Friday, July 8, 2011

so its' true what they say

Friday, July 8, 2011

http://bighomocon.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-its-true-what-they-say-about.html


So it's true what they say about...

.... Clinton average 5.2, Bush average 5.3, Obama 9.2!





--
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.

So it's true what they say...

(Andrew Breitbart is absolutely blameless for BigHomo)
Sparkline 7,072
powered by

Friday, July 8, 2011

So it's true what they say about...

.... Clinton average 5.2, Bush average 5.3, Obama 9.2!





--
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.

Remove Obama From Office NOW!

I could not care less which methods and means are used.


Remove Obama From Office NOW!

Not all Republicans are rolling over in the face of President Obama's unconstitutional usurpation of power. Rep. Tim Scott, R-SC, said if the president moves forward with a plan to raise the debt ceiling without Congressional authority, he would consider it "an impeachable act." Scott told the Tea Party group LowCountry 9.12 on Tuesday:

Read more of this post

Add a comment to this post



WordPress

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Publish text, photos, music, and videos by email using our Post by Email feature.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com



--
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.

Obama to Unveil New Gun Control Measures




More commie-crap from the Traitor-in-Chief






http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/07/robert-farago/obama-to-unveil-new-gun-control-measures/

Obama to Unveil New Gun Control Measures

Posted on July 7, 2011 by Robert Farago

 

"Half a year after the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), the Obama administration is set to release a series of reforms to the current gun law, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said on Thursday." The Huffington Post may not be rubbing its hands in glee, but they're not offering any analysis of this move, either. Here's the short version: Barak Obama has lost his base. Or his mind. Or both . . .

Alienating pro-gun independents in a fruitless effort to end-run Congress on gun control (the edicts will supposedly take the form of executive orders) may please the far left, but it's nearasdammit political suicide. Wait. Hear that? Cha-ching! That's the sound of the NRA cash register struggling to process tens of millions of dollars in contributions as its members hit the hustings.

Here's the official WH announcement:

"The president directed the Attorney General to form working groups with key stakeholders to identify common sense measures that would improve American safety and security while fully respecting Second Amendment rights," Carney said at Thursday's briefing. "That process is well underway at the Department of Justice with stakeholders on all sides working through these complex issues and we expect to have more specific announcements in the near future."

The Department of Justice? Carney's kidding, right? The same federal agency that stands accused of conducting a major and ongoing cover-up of a gun-related program gone horribly wrong (the ATF's literally fatal Gunwalker misegos) is going to draft regulations to control firearms sales? That's insane.

As for "all stakeholders" having their say on these new regs, wrong. The gun rights side of the "debate" didn't get a look in. The NRA boycotted the White House "gun summit" and Obama officials never responded to TTAG's request for a seat at the table. (Can you believe it?)

The HuffPo reckons All the President's Men will nibble away at existing laws rather than jump off the cliff marked "renew the assault weapons ban."

The end result, one source close to the discussions said, was a package of reforms "not huge in scope." They are largely expected to mirror the topics covered in the president's op-ed. Gun control advocates have pushed for more, including legislation that would limit the size of magazines — such as the 32-round clip that Giffords' shooter used — or a bill that would force private sellers to conduct background checks at gun shows — which may have prevented the Virginia Tech shooter from obtaining his firearms.

Maybe. Actually not. Mr. Cho bought his firearms at a gun dealer. (I guess the HuffPo's Internet connection was down at the time of writing.)

All this—what this is—will occur "in the near future." In other words, probably not at all. Any attempt to limit magazine capacity with a federal fiat will enrage, alienate and energize the President's generally sleepy pro-gun followers. And not in a good way.

If this is a trail balloon, it's born holier than Benedetto XVI 



--
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.

