So the "nonprofit" Points of Light foundation had the resources to pay MIchelle Nunn an annual salary of over $200K, huh?
And she had no problem accepting it?
bchb has a problem with Paul Broun's finances?
Would bchb be less critical it Dr. Broun had enriched himself through "sweetheart" deals offered to (and accepted by) the politically well-connected, who receive payoffs and buyouts from special interests while bankrupting our national treasury with earmarks directed back to those special interests?
Have the wealthy elite (which does include the likes of our current president as well as Ms. Nunn) really done a better job managing the nation's budget than those like Dr. Broun who consistently applies the 4-way test of:
Is it right/moral?
Is it constitutional?
Is it necessary?
Is it affordable?
A few of us have grown a bit distrustful of those who accumulate assets through six figure salaries from "non-profit" corporations and "special investments" offered to the political "elite".posted @ Sunday, May 4, 2014 - 09:26
@Dr Benway: What exactly is your point?
Intelligent sounding platitudes may sound reasonable in the faculty lounge of most universities but they do absolutely nothing to address this nation's fossil fuel energy requirements.
Until those on the Left final dispense with all hypocrisy and completely cease from their consumption of fossil fuel energy (including their "electric car charging stations"), we will require MORE crude oil as well as the increased capacity to refine it.
High energy costs hurt everyone, especially the less financially fortunate!
The ONLY way to reduce them is to either INCREASE the supply or DECREASE demand.......there is no other way!
Sorry if this seems like a "breathtakingly hilarious movie" to you.posted @ Sunday, February 2, 2014 - 12:20
So the architect of our jobless "recovery" vows to bypass elected representatives to "get the economy going", huh?
With a recent poll of "no confidence" reaching 63%, it appears more than a few morons may have changed their minds about the man from "Hope and Change".
Too little, too late.....probably gonna be a rough ride from here on out...
Wish it were otherwise.....but afraid the writing's on the wall now...posted @ Wednesday, January 29, 2014 - 11:12
2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney dumped Gov. Christie very shortly into the vetting process when it became very clear what a liability the "blustery" Republican from the "Blue" state of NJ really was.
As for scandals, the NJ governor does not have the advantage that the POTUS apparently enjoys of appointing political donors to investigate his own scandals.
True conservatives recognized early on just who Gov. Chris Christie really is.
He will not be the GOP nominee in 2016, and the morons in the mainstream media (and their readers) are making sure of it.posted @ Sunday, January 19, 2014 - 11:38
[quote][b]dahreese[/b] - Leave it to a conservative who can't see beyond his nose, or can't remember history, or can't understand that this has been coming on long before Obama.
The same conservatives who think the top one percent care about THEM!
Yes, but even a "brilliant" retired educator like youself can't deny that ObamaCare has expedited the collapse.
Go back to your hole while the rest of us try to deal with the future you've advocated.posted @ Saturday, January 11, 2014 - 14:01
The Obama economic "wrecking ball" is largely responsible for the chronic high unemployment which most liberals are too happy to ignore or "solve" with more unemployment benefits from printed or borrowed funds.
Like the irresponsible adolescent manchild that he is, POTUS accepts ABSOLUTELY NO BLAME WHATSOEVER for the current condition of the U.S. economy but instead calls for more wealth redistribution to the poor unfortunate souls caught in the "meat grinder" of his own failed policies!
The lame, mockingbird press is either too stupid or corrupt to call him on it.
More unemployment benefits will solve NOTHING!posted @ Saturday, January 4, 2014 - 23:28
[quote][b]E.J.[/b] - Also, the tax money should go to addressing and treating addiction and to mental health care instead of to the general coffers. That tax money should also go to a continuing strong and effective campaign to get kids to stay away, not only from marijuana, but from all drugs, especially alcohol. Just because it has been made legal does not in any way mean it is okay to use. Just because alcohol is legal in no way means it is harmless, either.[/quote]
This is a really interesting argument.
While studies show alcohol in moderation can actually be beneficial, I'm aware of no study that finds the same regarding marijuana use. (My personal experience of living with a pothead convinced me that continued and prolonged usage produces a "dumb and dumber" effect in the user.)
But to legalize and tax an addictive substance under the guise of providing treatment for those who become addicted to the substance is a bit of circular logic.
What guarantees the cost of "treatment" remain less than the revenues raised by the taxing of that substance?
What is the cost of regulating non-taxed marijuana? Did anyone think the DEA was gonna downsize over this?
But the state has sent a powerful message in sanctioning a behavior and collecting revenues from it.
No public service announcements to young people can speak louder than what has already been spoken.posted @ Wednesday, January 1, 2014 - 12:28
FoxNews ratings DWARF all other cable news outlets..
A&E's Duck Dynasty is one of the most wached cable shows....
MSNBC is watched by almost no one.....
If not for these controversies, would anyone, save the hard LEFT, even know they exist?posted @ Wednesday, January 1, 2014 - 12:11
[quote][b]E.J.[/b] - I would agree that in some instances, nothing is preferable to something.[/quote]
Finally, I can agree with you on something!
posted @ Sunday, December 29, 2013 - 19:15
[quote][b]mpd0.59[/b] - The President "stood his Constitutional ground" against an attacker.[/quote]
This is a blatant untruth!
The Administration has usurped the role of Congress in making unilateral changes, delays, and modifications to this "settled law" since its passage.
And for the Administration to refuse to defend the "settled law" of DOMA (something obviously near and dear to you given your constant harping) is nothing more than refusing to exercise his constitutional responsibilities.
This POTUS has IGNORED his constitutional ground, which consists of EXECUTING the law.....NOT re-writing it as he goes!
The POTUS and his HHS secretary have treated ACA like silly putty, yet you expect that he and you be taken seriously?
Really?posted @ Sunday, December 29, 2013 - 16:03
Like repealing the DOMA.
Are you really prevented from loving the person of your choice?
As I've said before, go marry your boyfriend and be done with it.
As for defining "unproductive", how ironic that the #1 story of 2013 is the disastrous implementation of legislation from a more "productive" congress, specifically the one which foisted the (Un-)Affordable Care Act on us.
"Productive" is truly in the eye of the beholder.posted @ Sunday, December 29, 2013 - 15:39
[quote][b]cyou299[/b] - @HankRearden: the question was aksed repeatedly, 'waht did Jesus say about it'...it is quite dishonest to speculate on Jesus's words when none were uttered.[/quote]
Why do you suppose Jesus hearkened back to Genesis (book of beginnings) when addressing the issue of marriage with the "legal experts" of the day?
Was he not directing their attention back to the "original intent" or "spirit" of the Creator's design? (as you might say)
How are my comments dishonest? Did Jesus misspeak?
Why did he specifically refer to the verse that articulates the Creators intent (two become one flesh and produce more flesh) if parts were interchangeable, as those on the same-sex marriage side seem to suppose?
Actually, Jesus referred to Genesis quite often during his public ministry, including references to Noah's flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the patriarchs (of course).
If Jesus is who He claimed to be ("I and the Father are one"), the subject had certainly been covered before anyway and given the culture of the day (Judea populated with Jewish people), there really wasn't any confusion over this issue. (Jesus' answer to the Pharisees was over the issue of divorce, something He describes as outside the original intent of the Creator)
It's always amusing when those who have little regard for Scripture attempt to use it to support a position with it.
I prefer the logical or intuitive argument, which is basically what Phil Robertson did with his "coarse" description of homosexuality.
It makes very little sense biologically.posted @ Friday, December 20, 2013 - 11:25
I already have, and Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. End of today's Bible lesson. You don't believe in Jesus. You just believe in your own interpretation of Jesus. His teachings were rather liberal, actually.
Actually, while there is no specific reference to same sex unions, He DID reaffirm the Creation account in Matthew 19 when addressing a question from some Pharisees over the issue of divorce:
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female', and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." Matt 19:4-6
We can discuss the logic of same sex relationships (biological design demands both male and female contribute for reproduction), inherent value of the behavior (what if EVERYONE engaged in it), or your strong emotional feelings regarding the subject but.....
