No spin zone/Politics

I swear my head is gong to explode.

We are giving condoms to children in SCHOOL that haven't even fully developed sex organs or even have a need to know what sex is, yet a soldier can't have a smoke/dip from America. But they are asked to fight the good fight and not shoot till told and risk having every organ(S) in their body blown to the 4 winds and beyond on any giving day.

Makes complete sense...don't it?

Screw the warrior TRYING to keep people alive, while limp wristed pussies IN THIS COUNTRY say "hey kids!! go out a screw like just we showed you in school and don't stop whining for freedom!"

We all know how effective whining is and where it gets you.

Free love my ASS!!! Ask Sharia about "free love", then get stoned.



http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/08/11/usps-restricts-sending-tobacco-to-soldiers/?test=latestnews

Overseas Military, Tobacco and the PACT Act (Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking)

http://www.marinemoms.us/announcements/pact.asp

S.1147 A bill in the US Congress was recently passed "to prevent tobacco smuggling, to ensure the collection of all tobacco taxes, and for other purposes." However, they've restricted it so much that as of June 29, 2010, families can no longer legitimately send tobacco to their military loved ones serving overseas. After some careful research we have determined that the legislation was not to be interpreted as a restriction to military families, but rather is a snafu of under-planning on the part of the legislators, which now makes it impossible to implement correctly and unfortunately impacts military families unfairly.

Update: August 4, 2010
We have finally made some progress with legislators on this issue! Congressman Duncan Hunter (R, California) has proposed legislation, HR 6037, that would allow tobacco products to be mailed to members of the armed forces in a combat zone. The bill would also waive restrictions on the size and number of packages that can be sent to troops in designated combat zones.
We will be supporting Congressman Hunter's legislation and encouraging other military families to do so. You can make a big difference simply by writing to your Senator asking him or her to support the proposed legislation.


Click Here to write to your Congressperson in the U.S. House of Representatives. Just enter the required information to be taken directly to their page.

You can also write to your Senator. Click Here to locate your state Senators. Choose your state from the drop-down menu on the left and then click on the link next to "Web Form" to be directed to their contact page.

Click for copy of HR 6037
Status of the Bill and Co-Sponsors
See news articles below:

FoxNews.com: USPS Restricts Sending Tobacco to Soldiers
AP Wire: New Law Snuffs Tobacco to Combat Troops
North County Times: Hunter Wants Troops to Get Their Smokes

Hey Kids, I've been on the river floating for a few days. I figured since Obama wants more of my money I could actually make more by not making so much so vaction time will be more often. Thanks OB Juan don't know B.

Dusting off my old shares .....


This was posted at the HUB. (News NOT verified, however the link does work)


COSTCO going to sell pruducts.News here

Bell Buckle Holdings, Inc. is proud to announce that the retailer, Costco Wholesale Corp. has selected four Bell Buckle Holdings products for placement in their stores. Costco Wholesale Corp. has selected items from the Company's Captain Rodney's brand items These items will begin hitting store shelves sometime in late September.

Bell Buckle Products are also available on the New Company Website
http://www.bellbucklecompanystore.com

BEHL ---- Ohhhh Rayyyyyyyyy

egotarian wrote:Overseas Military, Tobacco and the PACT Act (Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking)

http://www.marinemoms.us/announcements/pact.asp

S.1147 A bill in the US Congress was recently passed "to prevent tobacco smuggling, to ensure the collection of all tobacco taxes, and for other purposes." However, they've restricted it so much that as of June 29, 2010, families can no longer legitimately send tobacco to their military loved ones serving overseas. After some careful research we have determined that the legislation was not to be interpreted as a restriction to military families, but rather is a snafu of under-planning on the part of the legislators, which now makes it impossible to implement correctly and unfortunately impacts military families unfairly.

Update: August 4, 2010
We have finally made some progress with legislators on this issue! Congressman Duncan Hunter (R, California) has proposed legislation, HR 6037, that would allow tobacco products to be mailed to members of the armed forces in a combat zone. The bill would also waive restrictions on the size and number of packages that can be sent to troops in designated combat zones.
We will be supporting Congressman Hunter's legislation and encouraging other military families to do so. You can make a big difference simply by writing to your Senator asking him or her to support the proposed legislation.


Click Here to write to your Congressperson in the U.S. House of Representatives. Just enter the required information to be taken directly to their page.

You can also write to your Senator. Click Here to locate your state Senators. Choose your state from the drop-down menu on the left and then click on the link next to "Web Form" to be directed to their contact page.

