...........................................
This is a LTE printed in the Standard-Examiner of Utah. Ms. Eldridge has hit the nail on the head!
...........................................
Pols should represent us, not Grover Norquist
By Mary B. Eldridge
Standard-Examiner Contributed
Wed, 11/30/2011 - 2:49pm
I would like to know why these senators are in office. When elected, they swear an oath to the Constitution and the United States of America. Yet, they have also made an oath to Grover Norquist, who is not a member of Congress. He is a private individual and his oath means more to them than the oath they made when they became senators.
I've heard Mitch McConnell say his only object is to make sure Pres. Obama does not serve a second term. That is against the Constitution. If he doesn't like Pres. Obama, that is his business, but he still swore an oath to support the United States of America and Pres. Obama was elected by a huge majority. His oath, and that of all the other Republicans, supersedes his dislike of Pres. Obama. If he's not prepared to live up to his oath, then he should resign. And, if other congressmen prefer to let the government go into the toilet than work with the president, then they need to resign. And, if they won't, then they should be impeached.
This government is at a standstill while the Republicans in the House make a mockery of their jobs of writing or rewriting bills. Congress says they will not raise taxes on the rich, but according to Sen. Hatch, they will still raise taxes on the middle class and the poor. They want to do away with Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Of course, they will not do away with their health insurance, retirement or their salaries, which are in the area of $300,000 while they sit on their hands and say they signed an oath with Grover Norquist.
There are some who want to limit the terms of the Supreme Court. I am in favor of that! The court gave an opinion that corporations and private businesses can donate money to candidates without revealing where it is coming from. And, to hear Mitt Romney say that corporations are people does not impress me.
When is Congress going to return to being for the people of the United States?
...........................................
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
The vile Ms Coulter
.....................................
Ann Coulter was "bleeped" or "silenced", depending on which report you read, during a recent appearance on "The Morning Joe" show on MSNBC. She made profane, disparaging remarks about John McCain and Ted Kennedy which didn't go over well with Joe Scarborough and the MSNBC staff and got herself censored. (IMO, she should always be censored!)
At any rate, browsing through the articles on Ms. Coulter's recent bit of BS, I ran onto this one: Coulter: Not worth the price of admission I was struck by the accuracy of one of the comments made to this article:
.....................................
Ann Coulter was "bleeped" or "silenced", depending on which report you read, during a recent appearance on "The Morning Joe" show on MSNBC. She made profane, disparaging remarks about John McCain and Ted Kennedy which didn't go over well with Joe Scarborough and the MSNBC staff and got herself censored. (IMO, she should always be censored!)
At any rate, browsing through the articles on Ms. Coulter's recent bit of BS, I ran onto this one: Coulter: Not worth the price of admission I was struck by the accuracy of one of the comments made to this article:
What do people expect when they book Ann Coulter? She became famous because she's a vile human being who has no problem saying vile things It's her stock in trade..
However, her ability to shock isn't the same as it was years ago because now any number of Republicans and Republican pundits are as vile as she is. Now what shocks is a rational, thinking, Republican because they are far and few between.
.....................................
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
The NewsOlymTribune
The "merger" keeps on coming.
During the holiday weekend, there were Olympian stories and comments in the News Tribune.
I wonder when the facade will come off.
During the holiday weekend, there were Olympian stories and comments in the News Tribune.
I wonder when the facade will come off.
Monday, November 28, 2011
The Olympian sure has some "great" readers/commenters!
...........................................
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/11/28/1893933/about-1000-rally-for-services.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1f3fnDMSl
...........................................
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/11/28/1893933/about-1000-rally-for-services.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1f3fnDMSl
...........................................
They CAN do it!
........................................
Wow, the Olympian's commenters CAN make it through an entire Leonard Pitts' article without accusing him of racism (unless of course they did it in one of the comments that were deleted)! Cameras in hand, citizens are holding police officers accountable
........................................
Wow, the Olympian's commenters CAN make it through an entire Leonard Pitts' article without accusing him of racism (unless of course they did it in one of the comments that were deleted)! Cameras in hand, citizens are holding police officers accountable
........................................
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Can the GOP find a candidate named "Unnamed"?
................................................
Cheryl Tucker says: Against an "unnamed" Republican, the poll finds, Obama is tied. Once the opponent is named, however, Obama is ahead. So the GOP needs to find a candidate named "Unnamed."
Read more: http://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/#ixzz1egZlTe00
................................................
Cheryl Tucker says: Against an "unnamed" Republican, the poll finds, Obama is tied. Once the opponent is named, however, Obama is ahead. So the GOP needs to find a candidate named "Unnamed."
Read more: http://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/#ixzz1egZlTe00
................................................
Monday, November 21, 2011
How disgraceful!
Whether or not you like President Obama, it was a disgrace that Mrs. Obama and Mrs. Biden were booed at the Nascar race on Sunday. For crying out loud, they were there to support military veterans, a constituency also actively supported by racing fans!
...................................................
No excuse for booing Michelle Obama at NASCAR race
By Jay Busbee
NASCAR fans skew conservative. You know that, I know that, politicians know that. An overwhelmingly white fan base, rooted in Southern conservative values (we still have a pre-race prayer, for heaven's sake) ... it's no surprise that NASCAR generally tilts right.
Which would be just fine, if that tilt didn't slide into toxicity. But on Sunday afternoon at Homestead-Miami Speedway, it did.
Moments before one of the greatest races in sports history, certain NASCAR race attendees — I'm not dignifying these cowards with the term "fans" — showed why this sport will always have trouble getting respect from the mainstream of America: they booed the First Lady of the United States.
Inexcusable. Unforgivable. Don't give me the "free speech" argument. Don't give me the "Obama sucks" argument. Don't try anything you can possibly do to rationalize this away. Why? For a very simple reason, one that supersedes both politics and sport:
You don't boo women.
You don't. Especially not in NASCAR, which reveres Mother's Day so much it won't even schedule races on that day. It's stunning that we've slid this far as a culture that something as simple and profound as respect for wives and mothers is now this cheap.
This is not about politics. This is not about "free speech." This is about being enough of a man (if you're a man) and enough of an American, whoever you are, to recognize that we should hold ourselves to some higher standards in our public life. (And this also isn't about stay-in-the-kitchen sexism. If we can agree to hold open a door for a woman, can't we agree it's acceptable not to boo her?)
If it was President Obama up there? Sure, boo your head off. Same thing if it was former President George W. Bush. The president takes the job, he should deal with the fallout and the negative opinion. But to boo the man's wife? Especially when she's engaged in that most conservative of pursuits, supporting military veterans and their families?
Come on. You just harmed the image of NASCAR worse than anything that Obama ever could have done.