To suggest that somehow Jesus was either ambivalent towards it or even pro-homosexual is ridiculous and quite DISHONEST of you!posted @ Friday, December 20, 2013 - 10:47
@mpd0.59: Do you keep many pictures of shirtless men on your hard drive?posted @ Wednesday, December 18, 2013 - 19:22
[quote][b]Colonel McCheese[/b] - Tennis champion, olympic medalist.
What are your accomplishments, other than being an anonymous internet hater?
As the article clearly articulates, Olympic accomplishments are superseded by the political agenda of the Gay Left and the POTUS who owes them BIG TIME for reelection support last year.
This is the naked politicization of and international sporting event, nothing more, nothing less.
Surely there were more accomplished and more prolific former Olympians who would gladly have represented all Americans but this wasn't good enough for our effeminate, divisive, and increasingly unpopular POTUS.
HE HAD TO MAKE A POLITICAL POINT TO PUTIN!posted @ Wednesday, December 18, 2013 - 13:55
Surprising the effeminate POTUS didn't appoint himself, given his love for basketball and golf and his dubious hetero history of "composite" girlfriends.posted @ Wednesday, December 18, 2013 - 09:46
@mpd0.59: Why do you refer to those who are genuinely concerned about a federal debt and annual deficit that continues unabated as "extremists"?
What is so extreme about their position?
How is lifting the sequestration (settled law until yesterday) in exchange for "promised" future reductions in spending help the "mainstream", as you put it?
Do you find the idea of a balanced budget "extreme"? Is "living within your means" an "extreme" position?
Why do you so uncharitably refer to those who obviously differ with you on such matters as "extreme"?
Why do you do that?posted @ Friday, December 13, 2013 - 16:43
I think there are probably two things at work here, neither of which is being honest and up front with the American people.
First, as Eric Erickson at restate.com has pointed out (probably correctly), this is really about isolating the Tea Party faction prior to jamming comprehensive immigration reform through next year (after filing deadlines for primaries but before Nov 2014 elections).
Big money donors to GOP representing BIG BUSINESS want immigration reform (cheap labor) and have assuredly bought off the GOP to make it happen.
Boehner's angry outburst was staged, and we will now see the marginalization of those who genuinely reject the continued deficit spending and growth of government.
Secondly, defense contractors are probably leaning pretty hard on GOP leadership right now over the sequestration cuts in defense spending.
The bloated Federal budget will continue to grow and those who oppose this will be called "extremists", "terrorists", and worse by those who evidently favor the eventual collapse of our economy, currency, and ultimately...our way of life!posted @ Friday, December 13, 2013 - 15:45
[quote][b]mpd0.59[/b] - It (borrowing and/or printing money) doesn't, but you can't save you way to prosperity either. The best way is to expand out of it, and you can't do that in a depression, when nearly all demand for goods and services has evaporated. You look at the choices as a dichotomy, while I see it as a matter of degree. End of discussion.[/quote]
Really? Are you suggesting we are in a depression?
After record levels of public spending and demands for even more?
I'm not arguing with you mpd, I'm just surprised at the admission after insisting for so long that we've been in "recovery".
Never have I encountered a veteran who served honorably refer to flag waving and patriotism in a derisive manner. Not suggesting they don't exist (you're proof positive if you're being truthful), I've just never met one.
And my comment regarding the American flag was not meant to impugn you. Not sure why you took offense. Not really sure why you brought the flag into this at all, other than as a pejorative reference to my position.
But be assured, those who do burn and trample the American flag will never be found at Tea Party rallies......they generally belong to the American LEFT!
And as for your self-righteous sanctimony regarding my tone and temper, please give it a break.
You're quite proficient at dishing out invective ("tea baggers", rightwing nuts, etc.) whenever it pleases you.
Perhaps you should apply the advice you've given to the GOP in your first post.
posted @ Thursday, December 12, 2013 - 14:41
@mpd0.59: Yes, I'd rather be accused of waving Old Glory than be found trampling or burning it.
