Politics News

ldmitchell82 asked:


How hard is this bush/tree to take care of? The plant itself looks like a grape vine but more barklike cover than a grape vine would have. I have seen it growing up walls and also growing by itself as a bush or small tree

David Maillie asked:


The price of gas just keeps on going up and has no apparent relief in site (probably due more to George Bush’s close personal ties to big oil and the middle east than anything else). This in turn is driving up inflation and the cost of almost everything we buy or need including auto or car insurance. Here’s how to turn the tables in your favor and save money on your auto insurance like George Bush would if he had to pay for it.
We’ve all seen the commercials and mailings for Progressive and Geico telling us to get online and compare auto insurance companies and get competing quotes. There is a good reason for this - it will save you money. In most cases, shopping for auto insurance quotes online will save you big money (the average online auto insurance shopper pays 38% less). Get online and shop your auto or car insurance. You will save money.
It also helps to drive defensively and safely. According to the National Foundation for Highway and Traffic Safety, aggressive drivers cause 90% of all accidents and pay 30 - 70% more in car insurance premiums. Take a defensive driving course. Many technical and community colleges offer these courses and they may also reduce points on your license and DMV record. That leads to another important way of saving money on car insurance - get points removed from your license. You get points for things like speeding, not stopping for a stop sign, running a red light, etc… These points cause immediate rate increases to your insurance. Most states offer free or nearly free courses that will reduce the points on your license for most infractions (except for drunk driving and driving under the influence - you have to have a powerful name like Kennedy or Bush and then you get driven home).
Another way to save money on auto or car insurance is to increase your deductible and assume more risk.. You will save money by, for instance, going from a $250 deductible to a $1000 deductible. One word of caution, do not drop uninsured and under insured motorists coverage. Due to George Bush and his lenient policy in the past with illegal aliens in our country from Mexico we now have over 20 million illegal and uninsured motorists in America.
Another great way to save money on auto or car insurance is to drive a vehicle with a low theft rate. It is a proven fact that insurance companies charge higher premiums based on car brand and model theft rates. Since George Bush did practically nothing to stop these illegal aliens from Mexico we now have millions of them and they love to steal cars as some have found it easier than purchasing and they love Honda Civics and Accords. We don’t hear of many of them tooling around in a Mazda or a minivan. Maybe if George Bush invoked trade restrictions with Mexico this would change and jobs would come back to America?
Joining professional groups like AAA. AARP, etc… can also save you money on car or auto insurance as you may be entitled to group rates. There are many other ways also. Now you know how to save money on your car or auto insurance and why we are earning less and executives at big oil are earning more and more. Also, I don’t know if it’s a republican thing, but lets think before we put a Bush in a political office in the future. If you haven’t yet had the opportunity, please watch Farenheit 9/11 and learn more about George Bush and his brother in Florida.

♥erin♥ asked:


rach2305: i just c + v from another website oops i mean copy + paste

Gurumurthy Kalyanaram asked:


 
Senator Barack Obama has opted out of the public financing system in his contest for the U.S Presidency, and John McCain has decided to stay in the system. It appears that Obama may have about $250 million to invest in the months of September and October, and McCain may have only about $85 million.
Should McCain be afraid? No and Yes.
No, because I do not think that Obama’s financial edge will do much for him in advertising (traditional and non-traditional) for his candidacy and causes. The reason is simple — time is short, and there will be galore free publicity. Here are some ways that Obama may use his financial resources to increase the scale and scope of advertising. Let us look at various elements of this advertising.
First, Obama can and will probably advertise in almost all the 50 states — even as his campaign will concede that several states like Alaska have not voted for a Democratic candidate for a very long time. The goal of this exercise to merely scare up McCain’s campaign and force him to spend some of his valuable resources — money and time — in some of those states lest he should lose. Will this be effective? I rate the effectiveness about 3 on a 1-10 scale (10 being most effective) because when push comes to shove McCain will not divert his resources (he cannot afford to) and thus would call the bluff (not out of choice but out of necessity.)
Second, Obama can use micro-segmenting and try and use different media for diffusing his image. Money provides that luxury. Obama can also try non-traditional approaches and media.
Will be this an effective strategy? Better than the 50-states strategy but not overwhelmingly so. I would rate this strategy to be about 5. The reason is simple. The Presidential race will get plenty of free media coverage from networks, cable channels, print media, blogs, u-tube productions and those Presidential debates. Additional reach — over and above these — is likely to have marginal impact. Further, the content/message of the candidate does matter.
The message will determine the basic positioning of the candidate, and no amount of volume of reach can necessarily change that positioning. Two examples of this are: one, though Barack Obama invested thrice as much as Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania Democratic primary and twice as much in Ohio, the ultimate preference numbers did not change from the forecasts three weeks before the actual voting; two, with less than $1 million investment the ‘Swift Boat’ advertisement against John Kerry was devastatingly effective. In the first case, the message was the same but in the second case, the message was sharply different and new (whether that was true or not is besides the point — further, since Senator Kerry did not effectively and immediately repudiate the attacks the message assumed a level of truthfulness as a default.)
Final aspect of this element is that Obama is likely to receive somewhat of a negative coverage from the mainstream media for his rejection of public financing — this is not huge but one cannot ignore the word-of-mouth value of major networks and newspapers. In this case, the word-of-mouth effect would be negative.
Yes, because Obama might gain a very substantial advantage in voter registration, and mobilization with paid staff and localized promotion and patronage. It takes almost one-on-one to persuade a voter to register, and then actually vote on the election day. The upside of such voter mobilization is monumental. Particularly when the enthusiasm for McCain’s candidacy is somewhat muted thus far. For example, in the recent USA Today-Gall Up survey 61% of Democrats said they were more enthusiastic than usual about voting in this year’s election, while just 35% of Republicans said that.
Obama can employ this vast resource to mobilizing voters through registering new voters and individual contacts — paid staff (and volunteers) knocking on the doors, telephonic calls, mobilization on the day of the election. Here, the resources can make a very big impact. I would rate the potential effectiveness of this approach about 7. There is substantially higher marginal benefit to be achieved here.
For illustration, let us examine Ohio (20 electoral votes.) In 2000, Al Gore lost the state only by about 350,000 votes even without any campaign investment. In 2004, John Kerry lost Ohio by less than 120,000 votes. If only Kerry had mobilized 10 extra votes in every precinct in Ohio, he would have won Ohio and the Presidency. Obama can pour his resources in the ground game in Ohio and quite possibly win it given the current sour political climate. Similarly, Kerry lost New Mexico and Iowa by less than 20,000 votes each — and that can be easily overcome with strong election-day mobilization. In a state like Georgia where about 600,000 African-Americans have not registered to vote are rich Obama-votes. If they can be mobilized to register to vote and actually turn up to vote, Obama can put Georgia in play. In Florida, more than half a million black registered voters stayed home in 2004. Hundreds of thousands more African Americans are eligible to vote but not registered.

Gurumurthy Kalyanaram asked:


We (consumers) make choices based on their reference points/anchor points. Or put it differently, we evaluate our choices as prospects given our own reference frame based on past experience and other information. Given a particular situation (prospect) with two potential but very different choices/options, two individuals may adopt the two different choices and both would be considered rational and reasonable by the individuals because their choices are consistent with their reference framework and experiences. Colloquially, sometimes we call this as “optics.”

Two behavior psychologists (Kahneman and Tverskey, 1979) discussed this at length and proposed a general theory to explain choices made by human beings. Kalyanaram and Little (1994) demonstrated the application of this theory to marketing, particularly, to pricing.

The prospect theory is applicable to the current Democratic party presidential contest too. Both Senators Obama and Clinton earnestly believe that they have a reasonable path to party’s nomination. Using the formal expected utility theory, Clinton should not be so hopeful but she is because she is seeing the nomination road through a different frame than Obama is seeing. That’s why this is such a dogged race. Only when one of them — Clinton or Obama — perceives his/her prospect dimly will the race for the nomination end.

The report filed by Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic (based on the conference call with the reporters by the two campaigns on May 1, 2008) clearly illustrates the different optics/frame employed by the two candidates.

“THE OBAMA UNIVERSE is governed by the reality that every night, when the Clinton campaign turns out the lights in Arlington, Clinton is not really any close to winning the nomination that when the first intern trudged in at the crack of dawn. The math hasn’t changed. Obama is 283 delegates away from declaring victory. Obama is winning two superdelegates for every one she wins; every additional superdelegate he receives equals at least 1.X more superdelegates that Clinton must pick up. Not a single pledged delegate has switched to Clinton — indeed, when was the last time a pledged delegate ever switched sides; not a single superdelegate has switched to Clinton; a few superdelegates who’ve counseled patience (like freshman Bruce Braley of Iowa) say they now support Obama. The progressive media establishment — the Olbermanns and Chris Matthews of the world — are regularly inveighing against Clinton’s decision to stay in the race. Obama has way more money to spend, the support of the party’s most reliable constituencies, the ability to expand the map. His divorce with Rev. Wright takes a general election hot pot off the table. He is much more likeable and seen as much more honest than Clinton; Republicans and independents still have warmer feelings for him than they do with Clinton. Clinton’s embrace of a gas tax pause shows that her campaign isn’t serious about policy and voters perceive that. Oh, and voters in Indiana and North Carolina aren’t watching cable news and aren’t really paying attention to Rev. Wright. And besides, they’re tired of all of this: tired of the noise, tired of the distractions, tired of old politics, and ready for change. This long race is hurting the party; superdelegates know this, and the tipping point has been reached.

