Monday, November 08, 2010

Insanity--Lindsey Graham, Trent Lott blast Tea Party, Palin - National conservative | Examiner.com

graham,lott and rove can suck each other's dick in a three way...
who the fuck do they think they are??....they have no clue about real conservatism and are certainly not the face of the republican party...assholes,that's what they are and they need to get out of the way....period.
excellent article ..Insanity--Lindsey Graham, Trent Lott blast Tea Party, Palin - National conservative | Examiner.com

Sunday, December 27, 2009

end of the year


well...
the leftist,commie ,rat bastards in the democratic party have foisted their plans on the country....
from stealing the election in minnesota with acorn for al franken, to changing laws in mass. when teddy died to get a 60th democrat in to vote for their leftist agenda..... controlling the banks,to the auto industry, and healthcare...
hope all the dumbasses that wanted "change",and that voted for this sack of shit "cause he's only got one house...mccain has 10"....are happy...
merry xmas and a happy f%*kin' new year!!.....

Sunday, October 25, 2009

where to start?....

unbelievable...

Did Democrats put ACORN in charge of regulation for financial institutions?

posted at 9:00 am on October 24, 2009 by Ed Morrissey


From the pages of Government Doesn’t Listen, Part MMXLVII, we have this stunning example from the House Financial Services Committee. Yesterday, Reps. Maxine Waters, Barney Frank, and the rest of the Democrats decided to grant community organizers governing powers by giving them a role in shaping and enforcing new regulations on the American financial industry. That seems to include, although not explicitly, ACORN:

During consideration of H.R. 3126, legislation to establish a Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA), Democrats on the House Financial Services Committee voted to pass an amendment offered by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) that will make ACORN eligible to play a role in setting regulations for financial institutions.

The Waters amendment adds to the CFPA Oversight Board 5 representatives from the fields of “consumer protection, fair lending and civil rights, representatives of depository institutions that primarily serve underserved communities, or representatives of communities that have been significantly impacted by higher-priced mortgages” to join Federal banking regulators in advising the Director on the consistency of proposed regulations, and strategies and policies that the Director should undertake to enforce its rules.

By making representatives of ACORN and other consumer activist organizations eligible to serve on the Oversight Board, the amendment creates a potentially enormous government sanctioned conflict of interest. ACORN-type organizations will have an advisory role on regulating the very financial institutions from which they receive millions of dollars annually in direct corporate contributions and benefit from other financial partnerships and arrangements. These are the same organizations that pressured banks to make subprime mortgage loans and thus bear a major responsibility for the collapse of the housing market.

Parsing this carefully, it does not appear that Democrats on the HFSC explicitly included ACORN on this panel. Instead, the Waters amendment leaves spots open for representatives from organizations like ACORN, and probably does nothing to exclude ACORN representatives for consideration on these slots. The headline and lead on this release seem to be somewhat misleading in stating that Waters explicitly added ACORN as a regulator.

However, that doesn’t make the amendment any better. It would not matter whether these institutions were holier than the Church, more all-American than the Boy Scouts, more trustworthy than the Marines, and better looking than Hannah Giles. Regulation should be precise and enforced by the government, not made up as a board makes up arbitrary strategies as it goes along. As the article points out, these groups will have conflicts of interest with some or all of these financial institutions, which makes their inclusion even more odd.

Congress has a duty to pass rational regulation that can be precisely and consistently enforced without “strategies” and agendas, or better yet, just provide resources to enforce the regulation we already have.

Sunday, July 19, 2009

back again...more leftist sh#t to talk about than ever!!....


of all the hispanics in America that would be good...we get yet another idiot (see douche)..that shows us that idiocy knows no racial boundaries...

Saturday, May 09, 2009

fer mother's day...douchebags that are mothers...




these three immediately come to mind...
sorry rosie...lesbos that adopt don't count....

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Texas is right!!

Republic of Texas flag


WAKE UP CALL: TEXAS GOV. BACK RESOLUTION AFFIRMING SOVEREIGNTY
Tue Apr 14 2009 08:44:54 ET

AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry joined state Rep. Brandon Creighton and sponsors of House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 50 in support of states’ rights under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

“I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state,” Gov. Perry said. “That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states’ rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union.”

Perry continued: "Millions of Texans are tired of Washington, DC trying to come down here to tell us how to run Texas."

