|
1-9 of 9 messages
|
Page 1 of 1
|
|
HSU$ rating of politicians
|
Reply
|
|
by tigers9 on October 15, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
HSUS rating politicians, higher number means animal rights HSU$ likes them, McCain got only 17, Obama 67 rating regarding voting on animal issues.HSUS is the one who wants to ban our exotiuc/wild/hybrid pets and force early age (under 3 montsh, NOT healthy) mandatory catsration.So best people to vote for is th e ones with ratings closer to ZERO.That means antis really hate them.Bidden, Obama's running mate has 100+.
Z
http://www.fund.org/pdfs/2008_humane_scorecard.pdf
|
| |
|
RE: HSU$ rating of politicians
|
Reply
|
|
by tigers9 on October 16, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
See how many people voted for monkey ban and how few voted NO (scroll below), this is election time, if you want to keep your pets, vote for
People who voted against the monkey bill the NAYS people, these are the ones
we need to keep in the office, unfortunately, only Republicans voted against
this exotic ban, all Democrats either voted for the ban or some didn’t vote
for whatever reason. Actually, it is not really ban, just makes it a felony for monkey pet owners to move across the state lines with their pets, basically forces people who are moving to dump their pets. For big cat it is already a law. Since I am a big cat pet owner, non USDA, if I moved and took my cats across state lines as a responsible owner, I would be committing a felony. The python hysteria and other reptiles bills would do the same prevent people to move with their pets.
Z
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll414.xml
|
| |
|
RE: HSU$ rating of politicians
|
Reply
|
|
by Chance on October 20, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm afraid the potential impending doom for the American economy trumps (and rightly so!) any worries over whether or not we'll be able to continue keeping our big cats, monkeys, reptiles, or whatnot. The American public obviously believes Obama is a better bet when it comes to the economy and I happen to agree.
I just find it kind of naive to be worried about who AR groups like more when people are loosing their retirements and homes to our quickly ruining economy.
|
| |
|
RE: HSU$ rating of politicians
|
Reply
|
|
by tigers9 on October 21, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chance, we had this discussion before. It is not about animals only, I use their animal voting record as a ‘monkey business’ test. Regardless of whether I as US citizen do or don’t own any exotics, when I see a politicians wasting congressional time and money on monkey bills/bans, my reaction is: this person doesn’t have their priorities straight, this person has few screws missing and shouldn’t be in a leadership position.
Yeah, with economy as bad as it is, why would anybody worry about animal rights bills. Shouldn’t people come first?
Your comment about Obama and public and economy, where did it come from, I didn’t know elections were over and public choose Obama already..???..and in my opinion Obama has no clue how to fix economy, socialism never worked long term.:
<< Chance wrote:“”The American public obviously believes Obama is a better bet when it comes to the economy and I happen to agree.””>>
In any case, below is the post I posted on few other animal forums, seems like all animal forums are turning into passionate election topics discussions and there is no way to stop it, so here it is.
Z
My forwarded post, it started of wolf dog forum where people were angry at killing wild wolves by ranchers but then admitted to kill wild reptiles to protect their canine pets, so i asked them how are they different (hypocritical?) than ranchers who kill wolves, all are protecting what they love from wild animals:
<<Let me explain what is going on here, politely, with white flag in my hand;-)
If I had my real choice, I would vote for constitution lover like Ron Paul, but everybody says he has no chance so they will vote the lesser of 2 evils (Obama, McCain).
But maybe if we all stopped saying he has no chance and voted for libertarians, maybe they would have a chance, who knows...
Like i said, this year I am voting myself for the lesser of 2 evils, which in my case the lesser evil is McCain, bigger evil is Obama, but I dislike both. ...gee, what a choice, do u want to be spanked and have bruises on your right side which is more photogenic or your left side???;-)
But who knows, maybe when I get to the voting booth I will just vote for Mickey Mouse or Little red riding hood.
I will explain why I see McCain as smaller evil. Remember few weeks ago we discussed here we all love animals, captive and wild, but if it came to the final fight, we would kill wild animals (snake, toads, etc...) to save our captive pets, since our pets or higher in the hierarchy than wild animals?
