More relative economic revelations .... The cost of insurance is NOT astronomical. It is at the exact same proportion of rates that it was in relationships to housing, salary, automobiles that it was in 1911 when Blue Cross of Washington first started offering the plan.
And on the law of 7 & 10s from the actuarial world. Take ANY consumer durable product and index it at a base year; in seven to ten years - the cost value of purchasing that same comparable item will double in COST It is what the insurance acturials have counted on and depended upon to make rate progressions since the first civilian use of the computer in the 40's.
ie 1964 Mustang - a dollar a pound 2000.00 1973....2890 1978....5400 1987....8600 1994....13300 2002.....22900 (you had to go to the GT option level to keep the V-8 motor as constant) Source http://www.mustangspecs.com/ based on V-8 manual trans models with no other options
2011.... 2011 Ford Mustang Prices Revealed, Base 5.0 GT coupe MSRP is $30,495 *www.motorauthority.com
2,4,8,16,32.... damn simple geometric progression.... UNLESS they collapse the currency and re-evaluate it from index zero...
Twenty-one-year-old Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis, who was arrested Wednesday as part of an FBI sting operation, was reportedly in contact with al Qaeda before he entered the United States in January to attend Southeast Missouri State University, where he was studying cyber security. But the State Department's system to check visa applicants didn't find any reason to deny him entry, and the department issued his visa.
So I'm just wondering... Do we hand out student visas to everyone with al Qaeda contacts, or was this a special case? I'm not sure which answer would make me feel better.
Speaking of what you learn at a university these days:
quote:
Obama Event Goers On Benghazi: What?!? Published on Oct 18, 2012 by RevealPolitics
Revealing Politics went to the Ohio University campus to an Obama event on October 17th to find out what the President's supporters thought about the September 11 Benghazi attacks. Turns out they didn't think much, as most of the event attendees we interviewed had never even heard of it.
David Letterman should be afraid for his job now that Obama will soon be unemployed. Obama has been reduced to meaningless issues and hurling insults instead of being presidential. He will make a great late night show host in his next career.
Bret Baier's special report on Benghazi, "Death and Deceit in Benghazi", is simply mortifying on so many fronts. We have not seen such deceit and malfeasance since the Nixon administration.
President Obama,
You MUST resign now. Your presidency is a total failure and you MUST not subject the American people to Benghazi-gate in the unlikely event that you win re-election. We will not rest until you admit culpability and your OBVIOUS complicity in your Nixon like cover up.
If you love America, resign.
"Bumps in the road". "The terror attacks in Libya were not optimal."
GIVE ME A BREAK.
All Badwebbers: Give Mitt Romney a chance. You all now know that Obama is NOT a leader.
Tom: So, Monday night it's all about foreign policy. I have to think the 0-team is actually sweating this debate. Foreign policy certainly encompasses a lot more than Libya, but.........Benghazi-gate DESERVES unfiltered scrutiny right now, and this debate SHOULD be the place to do that.
Will Schieffer body-slam Romney like Candy-0 did the other night if the going gets tough for the preezy?
Or, is he old-school enough to still have some journalistic integrity?
Monday night is for all the marbles. The first three debates have not been kind to 0&B and their poll numbers. Monday night is the final round, 0&B are bloodied and reeling, and it's just about all they can do to make the bell at this point.
0 has some explaining to do.
Will Schieffer allow it?
Have a good weekend, amigo. I'm gonna earn a few bucks until it gets light, then light a fire under the Road King and enjoy some fall finery on the Parkway.
BO is breaking his own laws about reporting on how the stimulus program is working. I guess when the program is failing during an election year it's OK to just keep quite about it even though the law requires reports.
It's fitting that next weeks debate will be on foreign policy. I understand that today (Saturday) is the one year mark of the killing of Omar Gaddafi, the leader of Libya. If there is a clear example of BO's foreign policy that exists, it is Libya. It's that a countries entire history is changed by the influence of a single man. Most examples I can think of are dictators using their military force. Libya was overthrown by Barack Obama using the might of the US military. He did this without the consent of the people, or more importantly, Congress. For this alone, he should be forced from office. This however, sadly is not where the story ends.
We are now finding out that security at out consulate in Libya was reduced and farmed out to locals. This is despite complaints from those on the ground that the situation was not stable, and security needed to be increased. This wasn't the narrative that BO wanted coming up to his reelection. For pure political reasons, his administration knowingly chose to put these people's lives in danger. Unfortunately, the gamble didn't pay off, and four civil servants paid with their lives. To make matters even worse, we are now witnessing a cover up of what happened. BO has blamed our intelligence agencies, who are coming forward with evidence that it wasn't a matter of bad, or slow intelligence.
