[SeMissourian.com] Overcast ~ 39°F  
River stage: 14.41 ft. Rising
Sunday, Dec. 21, 2014

Speak Out 1/3/08

Thursday, January 3, 2008

Took too long

A RECENT comment said that the surge in Iraq is working and that we should give President Bush credit for that. I believe the surge is working, but I don't think Bush deserves the credit. Why did it take six years for us to get something right? How many Americans would be alive if our leaders had done this right in the first place?

Winning in Iraq

THE BIGGEST news story of 2007 was that President George Bush took the advice of his generals and changed strategy in Iraq. Gen. David Petraeus brought in more soldiers and worked with the local population to decrease the violence. It is working even though the Democratic leaders have tried to defund the troops. We are winning in Iraq even though Democrats want us to lose.

Get in right lane

WHEN YOU enter Jackson there is a sign that clearly states if you choose to go under the speed limit, you should get in the right lane. That sign was not put up by the people. It was put up by the city.

Raising fees

JACKSON IS creative in raising every fee possible. I wish it was equally creative in saving money and reducing the need for revenue.

Great court plan

A WALL Street Journal editorial criticizing Missouri's nonpartisan court plan can mean one thing: The plan is great.

Wasted dollars

"U.S. HOUSE members spent $20.3 million in tax money last year to send constituents what's often the government equivalent of junk mail." I would suggest they send press releases to brag to their public about what they've done. Then use that $20 million of our taxes for something that might make a difference somewhere in our country.

Mind our own business

IMAGINE FOR a few minutes that a U.S. presidential candidate was assassinated. What would our reaction be if a presidential candidate from, say India, stuck his nose in our business and called for an investigation? We would be outraged at such audacity. Hillary Clinton just did that very thing. Let's start treating other countries with respect, not sticking our nose into their affairs. We are not one small village. We are the United States, not the overseer of everyone else. The attitude of Clinton and others of her ilk are exactly why the U.S. is despised by so many other countries.


Fact Check
See inaccurate information in this story?


Comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on semissourian.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

Hillary must be powerful if she causes this much worry. Heaven help us if we have a powerful worman for president. I know I wouldn't support that - not in my lifetime. Hell no - hey did you know I hunt? OK Lynn - I'm going to bed. **** women!

-- Posted by DickCheney on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 12:32 AM

Anyone who hasn't read the late postings from yesterday MUST go see the New Speak Out Comments rules! I'm posting it right here at the computer, lest I forget some of them.

-- Posted by gurusmom on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 1:59 AM

Get in the right lane: I hadn't seen that sign. The only one I've noticed says "slower traffic keep right."

-- Posted by gurusmom on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 2:00 AM

Mind our own business:

Absolutely! We seem to believe we know how to solve every other country's problems but our own. Our arrogance appears pretty overwhelming, doesn't it?

-- Posted by gurusmom on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 2:05 AM

Re: Get in right lane

I'm going to have to go get a picture of that sign...I mean if it says that anyone who is going to travel below the posted maximum speed limit needs to be in the right hand lane, any ticket issued to a person exceeding the posted maximum speed limit should be dismissed provided they were in the left lane. THE SPEED LIMIT IS THE MAXIMUM SPEED AT WHICH IT IS LEGAL FOR YOU TO DRIVE!!! If you wish to go faster, YOU are breaking the law, NOT the person in the left lane traveling within the posted speed limit.

-- Posted by dixietrucker on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 2:11 AM

Hannity & Limbaugh can not sleep at night without worrying about Hillary. That is all these two guys talk about. Hillary must be doing something right, she has the far right all shook up. The republicans have one problem they for got the most important economic engine of our country, the MIDDLE CLASS, and placed there focus on the Major Corporations and the Wealthly.

-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 5:48 AM

swamp

If you think the Dems. care about the middle class, I would suggest that you toss the crack pipe out the window.

-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 6:24 AM

Right on, swampeastmissouri!!!

-- Posted by iago on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 6:38 AM

get in the right lane: dixie,I agree but disagree, in a sense. On the interstate the left lane should be used for passing only. In certain states like Texas, it is unlawful to travel in the left lane unless you are passing, then you have a certain amount of time to be there.

I agree if you travel faster than the posted speed limit you are breaking the law, only if you get caught. If I choose to drive 73 in a 70, I know the consequence if I get caught.

I say those who are concerned that my speeding is breaking the law, so beit. You drive your car, I'll drive mine. Let the police do their job, get your slow *** out of the left lane. Left lane is for passing only.

dixie this attack wasn't aimed AT you personally, so doen't take offense.:):):)

-- Posted by Aggiefan/Twiggy on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 7:23 AM

librule, if you weren't scared by my friend George, then you shouldn't be scared by Hillary. Really she's just a smart woman who has some political experience and seems interested in the people of the US. I mean, she doesn't need the money any more than I did. Ya gonna read my book when I bust outa here.

-- Posted by DickCheney on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 7:26 AM

Dick, love ya man. I'll read yours, George and Condi's books. Just won't go hunting with you.:)

-- Posted by Aggiefan/Twiggy on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 7:36 AM

Re: Mind Our Own Business...

I agree. I don't think we should be poking around in the affairs of other countries. Going by your thoughts, we should bring home our military from all those other countries that we are poking around in? Do you think the people of Pakistan gives a rip about what Hillary says? Maybe there should be an investigation. No maybe, yes, there should be. Arent they sitting on a pile of nukes over there? Hmm... I guess when they are sitting on a pile of oil, then we will be concerned about their threats of "nucular" weapons? lol

-- Posted by allen6177 on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 7:37 AM

Right lane...

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C300-399...

Seems to say drive in the right lane unless you are passing another vehicle.

-- Posted by Tom_Grey on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 7:40 AM

I can honestly say Hillary doesn't concern me.

She's not going to be strong enough to carry it on her own.

And while I agree we shouldn't poke our noses into everyone's dirty laundry..

If some of those countries don't want interference...

they can say no to the billions of dollars of aid we provide every single year.

-- Posted by SuperBethie21 on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 8:06 AM

Don't voice my political preferences often, but given my IA history and today's events... GO Edwards! GO Edwards! GO Edwards!

-- Posted by coke zero on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 9:18 AM

Aggie,

Since you are a trucker I think you might already know this, but in California a big rig (for lack of a better term) is required to stay in the right two lanes. Can get a ticket if found traveling in any of the other lanes even when passing. Would think that would suck, concidering almost all merging traffic is on the right in California. And you know how conciderate car drivers are in California. LMAO

On a personal note, happy to see you and Twiggy made it home safely!!

-- Posted by Pups on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 9:27 AM

Mind our own business:

Just curious, why is Sen. Clinton being singled out on this one?? Thought most of our elected officials on that level were putting their noses in it. Not saying we shouldn't mind our own business, but it seems our business over the last couple of decades has been the business of others.

Anyone ever notice that the news reports how "WE" feel about other countries politics, but rarely see how those countries feel about ours? Except when they are burning our flag or our President in effigy (sp). I could be wrong, but just don't see the news stories of how Iceland feels about the current primaries. LOL

-- Posted by Pups on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 9:34 AM

yes pups you are correct, on 2 lanes we are permitted to be in the left lane only to pass,3 lanes or more only the 2 right lanes permitted. What kills us most is the speed limit, we are allowed 55 mph while 4 wheelers are allowed 150 mph. Well, seems that way. Of course, I dont do the speed limit out in the desert. Makes no sense. I'm only breaking the law IF I get caught. Knock on wood, I haven't had a speeding ticket in 3 yrs.

-- Posted by Aggiefan/Twiggy on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 9:42 AM

Belated from yesterday...The overwhelming majority of economically developed countries have banned hand-held cell phone usage in automobiles. United States, Canada and Sweden are the few exceptions. Could this be a contributing factor as to why "the US is lagging behind the rest of other countries with regard to traffic safety?" (2007 AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety)

Hands-free usage is widely accepted when hand-helds are banned, despite several studies reflecting there is no difference in driver performance. Some studies claim the act of conversation (lack of mental consentration) is the distraction that leads to the safety concern.

FYI Bans usually exempt on-duty emergency road service employees from the ban.

