DISQUS

Oh yeah... Yeeeeaaah. Hot giiiirl, yeeeeaaah. Me want to bang that chick. OH YEAH...


HEJ ALICIA/CRABY. 8DDDDDD

Ehe? 8D

spelling correction from earlier post: "he has" received his score

A friend of mine tood REG in CA around April 10th and his has received his passing score.

Still waiting for FAR in Cali...has anyone received their scores for FAR yet?

Creo que para mi seria...


WEEEEEEEEEENNNAAAAAAAA PELAO...!!!!!



When i was walking with u...

mmm..actually i know that k is thinking something a litle bit diferent....


we still have to talk about it but who knows.....



el tiempo dira...

Igual lata lo del departamento y tener que cambiarnos. Como que ya le habia tomado cariño al depa y me costo dejarlo, (supongo que no me gustan los cambios).


Ahora estoy en un proceso de encantrme con el depto nuevo, algo similar a lo que tuve que hacer con papito antes de enamorarme de ella...



xaxaxa

=O




Te dije que tenia que seguir siendo solo S



Ahora mi identidad ha sido revelada para siempre.....

Jim, are you going to disclose that you consulted on the Democratic platform this year?

Beta 1 worked better for me too. This version gives weird artifacts when viewing some flash videos. Also some sites that worked well in Beta 1 don't work as well now.

This is interesting:


Claude Castonguay is the father of socialized medicine in Canada. In the 1960s, he chaired a Quebec commission whose recommendation of a government-run health care system for that province was adopted, and quickly spread to the rest of the country. Now, after forty years of experience with socialized medicine, Castonguay has changed his mind:



Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in "crisis."



"We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it," says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: "We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice."



A novel idea! When the first countries adopted socialized medicine, it was a mistake. For the U.S. to do it now, in the face of disastrous experience wherever it has been tried, would be a crime.

chaz,


My ambivalence towards Obama lies in the fact that Obama is trying to move to the center, and toward positions are closer to my own, but his record and previous statements just don't jive.



Almost all here have confirmed that he's just playing politics. The media lauds his 'pragmatism' and covers for him. If he wants to be against FISA, he should be against it. He shouldn't worry about being accused of being 'soft on terror.' But don't support something just to get elected. Don't promise to accept public financing and then become the first post-Watergate president to refuse it under the guise of 'independence.'



I do not object to changes in policies or positions if reasonable circumstances warrant them, or if a thoughtful analysis alters one's point of view, but that isn't what has happened.



Playing politics with positions and policies that are important to me is disconcerting.

webb,


You misunderstood. Obama will be sure to appoint judges like Ginsberg, Kennedy, and Stevens.



Covering his bets may be good politics, but is it leadership?

webb,


But don't you know that Obama is trying to make a play for Evangelical voters? Who knows where he really stands? My guess would be that he would continue to appoint judges in the mold of those who rendered the majority opinion in that case.



Defense of innocent life, from the unborn to victims of child abuse are very difficult moral arguments and split many individuals in both directions.

'Blank screen' are Obama's words, describing himself. He is proud of his ability to appear to be many different things to many different types of people. This, in and of itself, makes me uneasy.


I wish I could share your confidence in the man, but I just don't know what I am getting for my vote. Yes, he's eloquent and charismatic, likable enough, but he has yet to persuade me of his ability to be a strong, principled leader.



I am looking for a candidate who will provide:



Energy Independence



Victory in Iraq/War on Terror



Sound tax policy that will keep a struggling economy from falling into recession.



School Choice



Moderate, pragmatic judges.

Chaz,


I have reviewed his record. He's my Senator.



Let's look at the Boston Globe article today RE: Obama's record on housing:



"As a state legislator, Obama had been in office for all of four years before he decided he was ready to replace Rep. Bobby Rush in Congress. The voters in his district didn’t see it that way. Relatively powerless when Democrats were in the minority, Obama’s accomplishments piled up in the final two years in the state legislature, as his political godfather, Emil Jones Jr., helped Obama take a lead role in just about every piece of high-profile legislation. By the end of 2003, Obama focused heavily on the upcoming U.S. Senate race.