Look, I get the reasoning, twisted though it may be. Michelle Obama is married to the president, and many in NASCAR nation have profound philosophical differences with the president, to put it politely. Whether NASCAR fans who break from Obama have legitimate political arguments with the way the president runs our country, or whether they're just ticked that things ain't as good as they were back when (and nobody ever says that in NASCAR, do they?), they can and should be allowed to express their grievances with him in public. But to do it by attacking his wife?
So, so far beyond stupid. (Let's not even get into the racial aspect of this, which opens up a whole different line of discussion. It's there, but let's stay focused on gender.)
So, for those of you who think that you made some kind of difference by booing the First Lady, you're exactly right ... but not in the way you think. You boo a man, he might think twice about what he's doing. You boo a man's wife, he won't ever think twice about you again. Nice work.
...................................................
...................................................
Michelle Obama booed at NASCAR race. Was that to be expected?
Michelle Obama booed at NASCAR? That can't be too surprising, right? Maybe not, considering only 30 percent of NASCAR fans identify as Republicans.
By Peter Grier, Staff writer / November 21, 2011
Michelle Obama and Jill Biden got booed at a NASCAR race in Florida on Sunday, in case you haven’t heard. Now, questions of civility and first ladies aside, our question is this: What did they expect? Isn’t auto racing, you know, a Republican-leaning activity, especially in the South? Why were they there?
Because in political terms NASCAR is a target-rich environment, that’s why. And overall NASCAR fans are not as GOP-oriented as you might think.
First off, let’s back up and acknowledge that Ms. Obama and Ms. Biden were at Homestead-Miami Speedway in the name of a charity, Joining Forces, which promotes the hiring of veterans. Perhaps they hoped the association with the military would bring them a warm reception. They weren’t there passing out “Reelect Barack” stickers, after all.
But to some Republicans, the first lady is a symbol of an administration overreaching. They bristle at her emphasis on eating right and exercising as just another example of government sticking its nose into activities it has no business getting involved in.
Thus Rush Limbaugh took the unprecedented step of praising the reception given the first and second ladies.
“NASCAR people ... know that in their hearts, the Obamas don’t like them. We’ve taken notice of this,” said the radio entertainer on his show.
Well, we can’t speak to the composition of that particular Florida crowd. But perhaps Mr. Limbaugh would be surprised to learn that NASCAR fans as a whole aren’t Republican, after all.
Yes, 30 percent of NASCAR adherents identify themselves as leaning to the GOP, according to a lengthy survey of the subject released this summer. But 29 percent say they’re Democrats.
This finding is consistent with some previous surveys of which other conservative commentators are aware. In 2008, the conservative writer and activist S.E. Cupp in an article on NASCAR’s own website noted that the sport’s “fans vote 35 percent Republican and 28 percent Democratic – a separation of only 7 percentage points, hardly a convincing argument for NASCAR’s political leanings."
Other attributes of NASCAR audiences are heavily studied because, well, they’re an attractive merchandising opportunity. Surprise, surprise – they’re not redneck beer-swillers who thrill to “Dukes of Hazzard” reruns.
Or at least, not that many of them are. NASCAR’s own data show its fans to be 60 percent male and 40 percent female. Twenty percent are minorities. Their income levels and age are pretty similar to the income levels and age of the US population as a whole.
In fact, NASCAR’s fan base is a fairly good representation of the nation as a whole, in terms of demographic characteristics.
Yes, Sunday’s race was in the South. But if you look at the overall picture, Ms. Obama and Ms. Biden might have expected a better reception. At the least, contrary to Limbaugh’s assertion, they got booed by individuals who didn’t like them – not an entire fandom.
...................................................
...................................................
No excuse for booing Michelle Obama at NASCAR race
By Jay Busbee
NASCAR fans skew conservative. You know that, I know that, politicians know that. An overwhelmingly white fan base, rooted in Southern conservative values (we still have a pre-race prayer, for heaven's sake) ... it's no surprise that NASCAR generally tilts right.
Which would be just fine, if that tilt didn't slide into toxicity. But on Sunday afternoon at Homestead-Miami Speedway, it did.
Moments before one of the greatest races in sports history, certain NASCAR race attendees — I'm not dignifying these cowards with the term "fans" — showed why this sport will always have trouble getting respect from the mainstream of America: they booed the First Lady of the United States.
Inexcusable. Unforgivable. Don't give me the "free speech" argument. Don't give me the "Obama sucks" argument. Don't try anything you can possibly do to rationalize this away. Why? For a very simple reason, one that supersedes both politics and sport:
You don't boo women.
You don't. Especially not in NASCAR, which reveres Mother's Day so much it won't even schedule races on that day. It's stunning that we've slid this far as a culture that something as simple and profound as respect for wives and mothers is now this cheap.
This is not about politics. This is not about "free speech." This is about being enough of a man (if you're a man) and enough of an American, whoever you are, to recognize that we should hold ourselves to some higher standards in our public life. (And this also isn't about stay-in-the-kitchen sexism. If we can agree to hold open a door for a woman, can't we agree it's acceptable not to boo her?)
If it was President Obama up there? Sure, boo your head off. Same thing if it was former President George W. Bush. The president takes the job, he should deal with the fallout and the negative opinion. But to boo the man's wife? Especially when she's engaged in that most conservative of pursuits, supporting military veterans and their families?
Come on. You just harmed the image of NASCAR worse than anything that Obama ever could have done.
Look, I get the reasoning, twisted though it may be. Michelle Obama is married to the president, and many in NASCAR nation have profound philosophical differences with the president, to put it politely. Whether NASCAR fans who break from Obama have legitimate political arguments with the way the president runs our country, or whether they're just ticked that things ain't as good as they were back when (and nobody ever says that in NASCAR, do they?), they can and should be allowed to express their grievances with him in public. But to do it by attacking his wife?
So, so far beyond stupid. (Let's not even get into the racial aspect of this, which opens up a whole different line of discussion. It's there, but let's stay focused on gender.)
So, for those of you who think that you made some kind of difference by booing the First Lady, you're exactly right ... but not in the way you think. You boo a man, he might think twice about what he's doing. You boo a man's wife, he won't ever think twice about you again. Nice work.
...................................................
...................................................
Michelle Obama booed at NASCAR race. Was that to be expected?
Michelle Obama booed at NASCAR? That can't be too surprising, right? Maybe not, considering only 30 percent of NASCAR fans identify as Republicans.
By Peter Grier, Staff writer / November 21, 2011
Michelle Obama and Jill Biden got booed at a NASCAR race in Florida on Sunday, in case you haven’t heard. Now, questions of civility and first ladies aside, our question is this: What did they expect? Isn’t auto racing, you know, a Republican-leaning activity, especially in the South? Why were they there?