A number of recent federal proposals are not within the scope of the federal government’s constitutionally designated powers and impede the states’ right to govern themselves. HCR 50 affirms that Texas claims sovereignty under the 10th Amendment over all powers not otherwise granted to the federal government.

It also designates that all compulsory federal legislation that requires states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties, or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding, be prohibited or repealed.

Monday, April 13, 2009

pat buchanan...nuff' said

Why Europe Won't Fight
by Patrick J. Buchanan
04/10/2009


"No one will say this publicly, but the true fact is we are all talking about our exit strategy from Afghanistan. We are getting out. It may take a couple of years, but we are all looking to get out."

Thus did a "senior European diplomat" confide to The New York Times during Obama's trip to Strasbourg.

Europe is bailing out on us. Afghanistan is to be America's war.


During what the Times called a "fractious meeting," NATO agreed to send 3,000 troops to provide security during the elections and 2,000 to train Afghan police. Thin gruel beside Obama's commitment to double U.S. troop levels to 68,000.

Why won't Europe fight?

Because Europe sees no threat from Afghanistan and no vital interest in a faraway country where NATO Europeans have not fought since the British Empire folded its tent long ago.

Al-Qaida did not attack Europe out of Afghanistan. America was attacked. Because, said Osama bin Laden in his "declaration of war," America was occupying the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia, choking Muslim Iraq to death and providing Israel with the weapons to repress the Palestinians.

As Europe has no troops in Saudi Arabia, is exiting Iraq and backs a Palestinian state, Europeans figure they are less likely to be attacked than if they are fighting and killing Muslims in Afghanistan.

Madrid and London were targeted for terror attacks, they believe, because Spain and Britain were George W. Bush's strongest allies in Iraq. Britain, with a large Pakistani population, must be especially sensitive to U.S. Predator strikes in Pakistan.

Moreover, Europeans have had their fill of war.

In World War I alone, France, Germany and Russia each lost far more men killed than we have lost in all our wars put together. British losses in World War I were greater than America's losses, North and South, in the Civil War. Her losses in World War II, from a nation with but a third of our population, were equal to ours. Where America ended that war as a superpower and leader of the Free World, Britain ended it bankrupt, broken, bereft of empire, sinking into socialism.

All of Europe's empires are gone. All her great navies are gone. All her million-man armies are history. Her populations are all aging, shrinking and dying, as millions pour in from former colonies in the Third World to repopulate and Islamize the mother countries.

Because of Europe's new "diversity," any war fought in a Muslim land will inflame a large segment of Europe's urban population.

Finally, NATO Europe knows there is no price to pay for malingering in NATO's war in Afghanistan. Europeans know America will take up the slack and do nothing about their refusal to send combat brigades.

For Europeans had us figured out a long time ago.

They sense that we need them more than they need us.

While NATO provides Europe with a security blanket, it provides America with what she cannot live without: a mission, a cause, a meaning to life.

Were the United States, in exasperation, to tell Europe, "We are pulling out of NATO, shutting down our bases and bringing our troops home because we are weary of doing all the heavy lifting, all the fighting and dying for freedom," what would we do after we had departed and come home?

What would our foreign policy be?

What would be the need for our vaunted military-industrial complex, all those carriers, subs, tanks, and thousands of fighter planes and scores of bombers? What would happen to all the transatlantic conferences on NATO, all the think tanks here and in Europe devoted to allied security issues?

After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the withdrawal of the Red Army from Eastern Europe and the breakup of the Soviet Union, NATO's mission was accomplished. As Sen. Richard Lugar said, NATO must "go out of area or out of business."

NATO desperately did not want to go out of business. So, NATO went out of area, into Afghanistan. Now, with victory nowhere in sight, NATO is heading home. Will it go out of business?

Not likely. Too many rice bowls depend on keeping NATO alive.

You don't give up the March of Dimes headquarters and fund-raising machinery just because Drs. Salk and Sabin found a cure for polio.

Again, one recalls, in those old World War II movies, the invariable scene where two G.I.s are smoking and talking.

"What are you gonna do, Joe, when this is all over?" one would ask.

Years ago, we had the answer.

Joe stayed in the Army. He couldn't give it up. Soldiering is all he knew. Just like Uncle Sam. We can't give up NATO because, if we do, we would no longer be the "indispensable nation," the leader of the Free World.

