home

Thursday Non-Politics Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:31:53 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I'm working most of the day, so here's a place for those of you who want to discuss news and issues other than the presidential election.

< Mukasey and Bush : Fear Mongering | Obama On Reagan Again >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Thursday Non-Politics Open Thread | 16 comments (16 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Looks like.... (none / 0) (#1)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:48:21 AM EST
    the D's and R's cut a deal to get us some tax/inflation relief....300-1200 bucks for singles making 75k or less, 150k for couples.

    I'll take it...cut those checks mofos!  

    Hopefully it will be coupled with a reduction in government weapons purchases....I won't hold my breath.

    Well, Bushie's budget does not include (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by scribe on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:02:26 AM EST
    money for the troops much after he leaves office in January.  Just another Bush-family special - make a horrendous mess, and leave it for your successor to clean up.

    Parent
    Good (none / 0) (#3)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:09:25 AM EST
    to hear you want the war fully funded.

    Parent
    False - I want the war ended. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by scribe on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:18:13 AM EST
    This is wholly reminiscent of Bush 41 ignoring Somalia until after losing the 92 election, then starting the involvement there in full knowledge that the situation was dicey at best, and leaving a mess on the Oval Office rug for his party to throw at the newly elected WJC.  

    This way, Bush makes his successor own Iraq.  It could have been avoided had the Congress shown a little spine earlier, instead of glomming up the spew of Magical September, and all the other Bushsh*t.

    Parent

    Do you really think (none / 0) (#8)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:42:54 AM EST
    there will be no Iraq mess left for the successor to whomever gets stuck with, er, wins the presidency, in Nov?

    Parent
    Don't get it... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:44:38 AM EST
    Why did they not just take the money and give it to China.  Would have been cheaper, one check.  Why bother with Target, Wall-Mart and all the middle men?  

    What happened to not throwing money at problems. ?

    Parent

    My check is going to Las Vegas baby:).... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:48:41 AM EST
    though I wouldn't be surprised to learn the Chinese Communist Party is invested in Las Vegas casinos.

    And I wouldn't call this "throwing money at problems"...I'd call it money well spent.  People earning under 75k can use it, and spend it more wisely, more than the government ever could.

    Parent

    Why borrow money from yourself? (none / 0) (#15)
    by roy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 03:41:06 PM EST
    The feds are running a budget deficit and don't plan to stop anytime soon.  So whatever money they give to taxpayers is barely even a refund, it's just money we have to give back eventually in taxes later, plus interest.  So it's like a loan, only we're both the recipients and the issuers.  The only people who really come out ahead from this kind of handout are those who won't be paying much in taxes in the future: the poor.  I hope they don't use the money to stimulate the economy, but rather put it away for a rainy day, so maybe they don't stay so poor.

    If they really want to improve the economy, stop spending so much money so we can all be confident that we'll be able to keep more of what we earn in the future.

    That said, woo-hoo, I'm gonna blow my check on home brewing equipment.

    Parent

    Is being absent (none / 0) (#4)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:12:02 AM EST
    in Congress like being present in the Illinois legislature?

    Activist Prosecutors (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jgarza on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:13:03 AM EST
    Bexar County's (San Antonio) DA is waging a war against Health Activists.

    Last year she issued a statement that the legislation creating a needle exchange program did not shield health workers from, drug paraphernalia laws.

    District Attorney Susan Reed has warned local officials that the legislation doesn't shield participants from drug paraphernalia laws.

    Now she is going after health activists.

    Bill Day, a co-founder of the nonprofit group Bexar Area Harm Reduction Coalition, and board members Mary Casey and Melissa Lujan were initially cited Jan. 5 with possession of drug paraphernalia, a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $500.

    A police officer spotted the three parked at a corner "with several known prostitutes and drug addicts next to the vehicle," according to a police report. Day told the officer he was offering clean hypodermic needles in exchange for dirty ones, the report said. Police confiscated the clean needles, left the group with the dirty needles and cited them.

    It is nice to know my tax dollars are being used to wage a war against progressives and public health and safety.


    Lexis Nexis (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jgarza on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:11:01 PM EST
    If anyone is interested in the Needle Exchange pilot in Texas, you can probably find stuff on Lexis Nexis.  At this point a lot of the articles have been moved to archives and you must pay to get them.

    Parent
    In other news... (none / 0) (#7)
    by ctrenta on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:37:12 AM EST
    ... of all the talk I've heard here re: defunding the war this newspiece caught my eye. David Rogers of Politico writes the following:

    The White House confirmed Wednesday that its new budget next month will not request a full year's funding for the war in Iraq, leaving the next president and Congress to confront major cost questions soon after taking office in 2009.

    The decision reverses the administration's stance of just a year ago, when President Bush's budget made a point of spelling out in advance what he thought the costs would be for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for 2008.

    So Bush changes course and does the thing we've been wanting for all along: that troop funding will end as he leaves office. Am I missing something?

    For more on the Politico article click here.
     

    What we should be talking about instead of (none / 0) (#10)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:46:06 AM EST
    the diversions.  Yikes, if the Social Security privatization happened where would people be?  

    Another great idea.  

    Stellaaa (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:05:54 PM EST
    I can always tell when a commentator has no money in the market..... or knowledge about investments.

    First, the plan was that you could not put all of your money in the stock market. It's called "don't put all of your eggs in one basket." If I remember the maximum was 5%. Plus, you would be limited on what you could do with it, and how often.

    Secondly, look at history. Back in '83-84 the market was around 1600. Now, after all the terrible news and sell off, the market is at 12,350. That is a sizable gain, don't you think??

    If you have made money in stocks you don't have to keep it in stocks. You can move into cash (money market) or bonds or even buy yourself a annuity.

    Whatever you do, don't think that the current social security plan will be capable of keeping the promises it has made, or even if it is a good deal.

    I started paying into in 1952 and paid until I started drawing in 2003. I maxed out in contributions for at least the last 40 years yet I get the huge sum of $24028.80 annually. And I pay taxes on part of that.

    Get yourself a financial adviser. Make sure he/she does not sell anything but advice. Set down and talk and listen.

    And quit believing all the BS the Demo Left spews all the time. It will keep you poor.

    Parent

    re a recent act of congress (none / 0) (#11)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:47:47 AM EST
    I've been read the story at abcnew at

    and it speaks of the Child Online Protection Act, which supposedly says that photos of kids under 12, even if taken in public, have to be taken down under certain circumstances.

    Such a provision seems unconstitutional to me, as a violation of free speech.

    And, as for,

    "We have a huge problem with both gay and heterosexual predators attending sporting events and taking pictures of athletes and cheerleaders," said Parry Aftab, an Internet privacy and security lawyer and executive director of WiredSafety.

    well, I never knew such evil was lurking in the hearts of people.

    a friend at work (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jen M on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:30:45 PM EST
    Moonlights on the weekends, going to equestrian and dog shows and other events as a photographer. Sometimes she is invited, sometimes not. She takes pictures of everyone and everything, then puts the ones she deems good enough on a website for atendees who wish to purchase prints. Quite a lot of pro and semi pros have begun doing this, and there are a number of websites dedicated to this.

    The photog makes money, the customers save money by not having to buy a package, the websites make money.

    Not everyone shooting at an event has bad motives.

    Parent

    Thursday Non-Politics Open Thread | 16 comments (16 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment