New Developments II

[OscarGuy]

They are exploiting it. The government has the power to DO something about it. By bringing it up over and over again, it is very obvious they are trying to keep the aura of fear palpable for everyone in order to placate the ignorant into believing that they need a gunboat diplomacy lunacracy in command.

Announcing that a plot was thwarted is one thing. Using it as a tool to say so-and-so is weak on terrorism when it had NOTHING to do with our own failings or successes is pathetic and blatantly obvious. That you can't SEE that is sad and proves you have blinders on and can't see the greater picture. You're the kind of person that makes it so easy for administrations like this to push its will on the people.

As Benjamin Franklin once said: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Simple and Truthful and something you will not and cannot apparently understand.

[criddic3]

Your'e right Mister Tee. I should pay more attention when watching late-night talk panels. Next time I'll be more careful.

Yes, oscarguy, it was the British who thwarted the plot, but President Bush has simply said that it is a reminder of what this is all about. We cannot forget that there are terrorists out there who do want to do us and our allies harm. That is not a political rally plan. It's the truth. What should they do when the uncover a plot: Stay silent and hope that people will figure it out for themselves? Not acknowledging that people want to hurt us won't make the fact any less real.

[OscarGuy]

well, it's time to nullify this argument. What was a solidly 40% average for the president's job approval, four new polls have come out showing that percentage to have dropped back into the 30s...it'll probably waffle back up or could topple down if the public is repulsed by the use of terrorism AGAIN as a political tool. After all, it was the British, not the Americans who thwarted the plot...

[Mister Tee]

In what conceivable way does a tax CUT on the very wealthiest Americans "help pay" for a minimum wage raise? All it does is extend an already ballooning deficit, at no benefit to society (aside from the Paris Hilton contingent).

criddic, do you have the faintest knowledge of economics? I'm fine with you having your own opinion, but make sense, please.

No, I said that "I heard an interesting theory." I didn't say I knew if it would work or not.

This is as dumb as anything I've ever seen posted on this board (and god knows, we've all had our beauties from time to time).

"I hear if you eat only ice cream for a month, you'll lose 30 pounds". I only said "I heard an interesting theory." I didn't say I knew if it would work or not.

[Sonic Youth]

<span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>2,600</span>

A Look at U.S. Military Deaths in Iraq
Aug 12, 6:43 PM (ET)

By The Associated Press

As of Saturday, Aug. 12, 2006, at least 2,600 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. The figure includes seven military civilians. At least 2,057 died as a result of hostile action, according to the military's numbers.

The AP count is seven higher than the Defense Department's tally, last updated Friday at 10 a.m. EDT.

The British military has reported 115 deaths; Italy, 32; Ukraine, 18; Poland, 17; Bulgaria, 13; Spain, 11; Denmark, El Salvador, four each; Slovakia, three; Estonia, Netherlands, Thailand, two each; and Australia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Romania, one death each.

[Damien]

How To Make America Safe And Secure:

BUSH STAFF WANTED BOMB-DETECT CASH MOVED
By John Solomon, Associated Press Writer
Aug 11


While the British terror suspects were hatching their plot, the Bush administration was quietly seeking permission to divert $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new homeland explosives detection technology.

Congressional leaders rejected the idea, the latest in a series of steps by the Homeland Security Department that has left lawmakers and some of the department's own experts questioning the commitment to create better anti-terror technologies.

Homeland Security's research arm, called the Sciences & Technology Directorate, is a "rudderless ship without a clear way to get back on course," Republican and Democratic senators on the Appropriations Committee declared recently.

"The committee is extremely disappointed with the manner in which S&T is being managed within the Department of Homeland Security," the panel wrote June 29 in a bipartisan report accompanying the agency's 2007 budget.

Rep. Martin Sabo, D-Minn., who joined Republicans to block the administration's recent diversion of explosives detection money, said research and development is crucial to thwarting future attacks and there is bipartisan agreement that Homeland Security has fallen short.

"They clearly have been given lots of resources that they haven't been using," Sabo said.

Homeland Security said Friday its research arm has just gotten a new leader, former Navy research chief Rear Adm. Jay Cohen, and there is strong optimism for developing new detection technologies in the future.

