Flip Cain's 9-9-9 over and what do you get
The ANTI-CHRIST IS revealed, or at least who is working for him.
TELL ALL YOUR RELIGIOUS FRIENDS LOL
Sit back and watch as they go into spasms as they try to rectify the conflict they'll have between thinking everything Herman Cain says is so smart and the fact that he's chosen the numerical symbol of the great beast as his own.
If they scoff at it, suggest they are in league with Herman, but only if you are sure they don't have guns handy. Such words is "fightin words".
Of course there is more "proof" as most fundamentalists would see proof as being.
His name Cain naturally is the name of Cain in the biblical story of Cain and Abel.
Cain was the first murderer, and some fervent fundamentalists interpret revelations as saying Cain will be right hand of the Anti-Christ or the Anti-Christ himself, but both are pretty bad. LOL
THEN THERE IS THE WISE WORDS OF MICHELLE Bachman herself......:-D
When asked about Herman's 9-9-9 plan, she said that "the DEVIL is in the details". Wow if there is ever proof that fundamentalists can have the spirit speak through them that's it. hehehehe.
For those who are sarcasm-challenged, yes I'm being sarcastic.
Please don't waste your time telling me how stupid I am for believing this.
One of the fundamental problems with Repuglican thinking is its totally foreign logic, and claims to being simple common sense while not displaying any sense in what they say or write whatsoever.
Now rather than a lengthy point by point explanation, that would put anyone to sleep. I have a simple little bit of writing that should allow anyone to understand the grounding in which Repuglicans root their logic and their reasons.
A group of 100 Repuglicans are asked to read a series of simple statements, and then give their conclusion as to the overall meaning they have.
Vodka and ice will ruin your kidneys.
Rum and ice will ruin your liver.
Whiskey and ice will ruin your heart.
Gin and ice will ruin your brain.
Soda and ice will ruin your teeth.
After some deliberation the 100 Repuglicans were all unanimous as to what this meant overall.
Their answer: Ice is a dangerous, toxic substance and should be avoided at all cost.
It's beyond what simple demand would cause.
Of course, I know many a liberal finds it hard to care too much about expensive gasoline, because it helps achieve one cherished goal reducing greenhouse emissions. The fact that the working class and poor are hit hardest by this doesn't matter apparently.
WHAT should make an impact is the role it's playing in the price of food. Millions literally are struggling to get enough to eat facing starvation thanks to speculators driving up the price with their artificial demand - basically legalized gambling has taken over the global financial system, and allowed the gamblers to write the rules as they go. It should be no surprise then that prices just go up and up, ensuring most of the gamblers win on almost every bet.
Perhaps I need to make it clear what creates 'artificial demand' vs. normal in the commodity markets.
Most people who are Unfamiliar with how the stock market or commodities market work have a simple notion on how it works. They think when you buy stock or commodities you pay the price listed to do so.
If only, but the truth is you can "purchase control" of stock or a commodity for a fraction of the actual cost.
On the stock market it costs you $50 to "purchase control" of $100. You are fronted the other $50. While that seems like a great deal, it's extremely restrictive compared to commodity trading.
To "purchase control" of $100 worth of product on a commodity market only costs $6 dollars.
It should be no surprise that the financial gambling institutions we call banks are now flooding the commodity markets, and basically overwhelming the system's checks and balances to create their own artificial demand that keeps prices going up and up and up.
The commodity market used to consist of "end users" or "wholesalers/distributors" of a commodity. Oil companies would buy oil commodities to sell later. Agribusiness would buy the grain Etc. to make food.
Today as the article explains 9 our of 10 of the bidders on the commodity market are strictly buying it to turn a profit, and have neither the means nor the desire to use what the bought. Their only purpose is to hold on to it long enough to sell it at a good profit.
It's their demand for investment opportunities that is driving the price higher than it would be if it were only led by supply/demand factors. This demand has NOTHING to do; it does NOT reflect actual consumer demand or need.
What is sad and interesting is the many who would rather speculate on what's happening rather than just going to McClatchy, the one media company with a liberal POV who has been happily spelling it out for those for whom facts actually matter for several years now.
If you are someone who believes two third world developing nations are behind the "demand" causing the rising prices, this article is a reality/fact check. Somehow though I doubt if such individuals will get it considering how willing they are to believe two third world developing nations are more able to afford the high price of fuel and food better than the Western economies.
First let me say I am NOT writing this to express what I hope happens.
