This is scary- Pentagon spying on Americans
#481
03-20-2006, 04:37 PM
This is scary- Pentagon spying on Americans
This was in the news, today in Canada.....makes me wonder...if the usa media is so liberal, why didnt it make faux news?
How to spot a baby conservative
Whiny children, claims a new study, tend to grow up rigid and traditional. Future liberals, on the other hand ...
Mar. 19, 2006. 10:45 AM
KURT KLEINER
SPECIAL TO THE STAR
Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative.
At least, he did if he was one of 95 kids from the Berkeley area that social scientists have been tracking for the last 20 years. The confident, resilient, self-reliant kids mostly grew up to be liberals.
The study from the Journal of Research Into Personality isn't going to make the UC Berkeley professor who published it any friends on the right. Similar conclusions a few years ago from another academic saw him excoriated on right-wing blogs, and even led to a Congressional investigation into his research funding.
But the new results are worth a look. In the 1960s Jack Block and his wife and fellow professor Jeanne Block (now deceased) began tracking more than 100 nursery school kids as part of a general study of personality. The kids' personalities were rated at the time by teachers and assistants who had known them for months. There's no reason to think political bias skewed the ratings — the investigators were not looking at political orientation back then. Even if they had been, it's unlikely that 3- and 4-year-olds would have had much idea about their political leanings.
A few decades later, Block followed up with more surveys, looking again at personality, and this time at politics, too. The whiny kids tended to grow up conservative, and turned into rigid young adults who hewed closely to traditional gender roles and were uncomfortable with ambiguity.
The confident kids turned out liberal and were still hanging loose, turning into bright, non-conforming adults with wide interests. The girls were still outgoing, but the young men tended to turn a little introspective.
Block admits in his paper that liberal Berkeley is not representative of the whole country. But within his sample, he says, the results hold. He reasons that insecure kids look for the reassurance provided by tradition and authority, and find it in conservative politics. The more confident kids are eager to explore alternatives to the way things are, and find liberal politics more congenial.
In a society that values self-confidence and out-goingness, it's a mostly flattering picture for liberals. It also runs contrary to the American stereotype of wimpy liberals and strong conservatives.
Of course, if you're studying the psychology of politics, you shouldn't be surprised to get a political reaction. Similar work by John T. Jost of Stanford and colleagues in 2003 drew a political backlash. The researchers reviewed 44 years worth of studies into the psychology of conservatism, and concluded that people who are dogmatic, fearful, intolerant of ambiguity and uncertainty, and who crave order and structure are more likely to gravitate to conservatism. Critics branded it the "conservatives are crazy" study and accused the authors of a political bias.
Jost welcomed the new study, saying it lends support to his conclusions. But Jeff Greenberg, a social psychologist at the University of Arizona who was critical of Jost's study, was less impressed.
"I found it to be biased, shoddy work, poor science at best," he said of the Block study. He thinks insecure, defensive, rigid people can as easily gravitate to left-wing ideologies as right-wing ones. He suspects that in Communist China, those kinds of people would likely become fervid party members.
The results do raise some obvious questions. Are nursery school teachers in the conservative heartland cursed with classes filled with little proto-conservative whiners?
Or does an insecure little boy raised in Idaho or Alberta surrounded by conservatives turn instead to liberalism?
Or do the whiny kids grow up conservative along with the majority of their more confident peers, while only the kids with poor impulse control turn liberal?
Part of the answer is that personality is not the only factor that determines political leanings. For instance, there was a .27 correlation between being self-reliant in nursery school and being a liberal as an adult. Another way of saying it is that self-reliance predicts statistically about 7 per cent of the variance between kids who became liberal and those who became conservative. (If every self-reliant kid became a liberal and none became conservatives, it would predict 100 per cent of the variance). Seven per cent is fairly strong for social science, but it still leaves an awful lot of room for other influences, such as friends, family, education, personal experience and plain old intellect.
For conservatives whose feelings are still hurt, there is a more flattering way for them to look at the results. Even if they really did tend to be insecure complainers as kids, they might simply have recognized that the world is a scary, unfair place.
Their grown-up conclusion that the safest thing is to stick to tradition could well be the right one. As for their "rigidity," maybe that's just moral certainty.
The grown-up liberal men, on the other hand, with their introspection and recognition of complexity in the world, could be seen as self-indulgent and ineffectual.
Whether anyone's feelings are hurt or not, the work suggests that personality and emotions play a bigger role in our political leanings than we think. All of us, liberal or conservative, feel as though we've reached our political opinions by carefully weighing the evidence and exercising our best judgment. But it could be that all of that careful reasoning is just after-the-fact self-justification. What if personality forms our political outlook, with reason coming along behind, rationalizing after the fact?
It could be that whom we vote for has less to do with our judgments about tax policy or free trade or health care, and more with the personalities we've been stuck with since we were kids.
How to spot a baby conservative
Whiny children, claims a new study, tend to grow up rigid and traditional. Future liberals, on the other hand ...
Mar. 19, 2006. 10:45 AM
KURT KLEINER
SPECIAL TO THE STAR
Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative.
At least, he did if he was one of 95 kids from the Berkeley area that social scientists have been tracking for the last 20 years. The confident, resilient, self-reliant kids mostly grew up to be liberals.
The study from the Journal of Research Into Personality isn't going to make the UC Berkeley professor who published it any friends on the right. Similar conclusions a few years ago from another academic saw him excoriated on right-wing blogs, and even led to a Congressional investigation into his research funding.
But the new results are worth a look. In the 1960s Jack Block and his wife and fellow professor Jeanne Block (now deceased) began tracking more than 100 nursery school kids as part of a general study of personality. The kids' personalities were rated at the time by teachers and assistants who had known them for months. There's no reason to think political bias skewed the ratings — the investigators were not looking at political orientation back then. Even if they had been, it's unlikely that 3- and 4-year-olds would have had much idea about their political leanings.
A few decades later, Block followed up with more surveys, looking again at personality, and this time at politics, too. The whiny kids tended to grow up conservative, and turned into rigid young adults who hewed closely to traditional gender roles and were uncomfortable with ambiguity.
The confident kids turned out liberal and were still hanging loose, turning into bright, non-conforming adults with wide interests. The girls were still outgoing, but the young men tended to turn a little introspective.
Block admits in his paper that liberal Berkeley is not representative of the whole country. But within his sample, he says, the results hold. He reasons that insecure kids look for the reassurance provided by tradition and authority, and find it in conservative politics. The more confident kids are eager to explore alternatives to the way things are, and find liberal politics more congenial.
In a society that values self-confidence and out-goingness, it's a mostly flattering picture for liberals. It also runs contrary to the American stereotype of wimpy liberals and strong conservatives.
Of course, if you're studying the psychology of politics, you shouldn't be surprised to get a political reaction. Similar work by John T. Jost of Stanford and colleagues in 2003 drew a political backlash. The researchers reviewed 44 years worth of studies into the psychology of conservatism, and concluded that people who are dogmatic, fearful, intolerant of ambiguity and uncertainty, and who crave order and structure are more likely to gravitate to conservatism. Critics branded it the "conservatives are crazy" study and accused the authors of a political bias.
Jost welcomed the new study, saying it lends support to his conclusions. But Jeff Greenberg, a social psychologist at the University of Arizona who was critical of Jost's study, was less impressed.
"I found it to be biased, shoddy work, poor science at best," he said of the Block study. He thinks insecure, defensive, rigid people can as easily gravitate to left-wing ideologies as right-wing ones. He suspects that in Communist China, those kinds of people would likely become fervid party members.
The results do raise some obvious questions. Are nursery school teachers in the conservative heartland cursed with classes filled with little proto-conservative whiners?
Or does an insecure little boy raised in Idaho or Alberta surrounded by conservatives turn instead to liberalism?
Or do the whiny kids grow up conservative along with the majority of their more confident peers, while only the kids with poor impulse control turn liberal?
Part of the answer is that personality is not the only factor that determines political leanings. For instance, there was a .27 correlation between being self-reliant in nursery school and being a liberal as an adult. Another way of saying it is that self-reliance predicts statistically about 7 per cent of the variance between kids who became liberal and those who became conservative. (If every self-reliant kid became a liberal and none became conservatives, it would predict 100 per cent of the variance). Seven per cent is fairly strong for social science, but it still leaves an awful lot of room for other influences, such as friends, family, education, personal experience and plain old intellect.
For conservatives whose feelings are still hurt, there is a more flattering way for them to look at the results. Even if they really did tend to be insecure complainers as kids, they might simply have recognized that the world is a scary, unfair place.
Their grown-up conclusion that the safest thing is to stick to tradition could well be the right one. As for their "rigidity," maybe that's just moral certainty.
The grown-up liberal men, on the other hand, with their introspection and recognition of complexity in the world, could be seen as self-indulgent and ineffectual.
Whether anyone's feelings are hurt or not, the work suggests that personality and emotions play a bigger role in our political leanings than we think. All of us, liberal or conservative, feel as though we've reached our political opinions by carefully weighing the evidence and exercising our best judgment. But it could be that all of that careful reasoning is just after-the-fact self-justification. What if personality forms our political outlook, with reason coming along behind, rationalizing after the fact?
It could be that whom we vote for has less to do with our judgments about tax policy or free trade or health care, and more with the personalities we've been stuck with since we were kids.
#482
03-22-2006, 01:14 AM
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is scary- Pentagon spying on Americans
Has anyone else noticed that even with all the "cut n paste" posts were having a more informative discussion right here than anything the major news media outlets are producing. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]
Now everyone go take a moment and say a prayer for me (and every other working sob in NJ) that this knuckle head Gov. Corzine doesnt really go thru with raising every known tax, and creating more new ones than one can count in order to further fund the status quo in this corruption filled state. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img] [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]
Then we can talk about what was said by GW earlier today, and how both the left and right are so biased in their views that neither side is discussing anything worth a damn.
Now everyone go take a moment and say a prayer for me (and every other working sob in NJ) that this knuckle head Gov. Corzine doesnt really go thru with raising every known tax, and creating more new ones than one can count in order to further fund the status quo in this corruption filled state. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img] [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]
Then we can talk about what was said by GW earlier today, and how both the left and right are so biased in their views that neither side is discussing anything worth a damn.
#483
03-22-2006, 03:42 PM
This is scary- Pentagon spying on Americans
There were two separate articles this week on the presidents use of the strawman debate tactic. Heres another case.
Back to the Big Lie
by John Nichols
Tossed a softball question during Tuesday morning's press conference about whether he should be censured for ordering warrantless wiretapping of phone conversations "during a time of war," President Bush fell back on the lie that Americans must surrender liberties -- and the rule of law, itself -- in order to be made safe from terrorism.
The question, a virtually verbatim repeat of talking points circulated by the Republican National Committee, was about as generous a set-up as a president has ever gotten in a press conference.
"Thank you, sir," began Carl Cameron, who serves as Fox News' always-on-bended-knee chief correspondent in the court of King George. "On the subject of the terrorist surveillance program -- not to change the tone from all this emphasis on bipartisanship -- but there have been now three sponsors to a measure to censure you for the implementation of that program. The primary sponsor, Russ Feingold, has suggested that impeachment is not out of the question. And on Sunday, the number two Democrat in the Senate refused to rule that out pending an investigation. What, sir, do you think the impact of the discussion of impeachment and censure does to you and this office, and to the nation during a time of war, and in the context of the election?"
Bush was, needless to say, ready for the Cameron's inquiry. Grabbing hold of the "time-of-war" reference as the lifesaver it was intended to be, the president said, "I think during these difficult times -- and they are difficult when we're at war -- the American people expect there to be a honest and open debate without needless partisanship. And that's how I view it. I did notice that nobody from the Democrat Party has actually stood up and called for getting rid of the terrorist surveillance program. You know, if that's what they believe, if people in the party believe that, then they ought to stand up and say it. They ought to stand up and say the tools we're using to protect the American people shouldn't be used. They ought to take their message to the people and say, vote for me, I promise we're not going to have a terrorist surveillance program. That's what they ought to be doing. That's part of what is an open and honest debate."
Of course, no prominent Democrat has ever suggested publicly or -- to the extent that reporting has revealed -- privately that it would be wise to do away with surveillance programs that are designed to thwart terrorism. What Democrats and Republicans have suggested is that the president ought to obey the law when ordering federal agencies to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens.
As Feingold, the Democratic senator from Wisconsin who raised the issue of censure last week, noted on Monday: "At his press conference today, the President once again failed to tell the American people why he decided to break the law by authorizing a program to spy on Americans on American soil without court orders. Instead of offering any defense of the program's legality, the President shamelessly played partisan politics by implying that Democrats don't want to wiretap terrorists. That is flat-out wrong, and the President knows it. Of course we should wiretap suspected terrorists, and under current law, we can. The question is why the President believes he needs to break the law to do so."
If Bush had acknowledged the legitimate bipartisan concerns about his spying program, and if he had pledged to obey the law in the future, it is doubtful that the issue of censure would ever have arisen. Bush knows this. Yet, despite his pronouncements Monday, he is doing everything he can to prevent an "open and honest debate" by murking things up with false charges and claims regarding his critics.
The prepped president used Cameron's question as a jumping off point for an even more surreal assault on the truth when he attempted to confuse Americans with regard to the recent Patriot Act debate.
"I did notice that, at one point in time, they didn't think the Patriot Act ought to be reauthorized -- 'they' being at least the Minority Leader in the Senate. He openly said, as I understand -- I don't want to misquote him -- something along the lines that, 'We killed the Patriot Act,'" said Bush. "And if that's what the party believes, they ought to go around the country saying we shouldn't give the people on the front line of protecting us the tools necessary to do so. That's a debate I think the country ought to have."
What the president conveniently failed to mention is that the Senate Minority Leader, Nevada's Harry Reid, voted with the vast majority of Senate Democrats this month to reauthorize the Patriot Act in the form favored by the administration.
While Reid and a number of Republican senators had earlier expressed support for efforts to temper some of the Patriot Act's most clearly unconstitutional components, they fell in line with the president when the votes were counted.
To their credit, a bipartisan coalition of House and Senate members refused to do back the Patriot Act in that final version, not because they want to take away the tools that fight terrorism but because they believe, as did Benjamin Franklin, that: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
What Bush, in a call for "open and honest debate" that was really a carefully choreographed attempt to create a false divide between supposedly tough-on-terror Republicans and supposedly soft-on-terror Democrats, is the fact that some of the most conservative Republicans in Congress -- including California Representative Dana Dohrabacher, the chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House International Relations Committee, and Alaska Representative Don Young, the 3rd ranking Republican in the House who serves as a key member of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security -- sided with Feingold in opposing reauthorization of the Patriot Act in the form promoted by the Bush White House.
Arguing that "there are enough laws already enacted on our books today that we don't need to create further laws that infringe upon the constitutional rights of every Alaskan," Young said in announcing his opposition to the Patriot Act that, "I still feel this legislation was never fully thought out. We rushed to put together legislation that we thought would safeguard us from another terrorist attack. In the process we have created a bill that I feel takes away our constitutional freedom. Over four years have past and there have only been a few essential elements added to this bill. However, overall this is still a bad piece of legislation."
Those are the words of a prominent member of the president's own party. If George Bush was genuinely interested in "open and honest" debate," he would acknowledge that the issue is not whether Republicans or Democrats want to fight terrorism. The issue is whether it is necessary to disregard the Constitution in that fight. If Bush believes that his is the appropriate course then, to paraphrase the president himself, he ought to take that message to the people and say, "I promise that I won't be bothered by the Bill of Rights."
That, not his attempts to create a false discourse, would make George Bush a part of the "open and honest debate" he so disingenuously claims to desire.
Back to the Big Lie
by John Nichols
Tossed a softball question during Tuesday morning's press conference about whether he should be censured for ordering warrantless wiretapping of phone conversations "during a time of war," President Bush fell back on the lie that Americans must surrender liberties -- and the rule of law, itself -- in order to be made safe from terrorism.
The question, a virtually verbatim repeat of talking points circulated by the Republican National Committee, was about as generous a set-up as a president has ever gotten in a press conference.
"Thank you, sir," began Carl Cameron, who serves as Fox News' always-on-bended-knee chief correspondent in the court of King George. "On the subject of the terrorist surveillance program -- not to change the tone from all this emphasis on bipartisanship -- but there have been now three sponsors to a measure to censure you for the implementation of that program. The primary sponsor, Russ Feingold, has suggested that impeachment is not out of the question. And on Sunday, the number two Democrat in the Senate refused to rule that out pending an investigation. What, sir, do you think the impact of the discussion of impeachment and censure does to you and this office, and to the nation during a time of war, and in the context of the election?"
Bush was, needless to say, ready for the Cameron's inquiry. Grabbing hold of the "time-of-war" reference as the lifesaver it was intended to be, the president said, "I think during these difficult times -- and they are difficult when we're at war -- the American people expect there to be a honest and open debate without needless partisanship. And that's how I view it. I did notice that nobody from the Democrat Party has actually stood up and called for getting rid of the terrorist surveillance program. You know, if that's what they believe, if people in the party believe that, then they ought to stand up and say it. They ought to stand up and say the tools we're using to protect the American people shouldn't be used. They ought to take their message to the people and say, vote for me, I promise we're not going to have a terrorist surveillance program. That's what they ought to be doing. That's part of what is an open and honest debate."
Of course, no prominent Democrat has ever suggested publicly or -- to the extent that reporting has revealed -- privately that it would be wise to do away with surveillance programs that are designed to thwart terrorism. What Democrats and Republicans have suggested is that the president ought to obey the law when ordering federal agencies to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens.
As Feingold, the Democratic senator from Wisconsin who raised the issue of censure last week, noted on Monday: "At his press conference today, the President once again failed to tell the American people why he decided to break the law by authorizing a program to spy on Americans on American soil without court orders. Instead of offering any defense of the program's legality, the President shamelessly played partisan politics by implying that Democrats don't want to wiretap terrorists. That is flat-out wrong, and the President knows it. Of course we should wiretap suspected terrorists, and under current law, we can. The question is why the President believes he needs to break the law to do so."
If Bush had acknowledged the legitimate bipartisan concerns about his spying program, and if he had pledged to obey the law in the future, it is doubtful that the issue of censure would ever have arisen. Bush knows this. Yet, despite his pronouncements Monday, he is doing everything he can to prevent an "open and honest debate" by murking things up with false charges and claims regarding his critics.
The prepped president used Cameron's question as a jumping off point for an even more surreal assault on the truth when he attempted to confuse Americans with regard to the recent Patriot Act debate.
"I did notice that, at one point in time, they didn't think the Patriot Act ought to be reauthorized -- 'they' being at least the Minority Leader in the Senate. He openly said, as I understand -- I don't want to misquote him -- something along the lines that, 'We killed the Patriot Act,'" said Bush. "And if that's what the party believes, they ought to go around the country saying we shouldn't give the people on the front line of protecting us the tools necessary to do so. That's a debate I think the country ought to have."
What the president conveniently failed to mention is that the Senate Minority Leader, Nevada's Harry Reid, voted with the vast majority of Senate Democrats this month to reauthorize the Patriot Act in the form favored by the administration.
While Reid and a number of Republican senators had earlier expressed support for efforts to temper some of the Patriot Act's most clearly unconstitutional components, they fell in line with the president when the votes were counted.
To their credit, a bipartisan coalition of House and Senate members refused to do back the Patriot Act in that final version, not because they want to take away the tools that fight terrorism but because they believe, as did Benjamin Franklin, that: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
What Bush, in a call for "open and honest debate" that was really a carefully choreographed attempt to create a false divide between supposedly tough-on-terror Republicans and supposedly soft-on-terror Democrats, is the fact that some of the most conservative Republicans in Congress -- including California Representative Dana Dohrabacher, the chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House International Relations Committee, and Alaska Representative Don Young, the 3rd ranking Republican in the House who serves as a key member of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security -- sided with Feingold in opposing reauthorization of the Patriot Act in the form promoted by the Bush White House.
Arguing that "there are enough laws already enacted on our books today that we don't need to create further laws that infringe upon the constitutional rights of every Alaskan," Young said in announcing his opposition to the Patriot Act that, "I still feel this legislation was never fully thought out. We rushed to put together legislation that we thought would safeguard us from another terrorist attack. In the process we have created a bill that I feel takes away our constitutional freedom. Over four years have past and there have only been a few essential elements added to this bill. However, overall this is still a bad piece of legislation."
Those are the words of a prominent member of the president's own party. If George Bush was genuinely interested in "open and honest" debate," he would acknowledge that the issue is not whether Republicans or Democrats want to fight terrorism. The issue is whether it is necessary to disregard the Constitution in that fight. If Bush believes that his is the appropriate course then, to paraphrase the president himself, he ought to take that message to the people and say, "I promise that I won't be bothered by the Bill of Rights."
That, not his attempts to create a false discourse, would make George Bush a part of the "open and honest debate" he so disingenuously claims to desire.
#484
03-22-2006, 04:32 PM
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is scary- Pentagon spying on Americans
Buster you ever consider posting a link instead of the whole thing?
I have an other opinion that I dont know if any others here share, but somehow I would find more benefit from the info your posting if it were in your words, and not just cut and paste (that goes for everyone, and I am not singling out anyone) and then listed a link to allow a back up to your beliefs or statements.
That way those like myself who mostly see all of this rhetoric from both sides as nothing but continued propaganda and furthering of eithers agenda may find more of it believable, not be as turned off by the obvious attacks in both directions, and maybe even more importantly all will be able to know that the poster is seriously reading the information and that what there posting is their opinion, and not that of someone deeply rooted with one side or another (unless of course the poster is as well lol)
I have an other opinion that I dont know if any others here share, but somehow I would find more benefit from the info your posting if it were in your words, and not just cut and paste (that goes for everyone, and I am not singling out anyone) and then listed a link to allow a back up to your beliefs or statements.
That way those like myself who mostly see all of this rhetoric from both sides as nothing but continued propaganda and furthering of eithers agenda may find more of it believable, not be as turned off by the obvious attacks in both directions, and maybe even more importantly all will be able to know that the poster is seriously reading the information and that what there posting is their opinion, and not that of someone deeply rooted with one side or another (unless of course the poster is as well lol)
#485
03-22-2006, 04:57 PM
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is scary- Pentagon spying on Americans
Tossed a softball question during Tuesday morning's press conference about whether he should be censured for ordering warrantless wiretapping of phone conversations "during a time of war," President Bush fell back on the lie that Americans must surrender liberties -- and the rule of law, itself -- in order to be made safe from terrorism.
Far as I know to this day there has not been any proven spying on american citizens that are in no way connected to terrorism or in any way a threat to national security, but I also know that any official hearings held so far have not been productive and if anything have been an embarassment to us all. So to to date there is nothing more than suspicision and no illegal activities have been proven, and until something changes in respect to this I believe most Americans will find the continued reference to illegal activities by the president to be little more than a weak attempt by the left to further their own agenda by making him look like a criminal.
Still lets not forget the biggest issue here is the protection of our civil liberties, and please dont anyone allow all the sensationalizm cause them to forget what is truely important.
"Thank you, sir," began Carl Cameron, who serves as Fox News' always-on-bended-knee chief correspondent in the court of King George. "On the subject of the terrorist surveillance program -- not to change the tone from all this emphasis on bipartisanship -- but there have been now three sponsors to a measure to censure you for the implementation of that program.
Bush was, needless to say, ready for the Cameron's inquiry. Grabbing hold of the "time-of-war" reference as the lifesaver it was intended to be
I dont give a rats **** what any of these people believe when they are supposed to be reporting the news to the public, and it would be really great to just see the true uncut, unbiased info for a change. I have lost count of how many times I have changed a channel or closed a paper due to the obvious slant being put onto the story by the writer. Its getting to be almost impossible to find accurate news in the US that isnt obviously biased or putting their "spin" on it all.
Why cant we get the whole damn story (including the ugly stuff) without all the flair so that we can make up our own minds?
If Bush had acknowledged the legitimate bipartisan concerns about his spying program, and if he had pledged to obey the law in the future, it is doubtful that the issue of censure would ever have arisen. Bush knows this. Yet, despite his pronouncements Monday, he is doing everything he can to prevent an "open and honest debate" by murking things up with false charges and claims regarding his critics.
Then when you look at the other side of this its obvious that some things are just not straight on the Rep side either, but when the people your counting on to keep them in check are so lost as the Dem party is today who can we turn to in order to return things to a balanced platform?
Is censure the answer to getting questions answered on the NSA issue, I think not, and its obvious to the american people that if the democrats really were concerened about us and not themselves they would be going about this in a totally different manner. If there is sufficient evidence that there was wrong doing or laws broken by the NSA then there needs to be an offical hearing on these actions, and with those testifying being under oath, and then they can get to protecting our rights. Otherwise its little more than a political ploy, and nothing more.
#486
03-22-2006, 08:37 PM
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is scary- Pentagon spying on Americans
Below is something I ran accross that may help to explain why it may appear that some of us who live and work in some the west coast states dont have as negative an outlook on the economy.
If you want to view the full story click here Housing Sales
If you want to view the full story click here Housing Sales
The cooling housing market
Nationwide, in January sales of existing homes fell for the fifth month in a row while sales of new homes slid 5%. Builders are seeing more orders canceled and the number of homeowners late paying their mortgages is rising.
Existing home sales are expected to decline roughly 5% this year according to the National Association of Realtors. Home prices overall are expected to rise about 5% in 2006, despite the cooling trend.
“The market has definitely shifted from the record sales-frenzy pace of a year ago,” said Lawrence Yun, economist with the NAR. “Buyers have more choices and can take their time. The double-digit price increases we were seeing will be coming to an end.”
Some hot spots remain
Yun said some areas of the country are bucking the cooling trend, due to strong local economies and other factors. In parts of California and the Pacific Northwest, prices are still strong, especially for moderately priced existing homes, and sales are brisk due to lack of inventory and still-low interest rates.
“We’re still in a seller’s market, especially for the affordable homes below the median prices,” said J. Lennox Scott, who runs a firm with 4,500 realtors in the Pacific Northwest.
Job growth and California buyers coming to Seattle armed with cashed-out equity are helping to fuel the strong market, he said.
Nationwide, in January sales of existing homes fell for the fifth month in a row while sales of new homes slid 5%. Builders are seeing more orders canceled and the number of homeowners late paying their mortgages is rising.
Existing home sales are expected to decline roughly 5% this year according to the National Association of Realtors. Home prices overall are expected to rise about 5% in 2006, despite the cooling trend.
“The market has definitely shifted from the record sales-frenzy pace of a year ago,” said Lawrence Yun, economist with the NAR. “Buyers have more choices and can take their time. The double-digit price increases we were seeing will be coming to an end.”
Some hot spots remain
Yun said some areas of the country are bucking the cooling trend, due to strong local economies and other factors. In parts of California and the Pacific Northwest, prices are still strong, especially for moderately priced existing homes, and sales are brisk due to lack of inventory and still-low interest rates.
“We’re still in a seller’s market, especially for the affordable homes below the median prices,” said J. Lennox Scott, who runs a firm with 4,500 realtors in the Pacific Northwest.
Job growth and California buyers coming to Seattle armed with cashed-out equity are helping to fuel the strong market, he said.
#487
03-22-2006, 08:43 PM
#488
03-22-2006, 09:42 PM
This is scary- Pentagon spying on Americans
Originally posted by: 440EX026
Below is something I ran accross that may help to explain why it may appear that some of us who live and work in some the west coast states dont have as negative an outlook on the economy.
If you want to view the full story click here Housing Sales
Below is something I ran accross that may help to explain why it may appear that some of us who live and work in some the west coast states dont have as negative an outlook on the economy.
If you want to view the full story click here Housing Sales
The cooling housing market
Nationwide, in January sales of existing homes fell for the fifth month in a row while sales of new homes slid 5%. Builders are seeing more orders canceled and the number of homeowners late paying their mortgages is rising.
Existing home sales are expected to decline roughly 5% this year according to the National Association of Realtors. Home prices overall are expected to rise about 5% in 2006, despite the cooling trend.
“The market has definitely shifted from the record sales-frenzy pace of a year ago,” said Lawrence Yun, economist with the NAR. “Buyers have more choices and can take their time. The double-digit price increases we were seeing will be coming to an end.”
Some hot spots remain
Yun said some areas of the country are bucking the cooling trend, due to strong local economies and other factors. In parts of California and the Pacific Northwest, prices are still strong, especially for moderately priced existing homes, and sales are brisk due to lack of inventory and still-low interest rates.
“We’re still in a seller’s market, especially for the affordable homes below the median prices,” said J. Lennox Scott, who runs a firm with 4,500 realtors in the Pacific Northwest.
Job growth and California buyers coming to Seattle armed with cashed-out equity are helping to fuel the strong market, he said.
Nationwide, in January sales of existing homes fell for the fifth month in a row while sales of new homes slid 5%. Builders are seeing more orders canceled and the number of homeowners late paying their mortgages is rising.
Existing home sales are expected to decline roughly 5% this year according to the National Association of Realtors. Home prices overall are expected to rise about 5% in 2006, despite the cooling trend.
“The market has definitely shifted from the record sales-frenzy pace of a year ago,” said Lawrence Yun, economist with the NAR. “Buyers have more choices and can take their time. The double-digit price increases we were seeing will be coming to an end.”
Some hot spots remain
Yun said some areas of the country are bucking the cooling trend, due to strong local economies and other factors. In parts of California and the Pacific Northwest, prices are still strong, especially for moderately priced existing homes, and sales are brisk due to lack of inventory and still-low interest rates.
“We’re still in a seller’s market, especially for the affordable homes below the median prices,” said J. Lennox Scott, who runs a firm with 4,500 realtors in the Pacific Northwest.
Job growth and California buyers coming to Seattle armed with cashed-out equity are helping to fuel the strong market, he said.
In the Pacific NW, Las Vegas and Idaho we're already seeing defaults from marginal and under capitalized builders on both first and second trust deeds as their inventory remains on the market, unsold, due to their inability to service that debt. The problem the building industry now faces is that there's a lot of construction in the pipeline and as long as they can service debt through construction draws based on percentage of completion, they won't just stop as their incomes stop. Under $250k homes will remain somewhat viable as two people working at $15/hr jobs can qualify for that up to about 6% fed rate as will above $700k (depending on locale) because cash is more prevalent in that market segment than mortgages.
I won't get into the fallout expected in those industries servicing residential construction and the resultant affect on consumer purchases which, along with federal debt, drive our now service based economy, as that should be understandable. I suggest the general public accept what they're being told about our economy by the fed, current administration and realtors with a grain of salt or several shots of hard booze. I consider propaganda regarding our economy as valid as Iraq being awash in WMDs a recent few years ago. We just upped the national debt ceiling to pay interest on our debt, about the same procedure as an individual getting new credit cards to pay interest on the old ones.
Let's hear it from the optimists.
#489
03-23-2006, 12:56 AM
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is scary- Pentagon spying on Americans
Under $250k homes will remain somewhat viable as two people working at $15/hr jobs can qualify for that up to about 6% fed rate
I am not being funny either, and if you dont want to clog the thread send the info via pm.
#490
03-23-2006, 01:40 AM
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is scary- Pentagon spying on Americans
Georged I wont debate your knowledge on the financial info you present (mostly because I agree with it) but the only thing I can see that is of a positive nature is that the housing market (and the economy along with it due to the large amount of jobs and companies in this segment with far reaching effects) seems to have created a boom-bust cycle that runs around 10 or so years.
Remember the mid to late eighties? How about the early to mid ninties?
I wasnt able to capitialize on it to any large scale but I did plan decisions in the 90's anticipating the upswing, and even the current leveling off, and potential future down swing.
Things are different today also, and the trade deficit and manufacturing sector have suffered additional losses while the fed defict has continued to grow, but I am still unsure of seeing the total doom some predict as long as the govt can keep things "stable" on a global basis.
Problem is if you consider my thoughts on the global situation, our govt, and protecting our rights you can see an obvious situation for creating increased stress levels.
Hopefully the predicted downturn will present enough opportunities on the future upturn to compensate for it etc, but like everything that will happen tomorrow it is to be seen, and very optimisitic.
Remember the mid to late eighties? How about the early to mid ninties?
I wasnt able to capitialize on it to any large scale but I did plan decisions in the 90's anticipating the upswing, and even the current leveling off, and potential future down swing.
Things are different today also, and the trade deficit and manufacturing sector have suffered additional losses while the fed defict has continued to grow, but I am still unsure of seeing the total doom some predict as long as the govt can keep things "stable" on a global basis.
Problem is if you consider my thoughts on the global situation, our govt, and protecting our rights you can see an obvious situation for creating increased stress levels.
Hopefully the predicted downturn will present enough opportunities on the future upturn to compensate for it etc, but like everything that will happen tomorrow it is to be seen, and very optimisitic.