Click for copy of HR 6037
Status of the Bill and Co-Sponsors
See news articles below:

FoxNews.com: USPS Restricts Sending Tobacco to Soldiers
AP Wire: New Law Snuffs Tobacco to Combat Troops
North County Times: Hunter Wants Troops to Get Their Smokes

Well look at you. SCORE!!!

ndssomluk wrote:Hey Kids, I've been on the river floating for a few days. I figured since Obama wants more of my money I could actually make more by not making so much so vaction time will be more often. Thanks OB Juan don't know B.

Makes sense to me! Free stuff for EVERYONE!!

The magic bank will pay for it.

I hear, "Oldsters don't get to call the BAMMER a socialist because we're going to get Social Security and Medicare benefits."

Okay. Give me my money back. If our contributions, the wife and I, were in the most conservative investments I know of, THE FED OWES US ABOUT $700,000. It could be $1,000,000 but I'll settle for the $700 thou. Patriotic duty and all.

I have the same philosophy about all the great "Benefits" my company provides. I get so tired of hearing that $20/hr. is actually $35/hr. because of all those swell "benefits". Pay the goddam $35/and I'll pass on the benefits.

as you read this keep in mind it was written by an Englishman for annewspaper in the UK...

this writer just hit a grand slam!!!

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100050412/the-stunning-decline-of-barack-obama-10-key-reasons-why-the-obama-presidency-is-in-meltdown/

here's a movie we should all go see... I'll pay fer the popcorn!

bigrayyy wrote:here's a movie we should all go see... I'll pay fer the popcorn!

I hope this movie can increase economic literacy.

My economic riddle for today. If we have a $15 trillion economy and the government is spending $1.4 trillion more than it takes in (representing about 10% of the total economy) how can we have a 2% GDP growth? If the government spends all of its money stupidly, shouldn't we be adding at least 5% to GDP??????

ERGO, if government spending is adding almost 5% to GDP doesn't that indicate the true (sustainable) GDP is shrinking, fast????

goldenrod wrote:

bigrayyy wrote:here's a movie we should all go see... I'll pay fer the popcorn!

I hope this movie can increase economic literacy.

My economic riddle for today. If we have a $15 trillion economy and the government is spending $1.4 trillion more than it takes in (representing about 10% of the total economy) how can we have a 2% GDP growth? If the government spends all of its money stupidly, shouldn't we be adding at least 5% to GDP??????

ERGO, if government spending is adding almost 5% to GDP doesn't that indicate the true (sustainable) GDP is shrinking, fast????

thar ya go, you an yer fancyful mathmatics

looks like cap'n rodney got enough money for the new boat

read this and weep!

http://www.activistpost.com/2010/08/10-signs-us-is-becoming-third-world.html

bigrayyy wrote:read this and weep!

http://www.activistpost.com/2010/08/10-signs-us-is-becoming-third-world.html

I guess if we end up broke the rest of the world will be in deep doo doo. It's seems we are always the ones reaching out to help everyone , I guess that will come to a grinding halt

why is it that the left is so offended by corporations, banks or just people in general making money? What I find really funny is how easily led liberals are. The left cries how bad the evil rich are and how bad the evil companies are that make money yet the people never question the wealth of the very ones that lead them. I heard a guy today talking and he's so angry at the credit card companies and how much they make. I was thinking, "then why do you use them"? Not a single person has to rely on credit but it makes us more comfortable with life or sustains it when times are tough. Without these companies the very people who hate them would flounder. But it's not the fact that they don't want credit card companies they just want them to provide for them at no cost. Of course the people that bitch don't work for free and they certainly try to make more than just the bare minimum to pay bills. Oh and the left, they cry over profits and by the way they spend money they don't have so it's easy to see they don't care about whether they have money or not they will spend like they're rich regardless. Another guy yesterday was complaining that the playing field in america is unfair and he thinks it's completely wrong that he can't have the same living standards as people with more money. He says he hopes Obama will make it a level situation for everyone. I told him "I think your right and I agree totally. Now if he does that I think the average pay for every American will only be about 16k a year but we can all scale down our way of life so some can have a better one." He freaked out. He said, "I couldn't live off of 16k a year"! I said "sure you can, not at the level you would like or that you're used to but you could scale back". He then exclaimed with a very angry voice, "why should I have to scale back when the rich people could take care of all our problems"? I said, "the progressive and left don't see it that way my friend, being a level playing field means we all pay, even the rich and yes even you. You can't be making your 35k a year when there's people that won't work or have made living off the system their way of life, making less than you. How fair is that? You have to pay some of the money that you make to help people that don't have it so good". He decided he didn't want to talk about politics anymore and rushed out the cafe door pissed at the world. Oh and on the way out he says under his breath, "Goddamn Republicans" LOL are you shitting me sir?


I love showing these sheep how the lefts stupid ploicies will never work for even them.

