Author
|
Topic: Pink skin. Gray hair. White teeth. Black heart. Vote Republican. (Read 1637 times) |
|
Walter Watts
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.57
Rate Walter Watts
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
  
|
 |
Pink skin. Gray hair. White teeth. Black heart. Vote Republican.
« on: 2008-08-01 18:59:51 » |
 |
"Pink skin. Gray hair. White teeth. Black heart. Vote Republican. You know it's right."
McCain, very early on in this campaign with close to 100 days remaining in it, is playing to a very ugly side of the U.S. populace.
The big problem is that I know from living here that ugly side is a very deep, rich vein to mine.
It's very sad to watch, but hopefully the majority will see McCain for the angry, lowbrow creep he really is.
I know in the long run it doesn't make THAT much difference who runs our little demopublican fascist state here, but having McCain in the White House would be so very depressing to me personally.
Walter
|
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.59
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:Pink skin. Gray hair. White teeth. Black heart. Vote Republican.
« Reply #1 on: 2008-08-02 01:15:06 » |
|
Quote from: Walter Watts on 2008-08-01 18:59:51 <snip>... having McCain in the White House would be so very depressing to me personally.</snip>
|
[Blunderov] Dear Walter; you would not be alone. Thought you might enjoy this fridge magnet from Buzzflash.
|
|
|
|
|
Walter Watts
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.57
Rate Walter Watts
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
|
|
Re:Pink skin. Gray hair. White teeth. Black heart. Vote Republican.
« Reply #2 on: 2008-08-02 16:08:07 » |
|
Quote from: Blunderov on 2008-08-02 01:15:06
Thanks Blunderov.
I printed the fridge magnet and tried to stick it on the fridge but it won't stick at all.
My fridge must be made out of recycled bottled water bottles or something.
Walter 
|
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
|
|
|
Fritz
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 8.36
Rate Fritz
|
|
Re:Pink skin. Gray hair. White teeth. Black heart. Vote Republican.
« Reply #3 on: 2008-08-06 17:29:38 » |
|
[Fritz]there is always another way of looking at things
We, in Ireland , can't figure out why you people are even bothering to hold an election in the United States.
On one side, you had a pants wearing female lawyer, married to another lawyer who can't seem to keep his pants on, who just lost a long and heated primary against a lawyer, who goes to the wrong church, who is married to yet another lawyer and who doesn't even like the country her husband wants to run!
Now...On the other side, you have a nice old war hero whose name starts with the appropriate 'Mc' terminology, married to a good looking younger woman who owns a beer distributorship!
What in God's name are ya lads thinkin' over in the colonies?
|
Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-
|
|
|
Walter Watts
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.57
Rate Walter Watts
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
|
|
Re:Pink skin. Gray hair. White teeth. Black heart. Vote Republican.
« Reply #4 on: 2008-08-06 18:23:26 » |
|
Quote from: Fritz on 2008-08-06 17:29:38
[Fritz]there is always another way of looking at things
We, in Ireland , can't figure out why you people are even bothering to hold an election in the United States.
On one side, you had a pants wearing female lawyer, married to another lawyer who can't seem to keep his pants on, who just lost a long and heated primary against a lawyer, who goes to the wrong church, who is married to yet another lawyer and who doesn't even like the country her husband wants to run!
Now...On the other side, you have a nice old war hero whose name starts with the appropriate 'Mc' terminology, married to a good looking younger woman who owns a beer distributorship!
What in God's name are ya lads thinkin' over in the colonies?
|
Thanks for that Fritz.
That gave me a good chuckle.
Walter 
|
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
|
|
|
Fritz
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 8.36
Rate Fritz
|
|
Re:Pink skin. Gray hair. White teeth. Black heart. Vote Republican.
« Reply #5 on: 2008-08-22 00:29:09 » |
|
[Fritz]This could be an interesting fall; and maybe we need to keep our wits about us for incoming ....
Officials: Threatening letter, white powder sent to McCain office in Colorado
Source: Turkish daily news
Author: N/A
Date: Friday, Aug 22 2008
CENTENNIAL, Colorado (AP) - Authorities say a threatening
letter containing an unidentified white powder has been
sent to Republican presidential candidate John McCain's
campaign office in a south Denver suburb.
No injuries were immediately reported.
A second letter sent to a McCain campaign office in New
Hampshire had initially been reported to contain a white
substance. Authorities say there was no powder in that
envelope.
