I need to go play my dobro.

Artful Dodger: lol not "curtis lowe"??

I need to take a time out while my town is on fire! Seriously. 30 acres now and spreading.

Iamon lyme: wow.. you sure are complaining.

"You have the right to not say anything sensible when you have nothing sensible to say, so why would anyone complain about that?"

So apparently do you. As well as Art in his Big Brother style version of history.

Ninety-one people have been arrested in seven US cities for their alleged roles in a $430m (£265m) Medicare fraud scheme, the justice department says.

A hospital president, doctors and nurses are all accused of submitting claims for treatment that was medically unnecessary or never provided. Charges against them include healthcare fraud, breaking anti-kickback statutes and money laundering, the agency said. Medicare is a popular government health programme for the over-65s.

"Today's arrests put criminals on notice that we are cracking down hard on people who want to steal from Medicare," said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

She added that 30 other healthcare providers had been suspended or had administrative action taken against them based on credible allegations of fraud.

Dozens of people either surrendered or were arrested over the last 24 hours in a case led by the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, officials said. The team uses analysis of Medicare data to fight fraud.

The arrests were made in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Brooklyn, New York; Chicago, Illinois; Dallas and Houston, Texas; Los Angeles, California; and Miami, Florida. Altogether the charges cover more than $230m in home healthcare fraud, more than $100m in mental healthcare fraud and more than $49m in ambulance transport fraud.

Court documents claim that patient recruiters, Medicare patients and other participants in the scheme were given cash kickbacks in exchange for providing information about healthcare beneficiaries. Their information was used to submit bills for treatment that never took place or was not needed.

A similar operation was launched in September 2011, with another 91 people arrested and charged over a suspected $295m Medicare fraud.

Would liberals support censorship in response to wife-beaters, skinheads, abortion-clinic bombers, gay-bashers, or any other violent group? Then why do they support censorship in response to terrorists?

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/shut_up_or_die_the_muslim_protesters_explained.html#ixzz28R3qo3aE

Watching the debate two days ago, I was struck by some things. First, Americans have turned the entire electoral process into a reality TV show like American idol. All that is missing is a panel of judges to give criticism and pointers to the contestants. Well, media spinners fill that role.

Second thing I noticed, both candidates are incapable of offering anything new. They keep flogging the same dead horses. Tax breaks for the rich, Obamacare, a burgeoning deficit (for which they blame each other when in reality decades of rule by both political parties are to blame for it), etc.

However, the third thing, and most alarming thing, is how economically inept the candidates are. Both are incapable of addressing the real root causes of the economic problems affecting the United States. The candidates were incapable of mentioning the simple fact that the American economy is in trouble because the United States consumes a lot more than it produces and satisfying that hunger for consumption means that the USA must manufacture products and produce commodities overseas.

Among the more stupid comments I heard was this Romney quote:

"But I'm not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for."

This kind of quote is a reflection of the economic ineptitude of Romney and those who advise him on econmic matters. To say that the USA "borrows" from China to pay for the deficit is ludicrous. The real reason why the USA owes money to China is because American consumers buy 50 billion dollars of Chinese-made goods per month, while China barely buys any American-made goods. In order to balance the trade accounts, the American government is forced to issue billions of dollars in treasury bills to China. It is either that or hard currency (such as gold). Consequently, why would China buy American-made goods when they manufucture cheaply everything themselves? This is not about market protectionism, but about a simple economic reality that the manufacturer of goods has the economic power in his hands as opposed to the consumer of goods.

Mitt Romney is disingenous in playing the fear-mongering game. He never told the public that what they should really do is to stop buying Chinese-made goods. He also never told the public that the real problem is that American manufacturers continue to manufacture in cheap labour markets with lax legislation.

By Romney's logic, the USA is also borrowing money from Canada and Saudi Arabia to pay for the deficit. After all, those two are America's largest suppliers of oil and natural gas and every American is consuming those commodities. Should Romney tell people that the USA should stop borrowing from Saudi Arabia or Canada? There are other countries that sell commodities to the USA too.

