World News

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

On Feb 13, 12:07 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> What is with conservatives?February 13, 2011 byJeffrey Tucker
> Ron Paulwinsthe CPAC vote. He was the only candidate who even madementionof Egypt! My guess is this: conservatives like to imagine that they hold the same principles that Ron does, but the difference is that they are able to govern in the real world and so have eventually must embrace someone who believes the opposite.

The reason no Conservatives spoke out was that most were in favor of
Mubarak, but didn't want anyone to know just how hypocritical and anti-
democratic they actually are.

Conservatives don't imagine they hold the principles Ron Paul does,
they imagine themselves as infallible rulers.
If a few (and I do mean few) economic theories gets them there, all
the better.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

On Feb 11, 7:48 pm, Wes <wesleykell...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ok whatever

Another Bible quote???

> On Feb 9, 3:47 pm, studio <tl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 8, 9:00 pm, Wes <wesleykell...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >It appeared because there was money to be made from it.
> > > >It appeared because leaders always need something more to control
> > > >people.
>
> > > B.S.

Really?
It's fooled you and 100's of millions of others around the globe to
their benefit for the last 2,000 years.
The demonstrable evidence is on my side, not yours.

> > > > technically far surpassed by more modern methods.
>
> > > B.S. (Bible Code)

??? Bible Code?
No, educated human beings who don't rely on one book.

> > > As far as the rest of what you wrote that i didn't read - B.S. B.S.
> > > B.S. - please let me know if i missed something

You asked for it and you got it.
You've nothing to complain about.
What you're going through is a direct result of 12 years of
Congressional and 8 years of Executive Conservative leadership.
Conservatives aren't interested in your problems and just want you to
read your Bible and except your fate as they dictate it to you.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Laurence Lewis
that would actually increase them would be bad enough. The entire

Republican approach of knowing nothing and doing nothing, unless it is
to attempt a return to the prevailing values of the Thirteenth
Century, is so corrupt and irresponsible that it would defy credulity,

What thirteenth century values are those?



Republicans on the House of Representatives energy committee on

Wednesday aired their proposal to block the Environmental Protection
Agency from reducing greenhouse gases and to reverse the agency's
scientific finding that climate change is dangerous.

You do realize that this nonsense was debunked for the silliness that
it is?


Regard$,
--MJ

I suspect that the Iceland Volcano put more "stuff" in the air than mankind has every done or will ever do for a million years. All upcoming Earth Day celebrations should be canceled, as should the whole property rights-destroying, state-empowering environmentalist movement. -- Laurence Vance

'Raw Deal': Historian makes waves with scathing look at Franklin D. Roosevelt
Burton Folsom Jr.'s book livens up the 'tea party'-driven debate over how to interpret America's past.
By Mark Z. Barabak, Los Angeles Times
February 12, 2011, 5:04 p.m.

Reporting from Dunwoody, Ga. -- For more than half a century, biographers have treated Franklin Delano Roosevelt with Rushmore-like reverence, celebrating the nation's 32nd president as a colossus who eased the agony of the Great Depression and saved democracy from Nazi Germany.

Which never sat right with historian Burton Folsom Jr.

Growing up in Nebraska, Folsom remembers, his dad, a savings and loan executive, griped about high taxes and Roosevelt's voracious ambition. FDR was dead, but his legacy -- deficit spending, an activist federal government, an expansive social safety net -- lived on.

About 15 years ago, Folsom read another of those historical surveys, this one placing Roosevelt on par with Abraham Lincoln and George Washington. "As a matter of my professional integrity," Folsom said, "I had to respond."

The result was "New Deal or Raw Deal?," a scathing 300-page counter-narrative that has made Folsom a conservative hero and placed him squarely in the midst of a roiling debate over America's past, the nature of history and, some say, its manipulation for political ends.

It is an ancient debate spurred anew by the rise of the "tea party" movement, which treats the Constitution as both cudgel and sacred text; by TV commentators such as Glenn Beck, who wrap their ideology in selective scholarship; and by a current vogue among conservatives eager not just to revisit the past but to rewrite it.

Many tea partyers, for instance, speak as though the Founders favored a small, circumscribed federal government, when in fact some wanted a more powerful Washington than we have today. (James Madison proposed a national veto over state laws.) In a recent speech, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) extolled the Founding Fathers' efforts to end slavery, when they actually made inequality the law, passing legislation counting blacks as three-fifths of a person.