IN THE CLINTON UNIVERSE, Clinton has all the green cards. Victory, (enough) money, momentum in the national polls, the public acknowledgment of Republicans that she’d be the tougher candidate, the fact of undecided superdelegates, and the testicular fortitude that impresses white working class voters… A month of scrutiny has noticeably eroded reduced Obama’s standing with critical constituencies, and in many critical states, Clinton’s brand is a winner: according to three new telephone surveys by Quinnipiac, in Florida, Clinton leads McCain by eight points; Obama and McCain are tied. In Ohio, Clinton leads by ten points; Obama and McCain are tied. Both Clinton and Obama lead McCain in Pennsylvania; Clinton’s margin is twice that of Obama’s. Most of the remaining superdelegates represent white working class districts (about 75% of them, in the estimation of one Clinton strategist.) They haven’t come out for Obama when was winning; they surely won’t support him when he’s losing. They’ll wait for information to see who’ll beat John McCain, and right now, that evidence points to Clinton. After Indiana (and depending on the margin in North Carolina), it will point even more to Clinton. Obama has proven himself out of touch and unable to dent Clinton’s standing with a critical swing constituency; even if African American turnout exceeds 100 percent, Obama would not be able to win Ohio with a double-digit deficit among white, working class voters. Clinton’s victory in Pennsylvania precipitated a change in the fundamental dynamic of the race. Obama no longer appeals to independents; Clinton and Obama now have roughly the same appeal to independents. In a (near) recession, with expensive gas and good prices, with foreclosed homes and rising health care premiums, Clinton has the knowledge and leadership to turn this economy around, and that explains why she’s done so well. Finally, she’s an underdog, and Democrats root for the underdog. This long race is helping the party; Democrats are excited; Superdelegates perceive this, and the tipping point is coming soon.”

Loreto T asked:


I’m looking for my grandfather’s brother, his name is Edgar Coles Castro (70 yrs old approx.), he was born in Chile, his mom was chilean, but his father was from some foreign country. If you know someone who knos him, please, tell me how can I find him.

clark_a_e asked:


Yahoo again cited for helping China convict dissident
GEOFFREY YORK

Globe and Mail Update

BEIJING — When a Beijing court ordered a dissident jailed for trying to create a “Freedom and Democracy Party” in China, the verdict cited evidence from an increasingly common source: Yahoo Inc.

It was the third reported example of Yahoo supplying evidence that helped convict a Chinese dissident, and it added fresh fuel to the growing controversy over the collaboration between Chinese authorities and U.S.-based Internet companies.

The case was revealed on the eve of a summit between Chinese President Hu Jintao and U.S. President George W. Bush, who will meet in Washington today.

Several of the biggest U.S. technology giants — including Yahoo, Google, Microsoft, Cisco Systems and others — are facing strong criticism for their co-operation with Chinese censors and police.

The latest case was disclosed by a Paris-based advocacy group, Reporters Without Borders. The group released a written verdict by a Beijing court in 2003 that clearly states that Yahoo’s Hong Kong branch had provided “user information” for a mailbox used by the dissident, Jiang Lijun.

The evidence from Yahoo helped to convict Mr. Jiang, who was sentenced to four years in prison for participating in “a plot to subvert the people’s democratic dictatorship under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party.”

In the earlier cases, Yahoo provided evidence that helped lead to an eight-year prison term for Li Zhi and a 10-year jail sentence for Shi Tao. Both were arrested after they criticized the Chinese authorities.

Yahoo said it was “unaware of this case” and that it was unclear how Chinese officials obtained the information about Mr. Jiang.

“Let us make clear that we condemn punishment of any activity internationally recognized as free expression, whether that punishment takes place in China or anywhere else in the world,” Yahoo spokeswoman Mary Osako said.

At least 48 “cyber-dissidents” are currently in Chinese prisons for using the Internet to advocate democracy, according to Reporters Without Borders. And in many of these cases, Yahoo was involved in supplying evidence against the dissidents, the group says.