Obama's ineptitude is evident in the fact that he was incapable of rebutting to Romney's comment. The closes Obama came to that was saying that tax breaks should go to companies that create jobs in America and not overseas, and this comment was largely ignored by the Media and dismissed by Romney as something that would hurt businesses.

This is not surprising since Romney himself "outsourced" production from his companies to overseas in the past and at least part of his multimillion dollar fortune came from profits derived by dismissing American workers and producing in cheap labour markets. Romney the hypocrite fear-mongers about China and makes a killing producing cheap over there. Why is it that Democrats say little about it? Because they are just as guilty of the same and nobody wants to kill the hen that laid the golden egg of maximum profits though cheap labour, and subsequent American unemployment.

Like I said before, this election (like most elections after Kennedy's death) is a choice between bad and worse, and politicians count on an apathetic and uninformed public to make the worst possible choice.

Übergeek 바둑이: are you saying the US government purchases all the oil and commodities..then resells it to suppliers who in turn sell to the public?

Texas law...

In Article 1, Section 4, the Texas Constitution states: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

Übergeek 바둑이: I think it's more a case of the 1% rely on an "us and them" system.. divide and conquer. For if the stupid "us and them" died and it became "us" then the US would change.

"Romney the hypocrite fear-mongers about China and makes a killing producing cheap over there."

And the Chinese are dying and fighting over the hours they are having to work. Have prices really dropped though? Or is the middle men getting a greater wad, going by Apples profits.. I'd say they are getting fat on sweat shop factories.

When the demonstrators reached Dallas City Hall, Johnson poured kerosene on the flag and set it on fire. During the burning of the flag, demonstrators shouted such phrases as, "America, the red, white, and blue, we spit on you, you stand for plunder, you will go under," and, "Reagan, Mondale, which will it be? Either one means World War III." No one was hurt, but some witnesses to the flag burning said they were extremely offended. One witness, Daniel E. Walker, received international attention when he collected the burned remains of the flag and buried them according to military protocol in his backyard.[1]

Johnson was charged with violating the Texas law that prohibits vandalizing respected objects (desecration of a venerated object). He was convicted, sentenced to one year in prison, and fined $2,000. He appealed his conviction to the Fifth Court of Appeals of Texas, but he lost this appeal. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals would then see his case. This was the highest court in Texas that would see Criminal Appeals. That court overturned his conviction, saying that the State could not punish Johnson for burning the flag because the First Amendment protects such activity as symbolic speech.

The State had said that its interests were more important than Johnson's symbolic speech rights because it wanted to preserve the flag as a symbol of national unity, and because it wanted to maintain order. The court said neither of these state interests could be used to justify Johnson's conviction.

The court said, "Recognizing that the right to differ is the centerpiece of our First Amendment freedoms, a government cannot mandate by fiat a feeling of unity in its citizens. Therefore that very same government cannot carve out a symbol of unity and prescribe a set of approved messages to be associated with that symbol . . ." The court also concluded that the flag burning in this case did not cause or threaten to cause a breach of the peace......


....The Court's decision invalidated laws in force in 48 of the 50 states. More than two decades later, the issue remains controversial; recent polls suggest that a majority of Americans still support a ban on flag-burning.[6] Congress did, however, pass a statute, the 1989 Flag Protection Act, making it a federal crime to desecrate the flag. In the case of United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990),[7] that law was struck down by the same five person majority of justices as in Johnson (in an opinion also written by Justice Brennan). Since then, Congress has considered the Flag Desecration Amendment several times. The amendment usually passes the House of Representatives, but has always been defeated in the Senate. The most recent attempt occurred when S.J.Res.12[8] failed by one vote on June 27, 2006.

mckinley Nowhere do you say why the South wanted to secede from the Union, which is all I wanted to know from the get go.

