TampaYankee

Where can I turn my financial obligations over to the government?????

Many in this new GOP crowd exhibit lack or respect those who do not embrace their ideology -- not all but many. In addition to this free-speech episode with the documentarian, also consider their treatment of Cordrey of the new Consumer Protection Agency, Elizabeth Warren and even the AARP when they testified before House Comittees. Then there is the Gov. of Arizona finger wagging in Obama's face as well as numerous racial slurs by lesser GOP politicians around the country. We won't even go into conservative radio. All of this reflects well on the GOP. Surprising it is the face they wish to project but I'm glad they show their real attitudes.

An earlier study also found a very high correlation between people who viewed themselves as conservatives and an innate sense of insecurity in general.

Washington Gay Marriage: State Senate Approves Bill To Allow Same Sex Couples To Wed RACHEL LA CORTE 02/ 1/12 11:43 PM ET AP OLYMPIA, Wash. — The Washington state Senate on Wednesday passed a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage, setting the stage for the state to become the seventh to allow gay and lesbian couples to wed. The measure now heads to the House, which is expected to approve it. Gov. Chris Gregoire supports the measure and has said she will sign it into law, though opponents have promised to challenge it at the ballot with a referendum. The packed public galleries burst into applause as the Senate passed the measure on a 28-21 vote Wednesday night after nearly an hour and a half of debate. Four Republicans crossed party lines and voted with majority Democrats for the measure. Three Democrats voted against it. Democratic Sen. Ed Murray, the bill's sponsor, said he knew same-sex marriage "is as contentious any issue that this body has considered in its history." Lawmakers who vote against gay marriage "are not, nor should they be accused of bigotry" he said. "Those of us who support this legislation are not, and we should not be accused of, undermining family life or religious freedom," said Murray, a gay lawmaker from Seattle who has spearheaded past gay rights and domestic partnership laws in the state. "Marriage is how society says you are a family." Nearly a dozen amendments were introduced, including several that passed that strengthen legal protections for religious groups and organizations. Sen. Dan Swecker, R-Rochester argued that the proposed law alters the definition of marriage and "will lead to the silencing of those who believe in traditional marriage." Even though a referendum clause amendment was rejected, opponents have already promised to file a challenge, which can't be done until after it is passed by the full Legislature and signed into law by Gregoire. Opponents then must turn in 120,577 signatures by June 6. If opponents aren't able to collect enough signatures, gay and lesbian couples would be able to be wed starting in June. Otherwise, they would have to wait until the results of a November election. Before last week, it wasn't certain the Senate would have the support to pass the measure, as a handful of Democrats remained undecided. But after the first public hearing on the issue Jan. 23, a previously undecided Democratic senator, Mary Margaret Haugen of Camano Island, said she would be the 25th and deciding vote in support of the bill, all but ensuring its passage. Gay marriage opponent Jane Sterland, 56, stood outside the Senate gallery before the debate started. Sterland said she was disappointed by the light turnout of same-sex marriage foes. "It saddens me that there aren't more Christians here tonight," she said. "I'm just very grieved about this whole thing. I want to be here for prayer support against this issue." Alex Guenser, a 26-year-old engineer, drove down to Olympia from his Redmond home with his boyfriend to watch the Senate debate. "I feel like this is the hill, the crest of the marriage equality fight. And after this passes (in the Senate), it's all going to be smoother sailing from now on," Guenser said. "I'm really excited to have Washington pass this. I'm excited for my state." Same-sex marriage is legal in New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and the District of Columbia. Lawmakers in New Jersey and Maryland are expected to debate gay marriage this year, and Maine could see a gay marriage proposal on the November ballot. The debate over same-sex marriage in Washington state has changed significantly since lawmakers passed Washington's Defense of Marriage Act in 1998, which banned gay marriage. The constitutionality of DOMA was ultimately upheld by the state Supreme Court in 2006, but earlier that year, a gay civil rights measure passed after nearly 30 years of failure. The quick progression of domestic partnership laws in the state came soon after, with a domestic partnership law in 2007, and two years of expansion that culminated in 2009 with the so-called "everything but marriage law" that was upheld by voters after opponents filed a referendum to challenge it. Under the measure that passed Wednesday, the more than 9,300 couples currently registered in domestic partnerships would have two years to either dissolve their relationship or get married. Domestic partnerships that aren't ended prior to June 30, 2014, would automatically become marriages. Domestic partnerships would remain for senior couples where at least one partner is 62 years old or older. That provision was included to help seniors who don't remarry out of fear they could lose certain pension or Social Security benefits. ___ The gay marriage bill is Senate Bill 6239. See original article at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/01/washington-gay-marriage_n_1248801.html

Learned from Laurence O'Donnel tonight on MSNBC that AA is looking to do away with the pensions promised to its employees all these years through bankruptcy -- some $90 million obligation. The Chairman of the Govt' Pension Overseeing and Guarantee Agency immediately put 90$ million in liens on AA properties in Latin America which are not part of the bankruptcy action, in order to not leave the government holding the bag on these pensions. Bravo for him. I doubt a Republican appointee would treat a big business like that nor GOP governors of any state if it was their responsibility.