Because in political terms NASCAR is a target-rich environment, that’s why. And overall NASCAR fans are not as GOP-oriented as you might think.
First off, let’s back up and acknowledge that Ms. Obama and Ms. Biden were at Homestead-Miami Speedway in the name of a charity, Joining Forces, which promotes the hiring of veterans. Perhaps they hoped the association with the military would bring them a warm reception. They weren’t there passing out “Reelect Barack” stickers, after all.
But to some Republicans, the first lady is a symbol of an administration overreaching. They bristle at her emphasis on eating right and exercising as just another example of government sticking its nose into activities it has no business getting involved in.
Thus Rush Limbaugh took the unprecedented step of praising the reception given the first and second ladies.
“NASCAR people ... know that in their hearts, the Obamas don’t like them. We’ve taken notice of this,” said the radio entertainer on his show.
Well, we can’t speak to the composition of that particular Florida crowd. But perhaps Mr. Limbaugh would be surprised to learn that NASCAR fans as a whole aren’t Republican, after all.
Yes, 30 percent of NASCAR adherents identify themselves as leaning to the GOP, according to a lengthy survey of the subject released this summer. But 29 percent say they’re Democrats.
This finding is consistent with some previous surveys of which other conservative commentators are aware. In 2008, the conservative writer and activist S.E. Cupp in an article on NASCAR’s own website noted that the sport’s “fans vote 35 percent Republican and 28 percent Democratic – a separation of only 7 percentage points, hardly a convincing argument for NASCAR’s political leanings."
Other attributes of NASCAR audiences are heavily studied because, well, they’re an attractive merchandising opportunity. Surprise, surprise – they’re not redneck beer-swillers who thrill to “Dukes of Hazzard” reruns.
Or at least, not that many of them are. NASCAR’s own data show its fans to be 60 percent male and 40 percent female. Twenty percent are minorities. Their income levels and age are pretty similar to the income levels and age of the US population as a whole.
In fact, NASCAR’s fan base is a fairly good representation of the nation as a whole, in terms of demographic characteristics.
Yes, Sunday’s race was in the South. But if you look at the overall picture, Ms. Obama and Ms. Biden might have expected a better reception. At the least, contrary to Limbaugh’s assertion, they got booed by individuals who didn’t like them – not an entire fandom.
...................................................
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Newt: current child labor laws are "truly stupid"
....................................................
From Gingrich, an Unconventional View of Education
By TRIP GABRIEL, November 19, 2011, 1:37 PM. 4:57 p.m. | Updated
Newt Gingrich has some unconventional ideas about education reform. He wants every state to open a work-study college where students work 20 hours a week during the school year and full-time in the summer and then graduate debt-free.
In poverty stricken K-12 districts, Mr. Gingrich said that schools should enlist students as young as 9 to14 to mop hallways and bathrooms, and pay them a wage. Currently child-labor laws and unions keep poor students from bootstrapping their way into middle class, Mr. Gingrich said.
“This is something that no liberal wants to deal with,” he told an audience at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard on Friday, according to Politico.
“You say to somebody, you shouldn’t go to work before you’re what, 14, 16 years of age, fine,” Mr. Gingrich said. “You’re totally poor. You’re in a school that is failing with a teacher that is failing. I’ve tried for years to have a very simple model. Most of these schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor and pay local students to take care of the school. The kids would actually do work, they would have cash, they would have pride in the schools, they’d begin the process of rising.”
Mr. Gingrich, who back in 1994 proposed bringing back orphanages for children on welfare, was quickly labeled “Dickensian” by people commenting on Twitter.
Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, called Mr. Gingrich’s proposal “absurd.”
“Who in their right mind would lay off janitors and replace them with disadvantaged children — who should be in school, and not cleaning schools,” Ms. Weingarten said. “And who would start backtracking on laws designed to halt the exploitation of children?”
At Harvard Mr. Gingrich promised, “You’re going to see from me extraordinarily radical proposals to fundamentally change the culture of poverty in America and give people a chance to rise very rapidly.”
....................................................
....................................................
Gingrich: Laws preventing child labor are 'truly stupid'
[snipped]
"... the former House Speaker said his system would be an improvement on current child labor laws, which he called "truly stupid.""
[snipped]
"... These schools should get rid of unionized janitors, have one master janitor, pay local students to take care of the school. ..."
[snipped]
....................................................
From Gingrich, an Unconventional View of Education
By TRIP GABRIEL, November 19, 2011, 1:37 PM. 4:57 p.m. | Updated
Newt Gingrich has some unconventional ideas about education reform. He wants every state to open a work-study college where students work 20 hours a week during the school year and full-time in the summer and then graduate debt-free.
In poverty stricken K-12 districts, Mr. Gingrich said that schools should enlist students as young as 9 to14 to mop hallways and bathrooms, and pay them a wage. Currently child-labor laws and unions keep poor students from bootstrapping their way into middle class, Mr. Gingrich said.
“This is something that no liberal wants to deal with,” he told an audience at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard on Friday, according to Politico.
“You say to somebody, you shouldn’t go to work before you’re what, 14, 16 years of age, fine,” Mr. Gingrich said. “You’re totally poor. You’re in a school that is failing with a teacher that is failing. I’ve tried for years to have a very simple model. Most of these schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor and pay local students to take care of the school. The kids would actually do work, they would have cash, they would have pride in the schools, they’d begin the process of rising.”
Mr. Gingrich, who back in 1994 proposed bringing back orphanages for children on welfare, was quickly labeled “Dickensian” by people commenting on Twitter.
Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, called Mr. Gingrich’s proposal “absurd.”
“Who in their right mind would lay off janitors and replace them with disadvantaged children — who should be in school, and not cleaning schools,” Ms. Weingarten said. “And who would start backtracking on laws designed to halt the exploitation of children?”
At Harvard Mr. Gingrich promised, “You’re going to see from me extraordinarily radical proposals to fundamentally change the culture of poverty in America and give people a chance to rise very rapidly.”
....................................................
....................................................
Gingrich: Laws preventing child labor are 'truly stupid'
[snipped]
"... the former House Speaker said his system would be an improvement on current child labor laws, which he called "truly stupid.""
[snipped]
"... These schools should get rid of unionized janitors, have one master janitor, pay local students to take care of the school. ..."
[snipped]
....................................................
Friday, November 18, 2011
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Aw, Tammy has a groupie!
..................................................
Of course She-Who has to chime in, too. [snicker]
..................................................
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/11/16/1879267/thurston-county-sheriffs-deputy.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1duQqjxEP
..................................................
Of course She-Who has to chime in, too. [snicker]
..................................................