This brings Obama to the U.S. Senate. His first general election ad touts a bill he didn’t vote for, his signature accomplishment in foreign policy (the nuclear nonprofileration bill) was so uncontroversial it passed by unanimous consent; and with his signature domestic policy accomplishment, ethics reform, nonpartisan observers conclude he has exaggerated his role in passage. Two years isn’t a lot of time to bring about “real change,” and most of his supporters would concede that Obama’s accomplishments as a freshman senator have been modest. He’s been rebuked by his colleagues for taking credit for legislation he had little role in crafting.



It’s easy to wonder whether the candidate who talks about “real change” and pledges a government that will “heal the sick” and “stop the oceans from rising” actually knows how to get big things done – or whether he had the patience. Obama would seem to have the skills and brains to be a legendary community organizer, or state legislator, or U.S. senator. But momentous accomplishments in each of those positions take time, and at each level, Obama hit a wall, and turned his attention to a position of greater power.



I note this as the Boston Globe takes a comprehensive look at Obama’s efforts at housing as a state legislator and as a U.S. senator, and comes to devastating conclusions. The policy changes Obama pushed have been catastrophic failures for the public, but lucrative for his donors.



As a state senator, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee coauthored an Illinois law creating a new pool of tax credits for developers. As a US senator, he pressed for increased federal subsidies. And as a presidential candidate, he has campaigned on a promise to create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund that could give developers an estimated $500 million a year.



But a Globe review found that thousands of apartments across Chicago that had been built with local, state, and federal subsidies - including several hundred in Obama's former district - deteriorated so completely that they were no longer habitable.



Grove Parc and several other prominent failures were developed and managed by Obama's close friends and political supporters. Those people profited from the subsidies even as many of Obama's constituents suffered. Tenants lost their homes; surrounding neighborhoods were blighted.



Campaign finance records show that six prominent developers - including Jarrett, Davis, and Rezko - collectively contributed more than $175,000 to Obama's campaigns over the last decade and raised hundreds of thousands more from other donors. Rezko alone raised at least $200,000, by Obama's own accounting.



One of those contributors, Cecil Butler, controlled Lawndale Restoration, the largest subsidized complex in Chicago, which was seized by the government in 2006 after city inspectors found more than 1,800 code violations.



Obama has said that his preference for private companies acting as landlords of these developments rather than the Chicago Housing Authority was inspired by his experience with Altgeld Gardens. I can understand that instinct. But one of the problems of constantly moving on to the next promotion is that you never get to see the consequences and ramifications of past actions."



http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/27/grim_proving_ground_for_obamas_housing_policy/

He's a 'blank screen.'

Listening to Obama's energy policy mantra today, I am underwhelmed. It is still "wind, solar, biofuels and green energy that will create millions of new jobs." But he must know that neither wind nor solar will do much to power transportation; and should we go to electric, millions of Americans who plug their autos in at night at least for the next few decades would need either more clean coal or nuclear to power them.


He is for subsidizing inefficient corn ethanol at a time of record-high fuel and corn prices, while supporting tariffs on the importation of more efficient sugar-based biofuels.



In short, by opposing all drilling in Anwar, off the coasts, the continental shelf, and omitting any reference to coal, tar sands, shale, or nuclear, he apparently thinks that millions of acres of new solar panels and hundreds of thousands of wind turbines dotting our mountain crests and deserts, together with millions more acres devoted to corn, will somehow bring gas prices down or make energy more affordable.



Bob Zubrin writes:

"Let’s stop fooling around. This year the United States will import 5 billion barrels of oil. At $130/barrel, the bill for that will come to $650 billion, or more than five times the cost of the Iraq war. Add to that $400 billion the Americans will pay for domestic oil, and our total fuel bill this year will come to over a trillion dollars, and the world as a whole will pay $4 trillion. These petroleum costs are up a factor of twelve from what they were in 1999, and represent a huge highly-regressive tax on the world economy. For Americans, the $1000 billion oil levy is equivalent to a 40% increase in income taxes across the board - with sixty percent the sum being paid over in tribute to foreign governments.