Euwwww..... This thread has been hijacked down a dark unpleasant alley.

There is a commercial with a faux squealing pig in it. Actually, there have been two. I don't know what they are about as I tune out immediately. It is the most annoying one I can think of.I find GEICO has the most annoying commercials, with the cave man leading the list. On the flip side, I love the toddler hawking one of the stock trade companies. Hooks me every time. The writing and the cgi are just great. I could care less about the stock trading company but I always watch this commercial. You can take that as a high accolade as I watch very few commercials between the remote mute button and channel selector.

I don't even have one... smart phone that is.

Alabama immigration crackdown costs state up to $11 bln: study By Verna Gates | Reuters BIRMINGHAM, Alabama (Reuters) - Alabama's crackdown on illegal immigrants, widely seen as the toughest in the United States, has cost the state's economy up to $10.8 billion, according to a new study. The Alabama law, passed in June, requires police to detain people they suspect of being in the U.S. illegally if they cannot produce proper documentation when stopped for any reason, among other measures. The cost-benefit analysis by University of Alabama economist Samuel Addy estimated up to 80,000 jobs were vacated by illegal immigrants fleeing the crackdown, costing Alabama's economy up to $10.8 billion. The lost jobs also cost Alabama up to $264.5 million in lost state sales and income taxes, and as much as $93.1 million in lost city and county sales taxes, it found. A U.S. appeals court has blocked Alabama from enforcing parts of the law, including a provision that permits Alabama to require public schools to determine the legal residency of children upon enrollment. But the court left most of the law untouched. State Republicans who support the law say it will help create jobs for legal residents by driving out undocumented workers and their families, and save up to $280 million they said is spent by the state each year on health and education services for the undocumented. The findings of the new University of Alabama study served up ammunition to critics of the law in the state, which is trying to trim spending to balance its budget. "It is hypocritical for 'no tax and spend' Republicans to pass something like this that sucks money right out of the general fund when we are cutting funding by 25 percent," said state Representative Patricia Todd, a Birmingham Democrat. Todd claims that $9 million has already been spent on litigation to defend the new law, a figure she said she received from the legislative fiscal office. The study added in the costs of healthcare and social services to undocumented people that would be saved. However, it found these savings to be negligible when compared to the increased costs of law enforcement and businesses that now have to run checks on citizenship. Alabama Legislature convenes February 7 and even staunch defenders of the bill admit it needs revision. However, the repeal sought by opponents seems unlikely, according to Representative Paul DeMarco, a Republican. "I do not see and would not support a complete repeal of the law, but will look at recommendations being made by the Attorney General and others," said DeMarco. There are an estimated 11.2 million illegal immigrants in the United States. Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah have passed "omnibus" immigration crackdowns since Arizona blazed the trail in 2010 with a law requiring police to check the status of all those they arrested and suspected of being in the country illegally. That measure has since been blocked by a court. Controversy over the crackdown flared late last year, after two employees with foreign automakers Mercedes-Benz and Honda were stopped by police implementing the law. (Editing by Tim Gaynor and Paul Thomasch) See original article at: http://news.yahoo.com/alabama-immigration-crackdown-costs-state-11-bln-study-155547677.html

I'd be interested in reading a tech review of this software. I can think of little good for this app and a lot bad. I think it only raises the potential for even more outrageous behavior in cyberspace.

Whatever he's sellin' it aint sheets.

On further reflection I don't think Newt's grandiose ego would settle for anything under VP and that is out of the question. Mitt would need a food and beverage taster for sure. A more likely motivation to get in line: the establishment threat to cut off Newt from speaking and politics-related income in coming years. They could put a big hurt on him if he cares about that. He wouldn't starve but many arenas could be cut off. I hope he chooses to Kamikazee his way through the convention, taking no prisoners. He's rich enough. Who knows, I might buy his coming book 'How I Torpedoed Lyin' Mitt and Pissed on the Establishment' to help him out. I can always use another paper weight.