Misleading or not, the revisionism represents a scramble for the high ground; in a country that reveres its history ­ even as we endlessly fight over its meaning ­ there are few more powerful arguments than precedent.

"We're not discussing how many economic-stimulus plans we can balance on the head of a pin," said the University of New Mexico's Jason Scott Smith. "There can be real-world consequences to the lessons we attempt to take from history."

Some scholars, however, worry the debate has been poisoned by the same attitude afflicting political discourse: the notion that truth and virtue reside on one side, and those who disagree are not just wrong but un-American. In a new book, Harvard's Jill Lepore condemns what she calls "historical fundamentalism," a belief that "a particular and quite narrowly defined past" should be worshiped, unquestioned, above all others.

"There's an opportunity for an interesting national conversation about what the past means to us," Lepore said. "But it needs to be a respectful conversation."

That would seem to exclude the likes of Beck, who routinely heaps opprobrium on FDR ­ "one evil son-of-a-bitch"; Woodrow Wilson ­ the No. 1 "president you need to hate"; and other demons on the left. "Trained historians try to take seriously the complexities of the past … and not just reduce people to archvillains," said Randall Stephens, an Eastern Nazarene College professor who edits Historically Speaking, a trade journal.

Folsom, whose book is a tea party must-read, is no armchair analyst. He holds a doctorate in history, and he spent 10 years on research and compiled 40 pages of footnotes that, even critics say, attest to the depth of his research.

Most historians agree the New Deal did not solve the economic crisis that began in 1929 and lasted until the U.S. entry into World War II. Many believe, however, that Roosevelt's actions mitigated the suffering of many millions of Americans.

Further, they say, the New Deal's foundation helped make the U.S. the world's richest, most powerful nation. "The record of the edifice built by Roosevelt is mind-boggling," said Andrew W. Cohen, a New Deal scholar at Syracuse University.

Folsom, an avid free-marketeer, couldn't disagree more. He says Roosevelt's policies not only failed ­ undermining business, worsening unemployment, contributing to higher crime and increased suicide rates ­ but, handed down, choke our economy to this day.

At 63, in square, rimless glasses and an argyle sweater, Folsom is professorial in both demeanor and dress: pleasant, unassuming and unfailingly polite. He is not one to press his point by raising his voice or lacing his arguments with invective.

The problem with most histories, Folsom said, is their focus on relief efforts, without serious discussion of their financing. High tax rates, approaching 80% of income on the wealthy, stifled entrepreneurs, he said, and were ­ to use a modern phrase ­ "a job killer."

"That argument might resonate in today's environment," countered Smith, but not so much in the 1930s, when only 3% of households paid income tax.

What, he asks, of feats like Hoover Dam, the Triborough Bridge and the span between Oakland and San Francisco? Those sorts of public works not only created jobs, Smith said, but built a scaffolding that still buttresses our economy.

Those projects had merit, Folsom agreed, but all the government did was elbow out private industry, adding layers of inefficiency, corruption and cost. "The good things that are there would have happened and, I think, in greater abundance without the New Deal," he said.

Folsom has not won fame or riches with his FDR indictment. But it raised Folsom's profile on TV and the lecture circuit, affording the luxury of teaching half a year at Michigan's Hillsdale College, a conservative citadel, and spending winters outside Atlanta, near his adult son. He is writing a second Roosevelt book with his wife, Anita, criticizing his role during World War II.

Folsom knows that many dismiss his work as little more than conservative polemic. "I think the story I tell is the right story," he said, as soft winter light filtered into his living room. "I want to present something that's going to endure, and to endure you have to be accurate. You have to have something that's going to be compelling 40, 50 years from now."

In other words, he suggested, history will judge.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-history-fdr-20110213,0,461166.story

Citing 'Threats,' Pentagon Poised to Unveil Largest Budget in History
Record Budget the 'Minimum Level of Defense Spending Necessary'
by Jason Ditz, February 11, 2011

Nothing can penetrate the walls of the Pentagon, certainly not the news that the budget deficit is growing and Congress is looking for ways to save money. That is the lesson today as it was revealed that the Pentagon is poised to unveil a new $553 billion budget.

$553 billion, not including the inevitable "emergency funding" bill that will come later in the year, is already the largest budget in the entire history of the US military and, by extension, the entire history of the planet.

But Secretary of Defense Robert Gates insists this budget, this record, monstrosity of a budget with all its spending hikes, is the "minimum level of defense spending necessary," and officials are citing a myriad of possible "threats" in an attempt to justify it.

See, the Pentagon isn't just about occupying Afghanistan and Iraq, and threatening to occupy Iran. The military sees a number of threats to national security, from imaginary pandemics, to piracy, to cyber warfare, to rising oceans and education.

And incredibly, the "national debt." Yes, the military is actually arguing that it needs to spend more money on itself to combat the threat of the government spending too much money (largely on the military).

That budget for fiscal year 2012, is just the tip of the iceberg too, as despite all the promises of "cuts" the projection is $643 billion in 2015 and $735 billion in 2020. The national debt threat is growing, you see, and so too must the spending, apparently. Given that the US dependable hurls a couple hundred billions of dollars in extra "emergency" money at the military every year, the $1 trillion war budget may be here sooner than you think.

http://news.antiwar.com/2011/02/11/citing-threats-pentagon-poised-to-unveil-largest-budget-in-history/

Friday, February 11, 2010
Obama: Egyptians Are Too Dumb for Democracy
by Jacob G. Hornberger

Flip-flopping over events in Egypt, President Obama and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have decided that it would be a bad idea for unelected Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak to immediately resign from office. Their reason? Under Egypt's constitution, Mubarak's departure from power would require national elections to be held within 60 days.

What's wrong with that? Obama and Clinton say that the Egyptian people could not adequately organize themselves for elections in such a short period of time. Therefore, Obama and Clinton cavalierly suggest, it is preferable for the Egyptian people to continue suffering under brutal and tyrannical U.S.-supported tyranny until September.

In other words, according to Obama and Clinton the Egyptian people are simply too dumb to organize elections and run campaigns within a 2-month period of time.

Of course, another possible reason is that free-wheeling elections could bring people to office who don't like the U.S. government, especially because it's the U.S. government that has been propping up the dictatorship that has been oppressing the Egyptian people for 30 years.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there special elections sometimes in the United States that are held within a short period of time? But of course, no doubt Obama and Clinton would say that those elections are run by Americans, and everyone knows how smart Americans are.

Well, actually, not so! In reality, the powers-that-be in the United States consider American voters to be dumb too. That's the ostensible rationale behind ballot-access barriers all across the United States, including burdensome petitioning requirements, limits on campaign contributions, and tens of thousands of election regulations, all of which are designed to ensure that American voters are not confused by too many candidates on the ballot.

Here in Virginia, for example, rarely are voters treated to more than two candidates for statewide office. The reason? Horribly burdensome and expensive petitioning requirements. For example, if a poor, inner-city African American who opposed the racism of the drug war wanted to run for statewide office, for all practical purposes he would not be able to do so. Why? First, he would be required to secure 10,000 valid signatures from registered voters, which means he would have get about 16,000 to be safe. Could he get all the signatures from his part of town? Nope. He would be required to get them from all across the state, which means he would have to spend money on travel and hotels while securing the signatures. Then, he would have to find places that would permit him to get signatures, including in certain parts of Virginia in which well-to-do white people might well not like being approached for a signature by a poorly dressed, inner-city black calling for drug legalization.

The real purpose of ballot-access restrictions, both at the state and federal levels, is to preserve the Democrat-Republic monopoly grip on power. As I have long pointed out, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans. They belong to one party ­ the welfare-warfare party ­ and their fights are over who is going to get to control the reins of power and the largess that comes with such power.

The determination that Republicans and Democrats have to continue their monopoly control over American politics is no different, in principle, than the determination by Mubarak's party to maintain its decades-long monopoly control in Egypt. That's why Obama and Clinton and many Republicans can sympathetize with Murbarak's opposition to quick elections in Egypt. They know that such democratic "chaos" could easily upend monopoly control over the political system.

Several years ago, there was a quick election for governor in California. Due to some quirk in the election law, anyone could run for governor in the election without having to comply with the standard burdensome ballot-access restrictions. My recollection is that there were about 50 candidates for governor. It was an exciting, free-wheeling election in which people got to consider a wide range of candidates and positions and then make their choice.

Some would undoubtedly argue that the voters were too dumb to be able to consider so many candidates, as evidenced by their election of Arnold Schwarzenegger. Others would say: So what, democracy entails the right of people to elect whomever they want to public office. Still others would say: Everyone should have the right to run for office, and it was a good thing that California voters had so many choices.

But that was an exception. Take my word for it: Thanks to ballot-access barriers established by the monopoly party here in Virginia, voters will never get to choose between 50 candidates for governor, including any poor, inner-city African-American from Richmond or Norfolk. The powers-that-be have ensured that their monopoly hold on power will never be threatened by democratic "chaos." And they get away with it by intimating that voters are just too dumb for democracy anyway, just like the people of Egypt.

http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2011-02-11.asp

What is with conservatives?
February 13, 2011 by Jeffrey Tucker

Ron Paul wins the CPAC vote. He was the only candidate who even made mention of Egypt! My guess is this: conservatives like to imagine that they hold the same principles that Ron does, but the difference is that they are able to "govern in the real world" and so have eventually must embrace someone who believes the opposite.

The modern GOP is irresponsible and dangerous
by Laurence Lewis

Attempting to repeal insurance reform would be bad enough. Attempting
draconian budget cuts during a halting recovery from a deep recession
would be bad enough. Making fools of themselves by wasting time
reading selections from the Constitution while doing absolutely
nothing to create jobs would be bad enough. Launching a war on women
would be bad enough. Whining about deficits while proposing policies
that would actually increase them would be bad enough. The entire
Republican approach of knowing nothing and doing nothing, unless it is
to attempt a return to the prevailing values of the Thirteenth
Century, is so corrupt and irresponsible that it would defy credulity,
were we not already so accustomed to it as to take it for granted. But
it's even worse.

Imagine there was an impending global crisis that was estimated to
displace up to 200 million people, worldwide, and imagine the
geopolitical consequences of dealing with such. Imagine its damage
would cost global GDP from 5 to 20 percent. Imagine it was expected to
devastate global plant life, including dangerously reducing crop
yields and causing devastatingly increased wildfires. Imagine if the
very base of the food chain was threatened. Imagine if the scientific
evidence was overwhelming, and pretty much every significant
scientific body in the nation was warning about it. Imagine if other
nations were charging ahead on developing the new technologies it
demands, while irresponsible inaction in this country already was
costing billions in lost investments. With all that, you'd think
responsible politicians might want to do something about it. You'd
think they might want to save lives and the economy and ecosystems and
the food supply. But that assumes that the politicians themselves were
capable of thinking.

When faced with the greatest crisis in known human history, this is
how the Republicans are responding:

Republicans on the House of Representatives energy committee on
Wednesday aired their proposal to block the Environmental Protection
Agency from reducing greenhouse gases and to reverse the agency's
scientific finding that climate change is dangerous.
While the plan might be blocked in the Senate or vetoed by President
Barack Obama, the comments during Wednesday's hearing were a fresh
indication of the depth of opposition in Congress to action on
reducing U.S. carbon pollution. Supporters of the measure to revise
the Clean Air Act to take away the EPA's authority to regulate this
type of pollution said that curbing emissions would be too costly.

Too costly. Compared to a loss of 5 to 20% of global GDP?

The EPA's planned regulations "would boost the cost of energy, not
just for homeowners and car owners, but for businesses both large and
small," said Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., the author of the legislation.
"EPA may be starting by regulating only the largest power plants and
factories, but we will all feel the impact of higher prices and fewer
jobs."
Higher prices and fewer jobs? Compared to a loss of 5 to 20% of global
GDP, the endangerment of the base of the food chain, and hundreds of
millions of people displaced, worldwide? Is it possible to think
smaller? Is it possible to be smaller? It's not only that Republicans
don't seem to understand what's really happening to the climate, it's
that they don't even seem to care to find out. It's one thing to be
uninformed, it's another to be willfully ignorant-- about the most
dangerous crisis humanity has ever faced.