At least 19 people were examined at hospitals or were
quarantined outside the Colorado office while authorities
tried to determine whether the powder was hazardous.
Andy Lyon of Parker South Metro Fire Rescue Authority says
the return address on the envelope listed the Arapahoe
Detention Center and the name of an inmate. He didn't
release the name.
|
Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-
|
|
|
Fritz
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 8.36
Rate Fritz
|
|
McCain vs Obama: Who will end the war on science
« Reply #6 on: 2008-09-15 02:03:10 » |
|
[Fritz]The yet another issue not on the feux media
Source: NewScientist
Author: Ivan Semeniuk, Boston
Date: September 10th, 2008
McCain vs Obama: Who will end the war on science ?
ANNE SOLOMON knows exactly what kind of reality she wants to wake up to on 5 November, and it doesn't matter who's just been elected president of the United States. What counts, she says, is that he has a head for science.
Solomon works at the Center for the Study of the Presidency, a non-partisan organisation based in Washington DC that examines the successes and failures of past administrations. Last week it issued a report co-authored by Solomon that lists several of the most pressing issues facing America's next leader, including energy, healthcare, environment, national security and economic competitiveness. At the heart of every one of them are science and technology.
In this area, past performance gives considerable cause for concern, Solomon says: "We do not have in the White House and throughout the executive branch the kind of analytical capabilities and broad expertise that's needed to understand and develop sound policy across these and many other issues."
In a nation of paradoxes, this is one of the strangest. America leads the world in science and technology, yet its political leadership often seems detached from its scientific expertise. Indeed, the Bush administration has acquired a reputation for treating science with disdain. Now, with the 2008 election under way and a new occupant heading for the Oval Office, Solomon is one of a group of influential thinkers who see closing the gap between science and the presidency as a vital goal of the next four years.
Even the most ardent science advocate would have to admit that this is not an issue likely to swing many votes. Yet in a media contest that has largely focused on character and on which candidate best represents change, science is one area where the Republican nominee John McCain and his Democratic counterpart Barack Obama are seeking to distinguish themselves from the past and from each other.
Why this should matter to Americans and to the rest of the world is clear: the prosperity and security of the US is closely tied to its role as a science and technology leader. At the same time, decisions made by the federal government on issues such as climate change, public health and basic research clearly reverberate far beyond the nation's borders.
“Decisions on issues such as climate change, public health and basic research reverberate far beyond the nation's borders”
Solomon and her colleagues want the 2008 election to produce an administration that is more aware of science, whichever way the vote swings. "We feel it's enormously important to have a president who is scientifically savvy and who takes a leadership role in ensuring that our public policies are based on the best and most accurate scientific assessments," she says.
Such an outcome would be in marked contrast to the way today's president is often portrayed. The Bush administration has repeatedly drawn criticism not just for neglecting science, but for manipulating and suppressing science for political ends. Among the most notorious incidents was the attempted muzzling of NASA climate expert James Hansen. The Union of Concerned Scientists has documented dozens more cases where it says scientific integrity has been compromised, most often where science informs industrial regulation and environmental protection.
"There has been active sabotage," says Rena Steinzor, president of the Center for Progressive Reform, which last month issued a nine-point plan called Saving Science from Politics. Among the changes it calls for are increased protection for whistleblowing scientists within federal agencies and a curb on the power of political appointees to influence the conclusions of government studies.
According to Steinzor, a systematic devaluation of science and scientists within the federal government over the past eight years leaves the next president with an enormous repair job on his hands. "We think this is a major area where change is needed," agrees Lesley Stone, executive director of Scientists and Engineers for America, which promotes sound science in government.
So which candidate is most likely to reverse the Bush legacy on science? Both McCain and Obama have referred in their campaign speeches to the importance of science and technology, and expressed support for scientific integrity in government. Both favour a proactive approach to climate change and expanded federal funding for embryonic stem cell research - two lightning rod issues that helped paint the Bush administration as anti-science.
Where the candidates do differ is in the areas they choose to emphasise. McCain has come out more strongly in support of expanding nuclear power and drilling for offshore oil, for example, while Obama has spoken more about funding for renewable energy projects. On space exploration, McCain's views seem more in keeping with NASA's existing plan to return to the moon, while Obama has tended to speak more about deploying space technology to address problems on Earth.
Yet in many other areas, what the candidates have said is interchangeable, partly because they are speaking in broad generalities. "Frankly, it's been a little disappointing," says Claude Canizares, vice-president for research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "There have been a few nice words but not many."