Oh yes, I do recall and I do not preclude that happening again. But there are a few differences. First, Newt has taken it very very personally and Mitt has dished it very very personally. Newt may not be the forgiving type at this stage in his life, his last opportunity to run due to age. More importantly, IMO, is the way the establishment has dumped on Newt. Losing candidates usually do not want to alienate the party establishment, thus they manage to come together in the end and eventually patch up differences with the winner. With the establishment I see no reconciliation there so no incentive for Newt to make nice in the end unless... Newt might come into the fold if he were promised an important position in a Romney administration. Short of that I see nothing tempting Newt but revenge. However, even more important are the grass roots folks who feel their candidate was unfairly lynched by the establishment that these people didn't much like in the first place. (Recall that some Hillary women's groups went over to McCain in protest of Obama's win.) Some of Gingrich grass roots people may stay at home. Many will probably have little motivation to go the extra mile to donate hours and money to the campaign. In the end, I expect most will come together behind Romney in some fashion but I really do believe that a lot of passion that another candidate could have enjoyed will not be seen by Mitt. That along with Paul drop outs could make a difference.

And I thought I was going to see a mechanic's dip stick!

Agreed. Dense fog and ice both scare the shit out of me. The former because of too high speed front or back crash, the latter for some crazy ass driver coming at you from any direction, sides too. Also, I get queasy when I feel my car inching sideways telling me I'm going too fast. I ease off the gas and pray.

Ditto, in my college years I commuted between Tampa and Gainesville often. I have seen some bad accidents in that stretch, but not this bad. Fog is common in Florida at certain times of the year, night time and early mornings. The problem with interstate driving in fog is that even if you pull off the road, thinking that is safer, there is danger you could still be hit by others thinking it wise to pull off too. If you pull way off you risk getting stuck in soft sand or muck requiring a tow truck to get out.

I have no problem with rich people per se but I can have a problem with how they acquired their vast sums and what they do with it. I don't think much of those characterized as 'Robber Barons' of the 19th Century. Some did great good, maybe all, but some did very bad things, maybe all -- price fixing, anti-competitive practices, bribes, abhorrent labor practices -- all to acquire as much treasure as they could accumulate with no need or even way to spend it all. Just look at the palaces built in Newport RI for summer vacations homes. I do not know enough about Romney's history to have an informed opinion. But on the face, I see potentially a big difference between him and, say, Warren Buffet. Buffet made his money the old-fashioned way. He shrewdly invested in businesses made them even more profitable and stonger. The investors made out, the owners he bought from made out, and their employees made out. I do not know Romney's entire Bain history but it has been said there are examples where Bain bought out, or into, a company, took it over, restructured, downsized, borrowed tens of millions on the company books while draining pension funds and other company resources to Bain for Bain's Management and stockholders. All this to have the company fail under the new debt, close its doors and layoff all remaining employess. Now I do not personally know of that is all true, but if it is then there is no better word for it than vulture capitalism. I have no problem taking a company over as a potential turnaround to make money -- big money. Success warrants that. Buffet has proven that. If it fails, I have no problem with the takeover company making the attempt, getting its money out and even taking some for its time and effort. But when they take out tens of millions leaving the original owner/employees bankrupt, jobless, penniless and pensionless while Bain walks away with pockets stuffed, then I smell a rat. Not all rich people deserve to be respected equally. As for Romney's taxes, he did nothing wrong, he followed the law. I do not fault him for that. The fault I ascribe to him, based on my view, is that he sees nothing unfair that he pays that rate while his secretary or gardener pays twice that. To add insult to injury he argues that the 15% rate should even be lowered. Now it is true that the government takes money to provide services like a military, federal courts and marshals, border control, Communicable Diseases Center, meat inspection, and drug testing and approval, just to name a few. Someone has to pay for it. Ideally, everyone should be able to chip in. However, it doesn't work out that everyone can afford it. For those who can afford to contribute, if we reduce the contributions for one income sector then the difference has to be made up by another income sector. To reduce the burden on those who most easily can contribute without impact on their lives to another sector which has significant impact on their lives seems unfair at best and unvarnished greed and avarice at worst. Keep in mind that the present day Federal tax burden is the lowest in 50-60 years. To say we presently pay too much in taxes is, as historical fact, a downright lie. It is simply a principle of Republican Party doctrine, nothing more. As such it is a statement that the GOP disapproves of the way both parties have executed government policy since WWII. The implication is that the GOP longs for the leadership of Coolidge and Hoover, which seem to be the last administrations they approve of by implication. Which gets to the real goal of the GOP. They want to get rid of the New Deal. If that is what the people want then they should vote for it. But they should understand that is what is at stake.