And, if we're not that, then who are we? And what would we do?

Sunday, April 12, 2009

Happy Easter

George Beverly Shea...
the best...

Sunday, March 29, 2009

sunday's douche...pick a biden...apparently if yer young...having a baby out of wedlock (see the palins)..is HORRIBLE!!!) but being filmed doing lines

OF COCAINE IS OK!!

if you base it on media coverage...




An explosive video being shopped to media outlets has plunged the White House and Vice President Joe Biden into a cocaine scandal, RadarOnline.com has learned exclusively.

The video shows a woman, who is represented by the seller and his attorneys to be Biden’s daughter Ashley, snorting several lines of cocaine.

The tape has been viewed by a RadarOnline.com freelance reporter who confirms the woman looks identical to Ashley Biden.

Tom Dunlap, an attorney for Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver in Washington D.C. is representing the seller of the tape in brokering a deal and several news organizations have seen the footage.

In addition to RadarOnline.com, representatives for the New York Post, a large British newspaper and the National Enquirer have all viewed the tape.

The woman on the tape clearly resembles Ashley Biden, 27, who is a social worker employed with the Delaware Department of Children, Youth and Families. She is also a board member of the Delaware YWCA organization.

The tape was shot this year.

On the tape a man cuts up five lines of what is said to be cocaine. The woman who the seller says is Ashley then jokes with the man that the lines aren’t big enough.

The man hands her a rolled-up dollar bill and she proceeds to walk a few steps to a table where the cocaine is cut. She pulls her hair back, bends down and snorts a line.

Four lines of white powdery substance are clearly visible on the table, which is in front of a computer.

After she snorts the first line, the woman said to be Ashley lifts her head and wipes her nose. She then snorts a second and third line before the tape cuts off.

The tape was made without her knowledge. It is being shopped for $250,000.

The events on the tape are represented as taking place at a party in Wilmington, Delaware and the woman said to be Ashley is with a boyfriend.

The cocaine is done amid a party scene with loud music playing and several people talking at the same time.

The tape is approximately two minutes in length.

News clips show that Ashley Biden was once arrested for marijuana possession while she was a college student in New Orleans in 1999. The charges were later dismissed.

In 2002, The Los Angeles Times reported that Ashley, then 21, was arrested on a misdemeanor charge of obstructing a police officer outside a Chicago bar.

RadarOnline.com is attempting to reach Ashley Biden for comment.

ann coulter....always right

click link to go to ann's site

GORDON GEKKO IS A DEMOCRAT
March 25, 2009


How did Republicans get saddled with Wall Street? Obama just got the biggest campaign haul from Wall Street in world history, and Republicans still can't shake the public perception that they are tied at the hip to Wall Street bankers who hate them.

It's as if National Rifle Association members conspired with Republicans to bankrupt the country and everyone blamed the Democrats for being shills of the NRA.

Maybe if the financial capital of the nation were located in Salt Lake City, rather than Manhattan, the financial community would support Republicans. But Wall Street is a street located in New York City.

No one in the top echelons of the financial industry who has a weekend place in the Hamptons is a Republican.

No, there is one. Teddy Forstmann. He has to throw his own parties and fly guests in. Otherwise, if they want to go to any half-decent parties, bankers must be Democrats. At their income bracket, multimillionaires will trade a little extra tax money for good cocktail parties.

Even the "Republicans" on Wall Street don't care about national defense or social issues. They just want to trade with China and hire illegal aliens.

Last September, The New York Times reported that individuals associated with the securities and investment industry had given $9.9 million to the Obama campaign, $7.4 million to the Hillary Clinton campaign and only $6.9 million to the McCain campaign. Either they're all Democrats or some commodity named "hope" was going through the roof last year.

Employees of Lehman Bros. alone gave Obama $370,000, compared to about $117,000 to McCain. (No wonder Bush let them go under.)

According to an analysis of Federal Election Commission records by the Center for Responsive Politics, the top three corporate employers of donors to Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Rahm Emanuel were Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and JPMorgan. Six other financial giants were in the top 30 donors to the White House Dream Team: UBS AG, Lehman Bros., Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch and Credit Suisse Group.