"I don't have any criticisms of anyone," said Kip Hawley, the assistant secretary for transportation security. "I have great hope for the future. There is tremendous intensity on this issue among the senior management of this department to make this area a strength."

Lawmakers and recently retired Homeland Security officials say they are concerned the department's research and development effort is bogged down by bureaucracy, lack of strategic planning and failure to use money wisely.

The department failed to spend $200 million in research and development money from past years, forcing lawmakers to rescind the money this summer.

The administration also was slow to start testing a new liquid explosives detector that the Japanese government provided to the United States earlier this year.

The British plot to blow up as many as 10 American airlines on trans-Atlantic flights was to involve liquid explosives.

Hawley said Homeland Security now is going to test the detector in six American airports. "It is very promising technology and we are extremely interested in it to help us operationally in the next several years," he said.

Japan has been using the liquid explosive detectors in its Narita International Airport in Tokyo and demonstrated the technology to U.S. officials at a conference in January, the Japanese Embassy in Washington said.

Homeland Security is spending a total of $732 million this year on various explosives deterrents and has tested several commercial liquid explosive detectors over the past few years but hasn't been satisfied enough with the results to deploy them.

Hawley said current liquid detectors that can scan only individual containers aren't suitable for wide deployment because they would bring security check lines to a crawl.

For more than four years, officials inside Homeland Security also have debated whether to deploy smaller trace explosive detectors — already in most American airports — to foreign airports to help stop any bomb chemicals or devices from making it onto U.S.-destined flights.

A 2002 Homeland report recommended "immediate deployment" of the trace units to key European airports, highlighting their low cost, $40,000 per unit, and their detection capabilities. The report said one such unit was able, 25 days later, to detect explosives residue inside the airplane where convicted shoe bomber Richard Reid was foiled in his attack in December 2001.

A 2005 report to Congress similarly urged that the trace detectors be used more aggressively, and strongly warned the continuing failure to distribute such detectors to foreign airports "may be an invitation to terrorist to ply their trade, using techniques that they have already used on a number of occasions."

Tony Fainberg, who formerly oversaw Homeland Security's explosive and radiation detection research with the national labs, said he strongly urged deployment of the detectors overseas but was rebuffed.

"It is not that expensive," said Fainberg, who retired recently. "There was no resistance from any country that I was aware of, and yet we didn't deploy it."

Fainberg said research efforts were often frustrated inside Homeland Security by "bureaucratic games," a lack of strategic goals and months-long delays in distributing money Congress had already approved.

"There has not been a focused and coherent strategic plan for defining what we need ... and then matching the research and development plans to that overall strategy," he said.

Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon, a senior Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee, said he urged the administration three years ago to buy electron scanners, like the ones used at London's airport to detect plastics that might be hidden beneath passenger clothes.

"It's been an ongoing frustration about their resistance to purchase off-the-shelf, state-of-the-art equipment that can meet these threats," he said.

The administration's most recent budget request also mystified lawmakers. It asked to take $6 million from Homeland S&T's 2006 budget that was supposed to be used to develop explosives detection technology and instead divert it to cover a budget shortfall in the Federal Protective Service, which provides security around government buildings.

Sens. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., and Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., the top two lawmakers for Senate homeland appropriations, rejected the idea shortly after it arrived late last month, Senate leadership officials said.

Their House counterparts, Reps. Hal Rogers, R-Ky., and Sabo, likewise rejected the request in recent days, Appropriations Committee spokeswoman Kirsten Brost said. Homeland said Friday it won't divert the money.

___

[Sonic Youth]

Sonic, glad you're back, but my interpretation of a phrase like "down, down, down" is that it means the numbers continue to fall. This means you indeed were saying they were falling.

Read this carefully, ass.

The phrase was not "down, down, down". The phrase was "polls ARE down, down, down".

But when you remove even TWO WORDS from a phrase, it changes the meaning entirely. Which is what you just did, because you are a repulsive liar.

It's must be nice to think you can see into other people's heads, since you have so few other talents in life. Accurately reading posts being one of many of your deficiencies. But besides being extremely annoying, it's laughably incorrect. Always.