It's just my personal analysis of how the current political situation could develop into a primary disaster for President Obama should the economy stall out.
To me it's odd how all the pundits are predicting President Obama runs a high risk of not being reelected in a general election. They talk as if Democrats are mindless robots who will support President Obama no matter what policy he pursues, and no matter who might step forward to challenge him.
It's odd to me, because the current political situation is exactly the kind that produces a viable primary challenger to a sitting president who fails to take aggressive action to fix the nation's problems (as the voters see it, not just DU'ers).
Blaming the idiot Refucklicans can only work so many times and for so long.
As of now, Democrats may overwhelmingly support the President, but much of that support is soft in part due to the White House strategy of assuming they'll get those votes, because the Republicans will nominate a loon.
However as Jimmy Carter showed, and Reagan demonstrated, even the looniest candidate can start to look "not so bad" after months of spending billions to change the mind of the USA about someone.
Unfortunately, most people do not remember how the political establishment gasped in horror when Reagan became the Rethuglican candidate for president.
He was the "impossible to believe" candidate back then, and it was a forgone conclusion President Carter was going to win reelection.
It was the disastrous failure of the Iran hostage rescue mission that handed the election to Reagan.
The vast majority do NOT even pay Attn. to the election until the month before.
In the meantime people will pay Attn. to their lives and if they are worried about their job and financial situation, their anger against those in charge will only grow.
That anger will be expressed in extreme frustration among Democrats, and it would only take a decent candidate to knock the legs out from under President Obama should he head into the election with a weak economy Etc.
Just who is viable is not clear right now, but becoming viable will also be determined by the situation at that time.
Should the economy get better, even slowly, President Obama will not have a viable challenger.
If the economists like Krugman are right, that's not a sure thing.
In that case, President Obama could find himself upset by a surprise last minute entry into the Democratic primary contest, and end up resigning because of it just like President Johnson did.
One more thing that is also parallel. President Johnson lost mostly because of the Vietnam war.
While Washington DC pretends the wars are out of sight and out of mind, the American public has not forgotten, and we can be sure as the Republicans up the volume on their claims that we are 'broke' Progressives and liberals will shout back then bring the troops home and save enough to pay for medicare Etc. This will keep the military involvements in the forefront of issues the public bases who to support when voting.
The economy and the continued involvement in a hot war in Afghanistan and a large presence in Iraq both together costing billions and billions borrowed from China + a sick economy are potentially enough to sink President Obama IN THE PRIMARY.
The chances of that happening only get worse as it becomes clear President Obama's team continues to act as if he is immune from such a thing, and only focus on winning the general - the same mistake that President Johnson's team made in 1968
There are lots of myths the American propaganda machine has fed you. Much of which the taste you really liked, or you would have made a little effort to see how false that is.
We spend so much on defense, because #1 our military industrial complex successfully attached itself like a parasite to our government by lobbying itself into an untouchable position in regards to funding. Nothing was ever enough to defend ourselves.
We spend to have OUR WAY in the world.
I doubt if you realize how often the Europeans did NOT support or believe OUR way was the smartest way, but guess what we have used OUR military might to force them to do things our way.
But our media rather than cover the points of disagreement, sums it all up by reporting Europeans are cheating the USA and letting us pick up the tab for their defense.
Did you even notice how harshly Team Bush came down on France and Germany when they refused to go along in the run up to the Iraq war?
They did NOT think it was in their interests, nor that it was a good idea, and most don't care that we took out Saddam, because he was NO real threat.
Their POV though was dismissed and disrespected. Only someone who doesn't follow world events could think they are riding our defense coattails after the most dramatic example in recent history of the USA demanding they pay for a war they think is a terrible idea. Then when they refuse claiming they are riding on our defense coattails.
The threats YOU were taught existed and justified the huge defense bill, simply did NOT exist in the minds of Europeans. They were boogeymen meant to scare Americans into spending butt loads of money on things we didn't need.
Of course we're told the reason is actually that they are cheating the USA by letting us pick up their defense tab.
Finally Europeans have learned one simple lesson from all our spending, spending often based on pride, rather than common sense.
And that is, it is far far cheaper to find peaceful solutions through negotiations or if that fails, containment than it is to make the war option the first and only option as we do.
They realized after WWII that the price of pride and ego is just not worth the cost, and are constantly reminded of just how worthless it is by our own endless actions to "teach" other nations a lesson.
oh in regards to the WWII reference.
