Visit Counter

Thursday, September 3, 2009

The One Question Test

This test only has one question, but it's a very important one. By giving an honest answer, you will discover where you stand morally.. The test features an unlikely, completely fictional situation in which you will have to make a decision. Remember that your answer needs to be honest, yet spontaneous.

Please scroll down slowly and give due consideration to each line.

THE SITUATION:

You are in Florida , Miami to be specific. There is chaos all around you caused by a hurricane with severe flooding. This is a flood of biblical proportions. You are a photojournalist working for a major newspaper, and you're caught in the middle of this epic disaster. The situation is nearly hopeless.

You're trying to shoot career-making photos. There are houses and people swirling around you, some disappearing under the water. Nature is unleashing all of its destructive fury.

THE TEST:

Suddenly you see a man and a woman in the water.
They are fighting for their lives, trying not to be taken down with the debris.
You move closer. Somehow they look familiar.
You suddenly realize who they are. It's Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi!!
At the same time you notice that the raging waters are about to take them under forever.

You have two options: You can save their lives or you can shoot a dramatic Pulitzer Prize winning photo, documenting the deaths of two of the world's most powerful people.

THE QUESTION:

Here's the question, and please give an honest answer...

Would you select high contrast color film, or would you go with the classic simplicity of black and white?
Share/Bookmark

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

C F C What a flop!!!


http://blog.mlive.com/auto_impact/2009/08/090824-cash-for-clunkers-last-day.jpg


No 1
toyota corolla
No 2
honda civic
No 3
toyota camry
No 4
ford focus
No 5
hyundai elantra
No 6
nissan versa
No 7
toyota prius
No 8
honda accord
No 9
honda fit
No 10
ford escape


These were the top 10 selling cars during the Cash for Clunkers taxpayer dollar give-away. Think about it? The government used your tax dollars so your neighbor could buy a new car on your dime!

Interestingly enough there is not one GM or Chrysler car represented. This is after Obama, using taxpayer money, bailed them out while breaking every bankruptcy law known to mankind in an effort to pay back the UAW for their vote. One could make a case that some of these car companies have plants in the U.S. that employ American workers. But ultimately the lions share of the profits go to help the economy of Japan not the U.S.


Every time the government gets involved in something it goes over budget. The budget for CFC was a billion and it already is up over 3 times that amount!


Then liberals wonder why there are tea parties and town-hall's against government run health care?


Obama's approval rating down to 50% according to the latest Gallup Poll.
Obama has reached his own personal low more quickly than most of his predecessors, according to Gallup, which has tracked presidential approval since the Harry Truman administration.

Share/Bookmark

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Subject Morons...

http://www.ce.gatech.edu/uploads/images/news_images/us-congress.jpg





Dear Comrade Obama and all 535 voting members of the Legislator:




It is now official: You are all morons.

The U.S. Post Service was established in 1775 - you have had 234 years to get it right; it is broke.

Social Security was established in 1935 - you have had 74 years to get it right; it is broke.

Fannie Mae was established in 1938 - you have had 71 years to get it right; it is broke..

War on Poverty started in 1964 - you have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor"; it hasn't worked.

Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965 - you've had 44 years to get it right; they're broke

Freddie Mac was established in 1970 - you have had 39 years to get it right; it is broke

Trillions of dollars in the massive political payoff called the TARP bill of 2009 shows NO sign of working.

And finally to set a new record:

"Cash for Clunkers" was established in 2009 and went broke in 2009! The auto dealers are quitting because the gov. won't pay them what they promised. Should we be surprised? Here we go again……what, you say trust me. DUH?

So with a perfect 100% failure rate and a record that proves that "services" you shove down our throats are failing faster and faster, you want Americans to believe you can be trusted with a government-run health care system? 15% of our economy? Are you crazy? Now Warren Buffett is bailing on Obama…..If I ran my house finances like the gov. does I'd be in jail. And that's because of the laws they (the gov.) put in place. Wake up America .

Truly, the inmates are running the asylum! (And what does this say about voters who put such pond scum in office...hmmm? Maybe we need to let others in on this brilliant record before 2010 and just vote against incumbents.)

The best social welfare program in the country is a decent job……..will they ever get the message? Probably not.
Share/Bookmark

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Edwards moving love child into his neighborhood?













http://www.richguysclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/john-edwards-love-child.jpg


Remember when Edwards said concerning his affair.... "This is nothing but tabloid trash"!
Remember when he said..... "I'll take a paternity test to prove the child isn't mine".
I bet the house and won. He is a liar from the top of his head right down to the soles of his shoes.

(This must have gone over real big with the wife)







The National Enquirer - the folks who broke the story about the John Edwards extramarital affair with former campaign aide Rielle Hunter - reports something rather unbelievable now.

The tabloid claims that Edwards is planning to move Hunter and their alleged love child into his family's Wilmington, N.C. neighborhood. Rumors are swirling that a DNA test has been conducted and that it showed Edwards to be the father of Hunter's daughter Frances. (He has made no such announcement.)

(The Enquirer has been covering the Edwards scandal since December 2007 and, like it or not, much of what it has reported has turned out to be true.)

