Artful Dodger: I don't know which of the two is a bigger ass

The Col: Yeah, 3000 of them and all attending the Sharpton rally.

Artful Dodger: "There's a sucker born every minute"

PT Barnum

Glen Beck rally drew thousands. How many thousands? Some estimates have it as several hundred thousand. By contrast, Al Sharpton's counter-rally drew only 3,000. Even left wing critics had to concede that the rally was a "huge success." But the left won't stay quiet about Beck's success. As one blogger put it, "The many on the left who hate and fear Beck already, just got a jolt of fear-based adrenalin from this event. Their loathing and inner turmoil can only increase.."

Tuesday: How so? YOu must mean by exercising his Constitutional right to free speech and assembly. I forgot that you libs were against that part of the Constitution when it comes to those with opposing views.

The Col: propaganda and a distortion of the facts

The Col:

The Col: Glen Beck is saying the spirit of God is wanting us to buy Gold through Goldline??.. Beck's sponsors!!

Artful Dodger: Does the article include all the costs involved in Iraq, or are they just (as it seems) using the war related defence budget spending figures.

.. there is also the contractors costs, the cost of all the equipment the US Military want serviced, withdrawal costs


..etc,etc.

The Col: Who's going to be your next mayor in Toronto ?

Ferris Bueller: That's nonsense. Where are those radicals? Can you point them out?

Artful Dodger: That's true right now, but we have 2 mos left.  Plenty of time for the radical "Tea Party" favorites who are taking over your party to ruin it for ya.

Bernice: Crazy isn't it. And the politicians are looking for even more ways to spend money we don't have.

Bernice:***The national debt is $13.3 trillion and that equals $42967 per person....and the US debt per TAX PAYER is $120218***

and this is only in 4 days

per person is now $43004 abd per TAX PAYER is now $120,322

Some argue that high US military spending allows other nations to spend less. But this view seems to change the order of historical events:

* During the Cold War, high spending was common around the world.
* High spending was reduced by allies such as various European and Asian countries as the Cold War ended (almost 2 decades ago) not because other nations felt they would be protected by the US — a dangerous foreign policy choice by any sovereign nation to rely so much on others in this way — but because they perceived any global threat from the Cold War had diminished and simply didn’t need such high spending any more; globalization of trade was supposed to be ushered in and lead to a new era.
* It was only the US as the remaining global super power that maintained a high budget. Many argue this was to strengthen its position as sole super power and that its “military industrial complex” was able to convince their public to maintain it.

Past empires have throughout history have justified their position as being good for the world. The US is no exception.

However, whether this global hegemony and stability actually means positive stability, peace and prosperity for the entire world (or most of it) is subjective. That is, certainly the hegemony at the time, and its allies would benefit from the stability, relative peace and prosperity for themselves, but often ignored in this is whether the policies pursued for their advantages breeds contempt elsewhere.

As the global peace index chart shown earlier reveals, massive military spending has not led to a much global peace.

As noted in other parts of this site, unfortunately more powerful countries have also pursued policies that have contributed to more poverty, and at times even overthrown fledgling democracies in favor of dictatorships or more malleable democracies. (Osama Bin Laden, for example, was part of an enormous Islamic militancy encouraged and trained by the US to help fight the Soviet Union. Of course, these extremists are all too happy to take credit for fighting off the Soviets in Afghanistan, never acknowledging that it would have been impossible without their so-called “great satan” friend-turned-enemy!)

So the global good hegemon theory may help justify high spending and even stability for a number of other countries, but it does not necessarily apply to the whole world. To be fair, this criticism can also be a bit simplistic especially if an empire finds itself against a competitor with similar ambitions, that risks polarizing the world, and answers are likely difficult to find.

But even for the large US economy, the high military spending may not be sustainable in the long term. Noting trends in military spending, SIPRI added that the massive increase in US military spending has been one of the factors contributing to the deterioration of the US economy since 2001. SIPRI continues that, “In addition to its direct impact of high military expenditure, there are also indirect and more long-term effects. According to one study taking these factors into account, the overall past and future costs until year 2016 to the USA for the war in Iraq have been estimated to $2.267 trillion.”

http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending#InContextUSmilitarybudgetvsotherUSpriorities

Little-known fact: Obama's failed stimulus program cost more than the Iraq war

* Obama's stimulus, passed in his first month in office, will cost more than the entire Iraq War -- more than $100 billion (15%) more.

* Just the first two years of Obama's stimulus cost more than the entire cost of the Iraq War under President Bush, or six years of that war.

Just some handy facts to recall during coming weeks as Obama and his congressional Democratic buddies get more desperate to put the blame for their spending policies on Bush and the war in Iraq.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Little-known-fact-Obamas-failed-stimulus-program-cost-more-than-the-Iraq-war-101302919.html#ixzz0xqZoarKo

Tuesday: I think it's just normal human recognition that as 'white folk'... we really did screw up.

Voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on all 10 of the important issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports...

The Col: Yes they like that very much

Tuesday: It was a gesture that cost nothing, but gained goodwill."White people" will be the minority soon anyway

"GERRY": We pay them back at the casinos

Tuesday: Native Canadian say WHITE MAN

Tuesday: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oShTJ90fC34

It is a measure of the corruption of liberal thought and the collapse of its self-confidence that, finding itself so widely repudiated, it resorts reflexively to the cheapest race-baiting (in a colorful variety of forms). Indeed, how can one reason with a nation of pitchfork-wielding mobs brimming with "antipathy toward people who aren't like them" -- blacks, Hispanics, gays and Muslims -- a nation that is, as Michelle Obama once put it succinctly, "just downright mean"?