Boys Kicked Off School Bus For Passing Gas





Too funny~!


http://www.wyff4.com/irresistible/27883059/detail.html?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4dde6a8010b235ac%2C0

Boys Kicked Off School Bus For Passing Gas

Father Says Ohio Boys Were Considered 'Repeat Offenders'

POSTED: 10:08 am EDT May 13, 2011
UPDATED: 10:12 am EDT May 13, 2011

Oxford Hills
WMTW Image

CANAL WINCHESTER, Ohio --

Two Ohio boys were kicked off the school bus for a day after passing gas and causing a ruckus.James Nichols, the father of the 13-year-old boy involved, said the incident Thursday led to giggling and heckling and prompted riders to lower windows, The Associated Press reported.He told The Columbus Dispatch the boys apparently were considered repeat offenders because a driver had warned them after a similar indiscretion weeks ago. This time, officials at Canal Winchester Middle School decided it was an obscene gesture that violated the student code of conduct, the AP reported.Nichols said it's "laughable" the boys would be punished for something natural and unintentional.His wife said she's offended by it after recently being hospitalized with gastro-intestinal problems.Officials at the central Ohio school district didn't return the newspaper's calls.

Distributed by Internet Broadcasting. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

 






--
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.

Re: No more Fox News!!!


image.png
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 2:08 PM, GregfromBoston <greg.vincent@yahoo.com> wrote:
We have a beat down

On Jul 8, 1:28 pm, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> you think some journalists hacking a cell phone account in England is going
> to close down a network in the US?
>
> were you be any chance an election strategy advisor for the Demwits in 2010?
>  Good work!  Keep it up!
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Stephen Stink <not4ud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Yep....Rupert is in deep do-do! He was a bad boy! Breaking into
> > peoples cellphones! You badie you! UK is taking names and spanking
> > tush! Don't you just love it? What will righties watch with no Fox
> > news? They can watch old tapes of Wally George! Who?
> > Wheeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
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.

Re: No more Fox News!!!

We have a beat down

On Jul 8, 1:28 pm, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> you think some journalists hacking a cell phone account in England is going
> to close down a network in the US?
>
> were you be any chance an election strategy advisor for the Demwits in 2010?
>  Good work!  Keep it up!
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Stephen Stink <not4ud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Yep....Rupert is in deep do-do! He was a bad boy! Breaking into
> > peoples cellphones! You badie you! UK is taking names and spanking
> > tush! Don't you just love it? What will righties watch with no Fox
> > news? They can watch old tapes of Wally George! Who?
> > Wheeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
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.

Re: God

None of those are the National Motto of the United States.

You don't have to like it

On Jul 8, 1:49 pm, HaShem Rules <01910infin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 8, 11:34 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Its the only National Motto we have
>
> Motto...seen on plaques in Mosques....
> "Allah is our objective.
> The Prophet is our leader.
> Qur'an is our law.
> Jihad is our way.
> Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."
>
> (Pathetic morons who may rule the world with
> Sharia Law)
>
> The Muslims could claim the God on our money
> is referring to Allah...a generic man made God.
>
> Unless it says Almighty God, it's a generic God.
>
> OOFA....
> All Mighty/Omniscient Allah..
> verses
> Almighty/Omnipotent HaShem....
>
> Will the real Creator God please stand up....?
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 8, 10:58 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I am a liberal that likes in God we trust on the dollar bill.
> > > ---
> > > why?
>
> > > On Jul 3, 11:55 pm, "cackalackyha...@gmail.com"
>
> > > <cackalackyha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > Date: Sunday, July 03, 2011 10:59:56 pm
> > > > To: politicalforum@googlegroups.com
> > > > From: "Sharon Fuentes" <oneforentr...@gmail.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: God
>
> > > > I am a liberal that likes in God we trust on the dollar bill.  Everytime I
> > > > pay for something.  I think....in God I trust that this currency will stay
> > > > strong  and that it quits sinking against the Euro.  In fact I really don't
> > > > care where the word God appears....It doesn't bother all of us.
>
> > > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:22 PM, HaShem Rules <01910infin...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > > The Liberal half asses of Ass wholes want the word 'God' taken off,
> > > > > and out, of everything
> > > > > it's being used for...
>
> > > > > What about the 'God' they trust in, on their money? When does that God
> > > > > come off?
>
> > > > > That 'God', is a generic God. It should say; "In Almighty God We
> > > > > Trust"...
> > > > > There is only one of those. All others are, at most, Omniscient. None
> > > > > Omnipotent.
>
> > > > > All Mighty/Omniscient Allah..
> > > > > verses
> > > > > Almighty/Omnipotent HaShem....
>
> > > > > Will the real Creator God please stand up....?
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/P-Hidequoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
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.

Re: God

On Jul 8, 11:34 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Its the only National Motto we have

Motto...seen on plaques in Mosques....
"Allah is our objective.
The Prophet is our leader.
Qur'an is our law.
Jihad is our way.
Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."

(Pathetic morons who may rule the world with
Sharia Law)

The Muslims could claim the God on our money
is referring to Allah...a generic man made God.

Unless it says Almighty God, it's a generic God.

OOFA....
All Mighty/Omniscient Allah..
verses
Almighty/Omnipotent HaShem....

Will the real Creator God please stand up....?
>
> On Jul 8, 10:58 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I am a liberal that likes in God we trust on the dollar bill.
> > ---
> > why?
>
> > On Jul 3, 11:55 pm, "cackalackyha...@gmail.com"
>
> > <cackalackyha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > Date: Sunday, July 03, 2011 10:59:56 pm
> > > To: politicalforum@googlegroups.com
> > > From: "Sharon Fuentes" <oneforentr...@gmail.com>
> > > Subject: Re: God
>
> > > I am a liberal that likes in God we trust on the dollar bill.  Everytime I
> > > pay for something.  I think....in God I trust that this currency will stay
> > > strong  and that it quits sinking against the Euro.  In fact I really don't
> > > care where the word God appears....It doesn't bother all of us.
>
> > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:22 PM, HaShem Rules <01910infin...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > The Liberal half asses of Ass wholes want the word 'God' taken off,
> > > > and out, of everything
> > > > it's being used for...
>
> > > > What about the 'God' they trust in, on their money? When does that God
> > > > come off?
>
> > > > That 'God', is a generic God. It should say; "In Almighty God We
> > > > Trust"...
> > > > There is only one of those. All others are, at most, Omniscient. None
> > > > Omnipotent.
>
> > > > All Mighty/Omniscient Allah..
> > > > verses
> > > > Almighty/Omnipotent HaShem....
>
> > > > Will the real Creator God please stand up....?
>
> > > > --
> > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/P-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
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.

Re: God

I replied in jest about the praying that the dollar stay strong.  But I lean to the left and I think that our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values and the fact that the money has this printed on it is a historical reminder of those who wanted to leave their mark about their beliefs in this form.  I take no offense to that, saying one nation under God etc.  I think that in the big scheme of things-there are more important issues to address and if this is as good as it gets to bring vile and venom over "God"-even though they do not specify which "God" is no big deal in the real world where there are much more serious issues that humanity faces.
 
S

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 10:58 AM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:
I am a liberal that likes in God we trust on the dollar bill.
---
why?

On Jul 3, 11:55 pm, "cackalackyha...@gmail.com"
<cackalackyha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> Date: Sunday, July 03, 2011 10:59:56 pm
> To: politicalforum@googlegroups.com
> From: "Sharon Fuentes" <oneforentr...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: God
>
> I am a liberal that likes in God we trust on the dollar bill.  Everytime I
> pay for something.  I think....in God I trust that this currency will stay
> strong  and that it quits sinking against the Euro.  In fact I really don't
> care where the word God appears....It doesn't bother all of us.
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:22 PM, HaShem Rules <01910infin...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > The Liberal half asses of Ass wholes want the word 'God' taken off,
> > and out, of everything
> > it's being used for...
>
> > What about the 'God' they trust in, on their money? When does that God
> > come off?
>
> > That 'God', is a generic God. It should say; "In Almighty God We
> > Trust"...
> > There is only one of those. All others are, at most, Omniscient. None
> > Omnipotent.
>
> > All Mighty/Omniscient Allah..
> > verses
> > Almighty/Omnipotent HaShem....
>
> > Will the real Creator God please stand up....?
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/P

--
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.

Re: No more Fox News!!!

you think some journalists hacking a cell phone account in England is going to close down a network in the US?

were you be any chance an election strategy advisor for the Demwits in 2010?  Good work!  Keep it up!

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Stephen Stink <not4udude@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yep....Rupert is in deep do-do! He was a bad boy! Breaking into
peoples cellphones! You badie you! UK is taking names and spanking
tush! Don't you just love it? What will righties watch with no Fox
news? They can watch old tapes of Wally George! Who?
Wheeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--
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.

Re: No more Fox News!!!

Really wish that you'd pay attention to what you read. There are
multiple Murdoch companies..each is independent of the other... The
one in the shits isn't even on the same continent let alone under the
same umbrella. It was a yellow rag that had a 130 + year history of
being a yellow rag. It was also a great earner... thus it was
purchased and allowed to do its own thing which in the end brought it
down.

Saying Fox has anything to do with the English Press because of a
common stockholder also condemns:

New York Knicks (20% stake through partnership with Cablevision)
New York Rangers (20% stake through partnership with Cablevision)
Los Angeles Kings (NHL, 40% option)
Los Angeles Lakes (NBA, 9.8% option)
Staples Center (40% owned by Fox/Liberty)
National Rugby League Championship (50%) - Australian football
Radio
HarperCollins
Perennial
Cliff Street Books
The Ecco Press
Quill
HarperAudio
Regan Books
Amistad Press
William Morrow
HarperTorch
Eos
HarperEntertainment
HarperSanFrancisco
HarperInformation
HarperBusiness
HarperResource
Fourth Estate
Access Travel
William Morrow Cookbooks
Branded Books Program
HarperCollins Children's Books
Greenwillow Books
Joanna Cotler Books
Laura Geringer Books
HarperFestival
HarperTrophy
Avon
Tempest
HarperCollins International

And of course TV Guide......

Your position is about as stupid as any lefty can be.

On Jul 8, 10:13 am, Stephen Stink <not4ud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yep....Rupert is in deep do-do! He was a bad boy! Breaking into
> peoples cellphones! You badie you! UK is taking names and spanking
> tush! Don't you just love it? What will righties watch with no Fox
> news? They can watch old tapes of Wally George! Who?
> Wheeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--
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.

America, Won’t You Please Come Home?


America, Won't You Please Come Home?
A rising left-right coalition against global intervention
by Justin Raimondo, July 08, 2011

The rebellion in Congress against US intervention in the Libyan civil war was effectively quashed by the Democrats when a majority of Republicans voted in favor of a bipartisan resolution to defund the mission, but the Democratic leadership kept enough of their caucus in line to defeat the measure. The proposed legislation, co-sponsored by Reps. Dennis " Department of Peace" Kucinich, and Justin " Tea Party" Amash, perfectly embodies the spirit of the growing left-right foreign policy alliance as expressed in a recent open letter released by Come Home America, calling for an end to our role as the world's policeman. The letter was signed by a dizzyingly diverse range of political pundits and publicists, from Ralph Nader and Medea Benjamin to Dan McCarthy, editor of The American Conservative, as well as my reactionary self. In short, a group of people who don't have much in common politically – except a growing sense of outrage at what is being done in our name overseas.

The fate of this legislation – defeat, in a close vote of 199-229 – underscores the main obstacle faced by this new left-right convergence: the partisan Democrats who are reflexively voting in support of the Obama administration. Voting in favor of Kucinich/Amash were 132 Republicans and a mere 67 Democrats, while 106 GOP'ers of the neocon persuasion voted nay, along with the majority (123) of Democrats.

Interestingly, however, while a majority of Republicans supported the Kucinich-Amash amendment, the top leadership of both parties in the House voted nay. As Felicia Somnez reports in the Washington Post:

"The top three members of the Democratic caucus voted against the Kucinich-Amash measure, although the number four and five House Democrats, Rep. John Larson (Conn.) and Xavier Becerra (Calif.), voted 'yes.' The number two and number three House Republicans also voted 'no,' while the fourth-ranking GOP leader, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (Texas), voted in favor."