That is my situation with McCain versus Obama.
I think McCain is slightly less likely to support a bill that would ban my pets or put such an extreme regulation requirements that I would either have to euthanize them or send them to AR crappy scamstuary.
I think McCain is less likely to raise taxes, which leaves me with more money to spend on spoiling my animals.
I think McCain is less likely to ban guns which i use for self protection and possible protection of my animals.
Maybe Obama ticket might be more friendly toward wild animals, but I believe McCain ticket is more friendly toward my personal pets, and as we established here before, all of you put your pets on higher pedestal and would kill a wild animals to save your pets.
Z (still holding a white flag)
|
| |
|
RE: HSU$ rating of politicians
|
Reply
|
|
by Chance on October 21, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes we have had this conversation before, but that was actually before Wall Street imploded so I thought it prudent to rehash the topic, especially now that people have been taking a good hard look at what the past 8 years under Republican leadership has done. If that's not a glaring indication that says Republicans are bad for the economy long-term then I'm not exactly sure how better to put it.
Then there's this little gem you posted, which shows an even vaster lack of understanding of your candidate's proposed policies than I expected:
"I think McCain is less likely to raise taxes, which leaves me with more money to spend on spoiling my animals."
Take a look at McCain's and Obama's proposed tax plans. Here's a little graphic to help:
http://waternoice.com/wp-content/uploads/obamastaxplan.gif
As you hopefully can see, Obama's plan offers far more of a tax cut for people like myself and, I presume, you, than McCain. Unless I'm mistaken and you make more than $250,000. But for 95% of this country, we'd see a tax decrease under an Obama administration if he were able to enact his plan as it is currently stated. Under McCain, only the top dogs would see a significant tax decrease, and that falls right in line with the old Republican trickle down theory standby. Problem is, that money doesn't trickle down, it stagnates at the top and creates and larger and larger divide between the rich and poor; hence the situation like we have now.
So I hope if you're truly considering taxes in your decision of who you'll support for president, since afterall the amount of taxes you'll pay will directly reflect in how much extra you have to give even better care to your animals, you'll support the candidate who obviously has a better grasp on how to get the country back on its feet. And by the way, Obama is no more espousing socialism than McCain (government buying up people's mortgages and renegotiating them?). If the concept that every person in America deserves affordable health care is socialist, then call me a pinko, because I think it's a shame a country as rich as ours could allow so many of its citizens to go without simply because they would have to choose between health care or feeding their families.
|
| |
|
RE: HSU$ rating of politicians
|
Reply
|
|
by tigers9 on October 22, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OK, I don’t want to go too deep into the politics here, but I need to correct blatant misinformation in Chance’s post.
Socialized health care: it looks great on paper, but doesn’t work in the real life. I am self insured, trust me, I would love to save all the money I spend on my health insurance, but the outcome of socialized health care sucks. I lived thru it in socialist Czechoslovakia and in Italy, where it is not that much better unless you have money to got to private hospital.
WHY? Well, yeah, you get FREE health care under socialized medicine, you go to the dentist, but instead of treating and saving your teeth, they just take it out, no restoration after that. U injure your limb? Well, instead of saving the limb and having fine neurosurgery, the doctors just amputate your limbs. Yeah, u get free healthcare under Obama plan, but it will cost you arm and the leg, the cheapest way to treat people is to cut sick tissue away.
When you need serious care or surgery, the wait might be 2 years to get to the surgery UNLESS you bribe somebody out of your pocket. Who can afford bribing, only the rich, this is why rich Canadians come to the USA for the urgent good surgeries, because in Canada socialized health care, they might have to wait 2 years, and if you have a brain tumor, 2 years might is too long to wait.
Taxes: No, I don’t make over 250,000, but I don’t see how you expect small percentage of the population to carry the whole economy. Yeas, Obama might not raise or even reduce your taxes the first year, only to raise it the 2nd year. Tax the rich doesn’t work, do you remember the fiasco of luxury tax? If you want thriving economy, you want the rich to have money, they buy bigger houses, cars (aka more sale tax), they open businesses that employ people who produce service or goods that stimulate the economy, this is economy 101. People on welfare do NOT stimulate the economy, they suck it dry.