-- Posted by coke zero on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 9:52 AM

Aggie,

Would make for a long drive on the 40 if you did 55. Heck would take a week instead of days to get from So. Cal. to Missouri. Actually I did it in 30 hours from San Bernardino to Cape one time. I'm pretty sure I didn't do the posted speed limit the whole way. LOL I even followed some truckers for a distance because of snow. Figured as long at they were moving I was safe behind them. (a safe distance behind them, gotta make sure they knew I was there.lol)

-- Posted by Pups on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 10:14 AM

Did you ever hear that in Montana, there was no posted speed limit for a time. Of course you would be pulled over if you were driving insane. Remember when it was 55 nation wide? My lord, how the day would be so slow. Try driving on I-10 starting in LA to Jacksonville,Fl. at 55 mph.

-- Posted by Aggiefan/Twiggy on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 10:25 AM

Hilleco,

That would be some heavy duty driving. I know when I did it, I was pretty much useless for the next day. But, didn't want to stop except for gas and coffee. Not sure I would do it again, but I do prefer the straight through approach to travel.

Aggie,

Can remember traveling as a kid on the 10 from Texas to California. I guess because there were so many of us (11) the trip tended to be a bit long. That and I think Mom would only drive the posted 55 back then. I do remember going through a mountain range that was pretty scary back then, but that could just be a child's perspective on it. LOL

-- Posted by Pups on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 10:32 AM

Off topic but important

If you are a woman or have a daughter, please educate yourselves about the new Gardasil vaccinations. The 'one less' ads.

Summing up: it's a VERY bad thing.

http://www.newstarget.com/Report_HPV_Vac...

-- Posted by jumpinjehova on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 10:59 AM

Speeding (illegal) has been accredited for approximately 30-35% of all fatal crashes since 1988. What should be done to effectively reduce this figure?

AAA 2007 report claims 19% of fatality accidents could be reduced by lowering the speed limits again at either the federal or state level. What do you think?

-- Posted by coke zero on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 11:30 AM

Melange,

Lowering the speed limit only puts more people in my way. LOL

-- Posted by Pups on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 11:36 AM

Automated enforcement using speed cameras. I am certain that comment will go over well in here. LOL

-- Posted by coke zero on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 11:37 AM

Yes speeding is a problem, lowering the speed limit, if done should be done for both Semi's and Cars, not one or the other. Lowering the speed for trucks, but letting cars speed and weave in and out of traffic is a big part of the problem, and causes lots of accidents.

-- Posted by Aggiefan/Twiggy on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 11:40 AM

Took too long,

Wasn't this a topic from a couple weeks ago?

"How many Americans would be alive if our leaders had done this right in the first place?" Hindsight is always 20/20. Think of all the bad things that could've been averted, but after the death and carnage we learned something and don't do that again.

I tell my kid "Wisdom shall come from pain." Harsh, I don't let him fall down the stairs, but I don't overly comfort when (to quote Monty Python) "It's merly a fleshwound."

Bad things happen all the time, but at least it was fixed (?). I believe the poster of this continious topic is the glass is half empty type o' person.

-- Posted by fajar154 on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 11:51 AM

Seriously, if automated enforcement using speed cameras were used to reduce fatal crashes (verse generate revenue) would that be a bad thing?

-- Posted by coke zero on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 12:03 PM

Melange: Now we disagree, automation is entrapement. Let the police do their job. We are letting the municipality be more of a "police state". There is a big differance speeding 3 mph over the posted than lets say 20 mph.

We were in a fatality accident over a year ago, a drunk driver hit us head-on. We were going the speed limit, in New Mexico its 75 mph. I'm not sure exactly his rate of speed but the hwy patrol estimated it wasn't far off the same. The differance was our weight. 80,000 lbs vs. 2000 lbs.

The truth is we could have been doing 76, are we still at fault? No.

The point is, as a truck driver, most 4 wheelers hate to be behind a semi. Such a obsticle. We are too big or too slow. So to punish us you pass us then cut back right in front of us and slam on your brakes. Or we try to pass you and you speed up, so we return back into the right lane, then you slow down. I try to pass again, so on and soforth. "Asphalt leap-frog".

This nation has come to the point where we ho-hum let lawmakers pass insane laws, and pat eachother on the back.

Here in Scott City, a young driver from Cape visited her mother-in-law, she was given a speeding ticket for 36 mph in a 35. That is insane. Or desperation.

-- Posted by Aggiefan/Twiggy on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 12:03 PM

Europe was an interesting contrast. In many areas, the typical speed limit for cars was 130 kilometers-per-hour (about 80mph), while trailer-trucks were limited to either 80 or 90 kph (about 50-55mph). The trailer-trucks even had a label on the back identifying which speed limit they were to follow. Made for some exciting / terrifying driving with the wide range of speeds present on the highways.

Another perspective, have noticed on Indiana interstates - in areas where the speed limits were rigidly enforced, there tended to be a wad of traffic bunched up two lanes wide and 20 or 30 vehicles deep, going on down the road like a parade. That certainly can't be safe either.

-- Posted by fxpwt on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 12:05 PM

If my memory and history serves me right I believe the speed limit was dropped to 55 from 70 in the early 70's not as a safety precaution but as a way to save on fuel.

mel wrote

[Speeding (illegal) has been accredited for approximately 30-35% of all fatal crashes since 1988. What should be done to effectively reduce this figure?

AAA 2007 report claims 19% of fatality accidents could be reduced by lowering the speed limits again at either the federal or state level. What do you think?]

I think if we stood still we could eliminate the remainder of fatal accidents. I think the cat is out of the bag.

-- Posted by SWBG on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 12:06 PM

Aggiefan, I do agree with you on the possible abuses of such systems, ie generate revenue. We all know police resources are too limited to cite most speeders. (Nor do I want a @!#$&% speeding ticket!)

-- Posted by coke zero on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 12:09 PM

Who needs cameras for speeding?

With today's RFID technology, just put a chip in each speed limit sign.

Whenever your car passes by a speed limit sign, the car's on-board computer could ping the sign for information, then continuously monitor the vehicle's speed until the next speed limit sign is encountered, and when appropriate, wirelessly transmit any violations to the appropriate agency.

Or better yet, once the car's computer has acquired the speed limit designation, it will not allow the car to exceed that speed.

How's that for government taking an interest in safety? :-)~

-- Posted by fxpwt on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 12:22 PM

fxpwt, Big Brother & RFID is a little scary!

-- Posted by coke zero on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 12:28 PM

Funny Alien Bunny,

I know what...we can just start blaming you, and the voters that put Bush in office. That sounds good to me!

-- Posted by Mr_Nutty_Pancakes on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 12:40 PM

HAHAHAHAHA!!!! YES!!!! Let's blame Fuzzy Alien Bunny! as Swan says, "Off with his head! Off with his head!"

-- Posted by Mr_Fruity_Flapjacks on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 12:42 PM

Statistic:

In 1970 we lost 52,627 souls to vehicle accidents!

In 2004 we lost 42,600 souls to vehicle

accidents.

In 1973 the speed limit was lowered to 55mph.

It seems as if seat belts and air bags have made a huge difference in lower fatality rates.I don't think raising the speed limit to 65mph and 70mph has had a rising impact.

Safer vehicles and education is making the difference.Automated speed checking and ticketing is not an answer,Its just more civil liberty errosion!I agree with aggiefan

concerning 4 wheelers(cars)driving too fast and cutting off big rigs(semis)but I travel often between here and Chicago and Chicago to Florida and I must say that many of our professional drivers are just as guilty of speeding and careless driving as many of us 4 wheel drivers.We all need to remember that when we are driving 55 or 65 or even 80,one small error can end life as we know it!Again I refer to common sense when driving our vehicles as well as doing our best to obey the rules of the road!And by all means,don't do drugs(alcohol,marijuana,meth etc.)and drive.

-- Posted by GREYWOLF on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 12:47 PM

Mr Nutty/Mr Fruity???? Dual personalities? Real name Daryl other personalty Daryl too??

If you want to post twice under differant user try to be incognito.