Not to worry. Newt will stick with it through the southern states at least. If he gets money he'll give Mitt a long hard time. At the least he will dog him through early summer shitting on him in the debates, unless Mitt pulls out of them. The question is: Would any media outlet with clout offer debates to Newt and Paul, alone? Not sure how long Santorum can hang in but if he does Mitt would look bad boycotting. This is more fun than the Obama Clinton contest. Much more, as the blood-letting has gone just short of dueling in the morning mist.

I love Shirley Bassey, one of my all time faves who first came to my attention in the early Bonds days. Simon, with regard to your diatribe about what we care about, you are full of shit.

In principle, I thought it a fitting tribute to Ms. James. It would have been an even better tribute if sung in the style of Etta and not CA -- a little more sultry and a little less soul agony, a little of each. And what's with the boobs contrasted with a black dress signifying mourning. Isn't that a bit of a mixed message?

To quote Miss Mona... "There ain't nothing dirty goin' on here."

Saw it ten years ago with an escort I'd engaged overnight. Both he and I had no problem finding that guy that appealed to each of us - different guys, hot in their own way. Fun show if not grand theater. I found it interesting that the guys could perform in the all-together without missing a step or even slight stage shyness. But then they were pros. Nice memories on several levels. :frantics:

Maybe NJ will pass half a gay marriage law going after the gay divorce dollars.