Current crisis: yes, I was against the buyout.
President Bush proposed a new oversight committee few years back to clean up Fannie
Mae, but Democrats derailed the effort. Eventually things got back and Franklin Raines & top execs were forced to resign from Fannie Mae. Barack Obama was on Federal financial management committee and Franklin Raines is now an advisor to the
Obama Campaign which wants the govt. to take over more of the economy.
There is this spoof movie TOP SECRET made by the same people who did AIRPLANE. This American singer ends up in the east Germany and meets a girl, she is American and her father is an American scientist in the east German prison building the submarine magnet that will attract submarines from miles away. When the US singer asks he daughter how did her father end up in East Germany, she replies (paraphrasing here): “ he was one of the lucky ones, he escaped in a balloon during Jimmy Carter presidency”
See more here in the fwd email from another list:
IMPORTANT!!!!! The following is a condensation of a series from the Investor's Business Daily explaining "What Caused the Loan Crisis":
1977: Pres. Jimmy Carter signs the Community Reinvestment Act into Law. The law pressured financial institutions to extend home loans to those who would otherwise not qualify. The Premise: Home ownership would improve poor and crime-ridden communities and neighborhoods in terms of crime, investment, jobs, etc.
Results: Statistics bear out that it did not help.
Question: How did the government get so deeply involved in the housing market?
Answer: See below to find out who is covering up their guilt !
1992: Republican representative Jim Leach (IO) warned of the danger that Fannie and Freddie were changing from being agencies of the public at large to money machines for the principals and the stockholding few.
1993: Clinton extensively rewrote Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's rules turning the quasi-private mortgage-funding firms into semi-nationalized monopolies dispensing cash and loans to large Democratic voting blocks and handing favors, jobs and contributions to political allies. This potent mix led inevitably to corruption and now the collapse of Freddie and Fannie.
1994: Despite warnings, Clinton unveiled his National Home-Ownership Strategy which broadened the CRA in ways congress never intended.
1995: Congress, about to change from a Democrat majority to Republican, Clinton orders Robert Rubin's Treasury Dept to rewrite the rules. Robt. Rubin's Treasury reworked rules, forcing banks to satisfy quotas for sub-prime and minority loans to get a satisfactory CRA rating. The rating was key to expansion or mergers for banks. Loans began to be made on the basis of race and little else.
1997 - 1999: Clinton, bypassing Republicans, enlisted Andrew Cuomo, then Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, allowing Freddie and Fannie to get into the sub-prime market in a BIG way. Led by Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd, congress doubled down on the risk by easing capital limits and allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments vs. 10% for banks. Since they could borrow at lower rates than banks their enterprises boomed.
With incentives in place, banks poured billions in loans into poor communities, often "no doc", "no income", requiring no money down and no verification of income. Worse still was the cronyism: Fannie and Freddie became home to out-of work-politicians, mostly Clinton Democrats. 384 politicians got big campaign donations from Fannie and Freddie. Over $200 million had been spent on lobbying and political activities. During the 1990's Fannie and Freddie enjoyed a subsidy of as much as $182 Billion, most of it going to principals and shareholders, not poor borrowers as claimed.
Did it work? Minorities made up 49% of the 12.5 million new homeowners but many of those loans have gone bad and the minority homeownership rates are shrinking fast.
1999: New Treasury Secretary, Lawrence Summers, became alarmed at Fannie and Freddie's excesses. Congress held hearings the ensuing year but nothing was done because Fannie and Freddie had donated millions to key congressmen and radical groups, ensuring no meaningful changes would take place. "We manage our political risk with the same intensity that we manage our credit and interest rate risks," Fannie CEO Franklin Raines, a former Clinton official and current Barack Obama advisor, bragged to investors in 1999.