Since 1998, the financial sector has given a total of $37.6 million to Obama, compared to $32.1 million to McCain. But Obama ran for his first national office only in 2004. So McCain got less from the financial industry in a decade that included two runs for president than Obama did in four years.

As we've seen in recent weeks, Wall Street gets what it pays for. Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd included language in the stimulus bill allowing executives of the bailed-out banks to collect million-dollar bonuses.

And yet the Democrats' endless favors for their Wall Street friends never sticks to them because everyone treats Democrats' shilling for their own contributors as if it's a Nixon-goes-to-China moment.

On the March 23 edition of MSNBC's "Hardball," The Nation's David Corn said: "Remember -- What was it? A year or two back when there was talk about taxing hedge fund managers at the rate that the rest of us pay? Who intervened in that? Chuck Schumer."

But Corn then quickly added that this "got a lot of Democrats really mad. Here was a Democrat, you know, getting in the way of a populist issue at a time when the economy was already heading in the wrong direction."

Which Democrats got "really mad"? Chris Dodd? George Soros? Warren Buffett? Jon Corzine? Tim Geithner? Roger Altman? Bob Rubin? Jamie Dimon? Lloyd Blankfein?

Corn's formulation was wonderfully subtle: Admit that a Democrat preserved a sweetheart deal for hedge fund managers -- but then claim that his fellow Democrats were furious with him.

People are more likely to believe something if they think they came to it themselves. Hearing a liberal muse on TV that it was an aberration for Chuck Schumer to intervene to protect hedge fund managers -- risking the wrath of other Democrats -- the average person thinks: So Democrats must be the party of the people. I always thought George Soros was a Democrat, but he must be a Republican.

Democrats take care of the financial industry -- and the financial industry takes care of Democrats. After honing his financial skills as the bagman for Bill Clinton's White House, Rahm Emanuel was hired by the investment bank Wasserstein Perella, where he worked for 2 1/2 years.

For that, Emanuel was paid more than $18 million. (Maybe Rahm Emanuel was the Democrat livid at Schumer for preserving a sweet tax deal for hedge fund managers!)

Democrats have a beautiful system: They're showered with Wall Street money, but they also get to pillory Republicans for being the party of "Wall Street." The bankers don't care if Democrats attack them. They still get their bailout money.

COPYRIGHT 2009 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106

Sunday, March 15, 2009

to ms. mccain.....being round doesn't mean you are curvey....



jamie gumm said it best.....
"is she a great big fat person?"

The Politics of Size

by Meghan McCain

Meghan McCain
From Laura Ingraham to Cindy McCain and Hillary Clinton, how did a woman’s weight become the last frontier in socially accepted prejudice? And why is the media fueling it?

Recently my not-size-zero body has come under fire again by the conservative pundit Laura Ingraham. On her radio show recently she sarcastically commented that I was “too plus sized to be a cast member on the television show The Real World” and needled me about my weight with a comment about Barbie's 50th Anniversary. Instead of intellectually debating our ideological differences about the future of the Republican party, Ms. Ingraham resorted to making fun of my age and weight, in the fashion of the mean girls in high school. I responded on twitter by saying “To all the curvy girls out there, don’t let anyone make you feel bad about your body. I love my curves and you should love yours too.”

My mother was constantly slammed for being too skinny, so the weight obsession of the media and our culture goes both ways. It also goes to both parties.

But now that numerous media outlets seem to have picked up on our tiff, I believe it warrants a more thoughtful response than can be contained in 140 characters. I have been teased about my weight and body figure since I was in middle school, and I decided a very long time ago to embrace what God gave me and live my life positively, attempting to set an example for other girls who may suffer with body image issues. I have nothing to hide: I am a size eight and fluctuated up to a size ten during the campaign. It’s ridiculous to even have this conversation because I am not overweight in the least and have a natural body weight.

But even if I were overweight, it would be ridiculous. I expected substantive criticism from conservative pundits for my views, particularly my recent criticism of Ann Coulter. That is the nature of political discourse, and my intent was to generate discussion about the current problems facing the Republican party. Unfortunately, even though Ms. Ingraham is more than twenty years older than I and has been a political pundit for longer, almost, than I have been alive, she responded in a form that was embarrassing to herself and to any woman listening to her radio program who was not a size zero.