World's Worst Airport Terminals By Sascha Segan | Frommers – Thu, Jan 19, 2012 6:24 PM EST Most airports are awful. At best they’re joyless econoboxes, at worst purgatorial warehouses of stalled lives. Some airports deserve special condemnation, though. In some cases, they deserve to be literally condemned. Assembling this top 10 list of misfits I scanned professional surveys and delay statistics and asked my frequent-traveler friends to come up with the 10 airports where you'd least like to spend an extra hour. I'm sticking to major airports here. There are small airports around the world that consist of a shanty that swelters in the summer and freezes in the winter, with a hole in the wall for baggage claim and a single sad concession stand. (I'm actually describing my experience at Udaipur Airport in India in 1999). But that's not fair. These 10 airports should deliver better service, and they don't. I'm listing them from least worst to the absolute worst. Chicago Midway Airport Chicago's Midway airport ranked as the nation's worst for on-time departures in the most recent federal Bureau of Transportation Statistics data, earning it a spot on this list. It isn't a bad place to hang out, with a new food court and a frequent subway connection to downtown Chicago, but any airport is the worst airport if you're stuck there and you aren't getting on a plane. Consider this the least worst of our set of bad airports. Midway's curse may come more from Chicago's notoriously difficult weather than from any problem the airport itself can fix. "Paris" Beauvais Airport, France A solid 50 miles north of Paris, this depressing low-cost box of an airport in Picardy got saddled with a bait-and-switch name by Ryanair, the ultimate bait-and-switch airline. It rated as one of the world's worst airports by Frommers.com friends SleepingInAirports.net because of its lack of seating, lack of services, and general half-tent, half-warehouse atmosphere. It lacks a rail link to Paris and closes overnight, so hope that your flight doesn't get too delayed, or you may be camping out on the lawn. For years, Ryanair liked to play this trick of stamping the names of famous cities on distant small-town airports with poor transit links that weren't designed for much tourist traffic: thus Beauvais and "Barcelona Reus," which is more than an hour and a half from Barcelona. Newark Airport Terminal B All three major New York City airports are on this list, in large part because they're run by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, a hideously mismanaged money sink that does a poor job of responding to air travelers' needs. Newark got two stars -- the worst rating -- in JD Power's 2010 airport study. It's also the nation's worst airport for on-time arrivals in the most recent federal Bureau of Transportation Statistics data. Fortunately you'll be stuck waiting at your point of origin, because Newark is an awfully dull airport to wait for a flight in. The airport idiotically puts security before individual piers in Terminals A and B, which means that rather than have a whole terminal's food and shopping to entertain you, you're stuck out on a single pier. It's pretty quiet out there. LaGuardia Airport US Airways Terminal I don't hate LaGuardia, but it was recently rated the worst major airport in America by both JD Power and Associates and Zagat Survey, so who am I to argue? LaGuardia has no rail link to anywhere -- even between its own terminals -- and regularly suffers from congestion, overcrowding, and delays. While its terminals are shaping up, they're still each smaller and with fewer services than you'd expect from an airport at one of the top tourist destinations in the world. I'm giving the US Airways Terminal the worst-terminal award here because at least the central terminal has an atrium and the Delta terminal just got some new food options. The US Airways terminal is dull and sad. Amman Queen Alia Airport, Jordan One of the two airports rated "two stars" by global consulting firm Skytrax, Amman gets lousy ratings for services that might be useful if you're hanging around -- bathroom cleanliness, places to rest, children’s play facilities, and service counters. Reviews on the Skytrax website make it clear that you may just want to "hold it" in this airport: they're almost universally appalled at the state of the bathrooms. Those reviewers have probably never been to JFK Terminal 3, but still, that isn't good. Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport,Paris -- Charles de Gaulle Airport, Terminal 3 (jp_math54)Paris -- Charles de Gaulle Airport, Terminal 3 (jp_math54) Terminal 3 CDG got the "worst airport" award two years running from SleepingInAirports.net, but this year site owner Donna McSherry decided to give it a break, in part because now "the homeless population was being segregated" to "the Third World-inspired Terminal 3." Big takeaway here: If you're worrying about how to distribute your homeless population, you're one of the worst major airports. De Gaulle is a huge airport where many people have to transfer, but it's an awful airport to change planes in; many flights require a change between CDG's various scattered terminal buildings, which are connected primarily by slow, confusing shuttle buses. Changing planes here is tiring, irritating, and sometimes a little terrifying. This being Paris, there is also usually a strike on. Jomo Kenyatta International Airport, Nairobi Nairobi's airport, which aspires to be an international hub, was built to support about 2.5 million passengers and now averages about double that. As a result, the Kenyan government announced plans to expand the airport. That was in 2005. They aren't done yet. I've been to JKIA, and it reinforces all of the bad stereotypes about Africa that you wish weren't true. It's hot, ugly, dirty and confusing, full of touts and scam artists and perpetually overcrowded. African airports don't have to be like this, of course: the Marrakech airport is one of the most beautiful in the world, and Johannesburg's O.R. Tambo airport is at least efficient. The Kenyan government says construction on a new terminal will begin in January. Perhaps someday, the Nairobi airport improvement project will be finished. Until then, this Third World construction site remains a place for travelers to avoid. Moscow Sheremtyevo Airport, Russia One of the two airports rated "two stars" by global consulting firm Skytrax (nobody got one star), SVO B/C got particularly bad marks for anything where you have to interact with airport staff: their attitude, their language skills, and the speed with which they process passengers. Reviewers suggest that you brush up on your Russian if you intend to transfer flights, because signboards and staff tend not to work in English. Depressingly, SVO Terminal B/C is partially a new terminal, but it still got one or two-star rankings from Skytrax on "leisure facilities," "baggage hall," and "meet and greet." It's also several miles away from the rest of the airport and from its rail station, making inter-terminal connections difficult. Fortunately, there's a better alternative nearby: Domodedovo Airport, which generally gets better rankings and reviews. Manila Airport Terminal 1, Philippines Last May, the ceiling at Manila airport's Terminal 1 caved in, injuring two people. That's part of why Sleeping in Airports rated it the world's worst terminal last year. "The terminal has been a frequent target of criticism with travelers and the business community complaining it is congested, run-down and filthy, with toilets that do not work," Agence France Presse commented. According to Sleeping In Airports, bribery and theft are also rampant in the terminal. The negative press attention seems to have had some effect; this November the Philippine government said it would renovate the terminal starting in January. It looks like changes can't come too soon. JFK Airport Terminal 3, New York City In 1960, Pan American Airlines built the Worldport: a grand, flying-saucer-shaped gateway to the Jet Age. Fifty-one years later, this decrepit, crumbling chunk of concrete is still used by Delta as an international hub. Terminal 3 is the worst single airport terminal in America, and probably in the Western world. Even Delta acknowledges this: they're tearing it down and replacing it with a giant glass structure connected to the nearby Terminal 4. It's unsalvageable. Terminal 3 is known for endless immigration lines in a dank basement, for an utter lack of food and shopping options, three crowded and confusing entry points, hallways that could have been designed by M.C Escher and for vomiting international travelers out onto an underground sidewalk with no cabs available. There's also a sense that the cleaning crew gave up in despair a while ago. See original article at: http://travel.yahoo.com/ideas/world-s-worst-airport-terminals.html

I suspect politics. Gay Marriage is only a few years old and he has been working his ass off the last three years with Finance Reform and Health Care. That and maybe inertia.