So, as a result of this massive tax increase — by far the largest in American history — the United States is being driven into a recession. Subjected to the same tax, Europe and Japan will follow, while poor third world countries who can afford high oil prices even less will be pushed towards starvation. And as the misery spreads, the Saudis and other OPEC potentates are putting together huge Sovereign Wealth Funds to execute takeovers of the western corporations their extortion forces into insolvency. Indeed, OPEC will clear $1.5 trillion in net export profits this year. The entire worth of the US Fortune 500 is $18 trillion. So at their current rate of looting, OPEC will accumulate enough cash to buy majority control of the entire Fortune 500 within 6 years!"



On June 24, McCain put forward a proposal that could really make a difference. This was his call to require that all new cars sold in the USA be flex fueled.



Flex fuel cars can run on any combination of alcohol (including methanol and ethanol) or gasoline. The technology is readily available and it only costs about $100 per vehicle.



Making America a flex-fuel vehicle market would effectively make flex-fuel the international standard, as all significant foreign car makers would be impelled to convert their lines over as well. Within three years of such a mandate, there would be 50 million cars on the road in the USA capable of running on alternate fuels, and hundreds of millions more worldwide. Around the globe, gasoline would be forced to compete at the pump against alcohol fuels made from any number of sources, including not only current commercial crops like corn and sugar, but cellulosic ethanol made from crop residues and weeds, as well as methanol, which can be made from any kind of biomass without exception, as well as coal, natural gas, and recycled urban trash. Creating such an open-source fuel market would enormously expand and diversify humanity’s fuel resource base, protecting all nations from continued blackmail, robbery, and in some cases, starvation, induced by the oil cartel.



Methanol is selling today, without any subsidy, for $1.50/gallon on the spot market, equivalent in energy terms to gasoline at $2.80/gallon. Make cars that can choose between methanol and gasoline, and the power of OPEC to set high prices will be broken for good — everywhere in the world.

big man,


This isn't really about Rezko. Rezko is bad news and Obama should have known better. By his own admission he was 'boneheaded,' I'm satisfied to leave it at that.



truthseeker was trying to contrast McCain and Obama in a way that did not make much sense to me.



Again, I came to this blog looking to find out more about Obama. If he was indeed a moderate, like me. I have yet to discover anything concrete to which I can grab hold of...



His tacks to the center thus far, while they are indeed closer to my own poitions, seem calculated and insincere.

truthseeker,


I watched that press conference. Obama couldn't wait to get out of there fast enough.



But to your larger point, "My sense is he's gotten by his whole life by fudging it. Is there something inherently wrong with that? Mo. But, for a President, people need to know."



I honestly thought you were talking about Obama.

anon @ 11 am,


Obama supporters seem to be fine with his tacking to the center, but for those of us who reside there, watching him 'come about' on certain issues is in my view, nothing more than political expediency.



He is all over the map right now on the issues that have arisen thus far.



Can anyone state definitively where he stands on NAFTA, Jerusalem, energy and Iran?



Where will he end up on Iraq and the War on Terror? My guess he will try to diffuse McCain's advantage on national security by supporting FISA and eventually changing his position on immediate troop withdrawl from Iraq.



What will his supporters do then?

They will still vote for him. He knows this. His goal now, and always has been to win the 'swing voters' in this election: white, blue collar, males.



Find out where white, blue collar males stand on the death penalty, individual gun rights, and anti-terrorism and the war, and you can see where Obama is headed.



Obama has thrown every position that has threatened his standing with this group under the bus, beginning with Wright and ending with Iraq. But will all those 'regular Joe's' out there believe him? I doubt it. Why vote for the poser when they have the deal deal in McCain?

truthseeker,


You see what you want to see.



When the NYT tried to accuse McCain of having an affair, he took every question, until the reporters has nothinh left to ask.



Obama scurried away from the podium after three questions about Rezko.



McCain allows the media access virtually unmatched by any other politician, while Obama closely controls media access and availability.



Many older Americans are not as technically saavy as the younger generation, and McCain is being honest. McCain also is a very humble man who has called himself an 'imperfect public servant' on more than one occassion.



Obama, by contrast seeks to excuse or deflect scrutiny and criticism. He preemptive playing of the race card, was particularly distasteful. NPR reporter Scott Simon even called him on it. The media increasingly sees him as arrogant, debuting his own presidential seal was seen as egotistical and presumptuous.