In today’s society this is, unfortunately, predictable. Everyone from Jessica Simpson to Tyra Banks, Oprah and Hilary Clinton have fallen victim to this type of image-oriented bullying. Recent pictures of Pierce Brosnan’s wife Keely Shaye Smith on the beach in her bikini raised criticism about her weight and choice of bathing suit (like the woman should be wearing a giant mumu to swim in the ocean). After Kelly Clarkson’s recent appearance on American Idol, the first commentary I read on the internet was about her weight gain instead of her singing.

My weight was consistently criticized throughout the campaign. Once someone even suggested I go to a plastic surgeon for liposuction. Afterwards, I blogged about loving my body and suggested critics focus their insecurities about women’s bodies elsewhere. On the other side, my mother was constantly slammed for being too skinny, so the weight obsession of the media and our culture goes both ways. It also goes to both parties. Hilary Clinton has consistently received criticism for her pantsuits and figure. Whatever someone’s party, these criticisms are quite obviously both wrong and distracting from the larger issues at play.

The question remains: Why, after all this time and all the progress feminists have made, is weight still such an issue? And, in Laura’s case, why in the world would a woman raise it? Today, taking shots at a woman’s weight has become one of the last frontiers in socially accepted prejudice.

I also thought the media outlets that reported on Laura’s comments about me were out of line. I don’t listen to Laura’s show, so if journalists hadn’t picked up on it and reported on it, I never would have known what she said. I wonder how Laura would feel if at some point someone were to criticize her daughter’s weight and broadcast it nationally on the radio.

At this point, I have more respect for Ann Coulter than I do Laura Ingraham because at least Ann Coulter didn’t come back at me with heartless, substance-less attacks about my weight. All I can do is try and be a positive role model for women of my generation and hopefully help show that no matter what industry you are in, what size you are has nothing to do with your worth.

Meghan McCain is originally from Phoenix, Arizona. She graduated from Columbia University in 2007. She previously wrote for Newsweek magazine and created the website mccainblogette.com.

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

been out sick...whole family had flu....

so many douchebags to choose from though...

dancing....idol....castle....
take your pick

Most-watched 'Dancing' premiere ever

Melissa dancing UPDATED: The eighth edition of ABC's "Dancing With the Stars" had the most-watched premiere in the show's history, dramatically reversing a two-year slide.

The "Dancing" kickoff was seen by 22.5 million viewers -- a larger audience than Thursday's edition of ratings titan "American Idol." The dancing competition earned a 5.9 preliminary adults 18-49 rating and 15 share -- up 9% from last fall's premiere and 5% from last spring. This is first time a "Dancing" premiere has climbed in the ratings since 2007.

The show's producers had to scramble after dancing celebs Nancy O'Dell and Jewel dropped out last week. But the eleventh-hour casting of scorned "Bachelor" contestant Melissa Rycroft was a stroke-of-genius move that not only capitalized on the dating competition’s success this season, but also managed to extend ABC's Monday night reality show "story" from one series to another. Complete with a judge praising Rycroft's performance and dissing her ex-fiance Jason Mesnick, last night's "Dancing" debut played like a feel-good "Bachelor" finale do-over with Cinderella finally going to the ball.

"Dancing" led in to the series premiere of the Nathan Fillion mystery comedy "Castle" (11.6 million, 3.3/9), which opened with a number that would have been more impressive if not for its enormous lead-in. "Castle" placed second in the hour, and outperformed the average of "Boston Legal" in the time period and was on par with the year-ago debut of "Bachelor: London" in the spot.

Fox ranked second with "House" (12.1 million, 4.8/13), down 13% from its last episode to post its lowest number in four years, and "24" (11.3 million, 3.6/9), which improved slightly from last week's two-hour run.

That left CBS in an uncharacteristic third place among total viewers and the demo, with lower-than-usual (and up against stiffer competition than usual) episodes of "Big Bang Theory" (9.5 million, 3.6/10), "How I Met Your Mother" (8.5 million, 3.5/9), "Two and a Half Men" (13.3 million, 4.7/11) and "Rules of Engagement" (10 million, 3.7/9). "Rules" was down but slightly from last week's premiere. CBS re-asserted itself at 10 p.m. with hour-topping "CSI: Miami" (14.1 million, 4.3/11).