A hard-fought battle pitted the President of the United States and the leadership of both parties against a bipartisan (albeit largely conservative) insurgency directly challenging not only the Imperial Presidency but the policy of imperialism per se – and the latter almost won! 

The significance of this vote has little to do with the legislative outcome: it signals a sea change, especially among conservative Republicans, on the vital foreign policy issue – and also a similarly fundamental change ­ albeit in the wrong direction, sadly ­ on the left. The Democrats' complete abandonment of any pretense to being the "antiwar" party, which collared more than a few voters into Democratic ranks during the Bush years, is now complete.

Even more telling is a vote that took place prior to the roll call on Kucinich/Amash, on a measure sponsored by Republican Tom Cole, of Oklahoma, that bars any and all aid to the Libyan rebels. That measure passed, with 177 Republicans voting aye, and 141 Democrats voting nay. When the issue was clearly and narrowly drawn ­ meddling in a civil war, or not ­ the Democrats voted overwhelming to meddle, whilst the Republicans just as overwhelmingly voted to stay out of it. What could be clearer?

The President has openly insulted the Congress by donning the clown's mask of an "argument" for not seeking their authorization, claiming this isn't really a war, it's a " kinetic military action." Surely this has provoked much congressional ire, and there is also the partisan factor – but this last has been over-hyped and largely misunderstood. Because what changes peoples' minds toward war ­ and many other vital issues ­ is the context in which they occur. We live in history, and its tides carry us along in wildly unpredictable directions. "Partisanship" can therefore lead us to make connections we might not otherwise make: in the case of many conservative Republicans, this means making the connection between our President's free-spending and economically intrusive policies on the home front and his extravagant meddling abroad.

Conversely, the same connections are being made by the President's ostensibly "liberal" supporters, with very different results. After all, if one believes Big Government can solve the problems of the American people, then why not take that principle and apply it to the peoples of the whole world? To the modern liberal, for whom government action is the ultimate generator and guarantor of human progress, it would be discriminatory – not to mention "racist" – to refrain from projecting Washington's beneficence on the rest of the humanity. 

No matter what the official rationale, however, or what party our warmongering leaders belong to, they all wind up sounding pretty much alike. At a recent press conference, the President confronted his critics on the Libya issue, taking his cue from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

"We have engaged in a limited operation to help a lot of people against one of the worst tyrants in the world, somebody who nobody should want to defend. And this suddenly becomes the cause celebre for some folks in Congress? Come on. A lot of this fuss is politics."

In making the argument that critics of the Libyan adventure want to "defend" Gadhafi, Hillary was even more explicit: " Whose side are you on?", she shrieked. They both sound like George W. Bush and his neoconservative minions, who were constantly attacking critics of the Iraq war as being somehow sympathetic to "the terrorists." Similarly, this liberal blogger sounds just like the neocon blogosphere (note the illustration) during the worst of the Bush era.

So it happens that opponents of US military intervention who were once labeled Nixon-hating "hippies" of the"far left," and typified as pacifistic "peaceniks," are now characterized as Obama-hating "far right" reactionaries. The epithets may change, but the issue isn't going to go away – no matter how vicious the smear campaign gets. Because both the left and the right are fast waking up to the fact that they're being taken for a ride by the War Party – which profits from empire while the rest of us pay. 

That's why Come Home America – a new left-right antiwar initiative – is vitally important. I urge my readers to sign up and get actively involved: this is the one antiwar organization I can unreservedly endorse. Chapters are springing up across the nation, and now is the time to get actively involved. Because there never was a better time for the nation to hear its message loud and clear: America, won't you please come home?

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/07/07/america-wont-you-please-come-home/

NMA Blog: The No Longer Necessary V-8



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Travis <twmccoy@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 9:22 PM
Subject: NMA Blog: The No Longer Necessary V-8
To: baconlard@gmail.com





NMA Blog: The No Longer Necessary V-8


The No Longer Necessary V-8

Posted: 06 Jul 2011 09:30 AM PDT


By Eric Peters, Automotive Columnist

They say that 40 is the new 30. I dunno about that.