“Little by little, we are piecing together the evidence for what we have long suspected: that Yahoo is implicated in the arrest of most of the people that we have been defending,” the group said yesterday.

Another group, the Committee to Protect Journalists, says three of the five journalists known to be jailed in China so far this year were targeted because of their Internet activity, and 15 of the 32 in prison in China last year were arrested for the same reason. China has jailed more writers and journalists than any other country, the committee says.

“Censorship in China is nothing new, but the growing co-operation of U.S. technology companies in China’s repressive policies is,” Ann Cooper, executive director of the committee, said this week.

In other controversial cases: Microsoft bowed to Beijing’s pressure and shut down the blog of an outspoken Chinese blogger last year; telecommunication company Skype has acknowledged that its Chinese partner is censoring text messages on politically sensitive subjects; and Google’s new search engine in China is blocking searches on subjects restricted by the government, including searches about Tibet or democracy.

Id Pro Quo asked:


I’m biased, because I live in China…but I’ve spent a great deal in the US and have been to at least 15-20 states.
I would say China…
in Asia (definitely), Africa (definitely) S.America (definitely)…
europe and oceania/mid-east are a little more tricky…I would still say China though.
Re: Africa…China’s current investment in Africa and development should be given a standing ovation, while the American debacle in the mid-east should be put to an end once and for all…
Whether it be ASEAN, the AUnion or Socialist South America…China I believe, is much better regarded around the world.
Upon Hu Jintao’s last trip to France under Chirac, he was greeted with fireworks, a parade, a ceremony, the whole enchilada. Bush had previously been the month before and was greeted with protestors.
From phone tapping to torture, to the # of people per pop’ln both in jail, and being executed every year, the USA has a worse human rights record than China easily. Both domestically and internationally.
Anyone who is a global citizen without a nationalist/political agenda/paradigm will agree.
Anyone who mentions Tiananmen obviously hasn’t heard of the Bonus Marcher’s massacre that happened under Hoover in the early 30s outside the whitehouse…or even Kent State, etc.
But I’m not talking about the 1930s, or 1989 (I agree with the course the CPC took, as anyone who understand’s Deng Xiaoping theory would)…
I’m talking about TODAY - the Year 2007. And you don’t see protestors everywhere wherever Hu Jintao goes…
Comparing the Tiananmen to the Iraq Invasion is like comparing a a sinking rowboat to the Titanic.
And anyone who says the USA has a better reputation than the world, needs to get out and see the world.
Furthermore, I’m not asking about China’s reputation in the USA or vice versa…I’m talking about the WORLD TODAY. And, sorry, but the USA is not the world.
Montana guy,
you’re a disgrace…that is propaganda smear from one of your shit*y American news sources. You’re ridiculous…and the Iraq Invasion is a great success!
Why are Americans so great at talking about things they know nothing about?
Bijing recently had 50 African leaders here (the biggest African forum outside of Africa ever) to discuss investment and development.
Please, we all know Americans don’t care about Africa…you’re greatest spokeman in Africa is Oprah.

Robert asked:


Democrat presidential hopeful Barack Obama from Illinois is accused of plagiarizing speeches from a 2006 speech by Deval Patrick, the Democratic governor of Massachusetts. The Obama speech entitled “Words Matter” was delivered in Feb. 16, 2008 during a meeting in Wisconsin and had several similarities with the Patrick speech delivered in 2006.

Particularly noticeable are the passages wherein both Obama and Patrick list famous historical quotes such as “I have a dream”, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal” and “We have nothing to fear but fear itself” in an effort to demonstrate the power of words.

Both speeches were delivered in an effort to defend the use of speeches and rhetoric as a campaign strategy. Obama has recently received criticism from Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. Clinton’s side claims that Obama does not have enough political experience to be able to act as a president and that his campaign was built solely on words.

In response, Obama delivered his “Words Matter” speech wherein he insists that words have the power to change minds and inspire citizens. The Clinton campaign then latched on to the accusation of plagiarism, bringing to fore the similarities between the Obama and Patrick speeches.

Both Obama and Patrick declared that no plagiarism has taken place. Obama reasons out that he and Patrick are good friends and that they often talk about strategies. Patrick delivered his “Just Words” speech in 2006 as retaliation to criticism that he was ill equipped to handle real political problems and that his campaign was running solely on well-versed speeches. According to Patrick, after Clinton made the same accusations of his friend Obama, he encouraged the Illinois senator to defend himself the same way Patrick did in 2006.