As recently written (firewalled) by Bruce Alberts, the Editor-in-Chief
of the leading scientific journal, appropriately named Science:

Over the long run, any nation that makes crucial decisions while
ignoring science is doomed. Consider, for example, the decision about
how much arsenic should be allowed in drinking water supplies. There
is no one "right answer" to this or many other policy questions, but
it is critical that national legislation be based on what science
knows about potential harm. It is therefore disturbing that so many
lawmakers elected to the new U.S. Congress reject the overwhelming
scientific consensus with respect to human-induced climate change. It
will be difficult to make wise choices with such attitudes. The
question now facing the United States is not only how to effectively
reinject the facts of climate science back into the core of this
particular debate, but also how to ensure that good science underlies
all legislative decisions.
And distilling it to the pure political calculation, Andrew Leonard has this:

Bush's EPA refused to regulate greenhouse gases, dragging its feet
even after the Supreme Court ruled, by a tight 5-4 margin (with
Anthony Kennedy the deciding vote between liberal and conservative
justices), that under the terms of the Clean Air Act, greenhouse gases
qualified as pollutants. The Court not only found that the EPA had the
authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, but would be required
to do so if the agency determined that there was scientific evidence
that greenhouse gases posed a threat to public health. In November
2009, the EPA determined that greenhouse gases did pose such a threat,
and the wheels went into motion.
And he notes that one more Bush appointee on the Court and the ruling
likely would have gone the other way. He also points out that a
Republican EPA likely wouldn't have ruled that greenhouse gases
threaten public health. The manifest irresponsibility of the
Republicans on this most critical of issues is, in itself,
justification for doing everything possible to ensure they don't soon
again have control of the issue.

Leonard:

The Republican drive to rewrite the Clean Air Act so as to make the
Supreme Court's ruling irrelevant and shackle the EPA is just the
latest skirmish in this primal battle, but all the hollering about
job-killing regulations should not obscure the fact that the EPA is
proceeding according to plan. The steady rollout of guidelines and
standards will not be easy to stop. So far, the courts have generally
upheld the EPA's authority -- Texas is 0-3 in legal challenges -- and
even if Republicans do manage to get some EPA-killing legislation
through the Senate, they'd still face the likelihood of a presidential
veto.
Slate's tireless political reporter/blogger David Weigel had the same
impression of Obama's speech to the Chamber that I did earlier today
-- the president made no concessions and signaled no real shift in
policy. He defended his signature legislation, which the Chamber
opposed, and even as he made rhetorical gestures on regulatory policy,
his EPA is hard at work enforcing limits on greenhouse gas emissions.
Environmentalists who want the EPA to continue doing so should be
thinking hard about how to re-elect Obama, because if a Republican
moves into the White House, it will all come to a screeching halt,
again.

Congressional Democrats have been far from perfect, and they and the
White House justly have been criticized for not pushing hard enough to
pass climate legislation. But the EPA regulation of greenhouse gases
is something significant the administration can do on its own. And it
is. But the Republicans aren't satisfied with merely killing good
legislation, they're also trying to undermine any positive effort the
administration attempts. They're not only trying to prevent effective
measures from being enacted, they're trying to block any that have
been enacted. They could not be more crazed and craven. Given the
gravity of the growing crisis, they are not just shockingly
irresponsible, they are dangerous. They may be the most irresponsible
coalition of politicians ever.

More:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/13/943151/-The-modern-GOP-is-irresponsible-and-dangerous

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

A comical, but scary gathering, indeed.

A conservative gathering of Obama-bashers at CPac

Pawlenty, Romney bash Obama at CPAC
But Rep. Ron Paul of Texas gets the loudest response on the second day
of the Conservative Political Action Conference.

Reporting from Washington — On a seeming collision course toward the
2012 Republican presidential nomination, Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney
spoke to cheering crowds Friday at the second day of a gathering of
the nation's conservatives, blasting President Obama for what they
said was his failure to lead on national security and the economy.

While Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota, and Romney, the
former Massachusetts governor, have not formally declared their
intentions, their White House ambitions appear more evident every day.

Romney's wife, Ann, introducing him to the packed house at the
Conservative Political Action Conference, came close to an admission,
saying that she "hoped" to see her husband elected. And when Romney,
who has been on a nationwide tour, said at one point "if I decide to
run for president," some in the room chortled.

But neither Pawlenty nor Romney, nor any of the other featured
speakers here Friday, which included possible 2012 contenders Sen.
John Thune (R-S.D.) and Republican Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, could
compete with the rowdy reception given Rep. Ron Paul, the Texas
libertarian.

Paul, an isolationist Republican who advocates eliminating the Federal
Reserve, was cheered by a raucous, whistling crowd. His supporters
have flooded CPAC in recent years, and last year Paul won the
presidential straw poll there.

"There is truly a revolution going on in this country," Paul said. "We
don't need to just change political parties; we need to change our
philosophy of what this country is all about."