-- Posted by Aggiefan/Twiggy on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 12:54 PM

Mr. Wolf: well put. I use the old "when you point your finger at one, there are three pointing back" philosophy. not the careless driving though. I take my job very serious.

Amen to no drugs or alcohol. U drink U drive U lose.

-- Posted by Aggiefan/Twiggy on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 12:59 PM

LOL...Aggie,

Obviously you don't keep up with the old posts.

I started posting on here about a year ago. (Under my current name)

Well...when I, did a bunch of punks on here started calling me "Fruity Flapjacks."

Like I have said before, I've been involved in politics in Cape Girardeau since the 1950s. When this "name calling" started, I had a "fellow Republican" take Mr. Fruity Flapjacks as a screenname.

Sorry to disappoint you Aggie, but there is a "bigger" picture at work here. *rolls eyes*

-- Posted by Mr_Nutty_Pancakes on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 1:07 PM

Huckabee in 2008!

-- Posted by Mr_Nutty_Pancakes on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 1:09 PM

Nutty: whatever floats your boat, have fun. I've only posted here for 6 mos or so. Just seemed strange, but expect it on here.

-- Posted by Aggiefan/Twiggy on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 1:16 PM

GREYWOLF, I just did the math, and there does appear to be a correlation. However, like you mentioned there are other contributing variables, like seatbelt laws and airbags. Yet, those variables began to take form in the late 1980's and early 1990's.

% of fatal crashes over 55 mph; figures taken from www.bts.gov (bureau of national transportation statistics)

1975 41%

1980 45%

1985 48%

1990 50%*

1995 51%

2000 53%**

2005 51%

Noting:

1974 Congress enacted the 55 mph maximum speed limit.

* 1987 & 1991 Amendments allowed states to increase speed limits to 65 mph on rural interstates and highways.

**1995 Congress repealed maximum speed limit, reverting power back to the states.

-- Posted by coke zero on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 1:22 PM

Whoops, Total crashes over 55 mph compared to total fatal crashes. Numbers make more sense when you know what you are looking at.

-- Posted by coke zero on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 1:23 PM

Hilliary Clinton is not why other countries hate us so much. It is that "I don't care what you say attitude" that George W. Bush( the W stands "wimp"), had and still has. The United States was respected much more as a country before George Bush became president. Read your history and pay attention more to the news!

You are really lost if you think Bush has this country respected by others. It is going to take the next President a lot of international meetings with other countries and the united nations just to try and fix up what bush has messed up since he has been in office. Be for real....You know Bush, who happens to be a republican...messed up u.s. relations with many countries when he had us to illegally invade other countries just like a terroist do. And then to defy the united nations and have Colin Powell sit up there and lie to the united nations and us americans that IRAQ had weapons of mass destruction and we needed to attack immediately. It was bush who got on top of a navy ship and declared that the war was over to the american people on May 3, 2003. It was bush who has constantly gotten over 3000 service members killed for a war he is trying to win, not because of terroist activities, but because he wanted to get revenge on Saddam Husse for making his father look bad back in the 1991 war by escaping assinations attempts on his life. If you keep on believing that Bush is a great president, you don't have that ability to recognize politcal games when you see them and you obvisouly don't recognize a liar when you see one. Get off of hilliary's back because she is inquiring about something in another country. Some other countries need to be investigating all the war crimes that bush and his republican croonies has caused us to be hated for. Don't blame the Democrats for this mess! I will agree that the U.S. is not the police of the world and as soon as we get rid of Bush, i think that attitude will change.

-- Posted by kadillac on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 1:28 PM

Kadillac,

Clinton is not going to win the Presidency!This Country is not ready for a woman as commander and chief and frankly I hope it never is!I recall a conversation yesterday which quoted the Bible,which seems to happen often in this media.I will have to quote the first book of Timothy chapter 2 verse 12 in regards to a woman President.

I realise many here are Atheist or think the Bible is a book of legends but this verse tells me all I need to know.This should stir up a debate for many here!By NO means Am I disrespecting

Women,I am just refering you to the book of Timothy and what the New Testament has to say about "authority".

-- Posted by GREYWOLF on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 1:40 PM

GREYWOLF

"This Country is not ready for a woman as commander and chief and frankly I hope it never is!"

That is ONE amazing statement! (The mental image of bystanders holding an offended individual back just came to mind.)

Personally, I don't like Clinton for the office. With that said, I think there are many capable women that could run the country. They are intelligent enough NOT to get involved in politics.

-- Posted by coke zero on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 1:49 PM

you who say we are winning in IRAQ and bush was right. What are we winning. oh today only 20 people got killed versus last time 200 got killed. what are we winning, today a child's father was saved from being killed, but his mother's head was blown off. What are we winning, today we lost 5 marines, last time it was only 2. What are we winning. To be proud of less death in a winless war is down right stupid and if you think that bush is right to keep putting our troops in harms way, then you must join that stupid list. If you are from the "religious right" section of the country; which most in southeast missouri say they are, then if you really know your bible, then you should be able to tell me that part in the bible it is promised that there will be "rumors and rumors" of war in the middle east areas. This war thing will never end over there or anywhere in the middle east, so Bush keeps lieing to the american people and keeps troops over there in harm's way. There will always be turmoil over there in the middle east. pay attention!! Do you actually think that if the war comes to a slow minimum and masses of people stop getting killed and we pulled out thousand and thousands of troops, that the U.S. will be out of danger. HELLO WAKE UP. The U.S. has never found the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks. They are not trying to find bin laden. He was the one we should have looked for from the beginning to the end and not even invaded IRAQ. Listen, cause i am about to drop some knowledege on you. Our central intelligence agency has great capabilities. I have to give it to de man. He has created heat activated, see through rock equipment. We have equipment that we can be up in the sky in an airplane and hear a conversation between two people who you can't even see, devices that gather all kinds of intelligence on people. (they use it on drug dealers everyday), but they cannot find a trace of this man (bin laden) who lives in a moutain area for six years. you tell me who is pulling who's leg. The american people are being fooled once again by our own government. They don't want to find bin-laden. If they did..he would have been found. Money and War is big business and the longer we can stay in a war, the more money that can be made. Game recognize game!

-- Posted by kadillac on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 1:54 PM

Greywolf: this is a free country, you want to quote scriptures fine with me. To hell with those whom it bothers. They can always turn their pc off.

I agree, Hillary won't win, neither will Obama or Edwards.

It is hard for me to choose on the Republican side, I can't picture anyone that could continue the Bush legacy. He isn't Reagan, but he has done better than what I think Gore would have.

-- Posted by Aggiefan/Twiggy on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 1:54 PM

you who say we are winning in IRAQ and bush was right. What are we winning. oh today only 20 people got killed versus last time 200 got killed. what are we winning, today a child's father was saved from being killed, but his mother's head was blown off. What are we winning, today we lost 5 marines, last time it was only 2. What are we winning. To be proud of less death in a winless war is down right stupid and if you think that bush is right to keep putting our troops in harms way, then you must join that stupid list. If you are from the "religious right" section of the country; which most in southeast missouri say they are, then if you really know your bible, then you should be able to tell me that part in the bible it is promised that there will be "rumors and rumors" of war in the middle east areas. This war thing will never end over there or anywhere in the middle east, so Bush keeps lieing to the american people and keeps troops over there in harm's way. There will always be turmoil over there in the middle east. pay attention!! Do you actually think that if the war comes to a slow minimum and masses of people stop getting killed and we pulled out thousand and thousands of troops, that the U.S. will be out of danger. HELLO WAKE UP. The U.S. has never found the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks. They are not trying to find bin laden. He was the one we should have looked for from the beginning to the end and not even invaded IRAQ. Listen, cause i am about to drop some knowledege on you. Our central intelligence agency has great capabilities. I have to give it to de man. He has created heat activated, see through rock equipment. We have equipment that we can be up in the sky in an airplane and hear a conversation between two people who you can't even see, devices that gather all kinds of intelligence on people. (they use it on drug dealers everyday), but they cannot find a trace of this man (bin laden) who lives in a moutain area for six years. you tell me who is pulling who's leg. The american people are being fooled once again by our own government. They don't want to find bin-laden. If they did..he would have been found. Money and War is big business and the longer we can stay in a war, the more money that can be made. Game recognize game!