Your parents must have been saints to have put up with a kid like you who turned out to have been so transparently, miserably dishonest. Or am I giving them too much credit?

[Damien]

Sonic, glad you're back, but my interpretation of a phrase like "down, down, down" is that it means the numbers continue to fall. This means you indeed were saying they were falling. My point was that this is inaccurate, since they are rising. They are usually around the 40% mark in most polls these days

Earth to criddic:

BUSH APPROVAL RATING SINKS TO 33%, MATCHING LOW, AP POLL SHOWS
Aug. 11 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush's job- approval rating declined to 33 percent, matching a record low, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll that signaled public discontent with the economy and the Iraq war.

The survey of 1,001 adults was taken Aug. 7-9, before yesterday's announcement by British authorities that they had foiled a suspected terrorist plot to blow up planes bound for the U.S. In the past, imminent threats of attacks on the U.S. have helped underpin Bush's public support.

Bush's job approval rating was 36 percent in July and 33 percent in May, according to the AP poll, which has an error margin of plus or minus 3 percentage points. Seventy-one percent of respondents in the current survey said Bush was leading the country in the wrong direction, up from 67 percent last month.

Public approval of Bush's leadership on the economy fell to 37 percent, a record, and 33 percent of Americans approved of his handling of the Iraq war, also a record low. On Bush's foreign policy in general, 40 percent said they approved of his administration's diplomacy overseas and in the war against terror, [/B]down from 44 percent a month earlier, the survey showed.

An increasing number of registered voters in the survey said their votes in the Nov. 7 midterm elections will be cast in part as a show of opposition to Bush. Twenty-nine percent of the registered voters said they'll punish Republicans in the election because Bush's policies, up from 20 percent in July.

[criddic3]

In what conceivable way does a tax CUT on the very wealthiest Americans "help pay" for a minimum wage raise? All it does is extend an already ballooning deficit, at no benefit to society (aside from the Paris Hilton contingent).

criddic, do you have the faintest knowledge of economics? I'm fine with you having your own opinion, but make sense, please.

No, I said that "I heard an interesting theory." I didn't say I knew if it would work or not.

I didn't say they were rising or falling, you dishonest prat. I said they were down, and they were. The more you put words in my mouth, the more I'll call you out as a liar with a tragically active imagination.

Nice to be back! Woo hoo!

Sonic, glad you're back, but my interpretation of a phrase like "down, down, down" is that it means the numbers continue to fall. This means you indeed were saying they were falling. My point was that this is inaccurate, since they are rising. They are usually around the 40% mark in most polls these days, compared with the average of 35% only a few months ago. I suspect part of this has to do with his resurgence among Republicans, who recently were polled as supporting Bush by 78%-82%, compared with 65% only a few months earlier.

[Okri]

criddic, do you realize the purpose of quotation marks?

[Sonic Youth]

Yes, but saying they're "down, down, down" ignores the fact that they are currently rising. It implies that Bush is still losing ground, when in fact he is gaining.

I didn't say they were rising or falling, you dishonest prat. I said they were down, and they were. The more you put words in my mouth, the more I'll call you out as a liar with a tragically active imagination.

Nice to be back! Woo hoo!

[Mister Tee]

In what conceivable way does a tax CUT on the very wealthiest Americans "help pay" for a minimum wage raise? All it does is extend an already ballooning deficit, at no benefit to society (aside from the Paris Hilton contingent).

criddic, do you have the faintest knowledge of economics? I'm fine with you having your own opinion, but make sense, please.

[criddic3]

Actually, although I agree that the minimum wage should be raised, I did hear an interesting argument for this combination. Someone on one of the television news shows was saying that this is not such a bad idea and that it would actually turn out to be good for the economy.

I don't know how accurate this explanation is, but I wonder what makes the combination so bad in your minds? I mean, it seems like this might be a way to pay for the increase without disrupting the economy. Maybe I'm wrong, but why the uproar?

[Damien]

Pathetic Scum.

Republicans tie minimum wage to tax cut

One would hope that this time the Republicans have gone too far and that the American public would recoil in disgust, but I've hoped that so many times over the years over so many issues that I'm not counting on it.