And no, I don't hate Americans (as a veteran who served honorably, that is an outlandish assertion).
But I don't care much for those who obfuscate the truth, no matter which nationality they claim.
And sorry to disagree, but our continued deficit spending is a much greater threat to the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. government than any phony "permission slip" Congress and/or the POTUS write to raise our borrowing limit.
How does agreeing to borrow (or print) more money make a debtor nation more solvent, mpd?
Can you answer such a simple question?
How will we pay the bills with interest tomorrow?
How does your plan work?posted @ Thursday, December 12, 2013 - 12:08
@mpd0.59: Quite disingenuous of you to weep crocodile tears over sequestered spending on national defense when you KNOW FULL WELL that it was the POTUS who DEMANDED national defense make up half of all sequestration in the debt ceiling "deal" last year!
It is dishonest of you to now pretend to care about "squeezing" the military when you applauded the deal last year.
POTUS and your Democrat party KNEW GOP would ultimately capitulate and reinstate the sequestered spending, that which you evidently equate with "acquiring manhood" or some such nonsense.
Nice of you to pretend to care about the military but past comments indicate otherwise.posted @ Thursday, December 12, 2013 - 10:57
Considering the current POTUS has not submitted a serious budget in 5 years, it is perhaps admirable that the GOP has taken the lead in crafting a "bipartisan" plan that will evidently garner enough Democrat votes to pass.
Sadly, it forfeits the sequestered cuts from last years agreement and relies on new revenue (airline ticket fees?) and supposed savings in Medicare and Medicaid waste/fraud (yeah, right....we've heard that before).
More fake and phony illusion, not unlike most the phony sign interpreter at the the funeral for Mandela....... who takes it seriously anymore anyway?
@mpd: Grow a pair? Really?posted @ Thursday, December 12, 2013 - 10:20
That such a thing occurred is hardly surprising......
..........that the AP found this newsworthy is another story.
Since when did they become concerned about the "fake"?
This gentleman certainly put on a good show, didn't he?
Didn't even need a Teleprompter either!posted @ Wednesday, December 11, 2013 - 20:26
Simply amazing how the Left openly accepts such a level of incompetence and deception!
There is so much more to come!posted @ Sunday, December 8, 2013 - 10:23
Err...a slight thought here; the folks who are the benefiters of your rich spender aren't going to just take his money and sit on it, rather they are going to spend it at businesses owned by your rich man.
And that's really your problem with free market capitalism, isn't it?
Just not fair in your warped little world that successful producers should receive more rewards for enriching the lives of others with their products and services?
Who got rich from the healthcare.gov website, dahreese.
We know who got SOAKED (the taxpayer and consumer) but who got rich from a barely functioning website which cost nearly $1 billion (and counting) and has the cyber security equivalent of swiss cheese?
Really dahreese, this is your problem with the free market, isn't it?
It rewards the "wrong" people, doesn't it?
How pathetic and miserable you must feel!posted @ Friday, December 6, 2013 - 00:08
Summary: Fun facts: The first-ever Oscar ceremony, held in 1929, ran a brisk 15 minutes. By contrast, the longest was in 2002, clocking in at a monstrous 4 hours and change. As usual, there are things I loved about it and things I didn't. Rather than be snarky or complain, I'll offer a few suggestions on how the organizers might bring the show into the 21st century. Fun facts: The first-ever Oscar ceremony, held in 1929, ran a brisk 15 minutes. By contrast, the longest was in 2002, clocking in at a monstrous 4 hours and change. As usual, there are things I loved about it and things I didn't. Rather than be snarky or complain, I'll offer a few suggestions on how the organizers might bring the show into the 21st century. First, a few thoughts on the winners: read more
Athens-Clarke County police officers responded to Pinewood Estates North on a 911 call concerning a heated domestic dispute. it reportedly was an argument over the lack of heat and food in a family's trailer and a woman was threatening to stab anyone who tried to take away her 7-month-old child. State patrol responded also, from their post nearby on U.S. Highway 29 North. The situation apparently was resolved. An officer reported he was driving the woman and infant to another home in Athens. read more