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/11/16/1879267/thurston-county-sheriffs-deputy.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1duQqjxEP
..................................................
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Monday, November 14, 2011
Cain: "all this stuff twirling around in my head"
..............................................
Cain Flubs Libya Question
After several stumbles, GOP hopeful explains he has "all this stuff twirling around in my head."
By Josh Voorhees | Posted Monday, Nov. 14, 2011
The good news for Herman Cain, we suppose, is this may at least temporarily change the conversation from the sexual harassment allegations being made against him.
During a sit-down interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Monday, the embattled GOP candidate appeared more than a little confused when he was asked whether he agreed with President Obama’s approach to handling the uprising in Libya that ultimately toppled long-time dictator Muammar Qaddafi.
"OK, Libya," Cain began, before pausing for a ten-second eternity. He then asked the reporters for confirmation that Obama supported the rebels and called for Qaddafi’s ouster. "I just wanted to make sure we’re talking about the same thing before I say, 'Yes, I agreed' or 'No, I didn’t agree,'" Cain said.
He then suffered another false start. "I do not agree with the way he handled it for the following reason – no, that’s a different one," Cain said, before another lengthy pause. "I gotta go back and see. I got all this stuff twirling around in my head."
And then he launched into his answer:
Here's the video:
..............................................
Cain Flubs Libya Question
After several stumbles, GOP hopeful explains he has "all this stuff twirling around in my head."
By Josh Voorhees | Posted Monday, Nov. 14, 2011
The good news for Herman Cain, we suppose, is this may at least temporarily change the conversation from the sexual harassment allegations being made against him.
During a sit-down interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Monday, the embattled GOP candidate appeared more than a little confused when he was asked whether he agreed with President Obama’s approach to handling the uprising in Libya that ultimately toppled long-time dictator Muammar Qaddafi.
"OK, Libya," Cain began, before pausing for a ten-second eternity. He then asked the reporters for confirmation that Obama supported the rebels and called for Qaddafi’s ouster. "I just wanted to make sure we’re talking about the same thing before I say, 'Yes, I agreed' or 'No, I didn’t agree,'" Cain said.
He then suffered another false start. "I do not agree with the way he handled it for the following reason – no, that’s a different one," Cain said, before another lengthy pause. "I gotta go back and see. I got all this stuff twirling around in my head."
And then he launched into his answer:
"Here’s what I would have — I would have done a better job of determining who the opposition is, and I’m sure that our intelligence people have some of that information. Based upon who made up that opposition — ok — based upon who made up that opposition, might have caused me to make some different decisions about how we participated. Secondly, no, I did not agree with Qaddafi killing his citizens. Absolutely not. So something would have had to been — I would have supported many of the things they did in order to help stop that. It’s not a simple yes-no, because there are different pieces and I would have gone about assessing the situation differently, which might have caused us to end up in the same place. But where I think more could have been done was, what’s the nature of the opposition?"
Here's the video:
..............................................
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Not this old saw again!
.........................................
Cain says God persuaded him to run for president
By RAY HENRY, November 12, 2011
Republican Herman Cain said God convinced him to enter the race for president, comparing himself to Moses: "'You've got the wrong man, Lord. Are you sure?'"
The Georgia business executive played up his faith Saturday after battling sexual harassment allegations for two weeks, trying to shift the conversation to religion, an issue vital to conservative Republicans, especially in the South.
In a speech Saturday to a national meeting of young Republicans, Cain said the Lord persuaded him after much prayer.
"That's when I prayed and prayed and prayed. I'm a man of faith — I had to do a lot of praying for this one, more praying than I've ever done before in my life," Cain said. "And when I finally realized that it was God saying that this is what I needed to do, I was like Moses. 'You've got the wrong man, Lord. Are you sure?'"
Once he made the decision, Cain said, he did not look back.
Four women have now accused Cain of sexually harassing them when he led the National Restaurant Association more than a decade ago. Cain, who has denied wrongdoing, was silent about the allegations and did not take reporters' questions.
Cain isn't the first to say God prodded him toward a campaign. Texas Gov. Rick Perry's wife, Anita, has said she felt God was speaking to her about the race, adding that her husband needed to see a "burning bush," a Biblical reference to God's first appearance to Moses.
[snipped]
.........................................
Cain says God persuaded him to run for president
By RAY HENRY, November 12, 2011
Republican Herman Cain said God convinced him to enter the race for president, comparing himself to Moses: "'You've got the wrong man, Lord. Are you sure?'"
The Georgia business executive played up his faith Saturday after battling sexual harassment allegations for two weeks, trying to shift the conversation to religion, an issue vital to conservative Republicans, especially in the South.
In a speech Saturday to a national meeting of young Republicans, Cain said the Lord persuaded him after much prayer.
"That's when I prayed and prayed and prayed. I'm a man of faith — I had to do a lot of praying for this one, more praying than I've ever done before in my life," Cain said. "And when I finally realized that it was God saying that this is what I needed to do, I was like Moses. 'You've got the wrong man, Lord. Are you sure?'"
Once he made the decision, Cain said, he did not look back.
Four women have now accused Cain of sexually harassing them when he led the National Restaurant Association more than a decade ago. Cain, who has denied wrongdoing, was silent about the allegations and did not take reporters' questions.
Cain isn't the first to say God prodded him toward a campaign. Texas Gov. Rick Perry's wife, Anita, has said she felt God was speaking to her about the race, adding that her husband needed to see a "burning bush," a Biblical reference to God's first appearance to Moses.
[snipped]
.........................................
Friday, November 11, 2011
Silly man just can't help himself, it appears
..............................................
Herman Cain caught on camera joking about Anita Hill
By Holly Bailey, November 11, 2011
Herman Cain is defending himself from sexual harassment allegations, but that didn't stop him from joking about Anita Hill, the college professor who made similar allegations against Clarence Thomas during his Supreme Court nomination hearings 20 years ago.
A Fox News camera captured Cain laughing about Hill during a campaign stop in Kalamazoo, Mich., Thursday, when a supporter brought up the professor's name.
"You hear the latest news today? Anita Hill is going to come …" a man told Cain, the conclusion of his statement muffled by the crowd.
"Is she going to endorse me?" Cain joked, as he and the crowd laughed heartily.
You can watch the video here, courtesy Fox News.
Cain insisted Friday he wasn't trying to insult Hill.
"We walked into this room and ... one of my supporters said, 'Anita Hill was trying to contact you' and my response was, 'Is she going to endorse me?'" Cain told New York Post columnist Fred Dicker, per Politico. "He said it in a humorous way. I gave a humorous response."
Cain continues to fend off allegations that he sexually harassed four women when he was head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s.