The Democrats are going to get beaten badly in November. Not just because the economy is ailing. And not just because Obama over-read his mandate in governing too far left. But because a comeuppance is due the arrogant elites whose undisguised contempt for the great unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious thought to those who dare oppose them.

L’Affaire Sherrod provided a rare peek into a potential legal and government boondoogle: The Pigford Settlement. The Settlement arose out of a handful of credible claims of racism by black farmers against the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Tens of thousands of claims later, the final chunk of money to pay off the settlement, about $1.5 billion, awaits action by the U.S. Senate.

Soon after Shirley Sherrod was fired by the USDA, it was revealed that she and her husband were among the biggest recipients of Pigford, personally receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars for ‘pain and suffering’, while their collective farm was tapped to get over $13 million. It also emerged that Ms. Sherrod was hired by the USDA just days after her settlement was announced. Hmm.

The Col: Yes i agree with you there if you have a problem deal with it in private. Let the press have it & they will run with it

Tuesday: Murdoch will come up clean... as always. I thought the Patriot act was supposed to stop this kinda activity. If this Kingdom group has any links to terrorist funding... how did it go unnoticed.. I thought being a 'pro USA' organisation that if there was any suspicion (I'm sure Murdoch knows who his major stockholders are) they would have gone public.

But from observations on similar events over here... good stock movement means increased stock prices. Sky over here has been found to break rules.

Artful Dodger: ... Is that meant to mean anything?? All our major news channels over here include on a current event show, people of different views.

Ferris Bueller: I think Jon is making a point that perhaps you are missing. He's simply saying that making a loose connection between the Mosque funding and approval of it can be done with almost everything. In many cases (if not most) there is nothing to the association. Keep in mind the following: The Kingom Holdings group has large shares in almost every worldwide mega corporation including Walt Disney, Pepsi, Apple, CitiGroup, P&G, and Ford Motors. It's a global investment firm looking to make money, not spread religious idealism. If you look hard enough you could tie back at least a dollar to the Kingdom Holdings from every company and group in the world.

Also, Newscorp is a publicly traded company, do you know what that means? It means no one has control over who purchases Newscorp stock on the open market.

It's still legitimate to ask where the money for the MOSQUE is coming from. And where did the developer get all his millions to buy the property? He was a waiter just two years ago. And if the Mosque is going to be financed by Arab countries (which it is) then that information should be known.

No one is against a Mosque in the US. There are plenty of Mosques here. But they are against one being built in this particular location. It's insensitive.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

hmmmm, no wonder things have been going south!

Bernice: I was wondering where he was going with that. lol

The Col: ROFLMBO

Tuesday: Yes. So many truths are said in jest.

Jim Dandy: I don't agree with that. He's at the front of the Mosque news and there are questions that need answers. Fox is doing the right thing. You don't get a pass because you're a stock holder. That would be unethical.

Artful Dodger: Yeah, he's a shareholder, being a shareholder maybe the classy thing to do would have been to chew him out privately.

Jim Dandy: I don't know anything about him being a shareholder but anyone can do that so it isn't important. One thing is for sure: you don't get a conservative/liberal presentation of the news/events of the day from any other news outlet. It's not perfect, but it is the only game in town where you have liberals consistently presenting counter arguments against the arguments of conservatives. Clearly, Hannity is a conservative. But look at his Great American Panel - it's balanced. On many programs, Dr Mark Lamontt Hill is a regular contributor and he's very liberal. He always gets his full time to promote his point of view. You can point to any of the prime time shows on Fox and I'll point you to several regular liberal contributors.

"except for Fox"...........that reminds me, why is Fox dumping all over Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf?
He is a share holder afterall

Jim Dandy: it doesn't register on your gripe scale because you're used to it. We have a government out of control, huge spending and arrogant representatives. Plus our media is corrupt (except for Fox) and they almost always favor the liberal view. (despite your objections to Fox, they always have both sides of an argument presented. Even Hannity has a couple of liberal guests in each and every program. Interestingly, they couldn't be further apart on their views but they are friends too).

Jim Dandy: but don't forget the end of the article:

"They are probably right about the health-care system playing a role in this," he said. But there are many socioeconomic factors that may contribute to differences in life-expectancy and quality of life, including a higher prevalence of violence and unhealthier, poorer immigrant populations south of the border.

"We don't really know how to parse out the differences between Canada and the U.S. into better access to health care and less brutalizing social environment for some parts of the population," he said from Vancouver.

"So it's not clear to me that the adoption of a Canadian-style system, even if they could do it" would make a difference, said Evans, noting that eliminating third-party private insurers from the U.S. health-care mix would present a monumental challenge.

"Is Obama-care going to cure it? No. You're on the start of a long road down there. It's in the right direction, it will certainly help some people a lot, but ... is the U.S. health status disadvantage going to disappear in the next four or five years? I would bet against it."

Artful Dodger: You don't pay on a sliding scale like income tax, and you're not stuck paying 30 grand for an MRI for some guy in Montreal.Canadians have just as many issues with our imperfect govt as Americans, or anyone else for that matter, but paying for our healthcare model doesn't even register in the richter scale of gripes.

Jim Dandy: One other thing (off the top of my bald head), it seems to me that it doesn't matter if what your posts says is true or not, it's still not up to the government to decide for me how I should live my life and where (and how) I should spend my money. As for the conclusion of that study, I'd have to look into it. I'm not sure there is any correlation between the health-care and the added longevity. As you know, there are likely many contributing factors.