Canizares's view is shared by Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University in Phoenix. Earlier this year, Krauss championed Sciencedebate 2008, an effort to get the presidential candidates to debate science issues. The candidates declined the challenge but both camps have pledged to respond in writing to 14 questions laid out by Sciencedebate 2008. Obama's answers are now in, but McCain's are still pending.
Beyond these statements, the most relevant clues concerning how either candidate will deal with science after the election may be found in the teams that are now advising them. Obama actively consults a cadre of research heavyweights, including Nobel prizewinners and former advisers to presidents Carter and Clinton. McCain, in contrast, appears to be drawing on advisers with expertise in economics and industry when speaking on science and technology policy. Given that neither candidate has a strong science background, Krauss and others are hoping that both campaigns are thinking hard about who might serve as the next presidential science adviser.
"Having the science adviser in place early is going to be critical," says Joanne Carney of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "It means that an individual can play a role in placing other key scientists throughout the federal agencies." This would represent a big contrast with what happened to the current presidential science adviser, John Marburger, who was not confirmed until 10 months into the first Bush administration - by which time the president had weighed in with his position on stem cells and climate change. Unlike his predecessors, Marburger has also remained outside the president's inner circle.
One area where a strong science adviser could play a vital role early on is in setting science and technology priorities in the new administration's first budget. High on the agenda will be the challenge of how to fulfil the 2007 America Competes Act, which calls for a doubling in funding for basic research in the physical and engineering sciences. This increase was recommended by the National Academy of Sciences in its influential report Rising Above the Gathering Storm, published last year. Without such investment, the NAS said, the US would struggle to maintain its economic strength and high standard of living. Yet despite strong bipartisan support, the increases have yet to materialise.
Analysis of research funding over the past 30 years sheds some light on why change is so slow in coming (see graph). Regardless of the ups and downs in the size of the federal budget, science has consistently received between 10 and 12 per cent of the budget's discretionary non-military spending. So while funding levels have changed in dollar terms from one administration to the next, they have, for the most part, been dictated by the available resources. For example, the big increases for medical and life sciences that began a decade ago were possible thanks to the booming economy of the late 1990s and a surplus in government revenues.
Ten years on, things could not be more different. Government surpluses have turned into deficits, and figures from the National Science Foundation show that total federal funding for research and development shrank in 2007 once inflation was factored in. "It's not exactly a recipe for success," says Canizares. Meanwhile, the rapid rise of China and India as global centres of science and technology has left many wondering how much longer the US can maintain its position as the world's leading innovator.
For now, the federal budget is burdened by war and under pressure from an unsteady economy. No new pots of money are likely to materialise unless painful cuts are made elsewhere. "Candidates like to talk about significant changes in priorities, but given the current budget situation it might take a lot of political capital to do that," says Daniel Sarewitz, director of the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes at Arizona State University, Tempe.
At least some political capital will come from the sheer contrast between the new administration and the old. A president who engages with science will do much to overturn the notion that for the past eight years science has been under assault in the US. The hard truth remains, however, that economic realities look almost certain to limit just how much extra investment science will receive.
US Election 2008 - Science and technology are at the heart of many of the issues facing the candidates. Find out more in our special report.
From issue 2673 of New Scientist magazine, 10 September 2008, page 8-10
|
Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-
|
|
|
Fritz
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 8.36
Rate Fritz
|
|
Re:Pink skin. Gray hair. White teeth. Black heart. Vote Republican.
« Reply #7 on: 2008-09-16 20:29:28 » |
|
This one is for [MoEnzyme]
Cheers
Fritz
Source: TPM
Author: David Kurtz
Date: 09.16.08 -- 11:15AM
From Jonathan Martin:
Asked what work John McCain did as Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee that helped him understand the financial markets, the candidate's top economic adviser wielded visual evidence: his BlackBerry.
"He did this," Douglas Holtz-Eakin told reporters this morning, holding up his BlackBerry. "Telecommunications of the United States is a premier innovation in the past 15 years, comes right through the Commerce committee so you're looking at the miracle John McCain helped create and that's what he did."
Al Gore, call your office.
Isn't Research in Motion, the maker of the Blackberry, a Canadian company?
Late Update: TPMCafe contributor and former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt sends this along: "John McCain is so out of touch that his economics adviser thinks he deserves credit for creating a Canadian company."
|
Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-
|
|
|
|
Logged