But the modern high-ouptut/high-efficiency V-6 is arguably the new V-8. And you can make a case that the modern four — with direct injection, variable valve timing and all the rest of it — is the new V-6.

I just got done test-driving a new 2011 Ford F-150 pick-up. Its standard engine was a 4.6 liter V-8 that made 248 hp. Its new standard engine is a 3.7 liter V-6 that produces 302 hp, 54 more hp than the V-8 it replaced.

It also delivers several MPGs more gas mileage.

The three revived muscle cars — Chevy's Camaro, the Ford Mustang and the Dodge Challenger — all now have standard six cylinders that are in the 300-plus hp range. That's more hp than all but the highest-performance V-8 versions of those cars were putting down during their heyday in the late 1960s/early '70s.

A startling example is the original (1967-'69) Camaro Z-28. Its engine was a 5 liter V-8, equipped with a very aggressive camshaft (so aggressive that GM only sold the car with a manual transmission and without air conditioning) and numerous other specialty/high-performance components. It made 290 hp. The car did 0-60 in about 6.7 seconds.

The 2011 base (note: not the Z28) Camaro's engine is a 3.6 liter V-6 that produces 312 hp. It propels the car to 60 MPH in 6 seconds flat — as quick or even quicker than the '67-'69 V-8 powered Z-28. And it is capable of 28 MPG on the highway — easily 10 MPG better than the original, V-8 powered Z-28 could achieve.

It's a similar story with the Mustang and Challenger.

And it's not just performance cars that perform with less than a V-8 under their hoods. Most current family sedans either come with or offer as options V-6s that are in the 250-270 hp range. This is more power than all but a small handful of V-8s made in the '70s and '80s.

As a case in point: The early-mid 1980s Corvette came equipped with a 5.7 liter V-8 that made 245 hp. At the time, it was about the most powerful car on the road, excepting exotics.

Today, the Toyota Camry — a car that's as vanilla as vanilla gets — has a 268 hp 3.5 liter V-6 engine.

What does it mean to you?

It means that you don't need eight cylinders to get V-8 performance. Or more accurately, the kind of performance that most of us associate with having a V-8.

In the current Camaro or Mustang, for instance, the standard car gets to 60 PDQ (six seconds is quicker than nearly all the V-8 versions of classic-era muscle cars with V-8s managed) and has a top speed that's more than high enough to get you locked up for a year. The V-8s that are available in these models make even that performance look a little soft, of course. But the point is the standard V-6s are no longer what they were Back in the Day — that is, gimpy loose-toothed embarrassments. Back in the Day, if you wanted adequate, keep-up-with-traffic acceleration (let alone performance) you had to get the optional V-8. Today, you get performance — very good performance — with the "base" engine.

The optional V-8 just ups the ante from very good to incredibly good.

It's the same story with current four-cylinder engines, many of which are now cresting 200 hp (as in the 2011 Hyundai Sonata) while also delivering 30 MPG or even better.

Before about five years ago 200 hp was not a four cylinder number; it was a six-cylinder number. As it was with the V-8 vs. V-6 paradigm, people knew (back then) that you pretty much had to upgrade to the optional engine, unless you could live with a terminal case of The Slows.

People, though, haven't updated their hard drives. Many still reflexively think of four cylinder engines as underpowered and under-performing, which just ain't so.

Not anymore, anyhow.

Here's an interesting fact: The slowest new cars — like the Prius hybrid — need just over 11 seconds to get to 60 MPH. That's the exception. Most new cars — even subcompact economy cars — get to 60 in less than 10 seconds. The average is around 8 seconds. That's more than twice as quick as an old Beetle — and easily 4-5 seconds quicker than the typical econobox of the '80s.

So, here's the beef: Don't assume you need to go big guns and buy the optionally available V-8 (or V-6). Take a test drive in the V-6 (or four cylinder) powered version of the car you're thinking about buying.

You might be pleasantly surprised to discover what you don't need anymore.

Comments?
www.epautos.com

Are You A NMA Member? If not, read about the benefits and then join!



The No Longer Necessary V-8

Further Reading:
You are subscribed to email updates from National Motorists Association Blog
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610


--
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.