The speeches came on the same day Fox News released a poll showing
that Obama would defeat any of the well-known potential GOP candidates
in the field, including former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who aren't attending the conference.

Obama would defeat Palin in a head-to-head matchup by more than 20
points, the poll results indicated. Only Romney and Huckabee came
within 8 points of the president.

Romney, who famously ended his 2008 bid here three years ago, told a
packed hotel ballroom that "an uncertain world has been made more
dangerous by the lack of clear direction from a weak president."

Obama's "proposed policy of engagement with Iran and North Korea won
him the Nobel Peace Prize," Romney said. "How's that worked out? Iran
armed Hezbollah and Hamas and is rushing toward nuclear weapons. North
Korea fired missiles, tested nukes, sunk a South Korean ship and
shelled a South Korean island."

Strikingly, even as protesters in Cairo celebrated the departure of
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Romney did not mention the crisis.
He had been the first potential 2012 candidate to call for Mubarak's
exit.

Pawlenty also suggested Obama had been weak on foreign affairs and had
not stood up to "Iran, Russia, and our adversaries in the Middle East,
including Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood," the Islamic political
movement in Egypt.

"Bullies respect strength, not weakness," Pawlenty said. "So when the
United States of America projects its national security interests here
and around the world, we need to do it with strength."

On the economy, Romney accused Obama of a lack of focus. "The
president who took office on Jan. 20, 2009, should have had one
central mission — put Americans back to work; fight for every job," he
said.

Romney was met by a supportive, if not wildly enthusiastic, crowd.
Tellingly, he scarcely mentioned the healthcare overhaul legislation,
a popular target at the conference; he was an architect of a similar
bill when he was governor of Massachusetts.

Instead, Romney stayed with what is likely to be the core message of
his presidential campaign: that he has unmatched experience in
economic matters given his work as a businessman, venture capitalist
and organizer of the 2002 Olympics.

Pawlenty, unlike some other potential 2012 candidates, has a
compelling personal story. He detailed how as a teenager in a
blue-collar family in St. Paul, Minn., his mother died and his father
lost his job at a trucking company.

"At a young age, I saw up close the face of loss, the face of
hardship, the face of losing a job, and I saw in the mirror something
else: the face of a very uncertain future," he said. "I know Americans
are feeling that way today. I know that feeling — I've lived it."

More:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cpac-20110212,0,4345001.story
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197

Pakistan and Indian team This world cup Pakistan and India we are blessing and dua for both teams for winning world cup 2011 if pakistan not win india try to win cricket world cup and take the cup in asia. playing with faith, strength, heart, united and hardworking make your great in this world cup have a nice day chak de

---

TV dinner still cooling?
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Dear All

Please follow the links to view the details

Quality Assurance Engineer / Adobe Flex Developer - Lahore
Friday, February 11, 2011
http://www.job4pk.com/2011/02/quality-assurance-engineer-adobe-flex.html


Database Administrator / Software Developer / Web Designer / Business Systems Analyst - Islamabad
Friday, February 11, 2011
http://www.job4pk.com/2011/02/database-administrator-software.html


IP Executive - Karachi
Friday, February 11, 2011
http://www.job4pk.com/2011/02/ip-executive-karachi.html


Sr. Presales Consultant (Data Security) - UAE
Friday, February 11, 2011
http://www.job4pk.com/2011/02/sr-presales-consultant-data-security.html


Software Developer Required in Lahore Stock Exchange - Lahore
Friday, February 11, 2011
http://www.job4pk.com/2011/02/software-developer-required-in-lahore.html


Factory Manager / Manager Maintenance / Microbiologist - Hyderabad
Friday, February 11, 2011
http://www.job4pk.com/2011/02/factory-manager-manager-maintenance_11.html


ASP .NET Software Developer - Lahore
Friday, February 11, 2011
http://www.job4pk.com/2011/02/asp-net-software-developer-lahore.html


System Support Executive / Senior Engineer / Trainee Engineer - Karachi, Islamabad, Lahore
Friday, February 11, 2011
http://www.job4pk.com/2011/02/system-support-executive-senior.html


For More Jobs Visit http://www.job4pk.com/ OR to subscribe our RSS Feed add http://feeds.feedburner.com/JobsForPakistan to your RSS readers.

Regards

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197

---

Looking for earth-friendly autos?
Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197