The UK fought ALONE for ONE full year against Nazi Germany. They fought alone withOUT American aid. The only thing we offered them was a lease on a fleet of mothballed, out of date warships, because we did NOT want to offend Germany.
Most American know this, but instead of realizing that "holding the line" solo is actually doing the "saving". Instead we've been taught we rescued them.
So cocky and blinded by pride most don't consider what would have happened if we decided "not to save them".
If they did, they'd realize sitting on the sidelines allowing Hitler to win would have meant we were the next target and not in a far weaker position, because we'd face Hitler with the resources of a conquered Europe along with Japan solo.
Nothing explodes the myth of American foreign policy doing things based on "saving" other nations better than this, but it takes thinking beyond what you are told to be proud of.
It was in OUR OWN interests to get involved, and because of that we saved each other. For the USA to claim our intervention was a sort of generosity is absurd and hubris of the worst kind.
by several points. Yet they elect Governor Evil and give the Republicans huge majorities in their legislature.
The American Corporate News Establishment (ACNE) has done a great job of convicing the nation that this is all due to President Obama's health care bill, and rise of the militant Tea Party, but that does NOT hold water with me.
The Tea Party types were around in 2008, yet had no impact. Suddenly in 2010 they are able to turn the table over so to speak? hmmmm
It defies our electoral history. No matter how bad a president has been, I can't recall a historical election where 2 years later the people said enough, and there have been President's who have done far far more in terms of grand changes than President Obama, like President Johnson.
Has there been any thought put into investigating election rigging, or is the FBI fine with the extreme swings that happened in 2010.
I'd love to hear something on this.
The tremendous power that Unions once had in significant part stemmed from their reputation as the good guys among NON union people, as fighters for the middle class.
Yet Union leadership never understood this, and instead assumed Union members were the ONLY source of their POLITICAL strength exclusively.
This meant cultivating and sustaining the positive image of Unions among the NON union people was not done. Nothing was spent. Instead Unions expected politicians they helped elect to do that for them, and it's taken decades for them to realize that was a huge mistake.
Considering that even at peak Union membership never topped 40% (and that's decades ago) It should have been obvious that Union strength depended on the desire of NON-union workers to join them as well as the overwhelmingly positive image Unions ONCE had.
One great example of many of just how oblivious the leadership was is their utter refusal to confront mob influence, and even worse not even attempt to counter this being used as a cudgel to destroy Union's good name.
So now after fighting the worst fight ever in political history Unions are getting serious, hmmm.
Well if they want to have a chance they better start telling the Union troops that treating people who ask questions as "enemies" is not a good idea.
Union members need to wake up and realize NON-union Americans ARE UTTERLY CLUELESS, completely ignorant as to the positive reasons associated with being in a Union are.
Any time their asked questions should be seen as an opportunity to educate, NOT an opportunity to vent and treat the questioners like a waste of time.
When it comes to Unions, no group puts on a meaner, more hostile public face, making defeating them much easier.
Even the most vile republithug knows that he better make some commercials kissing babies and helping those who can't help themselves. Keeping the public informed on the good things about Unions though isn't in any union member's job description, so.
In today's world 'being real' is not good enough is NOT nearly good enough. That means you have to present a public image that is MUCH better than real, sincere and good and promote the hell out of it.
Because Unions haven't tried, among the general public the reputation lies in tatters.
Wisconsin is proof of why I'm right.
The fact that so many think it means their winning is a good example of how detached Union leadership is from reality.
You are not winning when you are one defeat away from losing it all. You are in survival mode, and should you win this one, you have decades to make up for to get even.
If the polls are to be believed, the #s in support of Unions have shifted by the amount of UNION MEMBERS who VOTED REPUBLICAN! Enough to give them the support of the majority of Wisconsin voters, but far short of enough for victory.
In any case given the penchant for DUer's especially Union types to NOT read a post before commenting and attacking. I'll stop here. Far be it for me to try and stop a nasty bad habit that has turned many a sympathetic individual NOT fortunate enough to be a Union member into haters instead.
If you think I'm anti Union - that just means you did NOT read what I wrote, and a good indication as to why I am right and you are wrong.
None of these questions are meant to trip anyone up. I'm definitely on the side of the Teachers, but as I've read and followed the reporting of these sorts of Union/Government Union/Corporate conflicts, I am always amazed at the total lack of information as to why teacher pay and retirement is never explained in a way that makes it easy for the non-union individual to know how unfairly teachers are being treated.....
1.) For example I know no one who can give me a sensible explanation as to why Union teachers have pensions instead of SS. The first time I learned this was so was from a teacher just a few years ago.
She was a former CA teacher, now retired, and all the things I know of teacher's pay reflect her situation. I realize perhaps she is unique, but so far I've seen evidence that says it's more the norm.
She told me for example that a Teacher's pension replaces SS for most teachers.
To find out over the years that this point is almost unknown outside of unions to me is astounding, because people seem all too aware of the individuals who work for government who are able to get a pension AND SS when they retire thanks to fox news.
So naturally when people hear pensions, they think this must be an extra ON TOP of SS the Union teachers get - and to a person who only gets SS that would be galling and make enemies of Teacher's rights simply out of ignorance not actual reasons.
So what is the supposed advantage of a pension over SS for retirement. From what I've been told teachers cannot get both, because the money they would have put into SS goes into their pension fund.
2.) If that is correct, Is it possible that they keep ending up on the losing side, because most people do NOT know that teachers do NOT get SS. Now I know to Teachers this is SO OBVIOUS, but honestly outside of education and the rapidly dwindling union base in general the opportunities to learn from talking to a Union member are getting scarce. In places like Texas they don't exist.
3.) If I am mostly right - that the whole pension system created for whatever reason is IN PLACE of Social Security, how come nobody bothers to explain to the non-union individual that attempts to cut Teacher's pensions are tantamount to trying to cut Social Security for people who worked all their lives to get it
Nothing would cut through the right wing lies better than such a simple statement, but I've never heard anyone say anything even close.
Pensions and SS may be different sorts of financial structures, but the end users for both I think see it as their retirement.
Unions make their jobs much more difficult by assuming the vast majority know the details of the union fight.
4.)As sympathetic as I may be to the union side, I always catch myself wondering why is it from the beginning of every conflict anti-union forces so successfully portray union workers as lazy and selfish and thus force the unions (all kinds) start their fight from behind the goal line so to speak.
I'd think that Union leaders would have realized by now to not just sit and wait to be dumped on, yet they seem oblivious to the need to lay "positive groundwork" when times are peaceful for Unions so that when they see that knife in their enemies hands they are prepared.
Yes I know the opponents of Unions have shitloads of cash, but that does not mean making an effort to positively portray union members when things are calm is not worth it.
My feeling is all to often the ONLY thing the NON-Union worker knows about unions was told to him by this or that anti-union entity.
Personally I KNOW I do not see anything positive about Unions in my local media nor hear anyone talking positively about them. Worst of all I never hear or see messages from the unions themselves ensuring that through all the noise a positive message about unions is always there.
By the way I've only lived here for a few years, and spent 17yrs. on the West Coast. So when I speak of perceptions, Texas is not the only or largest part of perspective.
5.) How come Union leadership does not seem able to learn from the past. Unions never seem to anticipate and prepare for the regular attacks on the part of anti-working folk forces whoever they may be. Each one seems to be a carbon copy of the last attack. This time it was several governors doing it simultaneously. Surely in the run up to 2010 someone in the leadership should have known the toxic nature of some of these guys.
6.) Why is it that unions always allow the media to portray efforts by Unions to ensure fair treatment for members as efforts to prevent management from getting rid of bad employees who truly need to be fired.
I'm thinking mostly of the outrageous behavior on the part of law enforcement officials in various cities (check youtube videos) where the taped, solid evidence is clearly the policeman or fireman was acting in a despicable manner abusing his/her power to abuse and humiliate a suspect.
In the middle of the reporting pops up a Union official declaring his member is innocent (despite video proof, eyewitnesses Etc.) While I know what they're doing, doing it that way makes too many people think unions are only there to protect the worst of the worst at the expense of public safety and well-being.
I ask question #6 assuming that most people have seen their share of police videos who have recorded some of these incidences and are posted on youtube under various tags, like police abuse Etc.,
I have a lot more questions, but I hope this should be enough to help me figure out why I see this.
Finally I realize that considering the general make up of the DU a far greater percentage would be fully aware of these things. When I use generalities about what people do or don't know, I am NOT thinking about the typical DU person. I am generalizing for the American Public of which we all know DU members are a very small part and who often far more aware of what's going on than the group as a whole.
Here's the story. Seems overseas Murdoch doesn't even pretend to have to play by the rules.
Keep your eyes open for more stories on this.
But making such a claim is required for such a stupid post to have any validity.
If the Democratic party were always asserting it's perfection or goodness, and everyday Democrats accepted this without question there'd be a point to this post.
BUT the Democratic party nor do many Democrats claim perfection.
What Democrats do know is we're a far better choice than Republicans warts and all.
A great common sense reply to the excuse makers who create all sorts of "models" to explain that this is not happening. Models that assume they know enough to construct accurate models of what's going on, and factor in every major element in the process, which they don't and cannot.
And that price is a varying fee for drug testing on average of about $35 BEFORE they can get benefits.
That'll teach those lazy kids to think twice before being born to a poor parent over their head trying to support their family.
Of course we all know that the ONLY reason why their family is struggling, is because their parent is lazy pot smoking, crack smoking, crystal smoking (take your pic) drug fiend who should not have children, but that's beside the point.
This solution will force the the drug-addled lazy, shiftless single parent parasite to think twice before using drugs, think twice before they think they can make tax payers pay for their lifestyle.
Florida is NOT fooled by the typical lame excuse given, that these people can't feed their children. Well if you weren't spending $1000 a week on drugs, you could. Florida's governor knows it, and that's why he is signing a bill to make anyone applying for welfare pay for their own drug testing before they can be considered for welfare. Guesstimates vary as to the cost, but it's expected to be around $35 give or take
The fact that Rick Scott owned in part the chain where the vast majority would go get drug tested is besides the point. It besmirches the honor of the good Florida governor.
OK ENOUGH SARCASM, otherwise the many DUers Who ONLY read headlines will think I'm a freeper who got lost and ended up on DU by mistake
I just cannot believe what a vile man the Florida governor is. He is just plain evil.
The notion that welfare as it exists today is something to "scam for" is a pathetic joke.
NO ONE can be on it for more than 3 years total in their entire life, and the responsibility for running it has devolved totally to the states. Some states are understanding, others are sadistic in their administration of the program throwing in heaps of humiliation with the support. Florida will become the worst once he signs this bill I guess.
Today ONLY POOR CHILDREN can be on it for longer than 3yrs total, and only until their 18.
After that they are on their own. The checks are specifically designated to support the children of the poor. Of course it makes the parents responsible for the funds, but THEY ARE NOT the reason for the support.
Long gone are the days a person could get on welfare and stay on it for decades having one child after another and get a raise in support with each one. THAT ENDED IN 1997 with the notorious welfare reform.
The fact that a chain of clinics that will get most of the business that results from this is the one he recently divested his interest in should make it clear the real reason why he felt bitch-slapping poor children was a priority.
I only hope that by the next election, Florida regains its sanity and kicks the Repugnicans out.
Whoever wrote this should get a prize.
I don't think I've ever seen the term "mouth-breathers" used in a serious context, but this article did, and very properly too.
Snippet from the column.....
Hah. Remember when Obama recently released the long form of his birth certificate as a way of silencing the babbling birthers who claim he was born outside the U.S. and therefore is occupying their White House illegally?
No sooner had the document been released than mouth-breathers were claiming to have seen the president at Kinko's doing some late-night Photoshopping of a forged birth certificate.
as well as several others of the lavish abode of OBL.
I am posting this link for those who say they want to see pictures of his body.
After looking at these photos, only those with a truly morbid desire to see dead people would feel it necessary to see OBL's body.
Oddly, I didn't care about seeing OBL's body. I'm just a regular reader of the guardian.co.uk, and didn't realize the photos would be so graphic, even after reading the warning.
When the British press labels something as "graphic" THEY MEAN IT!
It takes some nerve for the state then to demand NOT flood the land, and let little Cairo drown.
Several legislatures in Missouri made comments reminiscent of what a few Federal House members said about New Orleans when it was flooded - that it wasn't worth saving or losing farmland to save that worthless town.
The ten most recent threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums.
FL GOP tries to close state pension system to new workers, yet take THEIR pension at 2X accrual rate
FL GOP denies $51 billion federal Medicaid to poor, yet order cheap health care for themselves
Happy Mother's Day
I love DU2!
Florida Senate President Don Gaetz (R) ran company now accused of Medicaid fraud (Rick Scott redux)
Mediterranean diet cuts risk of heart dis-ease
By No Elephants
Most surprising Oscar story for me:
By No Elephants
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
Democratic Underground forums and groups from my "My Forums" list.
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.