Fourth-place NBC had some bad news for "Chuck" (5.7 million, 2.0/5) fans. The show fell 17% from last week to a serious series low. "Heroes" (6.6 million, 3.2/8) matched last week's preliminary-rating series low. Yet "Medium" (7.1 million, 2.5/6) was up a tick. The CW continued crossing a desert of "Gossip Girl" repeats.

UPDATE: In the nationals, the "Dancing" finale improved to 22.8 million viewers and 6.1 rating, while "Castle" crumbled to 10.6 million and a 3.0 rating.

Thursday, February 19, 2009

sack o' shit holder...douchebag emeritus...


is he ever gonna shut up about evil whitey?!?...

Monday, February 16, 2009

double douches...WHAT'S THE RUSH!!??



WHAT'S THE RUSH?
'URGENT' $TIMULUS ON HOLD FOR BAM'S WEEKEND OFF

February 15, 2009

After pushing Congress for weeks to hurry up and pass the massive $787 billion stimulus bill, President Obama promptly took off for a three-day holiday getaway.

Obama arrived at his home in Chicago on Friday, and treated wife Michelle to a Valentine's Day dinner downtown last night. The couple was spotted leaving upscale Table Fifty-Two, which specializes in Southern cuisine, with the first lady toting what appeared to be a doggie bag.

The president plans to spend the Presidents' Day weekend in the Windy City, and is not expected to sign the bill until Tuesday, when he travels to Denver to discuss his economic plan.

Both the House and Senate passed the bill Friday night.

The push to get the bill through before the holiday weekend was so frantic, members of Congress didn't have a chance to read all 1,071 pages of the document before they could vote.

"In a perfect world it would have been nice to have had more time to process it," said Ilan Kayatsky, a spokesman for Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY).

Meanwhile, Gov. Paterson called yesterday for fiscal restraint with the massive influx of federal aid. His budget office estimated that New York will receive $24.6 billion over the next two years, $4 billion more than first believed. brendan.scott@nypost.com

Sunday, February 15, 2009

douches for the Lord's day...the united soviet socialist states congress!!




U.S. Congress Gives Final Approval to $787 Billion Stimulus

By Brian Faler

Feb. 13 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Congress gave final approval to President Barack Obama’s $787 billion economic stimulus package in hopes of wresting the economy out of recession through a mix of tax cuts and federal spending.

The Senate approved the package 60 to 38 with three Republicans joining Democrats in voting “yes.” Earlier today, the House passed the measure 246 to 183 with no Republicans in favor and seven Democrats opposed. The bill, Obama’s first major victory on Capitol Hill, now heads to his desk to be signed into law.

“After all the debate, this legislation can be summed up in one word: Jobs,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, during today’s floor debate. “The American people need action and they need action now.”

Because of paperwork that needs to be done, the legislation will reach the president’s desk “no earlier than Monday,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.

Democrats predict the plan would save or create 3.5 million jobs. Its biggest item is a $400 payroll tax cut for individuals and $800 for couples. Retirees, disabled veterans and others who don’t pay payroll taxes would get a $250 payment.

Republicans argued that the bill contained too much government spending and, because of that, wouldn’t do enough to boost the economy.

‘Spending, Spending’

“I think everyone in this chamber on both sides of the aisle understands we need to act,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner, an Ohio Republican. “But a bill that’s supposed to be about jobs, jobs, jobs has turned into a bill that’s all about spending, spending and spending.”

Businesses won several tax breaks, including faster write- offs for equipment purchased in 2009 and incentives for companies that produce and invest in renewable resources such as solar and wind power. A business tax break pushed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce would ease near-term tax burdens on companies and buyout firms that restructure debt without entering bankruptcy. The bill also includes an alternative minimum tax cut.

Democratic congressional leaders negotiated the final version of the bill this week after the House and Senate passed their own proposals.

When the House voted on its version last month, it passed 244-188 with no Republicans in support and 11 Democrats in opposition.

60 Votes

The measure needed 60 votes to pass the Senate. The three Republicans voting for the bill in that chamber were Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both of Maine. Senator Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrats who is battling brain cancer, didn’t vote and one of Minnesota’s Senate seats remains vacant.

Representative Allen Boyd of Florida was one of the Democrats who voted for the plan today after opposing the original House proposal. He said lawmakers “have worked hard to make this a better product,” in part by reducing some of the spending the House version had included.