I'm sure most people on here watched Glenn Beck yesterday. He showed how the new government panel is now thinking that the treatment for advanced breast cancer is a waste of money and should therefor be eliminated. So women with this advanced case will have no option but to die quickly. This is not a death panel though. The bottom line is you can't save them only prolong life for a bit so why bother, it's to costly. And they called Beck out of his mind when he said they would do shit like this. Don't worry guys they will do the same with prostate cancer , you can bet on it.

It's funny how so many people hate Glenn Beck and shout out how much he lies yet they never seem to have an answer for what he's lied about. Glenn Beck haters, it's ok to hate him because he doesn't see things like you do. but please try not to make yourself look stupid by calling him a liar when you don't have the facts to back it up.

Beck should have read the entire Washington Post article to the part where the Post reported that the FDA's advisory committee cited "two new studies that the advisers concluded had not shown that the drug Avastin extends life." The FDA's issue with Avastin isn't that it costs too much for what it does, but that it isn't very effective for late stage Breast Cancer in the first place. Avastin is approved for use in the treatment of several other cancers, including those of the colon, lung, kidney and brain. So doctors could continue to write prescriptions of Avastin for Breast Cancer patients, as an "off-label" use...

The following is an excerpt from the Washing Post article that Beck showed as his source material on his show:

The FDA endorsed Avastin for advanced breast cancer in 2008 despite divided opinion about its usefulness for that purpose. Only one study had found that the drug appeared to delay an advanced breast tumor from growing by about five months. It remained unclear whether patients lived longer or experienced an improved quality of life.

But the FDA approved Avastin under a special program designed to make new treatments available as quickly as possible, with the caveat that pharmaceutical companies conduct follow-up studies validating their drug's effectiveness. The agency has been criticized for not adequately reviewing such approvals. Only one of at least 90 drugs that have received accelerated approval has been pulled.

An FDA advisory committee voted 12 to 1 on July 20 to withdraw Avastin's authorization for advanced breast cancer based on two new studies that the advisers concluded had not shown that the drug extends life. Not only that, the committee concluded that the studies indicated the drug slowed tumor growth for even less time -- perhaps as little as about a month.

"The vast majority opinion of the committee was that the drug was not doing very much, and what it was doing was more than offset by the negative," said Wyndham Wilson of the National Cancer Institute, who chaired the committee.Avastin can cause a variety of potentially serious side effects, including blood clots, bleeding and heart failure. "In our best judgment, we did not feel this drug was safe to give relative to its benefits," Wilson said.

The recommendation has been praised by many cancer experts and by advocates for breast cancer patients.

"The FDA should never have approved Avastin for breast cancer to begin with," said Fran Visco of the National Breast Cancer Coalition. "We don't see evidence of benefit, but we do see evidence of harm."

For the entire article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/15/AR2010081503466.html

Currently just short of 18,000 women a year are prescribed Avastin.

Mrs ego and i are off on a two month or more walkabout away from the world of nonsense... to relax and live within the natural order of things... Peace, Love and the best to you all... see ya.

egotarian wrote:Mrs ego and i are off on a two month or more walkabout away from the world of nonsense... to relax and live within the natural order of things... Peace, Love and the best to you all... see ya.

HAve a great time Mr and Mrs Ego! There's nothing better than to leave all the BS and step into the wild and loose yourself. Or should I say , find yourself!

Be safe

"The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history." Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831)



What Have We Learned in 2,065 Years?



"The budget should be balanced,

The Treasury should be refilled,

The public debt should be reduced,

The arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled,

And the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt.

People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."



- Cicero, 55 BC

bigrayyy wrote:"The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history." Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831)



What Have We Learned in 2,065 Years?



"The budget should be balanced,

The Treasury should be refilled,

The public debt should be reduced,

The arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled,

And the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt.

People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."



- Cicero, 55 BC

What did he know? And today is a different day, maybe we can not do all of these things and still be the greatest country. I mean really it's kinda working good so far. Isn't it?

egotarian wrote:Beck should have read the entire Washington Post article to the part where the Post reported that the FDA's advisory committee cited "two new studies that the advisers concluded had not shown that the drug Avastin extends life." The FDA's issue with Avastin isn't that it costs too much for what it does, but that it isn't very effective for late stage Breast Cancer in the first place. Avastin is approved for use in the treatment of several other cancers, including those of the colon, lung, kidney and brain. So doctors could continue to write prescriptions of Avastin for Breast Cancer patients, as an "off-label" use...

The following is an excerpt from the Washing Post article that Beck showed as his source material on his show:

The FDA endorsed Avastin for advanced breast cancer in 2008 despite divided opinion about its usefulness for that purpose. Only one study had found that the drug appeared to delay an advanced breast tumor from growing by about five months. It remained unclear whether patients lived longer or experienced an improved quality of life.