You started off with me by making fun of my belief in God, then wanted information from me but not willing to give any, and now her feelings are hurt because someone isn't being nice to her. And your first post to me was a suggested Bible reading that didn't really help when I was making a point about vacuous scientific theories. Then I learn how little you actually know or even care about Bible teaching.

I don't know how you can take anything Jesus said seriously and still think abortion is no worse than soldiers fighting in a war. Jesus told Roman soldiers to not complain about their wages, and his highest praise was to a Roman centurion commander, saying he had not seen such faith in all of Israel. In regard to children he said it was better to do yourself in than to offend (harm) one of these little ones. Where do you see him condemning soldiers or being indifferent towards children, or lumping the two together as though one is no worse than the other?

You do not need to feel scared or flattered. I have no interest in flattering an elitist snob, and the only reason you have for feeling "scared" is if someone sees through your so called candy coated exterior.

Übergeek 바둑이: [ Watching the debate two days ago, I was struck by some things. First, Americans have turned the entire electoral process into a reality TV show... ]

Seriously, you are just now understanding this? This realisation didn't strike you when seeing phony debates on news programs where only one side was represented, or in campaign adds tailored to fit only one narrative? The debate between Romney and Obama was the first time we Americans have been treated to something that didn't look like a phony reality show, but now you recognise how the media has been mostly just putting on a show?

I'm not surprised by this new found "revelation" of yours, I'm just surprised at how easy you make it for booger eating gubbers like me to see through such a thin veil of deception.

So what you are saying Art is that a chair has a very good chance of beating Mitt.

I can believe that!!

(V): The ole "do as I say, not as I do"

The Col: just like the "poll taxes".. .. .. ..

I edited the post.
I want the attack to stop

Artful Dodger: Looking at the New Yorker cover page, 53% of the voters see Romney talking to an empty chair...

The other 47% see Obama sitting in that chair.



This is your brain... this is your brain on liberalism.
Any questions?

Iamon lyme:

The gaming hobby of a political candidate has become an issue in a state senate race in New England, US. Maine Republicans have created a webpage revealing that Democrat candidate Colleen Lachowicz plays an orc rogue in World of Warcraft (WoW). Ms Lachowicz's liking for back-stabbing and poison in WoW raise questions about her "fitness for office", they claim.

Ms Lachowicz has hit back saying the attack showed the Republicans were "out of touch".

The state senate seat known as District 25 in Maine, is currently being contested by Ms Lachowicz and incumbent Republican Tom Martin. Voting takes place on 6 November. As part of its campaign efforts, the Republican party in the state created "Colleen's World" - a website that compiles information about Ms Lachowicz's orc rogue Santiaga. An orc is a mythical human-like creature, generally described as fierce and combative.

In a statement that accompanies the webpage, Maine Republicans said playing the game led Ms Lachowicz to live a "bizarre double life" that raised questions about her ability to represent the state. The page also detailed some of the comments Ms Lachowicz has made while talking about her orc rogue, in particular it highlights her affection for Santiaga's ability to stab things and kill people without suffering a jail sentence.

"These are some very bizarre and offensive comments," said Maine Republican Party spokesman David Sorensen in a statement. "They certainly raise questions about Lachowicz's maturity and her ability to make serious decisions for the people of Senate District 25."

The site also lists many of the 400 comments she has posted to left wing political news and discussion site Daily Kos. Maine Republicans have also posted leaflets that reproduce the information on the website.

"I think it's weird that I'm being targeted for playing online games," said Ms Lachowicz in a statement. "Apparently I'm in good company since there are 183 million other Americans who also enjoy online games.

Wow... just seen Indian boffins (that's India Indians) making a battery out of cow dung... They were using old drained batteries as the terminals, just stuck in the dung and connected to make a large cell.

... It lasts a month before refreshing is needed.

And yes.. it can be used to charge ya laptop!

Lest someone try to rewrite history, the Democratic party of today is the same as the Democratic party of yesterday. The party of racism.