-- Posted by kadillac on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 2:09 PM

My feelings on a woman president have nothing to do with The Bible. (or my feelings/beliefs about it.)

I'm a woman--and I'm for freedom--but I'm old fashioned in some respects.

I don't support female presidents (as we do have to deal with countries who are not forward thinking.) I also tend to believe women are naturally programmed to be more emotional and less logical..which has a distinct effect on decision-making.

I feel old fashioned in regards to women and military service as well..but that's a post for a day when I'm more in the mood to handle the obligatory outpouring of stones that will be tossed my way.

Also--if my opinion offends you.

I apologize for the inconvenience...please feel free to deal with the fact that today...I'm offensive.

-- Posted by SuperBethie21 on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 2:13 PM

Bethie, First, hope you feel better soon. Then I'll add, I'm not sure an emotional president would be a bad thing. ;)

-- Posted by coke zero on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 2:18 PM

melange

Who'll be in charge of the "nuke button" when it's that time of the month?

-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 2:20 PM

LOL..

ty Melange. I'm just feeling cantankarous due to some severe back pain..that I think may be caused by a nerve issue.

I've been stubborn and won't go find out.

I'm also feeling fairly opinionated today. LOL

-- Posted by SuperBethie21 on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 2:21 PM

Librule, You are bad, if Bethie were feeling better...I'd have her spank you!

-- Posted by coke zero on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 2:21 PM

LOL...Librule..

*shakes her head*

have you been behaving lately? ;)

-- Posted by SuperBethie21 on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 2:22 PM

Bethie

Now what fun would it be to behave? If we all behaved, how boring would this forum be?

-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 2:26 PM

LOL...true.

**eyes her whip**

There is absolutely no fun in behaving!!

-- Posted by SuperBethie21 on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 2:27 PM

You Reaganites on here surely can remember a lady named Margaret Thatcher. I think she was RIGHT out of the same mold as Reagan and was a damned well respected world leader.

I do not know if Hilary is the one but I do believe that there too are women who can lead this country.

Aggiefan,

Not being a fan of politic nor of either party any longer but I think we will definitely be looking at a change in leadership at the top. I believe a Democrat will win. I am not saying that I am voting for any I just think that the pendulumn is about to swing the other way.

-- Posted by SWBG on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 2:34 PM

I said my opinion would be offensive to some.

And I think Margaret Thatcher is an exception--not a rule.

I also think Hillary Clinton is no Margaret Thatcher. If she develops a lot..she might be able to carry Margaret's briefcase.

-- Posted by SuperBethie21 on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 2:54 PM

It warms my heart to see folks finally starting to see the light and realize that Hillary and George W are pushing the same endgame.

RFID...indeed something to be very scared of. Transponders in cars. Face recognition and liscense plate reading. Every one of you saying 'pshhh' and 'you are crazy', let me know how you like your tickets when the 'system' can tell if you drove your car 2 mph over the limit and you get a ticket in the mail. Or get a ticket because your your liscense plate wasn't renewed by 12:01 am Nov 1st. Or when you are charged for traveling on ANY ROAD ANYWHERE as a toll road and the 'system' knows exactly where you have been and how long you stayed there.

-- Posted by jumpinjehova on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 3:01 PM

Still working on fatality stats, and WOW! I have found a drastic increase in fatality rates from 1990 to 2005 linked to accidents 60 mph and over. Those years did include seat belt, child restraint and air bags. hmmmm...

1990 to 1995 6% of total accidents

1996 14% (1995 year max speed done away with)

1996 17%, 1998 18%, 1999 19%, 2000-2003 20%, and 2004-05 21%

Only other variable I can think of that would have impacted the first set of stats was Nader's charge to lead public opinion for auto safety that began with "The Nation" in 1959.

-- Posted by coke zero on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 3:07 PM

Whatever endgame Hillary is pushing is only because that's what she thinks it will take to get elected. Once in the Oval Office, she will revert to the true left wing socialist Hillary. Once she's teamed with commrade Pelosi and their puppet Reid, transponders in your car will be the least of your worries. (Don't worry poor folks, your transponders will be provided to you for free)

-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 3:13 PM

jumpinjehova, I agree scary, scary stuff may not be that far into the future. Ezpasses use this technology. A few states have experimented with licenses plates. I recall reading after 9/11 feds considered mandating states to use a lesser form of this technology for drivers licenses, but no funding was considered. I believe Virginia actually tested it, as they were one of the states who issued some 9/11 terrorist driver's licenses.

-- Posted by coke zero on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 3:19 PM

Okay, with the new stats could I get by recommending a reduced speed limit to 59 mph and automated enforcement using speed cameras (to assist policemen) if they were used ONLY to reduce fatal crashes? hehe

-- Posted by coke zero on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 3:28 PM

Vehicle fatality stats -

Consider the percentage of people travelling at or above those charted speed breakpoints in relation to the then-current speed limit. For the 60mph breakpoint given, suggest that fewer people will be driving in excess of 60mph with a 55mph speed limit as compared to a 65mph speed limit.

Also, need to consider any changes in the number of man-miles driven for the given periods. More people driving more miles will likely result in more total crashes.

Finally, higher speeds do lead to more serious wrecks, as a function of the square of the speeds. For example, hitting a stationary, immovable object at 65mph will involve almost 40% more energy as compared to the same collision at 55mph. This is the energy that will go into metal as well as body deformation.

-- Posted by fxpwt on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 3:30 PM

How is an automated speed camera going to reduce fatal crashes? It's going to mail a ticket to a speeder who will either crash fatally that time...

or who will pay their ticket and continue to speed.

-- Posted by SuperBethie21 on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 3:31 PM

That's right lib, them dems are always copying our strategies - always trying to beat us at our own game. Hey - I gotta gun- wanna shoot them? I can do it! Been there -done that!

-- Posted by DickCheney on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 3:35 PM

Actually, SuperBethie, you have been GREAT today (the smoking ban comments)! Sharp as a tack, we used to say. Keep it up, I love it!

-- Posted by gurusmom on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 3:39 PM

LOL..

Thanks.

I guess sometimes I choose to censor myself more than I should.

Today is not that day, however. =)

-- Posted by SuperBethie21 on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 3:45 PM

I see my earlier post concerning Hillary was

not as contraversial as I had anticipated.

Melange,..you may indeed by right when you say most intelligent women would not attempt to run for President.I am in fact very bored with this election year, in that, there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats in todays politics!I like Ron Paul

but what chance does he have?Edwards dwells on fighting the big Corporations which I also like but does he have a chance?If the election were tomorrow I would cast my vote

for Ron P.knowing well it may be a vote for Hillary or the Dems.The results from Iowa will be interesting for sure.I am looking forward to the end results probably to come very late tonite or early AM Friday.I think

Hillary may be in for a loss which she probably expects.

-- Posted by GREYWOLF on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 3:48 PM

Hillary, no! We have lost respect all over the world in recent years--Hillary Clinton, regardless of anything else, is not a person most of us would respect, unless it would be for her chutzpah and arrogance (despite her recent attempt to show us her "softer side," when her poll numbers started dropping).

Read just some of the things that many of the Clintons' closest people have related in the past few years. Many distanced themselves from especially Hillary once Clinton left office.

How can she be running for president, anyway? The Clinton's already had their two terms as president. Hillary quote: "WE are the president." LMAO BTW: The "F-word" is one of her favorites, but she is really, really good at not goofing up and saying it in public. Guess that means she does have a good sense of control?

-- Posted by gurusmom on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 3:54 PM

melange, do the traffic fatality numbers take into account how many more vehicles are on the roads/highways each year? Do they break it down into age groups?

-- Posted by gurusmom on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 3:56 PM

GREYWOLF, I've sunk my teeth into Edwards, after much thought. From a strategic point of view, I think he has "timed" his campaign the best, which can be a key factor. I am hoping tonight's results surprise many folks. He certain is saying many of the right things, no PAC monies, against big corporations etc. I feel he is the only Democratic choice that will win against a Republican, the other two don't have a snowballs chance in #@&!. Just my humble opinion, but many in our country are NOT forward thinking.

-- Posted by coke zero on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 3:56 PM

Automobile makers have already been given mandates to include GPS tracking (like ONSTAR) on all new vehicles as well as remote kill switches that allow police to remotely shut off your car. These systems cannot be shut off like many in your cell phones can be. All in the name of safety of course...

Google National Intelligent Transportation Systems Program Plan and you can easily find all of the DOT's implementation ideas and schedules.

Now couple that with other avaliable plans to turn all roads into toll roads (presented as fair usage road taxes) and plans to use this technology to enforce truck drivers hours of service as well as fuel taxes. Not too hard to see that the 'freedom of travel' is in quite a precarious situation.

Yes, melange, they also have been trying to get a standardized drivers license (aka National ID card) for many years. The prototype ones from North Carolina now even carry a North American Union hologram on them...even though no such thing exists...

Google North American Driver's License North Carolina to see the pictures of it.

-- Posted by jumpinjehova on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 3:58 PM

ANYONE but Hillary....

-- Posted by trekker on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 4:04 PM

FYI: Someone suggested that we ban "polls" during political campaigns. Read something interesting last night--a woman in IA was thinking of voting for Edwards, but she wanted to check first and look at her neighbors' candidate signs to see who THEY were for...saying that she wanted to vote for whoever appeared to be the most popular.

It's human nature to NOT vote for the underdog (as in the case of Paul) even if that's the candidate we like best. God forbid we vote for the loser--as well as thinking that a vote for the underdog would end up being a "wasted" vote.

-- Posted by gurusmom on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 4:05 PM

gurusmom, Sure you could find them by age and I did notice (but didn't retain them) that fatality rates of Seniors is lower now than 10 years ago. (Guessing that is what you were curious about. I read minds you know. LOL)

NO, the statistics I have gathered are the number actual fatal accidents that have occurred compared to those same sample of accidents rate of speed.

The actual number of fatal accidents has remained relatively level from 1975 to 2005. Good point about the number of vehicles on the road, thanks.

And thanks fxpwt for your input too.

-- Posted by coke zero on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 4:05 PM

guru: I think I might have one better! This morning on FOX, a woman stated she was voting for Edwards......because...........She liked his haircut.

There are some people that need to relinquish their voting rights.

-- Posted by Aggiefan/Twiggy on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 4:11 PM

But melange! Hillary has been saying that she should win the primaries, because SHE is the only one of the Democratic candidates who can win over whoever the Republican presidential candidate is. ROFL

Sadly, if Hillary doesn't win the primary, I foresee the Democratic Party putting her in as vice president. In that case, if I were President, I would be very, very careful to keep my Secret Service crew close at hand always. Foster...along with dozens of other people who annoyed the Clintons and came to a bad end.

-- Posted by gurusmom on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 4:12 PM

Aggie and she probably laughed and thought it was funny.

-- Posted by DickCheney on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 4:12 PM

gurusmom - I thought I was the only one who shot someone while still in office.

-- Posted by DickCheney on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 4:14 PM

LOL What, you calling me OLD? Actually, melange, having two granddaughters who now drive, I was more interested in teen statistics. There is NO WAY I would ride with the oldest g.daughter! YIKES

-- Posted by gurusmom on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 4:15 PM

gurusmom, Interesting...I haven't thought that far ahead yet, who would Edwards pick? Who would I want Edwards to pick? Maybe Biden.

Oh, correction on my Sr. statment, lower fatal accident rate.

-- Posted by coke zero on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 4:15 PM

OMG, Aggie!...She liked his haircut...Dying laughing here!

Yep, that lady (and no doubt many others like her) should be locked in her home on election day!

Did you know: We all have the right to vote, even the mentally incapacitated. My mother casts her vote, and then casts her vote in my handicapped brother's name (he's mentally 5-years-old). He doesn't even know he's a staunch Democrat! LOL

-- Posted by gurusmom on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 4:21 PM

melange: Your analysis of fatal automobile crash numbers is flawed because you failed to account for the continual decline in fatalities during the period you looked at.

Just from 1994-2006 the number of Fatalities per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled has dropped nearly 25%. If you go all the way back to 1967 per mile driven the fatality rate was over 300% higher than today.

It does not appear to be the case that higher speeds have resulted in more accidents, but that a greater focus on safety has resulted in a decrease in all accidents. Low speed accidents are most likely to decrease the most sharply due to physics. Thus the number of high speed accidents appear to rise as a percentage, even though they too are on the decline per mile driven.

So the drastic increase in fatal accidents at high speeds that you believe you found is really just a slower decline.

-- Posted by Nil on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 4:22 PM

Nope, Dick, you are not alone...sorry. :)

-- Posted by gurusmom on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 4:24 PM

gurusmom,

Click on the following link (mid-center page); search for teen.

2006 Traffic Fatalities and Injuries Assessments (PDF)

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/

-- Posted by coke zero on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 4:25 PM

Nil, hmmm...interesting comment, but my annual numbers were taken directly from Burearu of Transportation Statistics 2006 report. Can you provide me with a link that reflects your point?

-- Posted by coke zero on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 4:27 PM

Nil, I see where you are coming from. I compared ACTUAL number of accidents that occured and their rate of speed; NOT "the number of Fatalities per 100 Million Vehicle Miles".

Would like to see your reference, as I am curious to look at this topic from all angels.

-- Posted by coke zero on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 4:30 PM

Hilleco,Im going to have to agree with your last post.My vote will indeed go to the "true Republican"!Ron Paul.If he could muster up 20% of the popular vote in this country a HUGE STATEMENT would be made!His

internet following is incredible as is his contributions.All we need now is to hope that these voters get off their azzes and vote!!More folks need to have a closer look at this Man,his mission statement and thoughts reflect many that I have heard from several folks in here!

-- Posted by GREYWOLF on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 4:53 PM

GREYWOLF, I agree and give Ron Paul credit for the true "grassroots" campaigning. His followers seem true blue, and will vote. He could be the next Jimmy Carter, you never know. (But I can't vote for him, I disagree with his positions.)

-- Posted by coke zero on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 4:56 PM

The masses do and think as the media tell them, and as the media is ignoring Ron Paul, so will the masses. Easier for Katie Couric and company to tell us what to believe than to figure it out for ourselves. I too wish Ron had a snowballs chance in hell of winning.

-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 5:00 PM

hilleco, Thanks sir!

-- Posted by coke zero on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 5:06 PM

Be carefull with Ron Paul, appeasing runs in his blood.

And whoever thinks that to vote for Hillary will continue the path of GW is foolish.

The excuses I have heard to vote for certain candidates have been absurd.

How in the world these people get up in the morning and function throughout the day is beyond me.

-- Posted by Aggiefan/Twiggy on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 5:20 PM

Thd non-stop, Iowa cacus news on all the news channels, filling up their entire newscast has me mind numbed and pee-o-ed. I am so sick of this constant posturing, and promoting of the candicates that the elite and media want us to choose as "our" choice for president.

The only wasted vote, is a vote for the someone elses choice, and not yours. When you give in to the appeal of "your guy can't win, change your vote to _____," then you lose. It's so plain and simple, but it seems that Americans cannot understand that when you vote for the lesser of two evils, you still get an evil. If you do vote for the lesser of two evils, and not your original choice, your voice is never heard. Gurusmom said about the same thing, and it is true. I don't know why Amricans are so stupid, perhaps it is the flurodide in the water, the chemtrails, the smog in the air, climate warming, an old Indian curse, or, perhaps, Americans are just being bred to be stupid.

-- Posted by Brill on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 6:12 PM

Aggie,

Those type of statements don't suprise me. I had someone tell me in 2004 that the reason they were voting for Bush was because he had been married to the same woman. This coming from a divorced person. They actually told me that President Bush was better then they were because of this. (Not saying some don't believe in Divorce, but I don't think it makes a person bad.)

I don't have a problem if you choice to vote differently then I do, just have a valid point for voting or not voting for someone. I don't concider the race or sex of a person is a reason not to vote for them.

Sorry, Greywolf, you knew we disagreed on this one. :-)

-- Posted by Pups on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 6:21 PM

hilleco: sarcasm? My comments wasn't to any here. My apology to those who think that. I, at times, putting my pants on one leg at a time.. At times..