But the FDA approved Avastin under a special program designed to make new treatments available as quickly as possible, with the caveat that pharmaceutical companies conduct follow-up studies validating their drug's effectiveness. The agency has been criticized for not adequately reviewing such approvals. Only one of at least 90 drugs that have received accelerated approval has been pulled.

An FDA advisory committee voted 12 to 1 on July 20 to withdraw Avastin's authorization for advanced breast cancer based on two new studies that the advisers concluded had not shown that the drug extends life. Not only that, the committee concluded that the studies indicated the drug slowed tumor growth for even less time -- perhaps as little as about a month.

"The vast majority opinion of the committee was that the drug was not doing very much, and what it was doing was more than offset by the negative," said Wyndham Wilson of the National Cancer Institute, who chaired the committee.Avastin can cause a variety of potentially serious side effects, including blood clots, bleeding and heart failure. "In our best judgment, we did not feel this drug was safe to give relative to its benefits," Wilson said.

The recommendation has been praised by many cancer experts and by advocates for breast cancer patients.

"The FDA should never have approved Avastin for breast cancer to begin with," said Fran Visco of the National Breast Cancer Coalition. "We don't see evidence of benefit, but we do see evidence of harm."

For the entire article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/15/AR2010081503466.html

Currently just short of 18,000 women a year are prescribed Avastin.

1) I don't believe anything the Washington Post prints. I am most likely to believe the opposite.

2) I don't trust the FDA and their very odd relationship with the pharmaceutical industry.

3) Off label use? Side effects? BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. It is one of the "last resort" drugs when used "off label" because it might help with some tumors.
Dangerous? Aren't most drugs.
Not worth the risk? The goddam patient is dying.
Low probability of success? If you're the fortunate 10%, thank God because the goddam patient is dying.

4) Be not hasty, believing anyone who speaks out against Glenn Beck. He is the #1 ranked target of the left and don't forget it.

goldenrod wrote:

egotarian wrote:Beck should have read the entire Washington Post article to the part where the Post reported that the FDA's advisory committee cited "two new studies that the advisers concluded had not shown that the drug Avastin extends life." The FDA's issue with Avastin isn't that it costs too much for what it does, but that it isn't very effective for late stage Breast Cancer in the first place. Avastin is approved for use in the treatment of several other cancers, including those of the colon, lung, kidney and brain. So doctors could continue to write prescriptions of Avastin for Breast Cancer patients, as an "off-label" use...

The following is an excerpt from the Washing Post article that Beck showed as his source material on his show:

The FDA endorsed Avastin for advanced breast cancer in 2008 despite divided opinion about its usefulness for that purpose. Only one study had found that the drug appeared to delay an advanced breast tumor from growing by about five months. It remained unclear whether patients lived longer or experienced an improved quality of life.

But the FDA approved Avastin under a special program designed to make new treatments available as quickly as possible, with the caveat that pharmaceutical companies conduct follow-up studies validating their drug's effectiveness. The agency has been criticized for not adequately reviewing such approvals. Only one of at least 90 drugs that have received accelerated approval has been pulled.

An FDA advisory committee voted 12 to 1 on July 20 to withdraw Avastin's authorization for advanced breast cancer based on two new studies that the advisers concluded had not shown that the drug extends life. Not only that, the committee concluded that the studies indicated the drug slowed tumor growth for even less time -- perhaps as little as about a month.

"The vast majority opinion of the committee was that the drug was not doing very much, and what it was doing was more than offset by the negative," said Wyndham Wilson of the National Cancer Institute, who chaired the committee.Avastin can cause a variety of potentially serious side effects, including blood clots, bleeding and heart failure. "In our best judgment, we did not feel this drug was safe to give relative to its benefits," Wilson said.

The recommendation has been praised by many cancer experts and by advocates for breast cancer patients.

"The FDA should never have approved Avastin for breast cancer to begin with," said Fran Visco of the National Breast Cancer Coalition. "We don't see evidence of benefit, but we do see evidence of harm."

For the entire article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/15/AR2010081503466.html

Currently just short of 18,000 women a year are prescribed Avastin.

1) I don't believe anything the Washington Post prints. I am most likely to believe the opposite.

2) I don't trust the FDA and their very odd relationship with the pharmaceutical industry.

3) Off label use? Side effects? BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. It is one of the "last resort" drugs when used "off label" because it might help with some tumors.
Dangerous? Aren't most drugs.
Not worth the risk? The goddam patient is dying.
Low probability of success? If you're the fortunate 10%, thank God because the goddam patient is dying.

4) Be not hasty, believing anyone who speaks out against Glenn Beck. He is the #1 ranked target of the left and don't forget it.

Better watch it or there be another topic for investigation ....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2010/aug/17/audio-rep-pelosi-calls-investigation-wtc-mosque-op/