In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to the Republican Party strategy of gaining political support or winning elections in the Southern section of the country by implicitly appealing to racism against African Americans.

Though the "Solid South" had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party's defense of slavery prior to the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter, many white Southern Democrats stopped supporting the party following the civil rights plank of the Democratic campaign in 1948 (triggering the Dixiecrats), the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation.

The strategy was first adopted under future Republican President Richard Nixon and Republican Senator Barry Goldwater[6] in the late 1960s. The strategy was successful in some regards. It contributed to the electoral realignment of Southern states to the Republican Party, but at the expense of losing more than 90 percent of black voters to the Democratic Party. As the twentieth century came to a close, the Republican Party began trying to appeal again to black voters, though with little success.....

.....Following Bush's re-election, Ken Mehlman, Bush's campaign manager and Chairman of the RNC, held several large meetings with African-American business, community, and religious leaders. In his speeches, he apologized for his party's use of the Southern Strategy in the past. When asked about the strategy of using race as an issue to build GOP dominance in the once-Democratic South, Mehlman replied, "Republican candidates often have prospered by ignoring black voters and even by exploiting racial tensions," and, "by the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African-American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out. Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."


>>>>>> We have Republican leaders here stating you are wrong. You gonna call them liars as well?

An elderly couple have unwittingly grown the "biggest cannabis plant" police officers had seen after buying what they thought was a shrub from a car boot sale.

The couple, who live in Bedford, had planted the drug in their garden.

Police officers were astounded when they spotted the plant. They have collected it and a spokesperson said it would be disposed of.

The couple will face no action from the police.

The officers took to their @bedfordlpt Twitter account to express their surprise at the find, saying: "Seized today. Elderly couple bought shrub at car boot sale, tended carefully - biggest cannabis plant we had seen!!"



Poetic to the fact that it is perfectly legal to buy cannabis seeds in the UK.... just not to grow them.

... Taxable revenue must be down. VAT is VAT!!

(V):

The Col: .... Aye. I'm surprised it didn't 'disappear' one night, or get donated to someone with MS.. for them it's not criminal.

(V): Is Wikipedia Reliable?
By Dan Woods and Peter Thoeny

The creators of Wikipedia are the first to admit that not every entry is accurate and that it might not be the best source of material for research papers. Here are some points to consider:

Look for a slant. Some articles are fair and balanced, but others look more like the Leaning Tower of Pisa. If an article has only one source, beware.

Consider the source. Even if an article cites external sources, check out those sources to see whether they are being cited fairly and accurately — and do, in fact, reinforce the article's points.

Look who's talking. If you research the contributors themselves and find that they are experts in their fields, you can be more confident in the entry.

Start here, but keep going. Wikipedia should be a starting point for research but not your primary source for research material.

(V): the so called southern strategy narrative is bits of truth combined with huge portions of myth. If you read Trende's work on this you'd see a far more accurate and scholarly view. Wiki is not scholarly and is prone to bias. So if you're going to quote wiki as your main source, you're out of luck. Your choir will like it though.

Artful Dodger: ... and the rest of the article is...

In December 2005, the scientific journal Nature published the results of a study comparing the accuracy of Wikipedia and the printed Encyclopaedia Britannica. The researchers found that the number of "factual errors, omissions or misleading statements" in each reference work was not so different — Wikipedia contained 162, and Britannica had 123. The makers of Britannica have since called on Nature to retract the study, which it claims is "completely without merit."

When visiting controversial entries, look out for edit wars. Edit wars occur when two contributors (or groups of contributors) repeatedly edit one another's work based on a particular bias. In early 2004, Wikipedia's founders organized an Arbitration Committee to settle such disputes.

Wikipedia does have some weaknesses that more traditional encyclopedias do not. For example

There is no guarantee that important subjects are included or given the treatment that they deserve.

Entries can be incomplete or in the middle of being updated at any given time.

The writers of entries often fail to cite their original sources, thus making it hard to determine the credibility of the material.

These issues should not deter you from using Wikipedia. Just weigh the limitations of Wikipedia — and, for that matter, reference works in general.

>>>>>>>

But while the academics and pundits have been discussing the possible influence of the so-called “Bradley Effect” on voters this November, there have been isolated reports of campaign volunteers encountering bigots when going door to door or making phone calls.

If that foreshadows a more overt prejudice in the campaign, the question becomes: Will the McCain campaign publicly and actively reject the “Southern Strategy” of using white racism to win elections — which allowed the Republican Party to carry the South for decades — or will it tacitly embrace it?

McCain has a unique opportunity to demonstrate what kind of candidate he really is.

http://washingtonindependent.com/10982/is-the-southern-strategy-alive-and-well

Art, your version of history is a myth, just like Santa.

Deal with it.

Bwild:

> are you saying the US government purchases all the oil and commodities..then resells it to suppliers who in turn sell to the public?

I was getting tot he fact that Romney has been castigating China and saying that the USA "borrows" money from China to pay for the dificit. In reality the debt to China is the result of massive consumption of goods manufactured in China, rahter than the government borrowing money directly from the Chinese government.

Then I drew a parallel to the consumption of oil and natural gas. Romney says nothing about how the foreign debt is increasing as a result of oil and gas consumption from places like Saudi Arabia and Canada.

In answer to your questions, yes and no. The American government does not profit from buying and selling oil, but it controls the supply of oil through what is called the strategic reserve. This is a reserve of crude oil, distillates and gasoline that are kept in inventory in case there is ever scarcity of those products. It was created during the Opec crisis in the 1970s. IN practice, the profits remain in the hands of oil companies. If the American government was profitting from oil, there would be no soverign debt!

(V): Well you use wiki which is unreliable. I use scholarly sources. You, like so many of your ilk, don't know what you are talking about. You frame your narrative to fit your bias. Looks like you're the one that needs to deal with it.

It's a clear fact of history that the democratic party is the party of historical racism in this country and ALSO is the party that continues to use race baiting to further their agenda. That's a fact that can't be denied except by those that choose to believe a lie.

I frankly couldn't care less what your "opinions" are. They are meaningless. You cherry pick only those sources that suit your bias. It's your pattern. Then you twist all things to suit your narrative. Meanwhile, those of us that matter, see right though your nonsense.

Like the source that says WWII was started by the Democrats?


Please.. Please explain how your scholarly sources explain that shift in written history... Art.

Artful Dodger: If wiki tipped to the right instead of the left then you already know what you would be hearing... nothing but complaints about wiki. But I have to assume playing politics with facts and logic is an appropriate game for anyone to play at this (the politics) board.

A few years back I read where someone intentionally submitted false information to see if wiki did any fact checking. The information was accepted, and it wasn't until a reader noticed something screwy that it was removed.

As if by magic... .... ....

I didn't watch the first debate, but I want to see the second one. Obama can't afford to phone this one in, so I'm curious to see what his strategy will be. He has to at least appear confident, that alone should be enough to inspire confidence in the supporters who don't know or understand the issues. Sad, but true.

Obama believed he had won the first debate shortly after it was over. Wow... I pity the poor fool who had to tell the president otherwise. LoL

The Col: Nice when Romney says if your 45, never had insurance and get heart disease.... you are on your own.

Guess Jesus forgot to put that he healed for free in BIG BOLD LETTERS a mile high like his Father did!

I'm talking about the reputed last message of God to the universe as described by Douglas Adams.. "we apologise for the inconvenience."

God is nice like that.

(V): Used car salesmen display more honesty than Romney.If he pulls this off, the press should be ashamed for not fact checking this guy enough, but their too consumed with Obama's terrible performance in the 1st debate, actually, most incumbent Presidents have historically lost the 1st debate 1-5 was a score I saw recently, but the election score is 3-3