The Enquirer claims that cancer survivor and long-suffering political wife Elizabeth Edwards exploded in rage when her husband told her his plans to move Hunter and her daughter close to their $2.6 million waterfront mansion.

"John's admitted to his family and close friends that he's the father of Frances. He says he wants to be a part of her life and help raise his daughter," a source tells the Enquirer. "Elizabeth was hit with an overwhelming one-two punch.

"She's always figured the child may be John's, but the positive DNA result really floored her. And as if that wasn't bad enough, John told Elizabeth he needed to be in his daughter's life - and that Rielle was moving to North Carolina."

The source said that Elizabeth was so angry that she grabbed a suitcase and started packing.

Unbelievable? You decide.

On "Larry King Live" Wednesday, Elizabeth made it sound like a paternity test hadn't been conducted yet. "My expectation is that at some point, something happens," she said when King asked her about such a test. "I hope that for the sake of this child, that it happens in a quiet way."

At home, "things are going fine," she said. "We're getting the children ready for the new school year. Everything is going smoothly at my house."




Share/Bookmark

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Dodd Cleared of Ethics Violation



3 Bastards...
1 Big Lie









How Ethics Disappear

Paul Greenberg
Friday, August 14, 2009

Gosh, what a surprise: A committee of their fellow senators has decided that Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad did nothing unethical when they took out loans from Countrywide Financial on the kind of favorable terms not available to us mere mortals without their financial or political standing -- or a personal connection to the head of Countrywide.

The very Select Committee on Ethics did recognize that the whole deal looked bad, and gave its colleagues a gentle pat on the wrist for creating "the appearance that you were receiving preferential treatment based on your status as a senator." But in the end one hand washed the other, if not very well.

The senators on the committee have a point: This VIP program -- called Friends of Angelo after Angelo Mozilo, the head of Countrywide at the time -- wasn't restricted to U.S. senators; it seems to have been open to a wide, bipartisan range of politicians with pull as well as anybody Angelo Mozilo took a liking to. To name a select few:

A former secretary of housing and urban development (Alphonso Jackson), a former secretary of health and human services and later university president (Donna Shalala), a former assistant secretary of state and still diplomat (Richard Holbrooke), an adviser to Barack Obama's presidential campaign (James Johnson) and so prominently on.

How else could these preferential loans appear but improper? Could it be because they were improper, ethically if not legally?

The surest way to lose the very basic and maybe first definition of ethics -- obligations beyond the law -- is to treat ethics as only a branch of the law rather than a separate realm above it. Which is why the phrase, "ethics law" is something of an oxymoron. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.

When a member of the U.S. Senate is told he's getting a favor, like a point off his interest rate, that ought to be enough to raise a warning flag -- and keep him from accepting the deal.

Countrywide cast a wide net for its favoritism, but just how wide may never be known. It seems the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee (which may prove another oxymoron because it doesn't seem all that interested in either oversight or reform) is refusing to issue a subpoena for Countrywide's records of just who got these VIP loans and why.

The chairman of the committee, it turns out, is one Edolphus Towns, a Democratic congressman from New York, who himself received a couple of loans from Countrywide. What a coincidence.

Chairman Towns denies getting any special treatment, but without a look at Countrywide's records, how can the public be assured of that? If the congressman has nothing to hide, why isn't he going after the records that would vindicate him? Somehow we don't expect him to answer such questions till, like Sens. Dodd and Conrad, public pressure forces him to.

Lest we forget, Sen. Conrad tried to brazen out this scandal at first, declaring: "I never met Angelo Mozilo. I have no way of knowing how they categorized my loan. I never asked for, expected or was aware of any special treatment. ... From what we have been able to determine, it appears that we were given a competitive rate."

Only later did it emerge that the senator had spoken with Angelo Mozilo by phone about getting a mortgage. The loan officer at Countrywide who was in charge of such loans testified that both senators knew very well they were getting special treatment. Indeed, that it was standard practice to tell recipients of such loans they were getting a preferred rate.

Well, sure. What's the point of doing influential people a favor if they don't know about it? Let it be noted that Countrywide didn't just give Sen. Dodd a VIP loan; it also contributed some $20,000 to his political campaigns.

Sen. Dodd now has acknowledged that he should have leveled with the public sooner about his relationship with Countrywide -- "I think (my silence) contributed to people's cynicism and distrust that maybe I wasn't telling the truth...." Ya think?

What is most obviously missing from both these senators' approach to ethics, or rather their avoidance of it, is their neglect of what may be the most basic, and is surely one of the first, ethical injunctions ever recorded: Build a fence around the law, said an ancient sage. That is, don't even come close to stepping over the line. Or appearing to.

Something else seems to have escaped these two U. S. senators -- namely, that they are U.S. senators. Which means their getting a loan at a preferential rate through the head of a corporation like Countrywide, which was very much dependent on favorable treatment by the government before it came crashing down at great expense to the taxpayers, is quite different from a private citizen's getting a mortgage at the same preferential rate.

Why? Because the private citizen is in no position to return the favor through political influence. Which is why the ethical standards expected of public officials are higher. Or at least should be. That crucial distinction used to be well understood. I'm not so sure it is now.


Share/Bookmark