Senator Judd Gregg, the New Hampshire Republican who withdrew yesterday as Obama’s commerce secretary nominee, voted against the plan. In a statement, he called it a “so-called stimulus plan” that “has become sidetracked by misplaced spending and a lack of attention to the true problems facing the nation.”

The stimulus plan would provide a half-trillion dollars for jobless benefits, renewable energy projects, highway construction, food stamps, broadband, Pell college tuition grants, high-speed rail projects and scores of other programs. It would raise the nation’s debt limit to about $12 trillion.

Executive Compensation

The package would restrict executive compensation at all companies receiving assistance from the Treasury Department’s Troubled Asset Relief Program, not just those receiving “exceptional” aid as the Obama administration announced last week. The legislation limits bonuses and other incentive pay at those companies on a sliding scale according to how much federal aid they take.

Bonus restrictions would be imposed on senior executive officers and the next 20 highest paid employees at companies that receive more than $500 million from TARP. Companies receiving between $250 million and $500 million would face restrictions on bonuses to their senior executive officers and their next 10 highest-paid workers. The limits would apply to the top five employees at companies receiving between $25 million and $250 million.

Other details of what provisions survived negotiations between the House and Senate were still emerging even as the plan headed for congressional passage.

Museums, Theaters

Lawmakers dropped provisions barring funds from going to museums, arts centers and theaters. A ban on money to casinos, golf courses, zoos and swimming pools was retained. Lawmakers deleted provisions requiring businesses receiving stimulus funding to use E-Verify, a government program used to ensure workers are in the country legally.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said today the stimulus package would cost $787 billion, rather than $789 billion lawmakers estimated earlier this week. The plan would pump $185 billion into the economy this year and $399 billion next year, the agency said.

“This country faces the greatest crisis that we’ve seen in terms of the economy since the ‘30s,” House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat, said as he urged passage of the bill. “The other tool normally available to us is monetary policy in the form of low interest rates through actions of the Federal Reserve. We’ve already fired that bullet - - the only bullet left is fiscal policy.”

Representative Jeb Hensarling, a Texas Republican, said “you cannot borrow and spend your way to prosperity” and that Democrats were aiming to “stimulate big government.”

Democrats released the text of the plan late yesterday, prompting complaints from Republicans they didn’t have enough time to review the legislation before voting on it.

“It is over a thousand pages,” said Representative Tom Price, a Georgia Republican. “It is physically impossible for any member to have read this bill.”

Saturday, February 14, 2009

Friday, February 13, 2009

friday...always the douchiest of douches....


mr.hillary clinton!!

FAIRNESS DOCTRINE:..TRANSLATION....NO ADVERTISERS WILL SPEND MONEY ON LIBERALS ON THE RADIO SO WE ARE GOING TO FORCE RADIO STATIONS TO HAVE LIBERALS ON THE RADIO...
GOES HAND IN HAND WITH MR. O'S U.S.S.R. LIKE AGENDA


Clinton wants 'more balance' on airwaves

Even though no member of Congress has scheduled hearings on the Fairness Doctrine, it remains on a hot topic on both liberal and conservative shows.

Today, radio host Mario Solis Marich asked former President Bill Clinton if it was time for "some type of enforced media accountability."

"Well, you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side," Clinton said, "because essentially there's always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows and let face it, you know, Rush Limbaugh is fairly entertaining even when he is saying things that I think are ridiculous...."

Clinton said that there needs to be either "more balance in the programs or have some opportunity for people to offer countervailing opinions." Clinton added that he didn't support repealing the Fairness Doctrine, an act done under Reagan's FCC.

In the past week, a couple Democratic Senators, Debbie Stabenow and Tom Harkin, have both spoken favorably about the Fairness Doctrine, or holding hearings on radio accountability.

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

thursday's daily douchebag....




















be like
mike(michelle)!!!
"ladies.....to get rough in the paint...you got to get down in the taint!!"


our first school!!...
C M U!!!
lesbian bias in women's basketball?...
i am shocked!!

Ex-player sues CMU,
claims sexual bias
Claims heterosexuality was a factor

Updated: Wednesday, 11 Feb 2009, 3:31 PM EST
Published : Wednesday, 11 Feb 2009, 7:54 AM EST

MOUNT PLEASANT, Mich. (AP) - Central Michigan and its women's basketball coach are being sued by a former player, who claims her heterosexuality was a factor in losing a scholarship after two seasons.

