JohnSmith2007

so? pic i posted states from jan 09 to aug 12.

Do You Remember January 3, 2007?
Posted on February 13, 2012
Hat Tip to Pamela


This is just a History lesson and I am sending it to all regardless of party. It is history and nothing can change it. All Americans should pass this on to everyone in their database. Both parties need to cut expenses, neither party is without blame, but this is truly what happened and Americans need to wake up and take our country back in 2012!!!
The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007—the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.
The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.
For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is “Bush’s Fault”, think about this:
January 3rd, 2007, the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:

The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77 The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5% The Unemployment rate was 4.6% George Bush’s Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION! Remember that day…
January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.
The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?
BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
THANK YOU DEMOCRATS (especially Barney ) for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment…to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!
(BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie -starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy). Barney blocked it and called it a “Chicken Little Philosophy” (and the sky did fall!)
And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac?
OBAMA
And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?
OBAMA and the Democrat Congress, especially BARNEY!!!!
So when someone tries to blame Bush…
REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007…. THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!”
Bush may have been in the car but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel they were driving the economy into the ditch.
Budgets do not come from the White House.. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.
Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.
In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases. Bush should have vetoed every bill that came in front of his desk!!
For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budget.
And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009. Let’s remember what the deficits looked like during that period:
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.
If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.
In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is “I inherited a deficit that I voted for, and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.”
There is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on!
Click Here

What a childish response. Surely you can do better.

copy-pasting dictionary definitions is the mark of a simpleton.

I stand behind my posts. They were not in violation of the TOS. They just struck to close to home for some people. I respectfully disagree with your removing them.

You should take your own advice. You are listening to people with an ax to grind against HFCS. All sugar in excess is bad for you. Cane sugar and HFCS are just the same thing derived from different sources. The ratio of fructose to sucrose differs a bit but chemically they are the same.
And there you go with the Fox News bit. Whats up with that? Is it supposed to be some sort of an insult? I get my news from dozens of different places, some left and some right.
You seem to only want to insult and not discuss. Why is that? Do you find your ability to debate so limited?

You should take your own advice. You are listening to people with an ax to grind against HFCS. All sugar in excess is bad for you. Cane sugar and HFCS are just the same thing derived from different sources. The ratio of fructose to sucrose differs a bit but chemically they are the same.
And there you go with the Fox News bit. Whats up with that? Is it supposed to be some sort of an insult? I get my news from dozens of different places, some left and some right.
You seem to only want to insult and not discuss. Why is that? Do you find your ability to debate so limited?

they disagree that in some areas, "there are other means of dealing with malaria".
ddt needs to be on the table as an option in those places. it's a matter of life and death. a big one. and the benefits of ddt in those places, at those times far outweigh the risks. when over 90% of malaria deaths in africa are children under the age of 5, possible cancer risks take a backseat. i posted a link with an interview of a public health official who specializes in tropical medicine, and what he has to say about ddt. if you want to actually learn something about this issue, you should probably read it. it's a far more complex subject than you have given it any credit for at all here. that's not cool. or smart.

actually, the legislative director of Greenpeace's toxics campaign and world wildlife fund's senior fellow in the toxics campaign agree with you. nicholas kristof, that old conservative, does too--
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/08/opinion/8kristof.html

No it isn't. Calm down or you will blow a gasket. The hype about DDT is way overblown. The usefulness of DDT greatly outweighs any slight harm it causes. Tell me, do you like millions of dead people in the third world? I guess they don't count huh?