Cain came under fire again Wednesday for making a condescending remark about House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, when he referred to her as "Princess Nancy" during a Republican presidential debate in Michigan. He later admitted he "probably shouldn't have" made the comment.
..............................................
Herman Cain caught on camera joking about Anita Hill
By Holly Bailey, November 11, 2011
Herman Cain is defending himself from sexual harassment allegations, but that didn't stop him from joking about Anita Hill, the college professor who made similar allegations against Clarence Thomas during his Supreme Court nomination hearings 20 years ago.
A Fox News camera captured Cain laughing about Hill during a campaign stop in Kalamazoo, Mich., Thursday, when a supporter brought up the professor's name.
"You hear the latest news today? Anita Hill is going to come …" a man told Cain, the conclusion of his statement muffled by the crowd.
"Is she going to endorse me?" Cain joked, as he and the crowd laughed heartily.
You can watch the video here, courtesy Fox News.
Cain insisted Friday he wasn't trying to insult Hill.
"We walked into this room and ... one of my supporters said, 'Anita Hill was trying to contact you' and my response was, 'Is she going to endorse me?'" Cain told New York Post columnist Fred Dicker, per Politico. "He said it in a humorous way. I gave a humorous response."
Cain continues to fend off allegations that he sexually harassed four women when he was head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s.
Cain came under fire again Wednesday for making a condescending remark about House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, when he referred to her as "Princess Nancy" during a Republican presidential debate in Michigan. He later admitted he "probably shouldn't have" made the comment.
..............................................
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Do we have the old glenn back?
.......................................................
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/11/10/1870803/loose-carts-arent-all-bad.html#ixzz1dMqni4Zi
.......................................................
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/11/10/1870803/loose-carts-arent-all-bad.html#ixzz1dMqni4Zi
.......................................................
Another GOP debate-- another Perry implosion and another Cain non-start
.................................................
Republican debate winners and losers: A disastrous night for Perry
By Brian Montopoli, November 10, 2011 12:25 AM
Wednesday night's CNBC presidential debate may well have given us the most memorable moment of any debate in quite a long time - Rick Perry's potentially-calamitous inability to name the third federal agency he is vowing to abolish. It was like watching a car crash live on television. The game-changing moment has ramifications for all the presidential contenders, but it wasn't the only takeaway from Wednesday night. Below, our take on who's up and whose down in the wake of the debate:
Winners:
Mitt Romney: The Republican presidential race has officially become Mitt Romney's to lose. Though the polls suggest Herman Cain is a more significant rival, political insiders knew Perry was a bigger threat - he, unlike Cain, has a serious campaign apparatus and the money to keep contesting race into March. And now, thanks to his possibly disastrous brain freeze Wednesday night, Perry may well be finished. That leaves Romney without a serious rival for the nomination - and will give him more leeway to shade his rhetoric toward the general election, not the GOP primary fight.
Newt Gingrich: Gingrich almost made it into the loser column thanks to his apparent inability not to seem nasty, and his claim that he was paid by Freddie Mac as a "historian" - not a lobbyist - was hard to swallow. But Gingrich also had some nice moments, and his smartest-guy-in-the-room shtick seems to be resonating with a growing slice of the GOP electorate. Plus, Gingrich sits at third in the polls, and in light of Perry's difficult night at the podium and Cain's sinking prospects, he may find himself taking over the anti-Romney slot almost by default.
Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum : About that anti-Romney slot: Social conservatives are desperate for a candidate to coalesce around to counter a frontrunner they don't trust, and Perry's mega-gaffe could prompt them to give a serious second look to Bachmann and Santorum. Both turned in solid performances, particularly Santorum, who created a forceful contrast with his rivals on the topic of government bailouts. If either of these candidates can convince social conservatives that they're the horse to bet on, they have a real shot at taking the Iowa caucuses in January.
Losers:
Rick Perry: What can one even say? Rick Perry provided a YouTube moment that will be talked about for years, and it may well be impossible to overcome. To fail to name the third government agencies that you yourself are vowing to eliminate - and to suffer that horrible awkward silence before admitting as much - is to announce to the electorate that you not ready for primetime. With one brain freeze, Perry seriously damaged his fundraising ability, prompted a coming flood of "is Rick Perry finished" stories and simply embarrassed himself in front of a national audience.
http://youtu.be/1G9p7Z0C6w8
Herman Cain: It's hard to imagine what Cain could have done to change the conversation about his candidacy, which has been engulfed by sexual harassment charges. But he didn't do it. Cain brought no new ideas Wednesday night that might have helped him change the conversation, instead once again focusing on his 9-9-9 plan, which he mentions so often that the audience now laughs in anticipation of his bringing it up. On the plus side for Cain, Rick Perry at least diverted some attention from his troubles, and the audience's reaction to a question posed to Cain about the scandal - it was roundly booed - shows he still has the support of many conservatives. But the harassment story isn't going away, and Cain doesn't seem to have a new trick up his sleeve to shift the focus, and it looks like 9-9-9 just isn't going to cut it any longer.
Jon Huntsman: Huntsman's only real shot at the nomination is a collapse by Romney, since their candidates are essentially predicated on the same argument to Republican voters: You may be skeptical thanks to my moderation, but I'm your best bet to win next November, so you better get over it. Yet Romney didn't seriously stumble, leaving Huntsman in the same place he was going into the debate: On the outside looking in during a presidential cycle in which his campaign simply doesn't seem to fit.
Draw:
Ron Paul: As always, Ron Paul was a strong voice for his libertarian beliefs. Too bad the Perry disaster means nobody's going to be paying much attention. A debate free of dramatic moments would have allowed for more discussion of the ideas bandied about in a debate focused on the economy and been a prime opportunity for Paul to make his case against the Federal Reserve and big government. It looked for the first hour or so that's exactly what was taking place. Then came the YouTube moment to end all YouTube moments, a screw-up so memorable that substance couldn't possibly compete.
.................................................
Republican debate winners and losers: A disastrous night for Perry
By Brian Montopoli, November 10, 2011 12:25 AM
Wednesday night's CNBC presidential debate may well have given us the most memorable moment of any debate in quite a long time - Rick Perry's potentially-calamitous inability to name the third federal agency he is vowing to abolish. It was like watching a car crash live on television. The game-changing moment has ramifications for all the presidential contenders, but it wasn't the only takeaway from Wednesday night. Below, our take on who's up and whose down in the wake of the debate:
Winners:
Mitt Romney: The Republican presidential race has officially become Mitt Romney's to lose. Though the polls suggest Herman Cain is a more significant rival, political insiders knew Perry was a bigger threat - he, unlike Cain, has a serious campaign apparatus and the money to keep contesting race into March. And now, thanks to his possibly disastrous brain freeze Wednesday night, Perry may well be finished. That leaves Romney without a serious rival for the nomination - and will give him more leeway to shade his rhetoric toward the general election, not the GOP primary fight.
Newt Gingrich: Gingrich almost made it into the loser column thanks to his apparent inability not to seem nasty, and his claim that he was paid by Freddie Mac as a "historian" - not a lobbyist - was hard to swallow. But Gingrich also had some nice moments, and his smartest-guy-in-the-room shtick seems to be resonating with a growing slice of the GOP electorate. Plus, Gingrich sits at third in the polls, and in light of Perry's difficult night at the podium and Cain's sinking prospects, he may find himself taking over the anti-Romney slot almost by default.
Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum : About that anti-Romney slot: Social conservatives are desperate for a candidate to coalesce around to counter a frontrunner they don't trust, and Perry's mega-gaffe could prompt them to give a serious second look to Bachmann and Santorum. Both turned in solid performances, particularly Santorum, who created a forceful contrast with his rivals on the topic of government bailouts. If either of these candidates can convince social conservatives that they're the horse to bet on, they have a real shot at taking the Iowa caucuses in January.
Losers:
Rick Perry: What can one even say? Rick Perry provided a YouTube moment that will be talked about for years, and it may well be impossible to overcome. To fail to name the third government agencies that you yourself are vowing to eliminate - and to suffer that horrible awkward silence before admitting as much - is to announce to the electorate that you not ready for primetime. With one brain freeze, Perry seriously damaged his fundraising ability, prompted a coming flood of "is Rick Perry finished" stories and simply embarrassed himself in front of a national audience.
http://youtu.be/1G9p7Z0C6w8
Herman Cain: It's hard to imagine what Cain could have done to change the conversation about his candidacy, which has been engulfed by sexual harassment charges. But he didn't do it. Cain brought no new ideas Wednesday night that might have helped him change the conversation, instead once again focusing on his 9-9-9 plan, which he mentions so often that the audience now laughs in anticipation of his bringing it up. On the plus side for Cain, Rick Perry at least diverted some attention from his troubles, and the audience's reaction to a question posed to Cain about the scandal - it was roundly booed - shows he still has the support of many conservatives. But the harassment story isn't going away, and Cain doesn't seem to have a new trick up his sleeve to shift the focus, and it looks like 9-9-9 just isn't going to cut it any longer.
Jon Huntsman: Huntsman's only real shot at the nomination is a collapse by Romney, since their candidates are essentially predicated on the same argument to Republican voters: You may be skeptical thanks to my moderation, but I'm your best bet to win next November, so you better get over it. Yet Romney didn't seriously stumble, leaving Huntsman in the same place he was going into the debate: On the outside looking in during a presidential cycle in which his campaign simply doesn't seem to fit.
Draw:
Ron Paul: As always, Ron Paul was a strong voice for his libertarian beliefs. Too bad the Perry disaster means nobody's going to be paying much attention. A debate free of dramatic moments would have allowed for more discussion of the ideas bandied about in a debate focused on the economy and been a prime opportunity for Paul to make his case against the Federal Reserve and big government. It looked for the first hour or so that's exactly what was taking place. Then came the YouTube moment to end all YouTube moments, a screw-up so memorable that substance couldn't possibly compete.
.................................................
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Wow, the "Bible Belt" got a bit skinnier!
..........................................................
Miss. defeats life-at-fertilization ballot prop
By EMILY WAGSTER PETTUS, AP
Mississippi voters Tuesday defeated a ballot initiative that would have declared life begins at fertilization, a proposal that supporters sought in the Bible Belt state as a way to prompt a legal challenge to abortion rights nationwide.
The so-called "personhood" initiative was rejected by more than 55 percent of voters, falling far short of the threshold needed for it to be enacted. If it had passed, it was virtually assured of drawing legal challenges because it conflicts with the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that established a legal right to abortion. Supporters of the initiative wanted to provoke a lawsuit to challenge the landmark ruling.
[snipped]
..........................................................
Miss. defeats life-at-fertilization ballot prop
By EMILY WAGSTER PETTUS, AP
Mississippi voters Tuesday defeated a ballot initiative that would have declared life begins at fertilization, a proposal that supporters sought in the Bible Belt state as a way to prompt a legal challenge to abortion rights nationwide.
The so-called "personhood" initiative was rejected by more than 55 percent of voters, falling far short of the threshold needed for it to be enacted. If it had passed, it was virtually assured of drawing legal challenges because it conflicts with the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that established a legal right to abortion. Supporters of the initiative wanted to provoke a lawsuit to challenge the landmark ruling.
[snipped]
..........................................................
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Did we need more proof ...
...............................................
about the laziness of The Olympian's reporters? At least one commenter thought so! :-)
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/11/08/1868756/new-plan-hatched-to-reconcile.html#ixzz1dBS7ceBw
...............................................
about the laziness of The Olympian's reporters? At least one commenter thought so! :-)
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/11/08/1868756/new-plan-hatched-to-reconcile.html#ixzz1dBS7ceBw
...............................................
Monday, November 7, 2011
Shouldn't he have thought about his wife in the beginning?
.................................................
Herman Cain says controversy reports took a toll on wife, story is now over
By Rachel Rose Hartman, November 7, 2011
Herman Cain this weekend sought to end discussion about past allegations of sexual harassment, adding that the media frenzy surrounding the charges has taken a toll on his wife.
"My wife, obviously like most spouses, actually took it harder than I did," Cain said on Fox's "Geraldo At Large." Cain explained that his wife, Gloria, like many spouses of public figures, tends to "emotionally take it harder" than the target of the allegations.
"I'm in a boxing match every day . . . when you've got to turn on the TV and watch all of the exaggerations and innuendos about your husband that you know hasn't done anything wrong, it can have an emotional toll," Cain said. "But she's doing fine."
Gloria Cain had been set to make her debut campaign-related media appearance last week, but canceled that Fox News interview with Greta van Sustern amid reports of the scandal.
The presidential candidate this weekend conceded that his initial handling of the scandal "got off to a little bit of a bumpy start" last week, but said he wouldn't change anything.
"Even though I may not have responded on Monday morning as crisply and precise as I did later in the day, I'd do it all over again if I had to."
Cain said during his Fox interview that the story is now over. He made the same point, quite sharply, to a crowd of reporters gathered Saturday for his Lincoln-Douglas-style debate with Newt Gingrich.
"Don't even go there," Cain told one reporter gathered for a press availability, cutting off a question about one accuser who came forward Friday via her attorney. Cain then turned to his chief of staff and asked to have the Journalist Code of Ethics sent to the reporter.
"We are getting back on message, end of story! Back on message! Read all of the other accounts. Read all of the other accounts where everything has been answered--end of story. We're getting back on message."
.................................................
Herman Cain says controversy reports took a toll on wife, story is now over
By Rachel Rose Hartman, November 7, 2011
Herman Cain this weekend sought to end discussion about past allegations of sexual harassment, adding that the media frenzy surrounding the charges has taken a toll on his wife.
"My wife, obviously like most spouses, actually took it harder than I did," Cain said on Fox's "Geraldo At Large." Cain explained that his wife, Gloria, like many spouses of public figures, tends to "emotionally take it harder" than the target of the allegations.
"I'm in a boxing match every day . . . when you've got to turn on the TV and watch all of the exaggerations and innuendos about your husband that you know hasn't done anything wrong, it can have an emotional toll," Cain said. "But she's doing fine."
Gloria Cain had been set to make her debut campaign-related media appearance last week, but canceled that Fox News interview with Greta van Sustern amid reports of the scandal.
The presidential candidate this weekend conceded that his initial handling of the scandal "got off to a little bit of a bumpy start" last week, but said he wouldn't change anything.
"Even though I may not have responded on Monday morning as crisply and precise as I did later in the day, I'd do it all over again if I had to."
Cain said during his Fox interview that the story is now over. He made the same point, quite sharply, to a crowd of reporters gathered Saturday for his Lincoln-Douglas-style debate with Newt Gingrich.
"Don't even go there," Cain told one reporter gathered for a press availability, cutting off a question about one accuser who came forward Friday via her attorney. Cain then turned to his chief of staff and asked to have the Journalist Code of Ethics sent to the reporter.
"We are getting back on message, end of story! Back on message! Read all of the other accounts. Read all of the other accounts where everything has been answered--end of story. We're getting back on message."
.................................................
Friday, November 4, 2011
All that new traffic.....
Thanks to "dejen2" for the illegal posting of my personal website in the News Tribune (they didn't appreciate it nearly as much as I did). Since the mods got my phone number off the site and we straightened out that I wasn't using their website and readership for self-promotion, my guess is that someone still can feel the TribMod's size 12 sticking up their ass, with gusto. (before someone does something stupid, my phone tracks every call)
I got the city of origin and the IP addresses for all the visitors....and a couple of leads for performances. A red letter day, if I do say so myself. If there is any question that the Trib has....well....Old Kardy can just hand over the IPs and leave no doubt in the minds of the moderators.
I now have followers in Eatonville, Roy, Auburn, Bellevue, Puyallup and of course...OLYMPIA. Those are the IPs with multiple page visits - folks that really want to be "in the know". None of them were inquiries for gigs (to say the least), but they left their footprint behind. One was really tricky and came through a Puerto Rican connection.....but I captured the IP. I'll bet those IPs would be hell in the hands of the wrong spammer.
Maybe....if people want to keep fucking around, I'll publish the IPs on ThurstonBlog, since the traffic has increased substantially here, also. Enquiring Minds Want To Know.
Muahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha (a few days late for a Halloween laugh)
Meanwhile, if you want a few laughs, go watch the clowns, particularly "LarryFine" play guessing games on the Trib while my half dozen clandestine helpers keep posting on my behalf....actually on their own behalf, but I will admit to covert direction on language and content. Kardnos hasn't posted in the TNT for over a week.
Many of the ThurstonBloggers might remember my old "xxxxxxxxxx" trick I played on The Olympian assholes. This is making that action look like a walk in the park. Luckily I'm at the age where I have enough retired friends and we have time on our hands......LOL
As Barack Obama would say, don't bring a knife to a gun fight....or something like that.....
I got the city of origin and the IP addresses for all the visitors....and a couple of leads for performances. A red letter day, if I do say so myself. If there is any question that the Trib has....well....Old Kardy can just hand over the IPs and leave no doubt in the minds of the moderators.
I now have followers in Eatonville, Roy, Auburn, Bellevue, Puyallup and of course...OLYMPIA. Those are the IPs with multiple page visits - folks that really want to be "in the know". None of them were inquiries for gigs (to say the least), but they left their footprint behind. One was really tricky and came through a Puerto Rican connection.....but I captured the IP. I'll bet those IPs would be hell in the hands of the wrong spammer.
Maybe....if people want to keep fucking around, I'll publish the IPs on ThurstonBlog, since the traffic has increased substantially here, also. Enquiring Minds Want To Know.
Muahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha (a few days late for a Halloween laugh)
Meanwhile, if you want a few laughs, go watch the clowns, particularly "LarryFine" play guessing games on the Trib while my half dozen clandestine helpers keep posting on my behalf....actually on their own behalf, but I will admit to covert direction on language and content. Kardnos hasn't posted in the TNT for over a week.
Many of the ThurstonBloggers might remember my old "xxxxxxxxxx" trick I played on The Olympian assholes. This is making that action look like a walk in the park. Luckily I'm at the age where I have enough retired friends and we have time on our hands......LOL
As Barack Obama would say, don't bring a knife to a gun fight....or something like that.....
Thanks to the "outter"
My website was posted in the Tacoma News Tribune, by someone trying to out me.
The hits skyrocketted!!!!
Right before the holiday party season.......LOL
Be careful what you wish for......LMAO
Meanwhile, I'd love to know who "IndependVoter" is. Possibly someone that thinks like a ThurstonBlogger.
The hits skyrocketted!!!!
Right before the holiday party season.......LOL
Be careful what you wish for......LMAO
Meanwhile, I'd love to know who "IndependVoter" is. Possibly someone that thinks like a ThurstonBlogger.
It used to be called "Journalism"....
Updated: Friday, 04 Nov 2011, 9:43 AM EDT
Published : Friday, 04 Nov 2011, 9:32 AM EDT
Published : Friday, 04 Nov 2011, 9:32 AM EDT
MYFOXNY.COM STAFF REPORT
MYFOXNY.COM - An Occupy Wall Street protestor was arrested early Friday after a violent rampage at a McDonald's that refused to offer him free food.
The NYPD says it happened at about 2:45 a.m. at a McDonald's near the make-shift tent city in Zuccotti Park.
The man, who had not been identified, went into the world's largest restaurant chain and demanded free food, apparently craving a burger over the gourmet food being served in the park.
The people behind the counter, who are working instead of protesting, were not about to offer the man free food.
The protester then turned violent, even breaking a machine inside of the store before police arrived and arrested the 27-year-old.
There have been growing concerns about security and lawlessness among the protesters. Earlier this week, a cook at the camp was arrested on sex charges.
And video surfaced Friday morning showing two of the protesters having a fist fight inside of the park.