Brooke Heike said she fell out of favor with Sue Guevara immediately after the coach was hired in 2007.

Heike said Guevara told her she wore too much makeup and was not the coach's "type." That meant she wasn't a lesbian, according to a lawsuit filed last week in federal court in Bay City.

The former Romeo High School star lost her scholarship after the 2007-08 season.

"I didn't feel that she did anything to improve herself after being told over and over what she needed to do," Guevara told an appeals committee last June.

Heike's lawsuit claims the appeals panel "simply rubber-stamped defendant Guevara's bad-faith decision to deprive plaintiff of her scholarship and dismiss her from the team" for reasons unrelated to basketball.

Central Michigan spokesman Steve Smith said the allegations have no merit, and the university will "vigorously defend its position in court."

Guevara, a former coach at Michigan, was hired by the Chippewas in 2007. Heike was recruited by the previous coach, Eileen Kleinfelter.

Heike played in 11 games as a freshman but only six in her sophomore season under Guevara.

"I had faith in CMU. I liked CMU. I wanted to give it everything I could," Heike told Guevara during the meeting on her appeal. "I wasn't going to give up. You gave up on me."

Heike has been attending community college since leaving campus, her lawyer, Cindy Rhodes Victor, said.

"She was so traumatized by the experience," Victor said Tuesday.

The lawsuit seeks a jury trial and an unspecified cash award.

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

tuesday douche.....

just too many to name....
from the repube icans in the senate that sided with that communist rat bastard in the red house in d.c.(district of communism)
to all the self righteous pricks sitting in judgement and condemning aroid....
"let them without sin cast the first stone"....i guess in the world of sports journalism there are a helluva lot of sinless writers and experts...

Sunday, February 08, 2009

mondays douche(shit)bags....


collins...specter...snowe
asshole traitors one and all

a little late posting this but.....r.i.p. billy powell...

you boys in skynyrd have meant so much to me as a southerner and as a man...
God Bless you all...




Rock & Roll Daily, Your non-stop music news source.
Lynyrd Skynyrd Keyboardist Billy Powell Dead at 56


Billy Powell, the only keyboardist Lynyrd Skynyrd ever had, died last night at his home near Jacksonville, Florida. He was 56. No cause of death has been announced, and a post on the official Skynyrd Website reads, “A Great Loss — Beloved Pianist for the Lynyrd Skynyrd Band, Billy Powell, passed away last night. We will post more info shortly. The family and band request your respect and understanding during this difficult time. Thank you.” The band is canceling upcoming shows and directing fans to its Website for tour updates.

Powell first joined Skynyrd in 1973 after serving as the band’s roadie for a year. His keyboard work features prominently on the band’s debut (pronounced ‘leh-’nerd ’skin-’nerd), with Powell credited for crafting the intro for their epic anthem “Free Bird” (Number 191 on Rolling Stone’s Greatest Songs of All Time). After impressing Ronnie Van Zant with his work on the song, Powell was officially invited to join the band, and remained a member from their debut album until 1977’s Street Survivors.

Powell survived the 1977 plane crash that took the lives of singer Ronnie Van Zant, guitarist Steve Gaines, backup singer Cassie Gaines and other crew members. Despite suffering injuries including facial lacerations and nearly losing his nose, Powell was the first to be discharged from the hospital and was the only member to attend his bandmates’ funerals. After Skynyrd, Powell joined the Christian rock band Vision, but reunited with Skynyrd after a decade-long hiatus for some concerts in 1989, and ultimately remained with the band until now. In May, Skynyrd played their first-ever gig at New York’s Madison Square Garden with Kid Rock.

Powell and the rest of his Lynyrd Skynyrd bandmates were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2006. With Powell’s death, guitarist Gary Rossington becomes the lone surviving original Skynyrd member touring with the band.

sports teams as douchebags!!




THE TEXASS ROIDRANGERS CIRCA 2000-2003
FEATURING(BUT NOT LIMITED TO)....
ARODONNA..PUDGEROD..JUANGONEZALEZ..RANDY VELARDE..RAFAEL LIAR PALMEIRO
AND MANY MORE!!