Let's face it. This election is all about Obama. Who is this man who has described himself as a 'blank slate?' What does he TRULY believe, what does HIS RECORD show, and HOW DOES HE BEHAVE? Does what voters learn about him cause them to pause...or to donate to his cause?



McCain is a known quantity. An 'honorable' and experienced statesman. He is an acceptible alternative to voters who feel that Obama is a tempting, but 'risky' choice.



___________________________________



dna,



The truth sometimes hurts.

FISA and Iraq, are the two issues that Obama needs to stand firm on to keep the far left energized.


He has decided to demonstrate his ability to 'buck his own party' ala McCain by supporting the compromise FISA. But this will not be enough.



Iraq is now unmistakably proving a success, and more and more news outlets are reporting that we are winning the War on Terror.



Obama will not be able to avoid facing tough questions about his outdated Iraq policy and when he does, his answer will give the clearest indication of who he is, and what he really believes.

d,


A McCain/Powell ticket would win in a LANDSLIDE if the war was the #1 issue, but it looks like the economy may trump Iraq, especially if progress continues.



More and more, the election will be a referendum on Obama. If they believe him to be nothing more than a smooth-talking, ambitious politician who will say whatever it takes to get elected; who is not above playing the race card; who promises one thing, then does another if it is politically favorable to do so, then McCain is an acceptable alternative to moderate Dems and independents who are more conservative.



Obama is trying to run as fast as he can away from the far left, now that he has their cold, hard. cash in hand. But he will not be able to run to the center with a voting record that is anything BUT moderate OR independent.

This is a ridiculous post intended to allow for a daily dose of McCain bashing.


Meanwhile, as the MSM is busy, daily reframing Obama's politically expedient flip-flops as a pragmatic tack to the center...



Since the Supreme Court ruling in favor of individual rights in the 2nd amendment, Obama has been trying to present himself as a moderate of gun control, when in fact, his record reveals just the opposite:



In 2004, the Illinois Senate considered S.B. 2165 (IL 2004), sponsored by Senator Ed Petka (R-Plainfield). The bill came about because of an arrest in Wilmette, IL in late December of 2003. A 54-year-old businessman shot and wounded a man who had broken into his home for the second time in 24 hours. Cook County prosecutors found the shooting justified, but the businessman, Mr. DeMar, faced a fine and possible destruction of two guns under a 1989 village ordinance prohibiting handgun possession.



S.B. 2165 would allow residents to use self-defense as a basis for seeking dismissal of criminal charges stemming from local gun ordinances if they used the banned weapon in an act of self-defense in their home, business or property.



Obama voted no on third reading March 25, 2004, and voted no on concurrence to a House amendment on May 25, 2004. In fact, Obama voted no four times: in the Judiciary Committee, on Third Reading, in the Judiciary Committee's vote on concurrence with the House, and on the final concurrence.



Luckily for the people of Illinois, the legislation passed despite Obama's opposition. Had he had his way, people in Illinois could still be prosecuted for defending themselves against crimes.



But that's not the only time Obama has voted against the people's right to keep and bear arms.



In 1999, Obama voted in favor of S.B. 177 (IL 1999). The legislation required guns to be secured by trigger locks, placed in a lock box, or placed in a location that a reasonable person would believe to be secure from a minor. Likewise, in 2003, Obama voted for H.B. 2579 (IL 2003) for a law that restricted the rights of Illinois's citizens so that they could only buy one gun a month. The law created the offense of "unlawful acquisition of handguns."



In 2001, Obama voted against S.B. 604 (IL 2001), which would have allowed individuals who have valid orders of protection against other individuals to carry concealed weapons for their protection. The bill would have created an affirmative defense against a charge of violating Illinois's concealed carry law if the person had a lawfully issued protection order against someone seeking to do harm to the person.



In 2002, Obama voted against S.B. 397 (IL 2002), which amended the Firearms Owners Indentification Card Act. The legislation was specifically crafted for sporting events and allowed a non-resident participating in a sanctioned competitive shooting event in Illinois to purchase a shotgun or shotgun ammunition in Illinois, but only at the site where the event is being held, for the purpose of participating in the event.