2000: Secretary Summers sent Undersecretary Gary Gensler to Congress seeking an end to the "special status". Democrats raised a ruckus as did Fannie and Freddie, headed by politically connected CEO's who knew how to reward and punish. "We think that the statements evidence a contempt for the nation's housing and mortgage markets" Freddie spokesperson Sharon McHale said It was the last chance during the Clinton era for reform.
2001: Republicans try repeatedly to bring fiscal sanity to Fannie and Freddie but Democrats blocked any attempt at reform; especially Rep. Barney Frank and Sen.Chris Dodd who now run key banking committees and were huge beneficiaries of campaign contributions from the mortgage giants.
2003: Bush proposes what the NY Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago". Even after discovering a scheme by Fannie and Freddie to overstate earnings by $10.6 billion to boost their bonuses, the Democrats killed reform.
2005: Then Fed chairman Alan Greenspan warns Congress: "We are placing the total financial system at substantial risk".
Sen. McCain, with two others, sponsored a Fannie/Freddie reform bill and said, "If congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole".
Sen. Harry Reid accused the GOP; of trying to "cripple the ability of Fannie and Freddie to carry out their mission of expanding homeownership" The bill went nowhere.
2007: By now Fannie and Freddie own or guarantee over HALF of the $12 trillion US mortgage market. The mortgage giants, whose executive suites were top-heavy with former Democratic officials, had been working with Wall St. to repackage the bad loans and sell them to investors. As the housing market fell in '07, subprime mortgage portfolios suffered major losses. The crisis was on, though it was 15 years in the making.
2008: McCain has repeatedly called for reforming the behemoths, Still the media have repeated Democrats' talking points about this being a "Republican" disaster. A few Republicans are complicit but Fannie and Freddie were created by Democrats, regulated by Democrats, largely run by Democrats and protected by Democrats. That's why taxpayers are now being asked for $700 billion!!
Bush urged reform 17 times.
If you doubt any of this, just click the links below and listen to your lawmakers own words. They are condemning!
If a click does not bring you there, copy the address and paste it in your browser address box.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68D9XrqyrWo&feature=related#
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIgqfM5C8lY#
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9juJr8CSY4&feature=related#
Postscript: ACORN is one of the principle beneficiaries of Fannie/Freddie's slush funds. They are currently under indictment or investigation in many states. Barack Obama served as their legal counsel, defending their activities for several years.
Please share this with everyone you know. Send it. Print it. Talk about it. America needs to know!!!
|
| |
|
RE: HSU$ rating of politicians
|
Reply
|
|
by Phobos on October 22, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well since we are on political topic. I read this article today. The ideas like truth, honor, and integrity are missing from most of America's dictionary on both sides of the political isle. The author seems to call it right.
http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html
Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card
Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.
An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:
I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.
This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.
It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.
What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.
The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.
They end up worse off than before.
This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.
Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)
Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?
I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."
Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.
As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" ( http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com] ): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."
These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.
Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!
What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?
Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.
And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.
If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.
But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.
You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.
If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.
If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.
There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)
If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.
Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.
But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.
If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.
Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.
Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.
Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.
So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?
Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?
You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.
That's where you are right now.
It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.
If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.
Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.
You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.
This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.
If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.
If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.
You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.
This article first appeared in The Rhinoceros Times of Greensboro, North Carolina, and is used here by permission.
|
| |
|
RE: HSU$ rating of politicians
|
Reply
|
|
by tigers9 on October 22, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
talking of interesting articles and twists, how about Buckley son is no longer at the National Review, the magazine his father founded, all over bOama stuff. This is the day i didn't think i would ever see, seems like good old Buckely spent too mcuh time in the office and not enough educating his kid;-)
Z
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-14/sorry-dad-i-was-fired
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-case-for-obama/
|
| |
|
RE: HSU$ rating of politicians
|
Reply
|
|
by Cro on October 22, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AL, thanks for posting that article.
There is no doubt that honest journalism in this country is mostly dead.
It is almost all agenda driven, dishonest, biased, junk, wether it is on TV, Radio, or in the News Papers.
And a lot of people unfortunatly fall into the trap of being brain washed by it all.
As each year passes, I hold out less and less hope for the survival of the grand experiment that was called the United States.
Best Regards John Z
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Manager.
|