-- Posted by Aggiefan/Twiggy on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 6:32 PM

A couple years ago, Jay Leno did one of his famous JAY WALKING segments. He chose two attractive, middle-aged, well dressed women. One said that she had voted for Bush. When asked who his opponent was, she responded "the other guy." When the other woman was asked who she had voted for, she said "the Democrat." She could not name him. Both of these women are the kind of women who you would find in some of Cape's better subdivisions. It isn't the poor and the ignorant who become complete idiots when they vote.

Edwards? Sure, he talks like a populist. Going to get after those bad ole corporations, etc. But, here is a fact about Johnny. John Edwards went to the secretive, elitist, Bilderberger meeting in Europe in 2004. He made a speech that the Bilderberges really liked. When he returned to the US, John Kerry, who had been in a quandary over who he would select as his VP running mate, immediately picked Edwards. Anyone who has been to Davos, attended a Bilderberger meeting, is a member of the CFR, has participated in the drafting, or, otherwise been involved in the North American Union, is my mortal enemy. I have no enemies in Iraq, Iran, or, Afghanistan. All of my enemies and the enemies of my nation are much closer at hand.

If you like Ron Paul, but won't vote for him because you have been led to believe by the media that he doesn't have a snow ball's chance in Hell, then he surely will not win. You must vote your conviction. The differences between Giuliani and Hillary are there, but they are minute. Same with Huckabee and Obama. They are minute differences. 2008 is a watershed year. You will see many things happen in the US that you would have never thought would, or, could happen here. The fact that Ron Paul has been excluded from the Fox debate in New Hampshire, while lesser polled and lesser financed have been included, is evidence that the elitists are concerned about his appeal.

Joe Biden? Joe Biden is the US Senator who wrote anti-terrorism legislation before America had terror. He was laughed at by both sides of Congress. Just as 9-11 catapulted Bill Clinton's Homeland Defense plan into being as George Bush's Homeland Security bill, Biden's legislation was immediately enacted following the fortuitous bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City. I am somewhat suspicious of people who draft legislation that requires a Pearl Harbor like event to get it passed, and then that Pearl Harbor event conveniently occurs.

Biden and Liebermann cooperated on the Council on Foreign Relations plan that Clinton called Homeland Defense. I trust not one of them.

If you didn't get AK mags, ammo, or, a gas mask in your Christmas stocking this year, then, now is the time to put in a hint for your birthday. 2008 is going to be a rough ride.

Just my opinion.

-- Posted by Brill on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 6:32 PM

I am a Republican also, just never agreed with Dr. Paul.

-- Posted by Aggiefan/Twiggy on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 6:34 PM

Ron Paul is not an appeaser. There is no validity to that statement. Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist, which has the neocons, the elitists, the globalists, the New World Order crowd concerned.

If you want to hear Ron Paul, he will be a talk show guest on something called the Alex Jones program. I got an email saying that Dr. Paul will be on the program on Friday. The program airs live from 11am-2pm, then, I understand that it is repeated for something like 24 hours until the next new show. Thst means that it should be avialble for all of Saturday, and most of Sunday.

Here is the site that I received for Friday's broadcast with Ron Paul. http://www.infowars.com They said to select the "listen live: button which is supposed to be at the top of the page on the right. I have downloaded WINAMP, which is free at http://www.download.com, because they said that it makes it easy to listen to that site.

I would like for Mr. Paul to say that he is for FAIR trade, rather than FREE trade, but other than that, he seems to be the only candidate whom I can vote for and maintain my beliefs in a free America.

-- Posted by Brill on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 6:40 PM

Winning in Iraq

No, President Bush didn't take the advice of his Generals concerning Iraq. Bush went out and found a toadie General who has ambition for a position in the Pentagon, a political climber, General Betrayus.

Bush, then, went back to his old friends at Israel's #2 lobbying group in the US, the American Enterprise Institute. The sided up with Danielle Pletka, a radical, extremist neocon, and Zionist, and her side kick, Frederick Kagan, who wears the same ugly description that she does. They are the ones who came up for the plan to stay in Iraq for the long term, and the so-called surge plan. They are the radical Israeli component in the slaughter of innocent Iraqi's and Afghans. They now lobby for an attack upon Iran. They are plain nuts, but, they are not alone. Yet, they do not serve in the military, which they committed to the war against the Iraqi people. They value their lives, but not those of our trooops, nor, the Iraqis.

-- Posted by Brill on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 6:50 PM

More "Winning in Iraq"

Neocon Propaganda, globalist words are cheap. Reality is a *****.

"US forces face fighting between rival pro-American factions."

In a dispatch posted at 6:10pm Baghdad time Thursday evening, the Yaqen News Agency reported that the fighting that raged between the puppet "Iraqi National Guard" and the collaborationist Sunni "Awakening" forces in the area of the Abu Hanifah Mosque in Baghdad's al-A'zamiyah district on Wednesday night eventually required the direct intervention of US Rapid Deployment Forces.

Yaqen reported that an American helicopter was observed flying at very low altitude over the area where the fighting was taking place between the rival pro-American elements -- the Shi'i puppet "National Guards" and the Sunni collaborators.

The fighting later spilled over into neighboring areas when armed men attacked a US patrol in the as-Salikh area near al-A'zamiyah on Thursday morning. Two men in the patrol were reported killed and the entire district was sealed off. US forces then began raids of houses in the area."

-- Posted by Brill on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 6:52 PM

Mr. Fletcher, save your long winded bulls*&^ for someone who cares.

Ron Paul is an appeaser, he is a whiner, he is an insult to the Republican party. A little like you.

You can throw out all the websites you want, I could care less.

Growing up and living in Texas until 6 yrs ago, I have followed Dr. Paul. That doesnt make me an expert or qualify me to write his autobiography. But I also don't need to write a 1000 word essay here, rambling to sound as if everything I say is law as You do.

-- Posted by Aggiefan/Twiggy on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 6:56 PM

Hilleco,

Obviously it isn't just the Liberal Ivy Leaguers that have a problem. Obviously the Conservatives didn't want to cut spending the last 7 years either.

-- Posted by Pups on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 7:02 PM

The "Winning in Iraq" continues.

"Resistance fighters ambush convoy hauling US goods outside al-Habbaniyah Thursday evening."

"In a dispatch posted at 9:10pm Baghdad time Thursday night, the Yaqen News Agency reported that Iraqi Resistance fighters attacked a column of civilian trucks hauling provisions for the US occupation forces in the al-Habbaniyah area, about 70km west of Baghdad, on Thursday evening.

Yaqen reported eyewitnesses as saying that a large column of trucks that was heading out of al-Habbaniyah was ambushed by the Iraqi Resistance Thursday evening. The attackers burned two of the trucks and heavily damaged three more of them.

Upon hearing the sound of US aircraft approaching, the Resistance men withdrew from the area leaving behind the blazing and wrecked truck convoy"

There is plenty of news coming out of occupied Iraq, it just isn't what the controlled media wants you to hear. Sure, there seems to be fewer Americans and Iraqi's killed, but it seems to me that the Iraqi Resistance is making the most of this so-called Surge to select their targerts carefully.

The Iraqi Reistance forces have killed many of the puppet government during this time, or, at least sent them messages via attacks that they will not forget.

There are over 70,000 Iraqi citizens in US operated prisons. They are not the dead enders, or, even Al Qaeda, they are regular, patriotic Iraqi's who will not put up with a long term occupation of their country, as we would do the same if that situation occured here.

-- Posted by Brill on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 7:07 PM

hilleco

Did you see the hour long Glen Beck interview with Ron Paul? I recorded it. Ron Paul can answer the tough questions, from tough questioners. "Face the Nation" Bob crapped all over him, the same morning that Bob was huggy,kissy with Huckabee. The media is attempting to steer public opinion toward a candidate that they have already approved.

Pups is right, as well. There was no attempt by the loudmouth Republicans to seriously cut our taxes, excpet for the very wealthy. (did you enjoy your $7.00 tax cut?) That was the average for a person making $30,000, or, so a year. $7.00 won't buy a six pack of Mexican beer at Schnucks. Which brings up another point. Why is a six pack of Mexican beer, made with cheap, cheap labor, nearly $9.00?

Do the Republicans fund like crazy the National Endowment for the Arts? You bet they do, even though they had promised to kill the program. They spend more on it than Clinton did.

Money is power. Neither party wants to relinquish power, especially, if that power would transfer to the people.

-- Posted by Brill on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 7:17 PM

Hilleco,

Sorry, I was busting your chops a little. Actually was waiting for the Scoop Jackson Defense. Well defense is not the correct word. Explaination would be better.

I know what you are saying, they almost all seem to be the same.

-- Posted by Pups on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 7:25 PM

Hey Pups,is lunch on for tomorrow? Haven't heard from melange.

-- Posted by Aggiefan/Twiggy on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 7:33 PM

Hey Pups,is lunch on for tomorrow? Haven't heard from melange.

-- Posted by Aggiefan/Twiggy on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 7:39 PM

Aggie,

As far as I know, lunch is still a go. I think we might be sitting in the nonsmoking side. Librule is trying to quit.

-- Posted by Pups on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 7:47 PM

Aggiefan, Yes lunch, same place and time, NON-smoking section to the left.

GO Edwards! (Hang in there!) Seems some political analysis may not take into account how the IA Democratic Caucuses work?

-- Posted by coke zero on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 7:52 PM

Right, Librule. FOX News not including Ron Paul in the next debate? That's way out of line (they don't have "room" for him).

A few things I like about Ron Paul is his belief in our Constitution...his belief that racial preferences & profiling should end (been my belief for over 20 years that racial programs/preferences are our government's way of holding back the advancement of many blacks)...that people know better how to spend their money than government does...opposition to "free trade deals" such as NAFTA...no amnesty or welfare for illegals & enforcing our Visa Laws...One or 2 I don't agree with, but no one candidate will do everything my way. LOL

-- Posted by gurusmom on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 7:53 PM

Gurusmom,

Forgot to thank you for abiding by the new rules. LOL

Actually surprised I didn't get more flack for them from others. :-)

As for Ron Paul, thought I would look into him when all this started. But, as much as there are some of his stances I like, there are too many that I just can't get behind. Sorry, I just don't see him as my saviour. (Sorry had to get that one in just for fun.)

-- Posted by Pups on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 8:01 PM

OMG, Fletcher, did you HAVE to mention Endowment for the Arts? One of my (many) irritations over what our government spends our money on!

Wouldn't it be great to scrap just about every department & program in our government, and start all over...first making a law that any dept/program must actually benefit our country? Sorry, I know better than that...sigh...

-- Posted by gurusmom on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 8:06 PM

The Endowment for the Arts can't be all bad. They are the ones that set up and published,

"OPERATION HOMECOMING

Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Home Front in the Words of U.S. Troops and Their Families"

From the brief knowledge I have of this project, it isn't in support or opposition to the war. Just stories from returning soldiers, their families, and families of those that gave their lives while fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

-- Posted by Pups on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 8:14 PM

Well, PUPS "...there are too many that I just can't get behind" tell US! I'm doing my best to garner all the info on candidates I'm considering voting for, and that includes the pros AND the cons!

Unfortunately, part of what is wrong with this country is that so many people pick their candidate without having all (or hardly any) of the facts. It's tough, especially when the media is always fighting for whoever their favorite candidate is...but good grief! To vote for someone because one agrees with one or two issues, disregarding the whole "picture," is...ummm, should I say it?...dumb! And irresponsible.

I see that Paul is anti-abortion. So am I; however, that would never be a deciding factor in how I vote. Does that make sense? Of course, neither would I vote for a woman just because I am a woman, or a Republican or Democrat just because of the party.

-- Posted by gurusmom on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 8:18 PM

PUPS, I always abide by the rules...Well, usually I do...Okay, sometimes I do! Most clever of you, and way too funny! Looking forward to the next set of Rules...maybe regarding politics? LOL

-- Posted by gurusmom on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 8:20 PM

Gurusmom,

By no way do I intend this to be rude, but I would rather discuss my reasons about Dr Paul in person. They are my personal reasons that don't need to be aired on this particular forum. Though I can say the stance you agree with him on, I do not. But, that is not the only reason.

-- Posted by Pups on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 8:25 PM

Yes, some good has come out of NEA, PUPS...but for the most part it really is a welfare program. Wish I'd applied for the money from them to make a quilt instead of having to work in an office for a year. Like an extended vacation?

I envy artists their talent: I just don't believe that we taxpayers should be paying for them to be artistic. Not seeing it as a program that aids the country or its citizens--except for the artists. What was the religious art that caused such a furor a few years ago--anyone recall?

-- Posted by gurusmom on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 8:27 PM

Gurusmom,

Well if I would have a list of rules for political posts I would probably break the first rule about them not being more then 1000 words. LMAO

-- Posted by Pups on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 8:29 PM

Oh, no, PUPS! Don't think I can make the lunch tomorrow, and really, really want to hear what you have to say!

Oh, well, guess it'll be a while before voting time.

Who mentioned the other day that maybe we could do an evening meeting for the group? Maybe once a month? But know that's probably not possible, as evenings are family time, & some have night jobs.

-- Posted by gurusmom on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 8:31 PM

I was just playing with you Gurusmom. I don't agree with all that the Endowment does. Like most programs, it started out with good intentions, but eventually gets morphed into something totally different.

-- Posted by Pups on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 8:31 PM

"I was just playing with you Gurusmom" You gotta quit that, PUPS...LOL...It's so great to have something light & humorous on here now and again, though.

Okay, your task now is Political Rules which are the same length as the Religious Rules...You can do it!

Yes...probably most of our govt. programs started out as a good idea (okay, SOME of them)...and our pols just cannot bring themselves to leave them alone then! Look at what happened to the Earned Income Credit...which began as a way to encourage single mothers to go to work...and now includes single people.

-- Posted by gurusmom on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 8:41 PM

OPertion Homecoming is not a worthwile expenditure of my tax dollars. It is mostlsy hype. As one magazine asked...

"would Operation Homecoming let a soldier like Sean Haze be part of it? "Months have passed since I've been back home," writes Prt. Haze, ... "and the unfortunate conclusion I've come to is that Bush is a lying, manipulative motherf**ker who cares nothing for the lives of those of us who serve in uniform." If the story of the Iraq disaster is to be told, Pvt. Haze would have to be in it, and so would the crimes in Abu Ghraib, as well as the adventures of various "contractors," the shadowy part of our nation that includes foreign mercenaries with vast wartime experience in South African death squads or Serbian ethnic-cleansing militias."

Nope, I doubt very much that Pvt. Sean Haze or thousands of others, with similar opinions, had their "submissions' selected.

Propaganda doesn't work like that. After all that low life Paul Wolfowitz had a little bit of a hand in Operation Homecoming, so, the truth, as told by thousands of other soldiers would not be heard because they didn't glorify the neocons war.

Stop spending my tax dollars on worthless ventures, or, else.

-- Posted by Brill on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 8:49 PM

Gurusmom,

Since you won't be able to make it tomorrow here is a short list of pros and cons for Ron Paul. Please everyone, this my personal opinion and not trying to change anyone's mind on their stance for or against Dr Paul.

Pros:

Tighter boarder Security, ending welfare to Illegals, Against New government spending, apposes the Patriot Act.

Cons:

Pro-life, wants to Withdrawl from the UN and NATO, wants to eliminate fed regulation of Death penalty, eliminate fed regulation of Education, and voted against adoption for non married parents (same sex or straight).

Again, these are MY opinions on Ron Paul. I know that not everyone feels this way about him.

-- Posted by Pups on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 8:50 PM

Ok, now I am confused. Is the Endowment for the Arts a Left wing Liberal propaganda outlet or a Neocon Right Wing proganda outlet???? Guess it depends on which side you are on.

-- Posted by Pups on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 8:54 PM

John Edwards, the man to represent the "little guy". He lives in a 20,000 square foot house and makes his living off of percentage charges on frivilous law suits. Earnig a living exactly like millions of other Americans.