Political commentators note that both Obama and Patrick use the same campaign team, particularly the campaign leader David Axelrod, which may be the reason why their strategies are so similar. Obama even retorted that Clinton herself had begun to use some of his campaign buzzwords.

These accusations of plagiarism are reminiscent of the incident in 1988 when Democratic presidential candidate Joe Bidden had to drop out of the race after coming under fire for plagiarizing a speech by Neil Kinnock of the British Labour Party.

Barack Obama began his political career after he announced his intentions of running for the Illonois Senate in 1995. He became a senator for Illinois in 2005, which was also the time when he was officially sworn in.

Hillary Rodham Clinton was first exposed to politics as the First Lady during the term of her husband former American President Bill Clinton, which began in 1993. As a first lady, Clinton was appointed the chairwoman of the Task Force on National Health Care. At the end of her husband’s term, she was elected senator for New York in 2000 and was re-elected in 2006.

I1connect asked:

Rudy Giuliani charged yesterday, that former President, Bill Clinton, made a “big mistake” when he failed to see the first World Trade Center attack as an act of terror rather than a mere crime - one that set the stage for even bigger and bolder attacks culminating with 9/11.

“The United States government, then President Clinton, did not respond,” Giuliani said, ticking off terrorist attacks that followed, including the bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa and the USS Cole in 2000.” [Osama] bin Laden declared war on us. We didn’t hear it.”

Bill Clinton’s only response to the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Africa was to launch several rockets to Afghanistan. Ironically, this was done the day after his Grand Jury testimony was released regarding the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Clinton launched no military attack against al-Qaeda and allowed the group to grow under his watch. According to Imperato, Clinton was “sleeping at the wheel.”

In a previous i1connect article, “i1connect news: Imperato on Hillary, Obama, and Giuliani”, Imperato stated the following:

“While Giuliani was mayor, and Bill Clinton was President, they swept the first WTC attack under the carpet, and nothing was done to protect our country from allowing more terrorists into New York City to study the World Trade Center Towers, and eventually kill over 3,000 innocent Americans,” stated Imperato.

Since 2005, Imperato has pointed out that the 9/11 attackers came in under the watch of Bill Clinton and Rudolph Giuliani.

When asked about Giuliani’s current criticism about Bill Clinton, Imperato responded, “Giuliani criticizing Clinton is like the pot calling the kettle black. The fact is, Giuliani let the terrorists come into New York City; he allowed the terrorists to study the structural details of the World Trade Center Towers, and he allowed the attacks to happen.”

Imperato then went on to challenge Giuliani on his views on 9/11.

He stated, “If Giuliani wants to talk tough about 9/11, then I would like to see him do so against me in a public debate. The fact is that the media has been too soft on him, and has not asked him the right questions pertaining to his involvement or lack thereof in helping to secure New York City pre 9/11.”

Imperato has previously called for a debate with Giuliani. To date, the Imperato camp has not received any response.

The past week has been difficult for Giuliani, as his South Carolina campaign chairman was indicted on drug charges. He was questioned about Newsday’s story that he was forced out of the Iraq Study Group and reports revived about his employing a priest who was suspended on charges of sexually abusing students.

In terms of poll numbers, Giuliani has been underperforming, and is no longer the clear frontrunner he once was. In addition, since the announcement of Michael Bloomberg’s departure from the Republican Party, more and more Americans are now open to electing an independent to the White House.

America’s leading independent candidate for the White House in 2008, Daniel Imperato, on the other hand has been seeing support grow with key campaign visits in New Hampshire, Alabama, Massachusetts, Texas, and New York.

Giuliani’s attacks on Bill Clinton were largely seen as an attack on fellow Presidential Candidate, Hillary Clinton, who has been leading most polls amongst Democratic candidates.

Previously, Clinton has come under fire from many critics, including Imperato, for not being able to manage her household.

“If she couldn’t manage her home, then how is she supposed to manage our country? The fact is that Bill didn’t like what they served at home, so he went out to eat,” stated Imperato in a 2005 release.

Although not covered by the mainstream media, these types of concerns could resurface and raise questions among American voters about Hillary Clinton’s ability to lead our nation.

*** This release has been created by i1connect, an independent news agency.***

About i1connect:

I1 Connect (www.i1connect.com) is the new online leader in global public relations and advertising. With a diversified set of offerings ranging from Public Relations, Press Releases Distribution, Advertising, Marketing, Website Development, to Investor Relations services, i1connect.com has positioned itself for a long term growth utilizing the latest in telecommunications technology.

For Interviews and Media Inquiries Contact

Press Department

I1connect

info@i1connect.com

www.i1connect.com

(561) 515-6177