Facts versus fears: DDT
Extract from the American Council on Science and Health publication "Facts Versus Fears" - Edition 3, June 1998. © American Council on Science and Health - all rights reserved.
.....
Conclusion
The ban on DDT was considered the first major victory for the environmentalist movement in the U.S. The effect of the ban in other nations was less salutary, however. In Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) DDT spraying had reduced malaria cases from 2.8 million in 1948 to 17 in 1963. After spraying was stopped in 1964, malaria cases began to rise again and reached 2.5 million in 1969.33 The same pattern was repeated in many other tropical— and usually impoverished—regions of the world. In Zanzibar the prevalence of malaria among the populace dropped from 70 percent in 1958 to 5 percent in 1964. By 1984 it was back up to between 50 and 60 percent. The chief malaria expert for the U.S. Agency for International Development said that malaria would have been 98 percent eradicated had DDT continued to be used.34
In addition, from 1960 to 1974 WHO screened about 2,000 compounds for use as antimalarial insecticides. Only 30 were judged promising enough to warrant field trials. WHO found that none of those compounds had the persistence of DDT or was as safe as DDT. (Insecticides such as malathion and carbaryl, which are much more toxic than DDT, were used instead.) And—a very important factor for malaria control in less developed countries—all of the substitutes were considerably more expensive than DDT.35
[insertion: See the human toll of not using DDT here. Ends.]
And what of the charges leveled against DDT? A 1978 National Cancer Institute report concluded—after two years of testing on several different strains of cancer-prone mice and rats—that DDT was not carcino-genic.36 As for the DDT-caused eggshell thinning, it is unclear whether it did, in fact, occur and, if it did, whether the thinning was caused by DDT, by mercury, by PCBs, or by the effects of human encroachment.16,37 And as recently as 1998 researchers reported that thrush eggshells in Great Britain had been thinning at a steady rate 47 years before DDT hit the market; the researchers placed the blame on the early consequences of industrialization.38
Regardless of whether DDT, exclusive of other chemicals, presented a threat to bird populations, it remains in the news. DDT has a long half-life, and residues sometimes persist for years in certain environments. Also, DDT is an organochlorine. Some organochlorines have been shown to have weak estrogenic activity, but the amounts of naturally occurring estrogens in the environment dwarf the amounts of synthetic estrogens.39 A recent article in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives suggested that the ratio of natural to synthetic estrogens may be as much as 40,000,000 to 1.40
In addition, Dr. Robert Golden of Environmental Risk Studies in Washington, DC, reviewed the research of numerous scientists and concluded that DDT and DDE (a breakdown product of DDT) have no significant estrogenic activity.41
The 1996 book Our Stolen Future speculated on a link between DDT and breast cancer, noting that DDE has been found in some breast tumors.42 Recently, charges have been made associating DDT and DDE with breast cancer—specifically, the finding that women with breast cancer had higher levels of DDE in their blood than did women without breast cancer.43 However, elevated blood DDE could quite plausibly be a result of the mobilization of fat from storage depots in the body due to weight loss associated with breast cancer. Breast cancer thus may be a risk factor for elevated DDE, rather than DDE’s being a risk factor for breast cancer.44
In a 1994 study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, researchers concluded that their data did not support an association between DDT and breast cancer.45 The researchers did note that breast cancer rates are higher than the national average in many places in the northeastern United States; but the data also indicated that the higher levels could be accounted for by nonenvironmental factors among women living in these regions—factors such as higher socioeconomic status and deferral or avoidance of pregnancy, both of which increase the risks of breast cancer by up to twofold.45,46
In October 1997 the New England Journal of Medicine published a large, well-designed study that found no evidence that exposure to DDT and DDE increases the risk of breast cancer.47 In the accompanying editorial Dr. Steven Safe, a toxicologist at Texas A&M University, stated, “weakly estrogenic organochlorine compounds such as PCBs, DDT, and DDE are not a cause of breast cancer.”48 Dr. Sheila Zahm, deputy chief of the occupational epidemiology branch at the National Cancer Institute, agrees that the body of evidence that DDT can cause breast cancer “is not very compelling.”
http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C06/C06Links/www.altgreen.com.au/Chemicals/ddt.html

What discrimination is that? The company doesn't discriminate. It serves anyone that comes though the door. It hires people without regard to sexual orientation. The only thing the owner of the company did was to express his own PERSONAL opinion. As far as I can see he keeps his personal opinion separate from his business practices. The freedom mentioned is the freedom to express an opinion. Everyone should have that right, both those for and against the issue at hand.

Some behavior is genetic. Genetics plays as large a role in human behavior as environment. I will disagree with you till dooms day that homosexuality is a choice. It is most definitely not. They are born that way.

Some behavior is genetic. Genetics plays as large a role in human behavior as environment. I will disagree with you till dooms day that homosexuality is a choice. It is most definitely not. They are born that way.

Some behavior is genetic. Genetics plays as large a role in human behavior as environment. I will disagree with you till dooms day that homosexuality is a choice. It is most definitely not. They are born that way.

Like arguing on VJ?

Over Kerry? No stupidity there. It's the same reason Obama was elected the last time. The opposition was even worse. McCain was an idiot and Obama was an unknown quantity that inspired hope. In 2003 the economy was doing great and Kerry was the idiot. That is why Bush was re-elected.
Today people understand that the economy is a disaster and 4 more years of Obama will sink us. Romney isn't a great candidate but at least he has business experience.

So go to Intrade and put your money where your mouth is. I for one seriously doubt that the country is stupid enough to re-elect a president that has given us 4 years of 8%+ unemployment and a doubling of the national debt with nothing to show for it.

But as I said, and you pointed out, that he only expressed his opinion. Expressing an opinion is not discrimination unless you put that opinion into action. As far as I know, he hasn't. Suppose I own a clothing store. Suppose I have in innate hatred of tall people and I go on TV and say so. Unless I stop serving tall people all I have done is to show my stupidity. There was no discrimination unless you advocate the thought police enforcing good think, bad think laws.

I support Chick-fil-A because I know a little about the company having worked there when I was younger.
I also support the right of those who plan to protest on August 3. Free speech works both ways.
What I do not support is elected officials - the mayor of Chicago and the mayor of Boston - using their positions to decide where Chick-fil-A can open restaurants. By the way, even the ACLU has come out supporting Chick-fil-A in this.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/chick-fil-a-gay-marriage-chicago/2012/07/26/id/446713By the way, all Dan Cathy did was state the same position that Barack Obama had until a few months ago. Why was there no outrage then?