-- Posted by John in Jackson on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 9:16 PM

New rules on Political posts

1. Make your point in less then 100 words or you will lose those that have trouble reading.

2. Just because you believe your stance is correct doesn't make it so.

3. Calling someone else a name that disagrees with you only makes you look like the idiot, scumbag, looser, fat ***, koolaid drinker.

4. Remember, Bush, Clinton, Paul, etc. do not read the SpeakOut forum. So kissing their butts or saying how screwed up they are doesn't matter to them.

5. If I had more time this would have been funnier.

-- Posted by Pups on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 9:19 PM

Does any politician at that level really represent the "little guy" anymore???? Get real.

-- Posted by Pups on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 9:21 PM

Watching FOX NEWS. John Edwards gave an outstanding acceptance speech. He critized Corporate Greed several times, and spoke of Exxon's annual profit of $40 Billion a couple years ago. I wonder if this is the same speech that he gave before the Bildergergers, that wowed them in Europe, in 2004?

-- Posted by Brill on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 9:31 PM

So far in the Iowa Caucuses, Ron Paul is in 5th place, with 10% of the caucus votes, with about 3,000 less than Thompson, and almost four times that of Giuliani who has about 4% of the totals.

Even though Ron Paul finished far ahead of Giuliani, his name has not been mentioned once. Fox isn't the only controlled media outlet trying to shut down his growth. Fortunately, the controlled media isn't the only outlet for news and communication. The internet is going to play a part in this election.

-- Posted by Brill on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 9:39 PM

Gosh, all "your" CONS about Ron Paul, seem like PROSE to me.

-- Posted by Brill on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 9:42 PM

Pups: this is America, you can vote for anyone you like, for any reason. That is your right. What ever my reason to disagree, I won't hold it against you. Its those long-winded ones who think their long posts are either to impress us or themselves.

As for the rules, I might have a hard time with them, but I'll try.:)

-- Posted by Aggiefan/Twiggy on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 9:44 PM

Fletcher: do you honestly beleive that Dr. Paul's demise in the caucuses is the work of the media? Now that comment rates up around Edwards hairstyle votes. Very foolish indeed. Ron Paul is own worst enemy.

-- Posted by Aggiefan/Twiggy on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 9:51 PM

Ron Paul is his own worst enemy, and you Fletcher, like to hear yourself talk.

-- Posted by Aggiefan/Twiggy on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 9:53 PM

Gosh, all "your" CONS about Ron Paul, seem like PROSE to me.

-- Posted by Jerry Fletcher

Gosh, Mr Fletcher, what part of "Please everyone, this my personal opinion and not trying to change anyone's mind on their stance for or against Dr Paul" do you not understand?????

-- Posted by Pups on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 10:03 PM

Aggie,

Thanks, just because we don't agree on politics doesn't mean we both aren't Adults. Just wish more could see it that way.

-- Posted by Pups on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 10:06 PM

Pups: No problem, we just have to overlook others IGNORANCE. Its running rapid tonight.

-- Posted by Aggiefan/Twiggy on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 10:11 PM

Aggie,

You and Twiggy making it tomorrow??

-- Posted by Pups on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 10:21 PM

I am but Twiggy is a little under the weather so I'm not sure she will be coming this time.

-- Posted by Aggiefan/Twiggy on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 10:26 PM

Uh hilleco, you didn't figure into the equation, unless you feel left out. My "childish behavior" is more towards Mr. Fletcher.

-- Posted by Aggiefan/Twiggy on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 10:37 PM

Hilleco,

I've missed something,,I called you names?? Or is my brain not getting the sarcasm because it's been a long day.

-- Posted by Pups on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 10:43 PM

Aggie,

Sorry she isn't feeling well.

And Hilleco, seriously, may not always agree with you, but you have always been Adult in your posts here.

-- Posted by Pups on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 10:46 PM

hilleco, the last time you posted was at 7:49 pm, 3 hrs ago. Then you posted the outcome of the caucus. Now really, where is the ignorance in that? Before you let your feelings get hurt, you should scroll and read past posts. Keep up with the program, don't be slacking.

-- Posted by Aggiefan/Twiggy on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 10:48 PM

Hilleco,

I unfortunately can not claim to have never called names. But I also know that it doesn't make me look good if I do fall to that level.

Time to head home. Have a great night everyone.

-- Posted by Pups on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 10:56 PM

Let's see, with 87% of the Iowa Republican Caucus vote counted, Ron Paul has 10%, and has been edging up in vote count. Someone on here reported that he liked Duncan Hunter. Hunter had 1% of the vote when it was at 86% total, but, now, Hunter has a nice, fat goose egg of ZER-O%.

Democrats had twice the turnout as did the Republicans. Even though the Republican turnout was up modestly over 2004.

Interstingly, I I switched from Fox to CNN to see how they were reporting the races. Fox only showed the top four candidates in each party. CNN showed the standings of all the participants. However, CNN showed a huge Pie Chart graphic of the vote. In the Democrat Pie Chart, they showed all the candidates, even Richardson's 2% vote. When they showed the Republican Pie Chart, they showed the top 4, with Thompson's and McCain's 13%, but, left a HUGE Silver colored portion of the pie chart with no names. That silver part would have shown Ron Paul's 10% slice of the vote, Giuliani's 4% and Hunter's 0%. CNN like their compatriots over at Fox didn't want to acknowedge Dr. Paul's success at getting 10%, and Giuliani only getting 4%.

I believe it was CNN that just announced that the Club of Rome, another one of those shadowy, behind the scenes goofy elitists, with very nutty views, is saying that Huckabee is unacceptable to them. They, also, dislkie Ron Paul.

Joe Biden, the CFR man, got only 1% or 23 votes in the Democrat Caucus.

-- Posted by Brill on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 11:13 PM

With 93% of the Republican Caucus vote in, Ron Pual continues to edge up in vote totals, keeping a 10% total. Giuliani has slipped back to jusst 3% as a choice among Iowa Republicans.

Ron Paul is on Infowars.com, in a live national and international radio broadcast on Friday from 11am-2pm, then, the program will be repeated every three hours all weekend long.

Http://www.infowars.com Select the LISTEN LIVE icon in the upper right of the page. It helps to have WINAMP installed. WINAMP is a free download at http://wwww.download.com

My many thanks to a poster here, who, a few weeks ago, alerted us to this interesting website. If it wasn't for his instant, constant promotion of this website, and support for it, I, and others here may not have even found it. Thanks be to the Hare.

-- Posted by Brill on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 11:29 PM

Sorry, here is the Ron Paul interview link for Friday, 11a-2p, with every three hour repeat all weekend long. Http://www.infowars.com

-- Posted by Brill on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 11:31 PM

http://www.infowars.com

-- Posted by Brill on Thu, Jan 3, 2008, at 11:32 PM

Ron Paul does well with younger voters. In more youthful Johnson County, home of the University of Iowa,in Iowa City. Ron Paul ties McCain, and nearly doubles Thompson, gets 7% less than Huckabee.

GOP caucus results for Johnson County: 55 precincts of 57 (96.5%) reporting

# of supporters Percentage

1. Mitt Romney 1247 31.4%

2. Mike Huckabee 883 22.2%

3. John McCain 608 15.3%

4. Ron Paul 604 15.2%

5. Fred Thompson 349 8.8%

6. Rudolph Giuliani 269 6.8%

7. Duncan Hunter 10 0.3%

In Story County, home of Iowa State University, in Ames, Ron Paul came in 3rd.

GOP caucus results for Story County: 43 precincts of 43 (100.0%) reporting

# of supporters Percentage

1. Mike Huckabee 1848 39.8%

2. Mitt Romney 1069 23.0%

3. Ron Paul 561 12.1%

4. John McCain 511 11.0%

5. Fred Thompson 492 10.6%

6. Rudolph Giuliani 135 2.9%

7. Duncan Hunter 23 0.5%

Iowa is an old folks state. Young people have left the state to try to find jobs elsewhere. Manufacturing has left Iowa, as it has in much of the USA. The young coming out for Ron Paul is a very encouraging sign. In my opinion.

-- Posted by Brill on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 4:20 AM


Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account on seMissourian.com or semoball.com, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.