By the way, former basketball star Charles Barkley announced his interest in running for governor of Alabama, the most surprising aspect being that he has changed his party affiliation, saying: "“I was a Republican until they lost their minds.”

Sir Charles (who's been pretty nutty himself) elaborated: “The word conservative means discriminatory practically. It’s a form of political discrimination. What do the Republicans run on? Against gay marriage and for a war that makes no sense. A war that was based on faulty intelligence. That’s all they ever talk about. That and immigration. Another discriminatory argument for political gain.”

[OscarGuy]

Pathetic Scum.

Republicans tie minimum wage to tax cut

By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer 15 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Republican leaders are willing to allow the first minimum wage increase in a decade but only if it's coupled with a cut in future inheritance taxes on multimillion-dollar estates, congressional aides said Friday.
ADVERTISEMENT

A package GOP leaders planned to bring to a vote Friday or Saturday in the House also would renew several popular tax breaks, including a research and development credit for businesses, and deductions for college tuition and state sales taxes, said a spokesman for House Majority Leader John Boehner.

The wage would increase from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour, phased in over the next three years, said Kevin Madden, the aide to Boehner, an Ohio Republican.

The maneuver is aimed at defusing the wage hike as a campaign issue for Democrats while using its popularity to spur enactment of the Republican Party's long-sought goal of permanently cutting taxes on millionaires' estates.

The Senate could take it up next week before leaving on a monthlong recess.

"It's going to be one hell of a rumpus," predicted Eric Ueland, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's chief of staff.

Democrats immediately expressed outrage, saying low-income workers deserved a straight vote on increasing the minimum wage uncoupled to other measures.

"It's political blackmail to say the only way that minimum wage workers can get a raise is to give a tax giveaway to the wealthiest Americans," said Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass. "Members of Congress raised their own pay — no strings attached. Surely, common decency suggests that minimum wage workers deserve the same respect."

"It's outrageous the Republican Congress can't simply help poor people without doing something for their wealthy contributors," said Rep. Tim Ryan (news, bio, voting record), D-Ohio.

House lawmakers were to discuss the package at an early afternoon session, while the Senate GOP aide professed confidence the bill could advance through the chamber next week.

The aide asked not to be identified publicly because of the ongoing closed strategy sessions on the bill.

"It's the one chance for Democrats who want to get a minimum wage increase," the aide said.

The move comes after almost 50 rank-and-file Republican lawmakers pressed House leaders — who strongly oppose the wage hike and have thus far prevented a vote — to schedule the measure for debate. Democrats have been hammering away on the wage hike issue and have public opinion behind them

"We weren't going to be denied," said Rep. Steve LaTourette, R-Ohio, a leader in the effort. "How can you defend $5.15 an hour in today's economy?"

It was a decade ago, during the hotly contested campaign year of 1996, that Congress voted to increase the minimum wage. A person working 40 hours per week at minimum wage makes $10,700, which is below the poverty line for workers with families.

In advancing the tax plan, GOP leaders excluded a measure popular with small businesses that would make it easier for small businesses and the self-employed to band together and buy health insurance plans for employees at a lower cost.

That idea was blasted as a "poison pill" by Democrats and labor unions. The small business health insurance bill exempts new "association health plans" from state regulations requiring insurers to cover treatments such as mental health and maternity care. And opponents fear they would offer inferior prescription drug benefits.

Democrats have made increasing the wage a pillar of their campaign platform and are pushing to raise the wage to $7.25 per hour over two years. In June, the Republican-controlled Senate refused to raise the minimum wage, rejecting a proposal from Democrats.

It's long been clear that there is wide support for the wage increase in the House, but Republican leaders have a general policy of bringing legislation to the floor only if it has support from a majority of Republicans. Perhaps one-fourth of House Republicans support the wage increase.

Inflation has eroded the minimum wage's buying power to the lowest level in about 50 years. Yet lawmakers have won cost-of-living wage increases totaling about $35,000 for themselves over that time.

Lawmakers fear being pounded with 30-second campaign ads over the August recess that would tie Congress' upcoming $3,300 pay increase with Republicans' refusal to raise the minimum wage.