Mayor Bloomberg noted Thursday that instead of going to the police, the group is simply kicking law-breakers out of the park and allowing them to go free into the city.
The NYPD says it happened at about 2:45 a.m. at a McDonald's near the make-shift tent city in Zuccotti Park.
The man, who had not been identified, went into the world's largest restaurant chain and demanded free food, apparently craving a burger over the gourmet food being served in the park.
The people behind the counter, who are working instead of protesting, were not about to offer the man free food.
The protester then turned violent, even breaking a machine inside of the store before police arrived and arrested the 27-year-old.
There have been growing concerns about security and lawlessness among the protesters. Earlier this week, a cook at the camp was arrested on sex charges.
And video surfaced Friday morning showing two of the protesters having a fist fight inside of the park.
Mayor Bloomberg noted Thursday that instead of going to the police, the group is simply kicking law-breakers out of the park and allowing them to go free into the city.
Read more: http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/ows-protester-arrested-at-mcdonalds-20111104-lgf#ixzz1ckqTkM5K
That which I've highlighted in red, would never pass a copy editor in real journalism venues. A combination of sensationalism and editorializing makes the FOX contribution a classic mouthpiece for anti-OWS concerns. The most interesting part was that the "protestor" hadn't been indentified......LMAO
Pass this along to your Conservative friends that say FOX is "fair and balanced".
Thursday, November 3, 2011
The nation’s most despised bank
..............................................
10 Reasons To Hate Bank of America
By Nomi Prins | November 2nd, 2011
There is no shortage of hatred for the biggest banks. Indeed, the Occupy Wall Street movement is leading a national revolution against these Byzantine, powerful Goliaths for the economic devastation they have caused. This makes it difficult to choose the worst of the bunch. That said, a strong case can be made that Bank of America deserves the title of the nation’s most despised bank.
Here are ten reasons to take your money out of Bank of America – and park it at a credit union or community bank near you. (And yes, that may be near impossible if you have a mortgage with them, as refinancing away from any big bank nowadays is a nightmare.)
1. B of A rejects the right of customers to protest. [snipped]
2. To recoup ongoing losses from its stupendously dumb acquisitions of Countrywide Financial and Merrill Lynch, B of A pillages its customers. [snipped]
3. B of A’s other fees are just as bad. [snipped]
4. Bank of America takes gross advantage of the military. [snipped]
5. Bank of America is officially rated the biggest, scariest bank. [snipped]
6. B of A’s derivatives position keeps rising. [snipped]
7. Bank of America got the most AIG money of the big depositor banks. [snipped]
8. Bank of America leads the big bank fraud lawsuit settlement tally. [snipped]
9. Even after lawsuits, B of A would still rather please investors than customers. [snipped]
10. Bank of America, despite having been buoyed up by the government, did not pay taxes, and, given its glorious ineptness, will be laying off 30,000 workers. [snipped]
Finally, consider the two reasons that any of this list is possible. One is the Glass-Steagall Act repeal, which enables banks to comingle straight costumer business with reckless securities creation and trading. The second reason is coddling by a Fed that finances and approves every bad move. B of A is the poster child for a Glass-Steagall repeal gone wrong. Lewis pulled in a slew of other banks under the B of A umbrella, making it – at one time – the country’s largest bank, including the infamous Countrywide Financial and Merrill Lynch. Now it has $2.26 trillion in total assets and $1.8 trillion assets in insured subsidiaries, $1.2 trillion of customer deposits ($1.066 trillion in the United States) and about $804 billion in FDIC-insured deposits – all part of the giant, risk-laden mess that is B of A.
Without being broken up via a new, strong Glass-Steagall Act, when banks need to find ways to make money, they resort to extorting it from their sitting ducks, er – customers. Meanwhile, that’s where credit unions, which are not-for-profits owned by their members and not by outside shareholders, come in. They generally don’t engage in crazy derivatives trades, or charge unnecessary fees for holding your money or for letting you pay bills with it, or for online banking. In terms of personal attention, among other economic reasons, the credit and smaller community banks are a much better bet.
..............................................
10 Reasons To Hate Bank of America
By Nomi Prins | November 2nd, 2011
There is no shortage of hatred for the biggest banks. Indeed, the Occupy Wall Street movement is leading a national revolution against these Byzantine, powerful Goliaths for the economic devastation they have caused. This makes it difficult to choose the worst of the bunch. That said, a strong case can be made that Bank of America deserves the title of the nation’s most despised bank.
Here are ten reasons to take your money out of Bank of America – and park it at a credit union or community bank near you. (And yes, that may be near impossible if you have a mortgage with them, as refinancing away from any big bank nowadays is a nightmare.)
1. B of A rejects the right of customers to protest. [snipped]
2. To recoup ongoing losses from its stupendously dumb acquisitions of Countrywide Financial and Merrill Lynch, B of A pillages its customers. [snipped]
3. B of A’s other fees are just as bad. [snipped]
4. Bank of America takes gross advantage of the military. [snipped]
5. Bank of America is officially rated the biggest, scariest bank. [snipped]
6. B of A’s derivatives position keeps rising. [snipped]
7. Bank of America got the most AIG money of the big depositor banks. [snipped]
8. Bank of America leads the big bank fraud lawsuit settlement tally. [snipped]
9. Even after lawsuits, B of A would still rather please investors than customers. [snipped]
10. Bank of America, despite having been buoyed up by the government, did not pay taxes, and, given its glorious ineptness, will be laying off 30,000 workers. [snipped]
Finally, consider the two reasons that any of this list is possible. One is the Glass-Steagall Act repeal, which enables banks to comingle straight costumer business with reckless securities creation and trading. The second reason is coddling by a Fed that finances and approves every bad move. B of A is the poster child for a Glass-Steagall repeal gone wrong. Lewis pulled in a slew of other banks under the B of A umbrella, making it – at one time – the country’s largest bank, including the infamous Countrywide Financial and Merrill Lynch. Now it has $2.26 trillion in total assets and $1.8 trillion assets in insured subsidiaries, $1.2 trillion of customer deposits ($1.066 trillion in the United States) and about $804 billion in FDIC-insured deposits – all part of the giant, risk-laden mess that is B of A.
Without being broken up via a new, strong Glass-Steagall Act, when banks need to find ways to make money, they resort to extorting it from their sitting ducks, er – customers. Meanwhile, that’s where credit unions, which are not-for-profits owned by their members and not by outside shareholders, come in. They generally don’t engage in crazy derivatives trades, or charge unnecessary fees for holding your money or for letting you pay bills with it, or for online banking. In terms of personal attention, among other economic reasons, the credit and smaller community banks are a much better bet.
..............................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)