BO refused to take responsibility for what had happened, until Hillary took responsibility. It wasn't until the most recent debate that BO finally said that he is responsible. He offered up lies that he said the morning after the attack that it was an act of terrorism. He said to look at the transcript. The transcript is clear, as is the position that his administration took for the weeks to follow. They claimed it was a protest of a video that got out of hand. Pure fabrication for which BO has offered no source for so far.
These issues should be central to any debate involving BO and foreign policy. This is a foreign affair that is 100% the making of BO, all on his own. I have serious doubts that any moderator from the MSM will ever put him on the spot like this. He should be though. There is no one to blame but BO for the events that unfolded. This is the Obama foreign policy in action in the real world.
There is no one to blame but BO for the events that unfolded. Isn't it a hoot when the WH, et al, say, "Hey, if y'all would simply stop talking about Benghazi, well shucks, it wouldn't be an issue anymore!"
I would like to know who came up with the "blame it on that video" idea... That's the 16 trillion dollar question, to be sure, one which they're DESPERATELY trying not to answer until after the election. One wonders if the preezy will have to invoke executive privilege on this one, too....
He no longer wants to win. I *think* I *might* know what you mean by this, but..........care to elaborate???
He likes the trappings of being President, but he knows that he has NO answers, no solution, no plan, no options for the next four years. His legacy already sucks. Another four years will guarantee him a slot as the worst President ever.
At BEST, he'll bear witness the complete dismantling of everything he has done over the last four years (including the SCOTUS striking down Obamacare).
WORST case scenario, he'll be the first President to be escorted from the White House in hand cuffs.
Fast and Furious isn't going away.
Funneling tax payer money to campaign donors isn't going away.
The Libya situation isn't going away.
The gun running to Syrian rebels through Chris Stevenson isn't going away.
The voter fraud issues aren't going away.
If he loses, most of this gets swept under the rug and forgotten. If he wins, he gets to be front and center of endless inquiries, hearings, and impeachments proceedings.
I would like to know who came up with the "blame it on that video" idea...
It really doesn't matter who came up with it. BO made the decision to run with it for weeks, knowing the truth. The ONLY way it really matters is if someone also made the decision to not inform the Whitehouse. That, to me, is just inconceivable.
I do think that BO will feel a certain sense of relief when he comes to the realization that he will no longer have to shoulder responsibility.
He no longer wants to win. Fatty and Sifo, I'm thinking Mox might be thinking along different lines than you fellas as to why the preezy might not want to win.
That said, I'll withhold further comment until he has a chance to reply.
Meanwhile:
quote:
DOD Blocking Questionnaire On Benghazi Attack From Chairman of House Armed Services Committee The Right Scoop, October 20th, 2012
The Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Buck McKeon, sent a yes/no questionnaire to commanders in our military to find out if they gave any advice or warning to the State Department over security in Benghazi. Though he gave them 24 hours to respond, the DOD responded by saying they wouldn’t be able to comply. McKeon says this is the first time he’s ever seen the Secretary of Defense [Leon Panetta - FB] prohibit uniformed military from responding to a congressional inquiry and it flies in the face of the president’s claim that he is getting the information out to the American people as it comes in.
McKeon says that the idea that our ambassador was left with too little security just sickens him and we have a right to know what happened and how it happened.
The Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Buck McKeon, says he's being stonewalled by the SecDef (i.e. Leon Panetta) on Benghazi. As a refresher, here's what Panetta thinks about Congress and the United States Constitution. If you don't want to watch the entire clip, skip to the 3:27 mark:
quote:
Obama Admin Cites 'Int'l Permission,' Not Congress, As 'Legal Basis' For Action In Syria Published on Mar 7, 2012 by SenatorSessions
WASHINGTON, March 7 — Under question from Sen. Sessions at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing today, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey indicated that "international permission," rather than Congressional approval, provided a 'legal basis' for military action by the United States.
Bret Baier's special report on Benghazi, "Death and Deceit in Benghazi", is simply mortifying on so many fronts. We have not seen such deceit and malfeasance since the Nixon administration.
Tom, here's on online source to Baier's piece on Benghazi. [EDIT: This is part one and two; I'm presently looking online for the other segment/s.]
I've also read online that this special will be replayed on Fox ("For those that missed it, it will replay tomorrow; check your local listings."). We don't have a TV, so I can't confirm this.
quote:
Fox News: The Timeline of the Benghazi Attack – How It Actually Happened The Right Scoop, October 20th, 2012
Fox News [and Bret Baier] did a great job last night explaining the details of what actually happened on the night of the attack that cost the lives of our ambassador and three other Americans.
You'll have to ask Panetta, amigo. Recall that earlier this year a group of Marines was ordered to disarm before they could to listen to an address from him. Now, according to McKeon, he's stonewalling Congress' investigation on Benghazi.
Monday night's debate should be very interesting...