our current president, who penned his terribly self-satisfied autobiography at the ripe old age of 43, while a mere state legislator.

But we don't see the liberal press fretting over President Obama's penchant for self-promotion. They coo when he goes on Letterman to talk about all the cool stuff that happens when you're president -- during a recession and a war. And they applaud his Nobel Peace Prize, for which he was nominated after just 12 days in office. And they rally around his embarrassing Olympic bid, which actually argued that the IOC should choose Chicago so that he and Michelle could stop and see the fam while in their old neighborhood. Obama's "me, me, me, me, me, me, me" aria is fine. But Palin's plain-speaking and honest stab at defending herself against her seething critics is schlocky showboating and shameless self-promotion. Please.

Regardless of all of these tired wheezes and coughs at trying to suppress Sarah Palin, she seems totally immune in every way. She'll make a fortune on this book; she'll continue to grab headlines; and she'll remain an influential figure within the party. The liberal media just hasn't realized it yet, but when it comes to Palin, there's no such thing as bad publicity. It sure is fun to see them try, though.
http://townhall.com/columnists/SECup...ing_101?page=2

Some Red Faces At FOX NEWS

KENS78SILVERANNIV — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:45:12 GMT

I'm not going to sink to the level some will here.... claiming that this was done intentionally... because I work in this industry. I understand the realities of a network news operation.

But it's a good lesson for some of you who believe that FOX NEWS is somehow above suspicion... or somehow immune to making mistakes.

They make em just like everybody else.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/fox-n...s-rogue-again/

Friday Night Toon

KenHorse — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:18:20 GMT

Human Fat Trafficking

94z07fx3 — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:58:47 GMT

OK I think this is one thread where left right and center will agree that killing people so that their rendered fat can be sold as wrinkle cream is just wrong.

Quote:

Gang 'killed victims to extract their fat'Peruvian police arrest suspects who allegedly drained their victims and sold liquid as an

A Peruvian gang that allegedly killed people and drained fat from their corpses for use in cosmetics may have been inspired by a grisly Andean legend.

Hilari� Cude�a Simon, the alleged ringleader, linked the crimes to tales of demonic assassins, known as Pishtacos, who purportedly waylaid victims in pre-Columbian times, police said.

Peru reacted with revulsion and horror to reports that scores of peasants may have been butchered by the gang, which was said to have operated in Hu�nuco, a rural province dotted with Inca temples between the jungle and Andean peaks.

Colonel Jorge Mejia, chief of Peru's anti-kidnapping police, said Cude�a and three other suspects were in custody and that another seven gang members were being hunted.

The jailed men have confessed to killing five people, but police suspect the number of victims is far higher, with 60 people reported missing in Hu�nuco this year alone. Two of the suspects were arrested at a bus station in the capital, Lima, carrying bottles of liquid fat which they claimed were worth up to �36,000 a gallon

KSM trial: Does NY have the death penalty?

69427 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:12:54 GMT

I would hope they do. Anyone know the answer?